Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses [1 ed.] 9781619251762, 9781619251755

Citation preview

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE

CONTINENTAL CONGRESSES

Volume 1

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE

CONTINENTAL CONGRESSES

Volume 1 A–K

978-1-61925-175-5

4919 Route 22, PO Box 56, Amenia, NY 12501 518-789-8700 • 800-562-2139 • FAX 845-373-6360 www.greyhouse.com • email: [email protected]

continental_congresses_v1.indd 1

GREY HOUSE PUBLISHING

3/19/15 12:58 PM

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses First Edition Volume 1 A–K

MARK GROSSMAN

PUBLISHER: EDITORIAL DIRECTOR: MANAGING EDITOR: PRODUCTION MANAGER: MARKETING DIRECTOR:

Leslie Mackenzie Laura Mars Diana Delgado Kristen Thatcher Jessica Moody

AUTHOR: Mark Grossman COMPOSITION: Lumina Datamatics® Grey House Publishing, Inc. 4919 Route 22 PO Box 56 Amenia, NY 12501 518.789.8700 FAX 845.373.6390 www.greyhouse.com e-mail: [email protected] While every effort has been made to ensure the reliability of the information presented in this publication, Grey House Publishing neither guarantees the accuracy of the data contained herein nor assumes any responsibility for errors, omissions or discrepancies. Grey House accepts no payment for listing; inclusion in the publication of any organization, agency, institution, publication, service or individual does not imply endorsement of the editors or publisher. Errors brought to the attention of the publisher and verified to the satisfaction of the publisher will be corrected in future editions. Except by express prior written permission of the Copyright Proprietor no part of this work may be copied by any means of publication or communication now known or developed hereafter including, but not limited to, use in any directory or compilation or other print publication, in any information storage and retrieval system, in any other electronic device, or in any visual or audio-visual device or product. This publication is an original and creative work, copyrighted by Grey House Publishing, Inc. and is fully protected by all applicable copyright laws, as well as by laws covering misappropriation, trade secrets and unfair competition. Grey House has added value to the underlying factual material through one or more of the following efforts: unique and original selection; expression; arrangement; coordination; and classification. First Edition published in 2015 © 2015 Grey House Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved Printed in the USA Publisher’s Cataloging-In-Publication Data (Prepared by The Donohue Group, Inc.) Grossman, Mark. Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses / — First edition. 2 volumes: illustrations; cm Includes bibliographical references and index. Contents: Volume 1. A-K—volume 2. L-Z. ISBN: 978-1-61925-175-5 1. United States. Continental Congress—Encyclopedias. 2. Legislators—United States—Biography. 3. United States—Politics and government—1775-1783—Encyclopedias. 4. United States—Politics and government—1783-1789—Encyclopedias. 5. Encyclopedias and dictionaries. I. Title. E303.G76 2015 973.3/12

Table of Contents Volume 1 Preface ................................................................................................................................................xvii Introduction......................................................................................................................................... xxv A Andrew Adams....................................................................................................................................... 1 John Adams............................................................................................................................................ 3 Samuel Adams...................................................................................................................................... 12 Thomas Adams..................................................................................................................................... 18 Robert Alexander.................................................................................................................................. 19 Andrew Allen........................................................................................................................................ 21 John Alsop............................................................................................................................................ 24 Benjamin Andrew................................................................................................................................. 27 Annapolis State House......................................................................................................................... 28 John Armstrong, Sr.............................................................................................................................. 31 John Armstrong, Jr.............................................................................................................................. 33 Jonathan Arnold................................................................................................................................... 36 Peleg Arnold......................................................................................................................................... 38 The Articles of Confederation.............................................................................................................. 41 John Baptista Ashe............................................................................................................................... 46 Samuel John Atlee................................................................................................................................ 48 Crispus Attucks..................................................................................................................................... 50 B Reverend Isaac Backus......................................................................................................................... 51 Abraham Baldwin................................................................................................................................. 53 John Banister........................................................................................................................................ 57 The Bank of the United States.............................................................................................................. 59 Robert Gibbes Barnwell....................................................................................................................... 62 Dr. Josiah Bartlett................................................................................................................................ 64 John Bubenheim Bayard...................................................................................................................... 69 John Beatty........................................................................................................................................... 73 Gunning Bedford.................................................................................................................................. 76 Gunning Bedford, Jr............................................................................................................................. 78 Thomas Bee.......................................................................................................................................... 82 Egbert Benson...................................................................................................................................... 84 Richard Beresford................................................................................................................................. 87 Edward Biddle...................................................................................................................................... 89 William Bingham.................................................................................................................................. 90 Jonathan Blanchard............................................................................................................................. 94 Richard Bland....................................................................................................................................... 96 Theodorick Bland................................................................................................................................. 99 Timothy Bloodworth...........................................................................................................................102 William Blount....................................................................................................................................106 Simon Boerum..................................................................................................................................... 110 The Boston Massacre............................................................................................................................111 The Boston Port Bill............................................................................................................................ 116

v

vi

Table of Contents

Elias Boudinot..................................................................................................................................... 119 James Bowdoin....................................................................................................................................124 Carter Braxton.....................................................................................................................................126 John Brown.........................................................................................................................................129 Nathan Brownson................................................................................................................................132 John Bull..............................................................................................................................................134 Archibald Stobo Bulloch...................................................................................................................... 135 Thomas Burke...................................................................................................................................... 137 Dr. William Burnet..............................................................................................................................140 Robert Burton......................................................................................................................................142 Pierce Butler........................................................................................................................................143 C Lambert Cadwalader........................................................................................................................... 147 Canada and Canadian Relations.........................................................................................................149 Capitals of the Continental Congress.................................................................................................. 155 William Carmichael............................................................................................................................. 161 Carpenters’ Hall...................................................................................................................................168 Edward Carrington..............................................................................................................................170 Charles Carroll “Barrister”.................................................................................................................. 175 Charles Frémont Carroll III “of Carrollton”....................................................................................... 178 Daniel Carroll......................................................................................................................................183 Richard Caswell...................................................................................................................................186 Jeremiah Townley Chase..................................................................................................................... 191 Samuel Chase.......................................................................................................................................193 Abraham Clark.....................................................................................................................................199 Matthew Clarkson...............................................................................................................................201 Joseph Clay......................................................................................................................................... 203 William Clingan.................................................................................................................................. 206 George Clinton.................................................................................................................................... 208 George Clymer.....................................................................................................................................213 The Coercive Acts................................................................................................................................216 John Collins.........................................................................................................................................216 The Committee of Five........................................................................................................................218 The Committee of Fifty....................................................................................................................... 220 The Committee of Fifty-One...............................................................................................................222 The Committee of Safety/Council of Safety........................................................................................222 The Committee of Secret Correspondence.........................................................................................224 Committees of Correspondence..........................................................................................................227 Committee of Foreign Affairs..............................................................................................................229 The Conciliatory Resolution of 1775...................................................................................................229 Silas Condict....................................................................................................................................... 230 Benjamin Contee.................................................................................................................................231 The Continental Association...............................................................................................................233 Joseph Platt Cooke..............................................................................................................................237 John Cooper.........................................................................................................................................239 Ezekiel Cornell.................................................................................................................................... 240 Tench Coxe..........................................................................................................................................242 Stephen Crane.....................................................................................................................................245 William Cumming...............................................................................................................................247 Thomas Cushing................................................................................................................................. 248

Table of Contents

vii

D Francis Dana........................................................................................................................................252 Nathan Dane........................................................................................................................................255 Second Lord Dartmouth, William Legge............................................................................................259 John Dawson.......................................................................................................................................259 Elias Dayton.........................................................................................................................................262 Jonathan Dayton.................................................................................................................................264 Silas Deane..........................................................................................................................................267 The Declaration of Independence.......................................................................................................274 John De Hart.......................................................................................................................................287 Charles DeWitt................................................................................................................................... 289 Samuel Dick.........................................................................................................................................291 John Dickinson....................................................................................................................................293 The “Dickinson Draft” of the Articles of Confederation.....................................................................301 Philemon Dickinson........................................................................................................................... 304 Diplomacy of, and by, the Continental Congress............................................................................... 305 William Henry Drayton...................................................................................................................... 309 James Duane....................................................................................................................................... 317 Reverend Jacob Duché........................................................................................................................322 William Duer.......................................................................................................................................329 Reverend George Duffield...................................................................................................................333 John Dunlap........................................................................................................................................334 Eliphalet Dyer......................................................................................................................................337 E Pierpont Edwards................................................................................................................................342 Samuel Elbert......................................................................................................................................346 William Ellery..................................................................................................................................... 348 Oliver Ellsworth...................................................................................................................................352 Jonathan Elmer...................................................................................................................................357 Espionage Tactics by the Continental Congress.................................................................................359 The Essex Principles, also known as The Essex Result......................................................................363 Nicholas Eveleigh................................................................................................................................373 F The Fairfax County Resolves...............................................................................................................377 John Fell..............................................................................................................................................381 William Few, Jr.................................................................................................................................. 384 The Henry Fite House........................................................................................................................ 388 William Fitzhugh................................................................................................................................ 389 Thomas Fitzsimons.............................................................................................................................391 William Fleming..................................................................................................................................393 William Floyd......................................................................................................................................396 Nathaniel Folsom............................................................................................................................... 398 James Forbes.......................................................................................................................................401 The Department of Foreign Affairs.................................................................................................... 402 Uriah Forrest...................................................................................................................................... 408 Abiel Foster..........................................................................................................................................410 Relations with France..........................................................................................................................413 Benjamin Franklin............................................................................................................................... 415 The “Franklin Draft” of the Articles of Confederation........................................................................424

viii

Table of Contents

Fraunces Tavern..................................................................................................................................425 Frederick Frelinghuysen.................................................................................................................... 428 The French Arms Tavern.....................................................................................................................431 George Frost........................................................................................................................................433 G Christopher Gadsden...........................................................................................................................436 Joseph Galloway..................................................................................................................................441 Leonard Gansevoort........................................................................................................................... 449 John Gardner...................................................................................................................................... 450 Joseph Gardner...................................................................................................................................452 David Gelston......................................................................................................................................454 George William Frederick, King George III of Great Britain and Ireland.........................................456 George Germain, 1st Viscount Sackville.............................................................................................462 Elbridge Gerry.................................................................................................................................... 466 John Lewis Gervais..............................................................................................................................474 William Gibbons..................................................................................................................................478 John Taylor Gilman............................................................................................................................ 482 Nicholas Gilman..................................................................................................................................485 Robert Goldsborough......................................................................................................................... 488 Mary Katherine Goddard....................................................................................................................491 Nathaniel Gorham...............................................................................................................................497 William Grayson................................................................................................................................. 500 Great Seal of the United States.......................................................................................................... 504 Cyrus Griffin....................................................................................................................................... 509 Second Earl of Guilford....................................................................................................................... 515 James Gunn......................................................................................................................................... 515 Button Gwinnett.................................................................................................................................. 517 H John Habersham................................................................................................................................. 521 Joseph Habersham..............................................................................................................................526 John Hall.............................................................................................................................................528 Lyman Hall.......................................................................................................................................... 531 Alexander Hamilton............................................................................................................................536 John Hancock......................................................................................................................................546 Edward Hand.......................................................................................................................................553 John Hanson.......................................................................................................................................557 Samuel Hardy......................................................................................................................................563 John Haring.........................................................................................................................................565 Cornelius Harnett................................................................................................................................568 Benjamin Harrison..............................................................................................................................572 William Harrison, Jr...........................................................................................................................578 John Hart............................................................................................................................................ 580 The Hartford Convention....................................................................................................................582 John Harvie........................................................................................................................................ 588 Benjamin Hawkins.............................................................................................................................. 591 Jonathan J. Hazard.............................................................................................................................597 William Hemsley................................................................................................................................600 James Henry....................................................................................................................................... 602 John Henry, Jr.................................................................................................................................... 603

Table of Contents

ix

Patrick Henry...................................................................................................................................... 606 William Henry.....................................................................................................................................613 Joseph Hewes......................................................................................................................................616 Thomas Heyward, Jr...........................................................................................................................621 Stephen Higginson..............................................................................................................................627 Whitmell Hill.......................................................................................................................................632 Michael Hillegas, Jr.............................................................................................................................634 James Hillhouse................................................................................................................................. 638 William Hillhouse............................................................................................................................... 640 William Hindman................................................................................................................................642 Samuel Holten.................................................................................................................................... 646 William Hooper.................................................................................................................................. 650 Esek Hopkins.......................................................................................................................................655 Stephen Hopkins................................................................................................................................ 660 Francis Hopkinson............................................................................................................................. 664 Josiah Hornblower.............................................................................................................................. 671 Titus Hosmer.......................................................................................................................................674 Hospital Department of the US Continental Army............................................................................677 William Churchill Houston................................................................................................................ 680 John Houstoun................................................................................................................................... 684 William Houstoun.............................................................................................................................. 688 John Eager Howard.............................................................................................................................691 David Howell...................................................................................................................................... 694 Richard Howly [Howley].................................................................................................................... 699 Daniel Huger.......................................................................................................................................701 Charles Humphreys.............................................................................................................................703 Benjamin Huntington.........................................................................................................................707 Samuel Huntington..............................................................................................................................711 Richard Hutson................................................................................................................................... 716 I Independence Hall.............................................................................................................................. 721 Jared Ingersoll.....................................................................................................................................723 The Intolerable Acts............................................................................................................................727 William Irvine......................................................................................................................................735 Ralph Izard..........................................................................................................................................738 J David Jackson......................................................................................................................................744 Jonathan Jackson................................................................................................................................745 John Jay...............................................................................................................................................747 Thomas Jefferson................................................................................................................................753 Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer...............................................................................................................760 Thomas Johnson.................................................................................................................................765 William Samuel Johnson....................................................................................................................769 Samuel Johnston................................................................................................................................. 771 Allen Jones..........................................................................................................................................774 Joseph Jones, Sr..................................................................................................................................776 Noble Wimberly [Wymberley] Jones..................................................................................................779 Samuel Jones.......................................................................................................................................782 Willie Jones.........................................................................................................................................783

x

Table of Contents

K John Kean............................................................................................................................................786 Dyre Kearney...................................................................................................................................... 788 Rufus King...........................................................................................................................................789 Francis Kinloch....................................................................................................................................792 James Kinsey.......................................................................................................................................795

Volume 2 L Lancaster Court House........................................................................................................................797 John Langdon......................................................................................................................................798 Woodbury Langdon............................................................................................................................ 802 Edward Langworthy........................................................................................................................... 804 John Ten Eyck Lansing, Jr................................................................................................................. 806 John Laurance.................................................................................................................................... 809 Henry Laurens.....................................................................................................................................812 Richard Law.........................................................................................................................................819 Arthur Lee........................................................................................................................................... 820 Francis Lightfoot Lee.......................................................................................................................... 824 Henry Lee........................................................................................................................................... 828 Richard Henry Lee............................................................................................................................. 830 Thomas Sim Lee..................................................................................................................................835 William Lee..........................................................................................................................................837 William Legge, Second Earl of Dartmouth........................................................................................ 840 Daniel Leonard................................................................................................................................... 843 Francis Lewis...................................................................................................................................... 843 Lexington and Concord...................................................................................................................... 846 Ezra L’Hommedieu..............................................................................................................................853 The Library of the Continental Congress............................................................................................855 Samuel Livermore...............................................................................................................................857 Philip Livingston.................................................................................................................................861 Robert R. Livingston...........................................................................................................................867 Walter Livingston................................................................................................................................874 William Livingston............................................................................................................................. 878 Edward Lloyd...................................................................................................................................... 884 Pierse Long......................................................................................................................................... 886 James Lovell....................................................................................................................................... 890 Isaac Low............................................................................................................................................ 896 John Lowell........................................................................................................................................900 Loyalists.............................................................................................................................................. 904 The Lundin Letter................................................................................................................................ 911 Thomas Lynch.....................................................................................................................................914 Thomas Lynch, Jr................................................................................................................................ 917 M James Madison....................................................................................................................................919 James Manning...................................................................................................................................926 Henry Marchant..................................................................................................................................929 The Massachusetts Convention...........................................................................................................933

Table of Contents

xi

Massachusettensis vs. Novanglus......................................................................................................935 John Mathews.................................................................................................................................... 938 Timothy Matlack.................................................................................................................................942 Eleazer McComb..................................................................................................................................945 Alexander McDougall......................................................................................................................... 948 James McHenry...................................................................................................................................952 Lachlan McIntosh................................................................................................................................957 Thomas McKean..................................................................................................................................961 James McLene.....................................................................................................................................965 The Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence............................................................................... 966 James Mercer..................................................................................................................................... 969 John Francis Mercer............................................................................................................................972 Samuel Meredith.................................................................................................................................976 Arthur Middleton................................................................................................................................979 Henry Middleton................................................................................................................................ 984 Thomas Mifflin................................................................................................................................... 989 Nathan Miller..................................................................................................................................... 994 Nathaniel Mitchell.............................................................................................................................. 996 Stephen Mix Mitchell......................................................................................................................... 999 The Model Treaty..............................................................................................................................1002 James Monroe...................................................................................................................................1004 John Montgomery.............................................................................................................................1010 Reverend Joseph Montgomery......................................................................................................... 1012 William Montgomery........................................................................................................................ 1014 Cadwalader Morris............................................................................................................................ 1016 Gouverneur Morris............................................................................................................................ 1019 Lewis Morris......................................................................................................................................1024 Robert Morris....................................................................................................................................1027 John Morton...................................................................................................................................... 1031 Isaac Motte........................................................................................................................................1034 Daniel Mowry, Jr...............................................................................................................................1036 Frederick Augustus Conrad Muhlenberg..........................................................................................1039 N Abner Nash........................................................................................................................................1042 Nassau Hall, Princeton, New Jersey.................................................................................................1046 Native Americans and Their Relations with the Continental Congress...........................................1048 Thomas Nelson, Jr.............................................................................................................................1053 New York City, City Hall....................................................................................................................1056 The Nicola Affair................................................................................................................................1058 The Nonexportation Agreement of 1774...........................................................................................1060 The Nonimportation Agreement of 1774..........................................................................................1063 Frederick North, Lord North, Second Earl of Guilford....................................................................1066 The Northwest Ordinance.................................................................................................................1070 O The Olive Branch Petition.................................................................................................................1075 Henry Osborne.................................................................................................................................. 1077 Samuel Osgood..................................................................................................................................1079 Samuel Allyne Otis............................................................................................................................1083

xii

Table of Contents

P William Paca..................................................................................................................................... 1088 Mann Page.........................................................................................................................................1092 Ephraim Paine...................................................................................................................................1095 Robert Treat Paine............................................................................................................................1098 Thomas Paine.................................................................................................................................... 1104 The Treaty of Paris.............................................................................................................................1110 John Parker........................................................................................................................................1116 George Partridge................................................................................................................................. 1117 William Paterson................................................................................................................................1121 John Patten.........................................................................................................................................1125 Dr. Nathaniel Peabody.......................................................................................................................1127 William Peery.................................................................................................................................... 1130 Philip Pell, Jr..................................................................................................................................... 1133 Edmund Pendleton.............................................................................................................................1135 Nathaniel Pendleton.......................................................................................................................... 1138 John Penn...........................................................................................................................................1141 Pennsylvania State House..................................................................................................................1145 Richard Peters, Sr...............................................................................................................................1145 Charles Pettit..................................................................................................................................... 1148 Philadelphia State House...................................................................................................................1152 William Leigh Pierce, Jr.....................................................................................................................1152 Charles Pinckney................................................................................................................................1154 George Plater..................................................................................................................................... 1160 Zephaniah Platt................................................................................................................................. 1163 Richard Potts..................................................................................................................................... 1166 The Post Office Department.............................................................................................................. 1168 The Powder Alarm..............................................................................................................................1172 Presidents of the Continental Congress.............................................................................................1175 Princeton, New Jersey........................................................................................................................1191 The Prohibitory Act............................................................................................................................1191 Q The Quebec Act.................................................................................................................................. 1196 R David Ramsay.................................................................................................................................... 1199 Edmund Jenings Randolph...............................................................................................................1204 Peyton Randolph................................................................................................................................1211 George Read........................................................................................................................................1215 Jacob Read.........................................................................................................................................1220 Joseph Reed.......................................................................................................................................1224 James Randolph Reid........................................................................................................................1229 Religion and the Continental Congress............................................................................................1230 Samuel Rhoads..................................................................................................................................1236 Richard Ridgely.................................................................................................................................1239 Daniel Roberdeau..............................................................................................................................1240 Caesar Rodney...................................................................................................................................1244 Thomas Rodney.................................................................................................................................1248 John Rogers.......................................................................................................................................1253 Jesse Root.......................................................................................................................................... 1255

Table of Contents

xiii

David Ross, Jr....................................................................................................................................1258 George Ross.......................................................................................................................................1259 Benjamin Rumsey.............................................................................................................................1262 Benjamin Rush..................................................................................................................................1263 Edward Rutledge...............................................................................................................................1268 John Rutledge.................................................................................................................................... 1272 S James Schureman.............................................................................................................................1278 Philip John Schuyler.........................................................................................................................1280 Gustavus Scott...................................................................................................................................1285 John Morin Scott...............................................................................................................................1287 Dr. Nathaniel Scudder.......................................................................................................................1290 James Searle......................................................................................................................................1292 Secrecy in the Continental Congress.................................................................................................1295 The Secret Journal of the Continental Congress.............................................................................. 1295 Theodore Sedgwick............................................................................................................................1298 Joshua Seney..................................................................................................................................... 1301 Jonathan Dickinson Sergeant...........................................................................................................1303 William Sharpe..................................................................................................................................1307 Shays’ Rebellion.................................................................................................................................1309 Roger Sherman...................................................................................................................................1315 Dr. William Shippen..........................................................................................................................1322 John Sitgreaves..................................................................................................................................1324 Slavery and the Continental Congress..............................................................................................1326 James Smith......................................................................................................................................1332 Jonathan Bayard Smith..................................................................................................................... 1335 Melancton Smith............................................................................................................................... 1337 Meriwether Smith..............................................................................................................................1340 Richard Smith....................................................................................................................................1342 Thomas Smith....................................................................................................................................1345 William Smith....................................................................................................................................1348 The Solemn League and Covenant....................................................................................................1349 Richard Dobbs Spaight...................................................................................................................... 1353 Joseph Spencer..................................................................................................................................1358 The Stamp Act Congress.................................................................................................................... 1361 The Stars and Stripes.........................................................................................................................1365 The State House, Philadelphia..........................................................................................................1368 Arthur St. Clair..................................................................................................................................1368 The Staten Island Conference........................................................................................................... 1374 John Stevens...................................................................................................................................... 1376 Charles Stewart..................................................................................................................................1378 Richard Stockton............................................................................................................................... 1381 Thomas Stone....................................................................................................................................1384 Jonathan Sturges...............................................................................................................................1387 James Sullivan...................................................................................................................................1389 John Sullivan.....................................................................................................................................1392 John Swann.......................................................................................................................................1398 James Sykes.......................................................................................................................................1399 John Cleves Symmes......................................................................................................................... 1401

xiv

Table of Contents

T George Taylor....................................................................................................................................1405 Edward Telfair...................................................................................................................................1408 Thanksgiving, Resolution by the Continental Congress....................................................................1411 George Thatcher/Thacher................................................................................................................. 1413 Charles Thomson............................................................................................................................... 1416 Dr. Matthew Thornton...................................................................................................................... 1421 Matthew Tilghman............................................................................................................................1425 Dr. James Tilton................................................................................................................................1429 Paul Trapier.......................................................................................................................................1433 John Treadwell..................................................................................................................................1434 The Treaty of Paris............................................................................................................................1436 Treaty of Alliance with France..........................................................................................................1439 Trenton, New Jersey..........................................................................................................................1442 Joseph Trumbull...............................................................................................................................1444 Dr. Thomas Tudor Tucker.................................................................................................................1446 V Nicholas Van Dyke............................................................................................................................1449 James Mitchell Varnum.....................................................................................................................1451 John Vining.......................................................................................................................................1454 W James Wadsworth............................................................................................................................. 1457 Jeremiah Wadsworth........................................................................................................................1459 John Walker......................................................................................................................................1462 George Walton...................................................................................................................................1464 John Walton......................................................................................................................................1469 Artemas Ward....................................................................................................................................1470 Samuel Ward.....................................................................................................................................1474 George Washington........................................................................................................................... 1477 John Wentworth, Jr..........................................................................................................................1482 Samuel Wharton................................................................................................................................1484 William Whipple................................................................................................................................1487 Dr. James White................................................................................................................................1490 Phillips White....................................................................................................................................1493 Right Reverend William White.........................................................................................................1495 John Williams, V...............................................................................................................................1497 William Williams...............................................................................................................................1499 Hugh Williamson............................................................................................................................... 1501 Thomas Willing.................................................................................................................................1504 James Wilson.....................................................................................................................................1506 Paine Wingate....................................................................................................................................1509 Henry Wisner.................................................................................................................................... 1510 John Witherspoon..............................................................................................................................1512 Oliver Wolcott.....................................................................................................................................1516 Joseph Wood..................................................................................................................................... 1518 Turbutt Wright..................................................................................................................................1520 Henry Wynkoop.................................................................................................................................1522 George Wythe.................................................................................................................................... 1525

Table of Contents

xv

Y Abraham Yates...................................................................................................................................1530 Peter Waldron Yates..........................................................................................................................1532 York, Pennsylvania, Courthouse....................................................................................................... 1533 Z John Joachim Zubly.......................................................................................................................... 1537 Historical Timeline............................................................................................................................1539 Primary Documents...........................................................................................................................1549 Appendixes........................................................................................................................................ 1614 Bibliography......................................................................................................................................1628 Index..................................................................................................................................................1700

Preface “By the rude bridge that arched the flood, Their flag to April’s breeze unfurled, Here once the embattled farmers stood And fired the shot heard ’round the world.” Ralph Waldo Emerson, “Concord Hymn,” 1837

The story of the Continental Congresses is a tale not only of the men who served (and those who declined to serve) as delegates at a time when such service meant being targeted by British forces fighting in North America, but also of the numerous issues which the nation had to confront, issues dealing with Native Americans, with the changing role of women in society, with how we handled diplomacy, with American independence, just to name a few, many of which are still part of the political and social conversation today, more than 200 years later. The Story Behind the Story This reference work is the product of more than 25 years of research. In 1987, the nation marked the celebration of the 200th anniversary of the signing of the US Constitution. As part of those celebrations, The Miami Herald, then one of the largest newspapers in the US, printed a series of daily articles, from the start of the year until September, showing what happened dayby-day at the Constitution Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia, as part of the series “‘We the People’: The Constitution—a Celebration.’” As an historian, I collected each day’s articles. During that year, doing cursory research into the events behind the Convention, I found that there was no single volume that discussed that event, the people behind it, or what other events and persons had been important at that time. I also noted that no work covered the Continental Congress. Thus, in 1987, the idea for this work was born. Since that time, I put this work on the shelf several times as other projects took precedence.

During 14 trips to the United Kingdom from 1996 to 2005, including living in London for a period in 2005, I researched the Continental Congress as well as British documents relating to the colonies. The amount of the material used to research this book is stunning. Hours spent at the British Library, the British Library Newspaper Library, the British National Archives, formerly the Public Record Office, and Oxford University was time well spent. I also spent countless hours at the Library of Congress, the National Archives, the library at the US Department of the Interior, all in Washington D.C., and at the New York Public Library, Columbia University, the New-York Historical Society, and other institutions, including Arizona State University in Tempe, and the State Library of Iowa in Des Moines. Leading up to the First Continental Congress Even before the First Continental Congress convened in September 1774, the clash between the colonies and England was a done deal. Years of growing anger and controversy, starting after the end of the French and Indian War, plagued the relationship between Britain and her colonies. The Stamp Act, The Sugar Act, the Boston Massacre, the Boston Tea Party—all were momentous footsteps in a tale which led to the shooting at Lexington and Concord on 19 April 1775. William Eddis, the Surveyor for Annapolis, who had a front row seat for the conflict that was about to reach a tipping point, wrote to a friend in England on 28 May 1774: “All America is in a flame! I hear strange language every day. The colonists are ripe for

xvii

xviiiPreface any measure that will tend to the preservation of what they call their natural liberty. I enclose you the resolves of our citizens; they have caught the general contagion. Expresses are flying from province to province. It is the universal opinion here that the mother country cannot support a contention with these settlements, if they abide steady to the letter and spirit of their associations. Where will these matters end? Imagination anticipates, with horror, the most dreadful consequences. If the measures adopted at home are founded on the principles of justice, [the] administration [must] be firm and decisive. If they are not, it will be advisable, even on the score of interest, not to abandon the substance for a shadow. True policy will suggest the expediency of embracing a conciliatory system.” [1] But no “conciliatory system” would forthcoming . . . all that came was war.

be

In mid-1774, to counter the growing crisis, and have a “national meeting” of delegates from all thirteen colonies, a “General Congress” was called for in September 1774. In the first days of what would become the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia, Massachusetts delegate John Adams, in a letter to his wife Abigail, noted that he was impressed by the gathering of men from all corners of the place known as the American colonies: “There is in the Congress a collection of the greatest men upon this continent in point of abilities, virtues, and fortunes. The magnanimity and public spirit which I see here make me blush for the sordid, venal herd which I have seen in my own Province . . . Be not under any concern for me. There is little danger from any thing we shall do at the Congress. There is such a spirit through the colonies, and the members of the Congress are such characters, that no danger can happen to us, which will not involve the whole continent in universal desolation; and in that case, who would wish to live?” [2] We find these sentiments in the varied correspondence of the time. For instance, Joseph Warren, who was not a delegate but was an influential member of Massachusetts society (he would die at Bunker Hill), wrote to Arthur Lee on 16 May 1775:

“The Continental Congress is now sitting. I suppose before I hear from you again, a new form of Government will be established in this colony. Great Britain must not make the best she can of America. The folly of her Minister has brought [on] this situation. If she has strength sufficient even to depopulate the colonies, she has not the strength sufficient to subjugate them. However, we can yet without injuring ourselves offer much to her. The great nevertheless advantages derived from the colonies may, I hope, yet be repaed [sic] by her from us. The plan for enslaving us, if it had succeeded, would only have put it in the power of the Administration to provide for a number of their unworthy dependants [sic], whilst the nation would have been deprived of the most essential benefits which might have arisen from us by commerce; and the taxes raised in America would, instead of easing the Mother Country of her burdens, only have been employed to bring her into bondage.” [3] While the Continental Congress was not an all-powerful body, nevertheless it was an important congregating place for the men who shaped the first years of America’s existence. In his 1888 work “The Critical Period of American History,” historian John Fiske explained: “A remarkable body was this Continental Congress . . . for the vicissitudes through which it passed, there is perhaps no other revolutionary body, save the Long Parliament, which can be compared to it. For its origin we must look back to the committees of correspondence devised by Jonathan Mayhew, Samuel Adams, and Dabney Carr. First assembled in 1774 to meet an emergency which was generally believed to be only temporary, it continued to sit for nearly seven years before its powers were ever clearly defined; and during those seven years it exercised some of the highest functions of sovereignty which are possible to any governing body. It declared the independence of the United States; it contracted an offensive and defensive alliance with France; it raised and organized a Continental army; it borrowed large sums of money, and pledged what the lenders understood to be the national credit for their repayment; it issued an inconvertible

Prefacexix paper currency, granted letters of marque, and built a navy. All this it did in the exercise of what in later times would have been called ‘implied war powers,’ and its authority rested upon the general acquiescence in the purposes for which it acted and in the measures which it adopted.” [4] After a call from all of the colonies for a “General Congress” to discuss various issues relating to the relationship between England and the colonies, the delegates met at Carpenters’ Hall, near the State House, in Philadelphia, on 5 September 1774. Peyton Randolph, of Virginia, was unanimously elected as President. Charles Thomson was elected as the body’s official Secretary, a position he would hold for the entire existence of the Congress, until 1789. When the Congress met, there was no war: this would not happen until the following May, when shooting began at Lexington and Concord. The Continental Congress then formed the Continental Army, established rules for the formation of units and raising monies for uniforms, guns, ammunition, and salaries for the troops. Ethan Allen, of Vermont, and his group known as “The Green Mountain Boys,” snuck up on the fortress at Ticonderoga and seized it on behalf of the American nation which existed in name only. As he later wrote: “I ordered the commander, Captain Delaplace, to come forth instantly or I would sacrifice the whole garrison . . . when I ordered him to deliver me the fort instantly, he asked me by what authority I demanded it. I answered him, ‘In the name of the great Jehovah and the Continental Congress.’” [5] Even after Lexington and Concord and Ticonderoga, the delegates at the Continental Congress wished for reconciliation with England, calling on Allen and Benedict Arnold to return the captured cannons and arms to the British as soon as the hostilities had ended. An anonymous man in Virginia wrote to his friend in Edinburgh, Scotland, on 1 September 1775: “As to the present state of Virginia, I refer you to them. Tears stand in my eyes when I think of this once happy land of liberty. All is anarchy and confusion. A brave people struggling in opposition to the acts of the British Parliament.

We are all in arms, exercising and training old and young to the use of the gun. No person goes abroad without his sword, or gun, or pistols. The sound of war echoes from north to south. Every plain is full of armed men, who all wear a hunting shirt, on the left breast of which are sewed, in very legible letters, ‘Liberty or Death.’ May God put a speedy and happy end to this grand and important contest between the mother and her children. The Colonies do not wish to be independent; they only deny the right of taxation in the Parliament. They would freely grant the King whatever he pleases to request, of their own Assemblies, provided the Parliament has no hand in the disposing of it.” [6] Had England been willing to offer conciliation with the colonies to end the war, it is probable that America might still be colonies of that nation. But England wanted America to surrender, and to capitulate to all of the harsh economic and social laws enacted by the British Parliament. This the colonies, and the Continental Congress, would not do. It was left for a British-born pamphleteer, Thomas Paine, to push for a complete separation of America from the land of his own birth. In early 1776, Paine, published “An American Crisis,” in which he stated words which would ring in the ears of those pushing for independence from England: “These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing [sic] its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated. Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to tax) but ‘to bind us in all cases whatsoever,’ and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the

xxPreface expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God.” [7] Over its 14-plus year history, the Continental Congress met in various cities, due to British military advances, additional strife, or the desire to see new vistas. From York, Pennsylvania, to Trenton, New Jersey, to its final home in New York City, the delegates shifted their movements to meet current events, although the moves imposed great hardships on men who had to travel sometimes hundreds of miles by carriage, often without pay, leaving their families for long stretches of time. While most men elected to the Continental Congress did indeed serve, many refused, or simply did not show. Cities were crowded, and some diseases, like smallpox, were rife. The war did not end until 1783, making life an uneasy series of circumstances. The men who did serve placed their lives, their fortunes, and their names, in great jeopardy. The signing and ratification of the US Constitution in 1787 rounds out an historical period that lasted for less than 20 years but gave birth to the nation we call the United States of America. That story—the people, places and events that form the early portion of America’s history—is contained in this work. Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses Despite this being a work on the Continental Congresses, not on the American Revolution, some material naturally overlaps. For example, the entry on Commodore Esek Hopkins, who commanded the Continental Navy, is included because of difficulties he had with the Continental Congress, not because he served in the American Revolution. But while this is not a work on the American Revolution, it does include events involving that conflict that helped shape the atmosphere that established the Continental Congress. In the preface to the 1855 edition of his work, “The Pictorial Field-Book of the Revolution,” historian Benson J. Lossing wrote: “The story of the American Revolution has been well and often told, and yet the most careless observer of the popular mind may perceive that a large proportion of our people are but

little instructed in many of the essential details of that event, so important for every intelligent citizen to learn. Very few are ignorant of the most conspicuous circumstances of that period, and all who claim to be well-informed have a correct general knowledge of the history of our war for independence. But few even of that intelligence class are acquainted with the location of the various scenes depicted by the historian, in their relation to the lakes and rivers, towns and cities, whose names are familiar to the ears of the present generation.” [8] In telling this story, I discovered no central repository for a history of the Continental Congress itself, of biographies of the men who served in it, or of the other people and places connected to the Continental Congress. The leading collections of historical American biographies of the twentieth century, the “Dictionary of American Biography” and the “Biographical Directory of the US Congress,” have a random collection of information, from in-depth biographies to small nuggets of information. What was not found in these sources, was found in books, dissertations, newspaper articles and historical papers. Now, in the Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses, that central repository exists. There was indeed a First Continental Congress and a Second Continental Congress. The first parley met from September to October 1774, issuing the “Olive Branch Petition” to try to get the British government to lessen their harsh economic measures. A “Continental Association” was also established to enforce a colony-wide boycott of English goods. The second convening conference issued a Declaration of Independence in 1776, established a framework for a national government with the Articles of Confederation drafted in 1777, and witnessed the call for a federal convention to formulate a new US Constitution in 1787. On 3 March 1789, the Continental Congress ended, giving way to the new US government with George Washington as its first President. How did the body that we examine here come to be termed as a “Continental” Congress? Historian James Blake wrote:

Prefacexxi “The voices of the past are frustratingly silent. Records of the deliberations at the First Continental Congress are notoriously thin, especially on the decision to adopt that title. But one delegate, James Duane, noted that in the first meeting, ‘A Question was then put what Title the Convention should assume & it was agreed that it should be called the Congress.’ Closer examination suggests that the adjective ‘continental,’ despite its widespread use, was only an unofficial part of the institution’s title. It does not appear in the majority of the Congress’ broadsides or even in the Articles of Confederation. How is it that a bunch of individuals as diverse and contentious as the delegates of the First Continental Congress, a group that began its first meeting with an argument over whether to open with a prayer, could silently accede to the notion they were a continental body? These delegates, like the colonists as a whole, faced challenging hurdles as they searched for ways to recast or sever their relationship with Britain. The diversity both among and within the colonies presented fault lines along which unified resistance could break.” [9] To discuss how the Continental Congress worked, we turn to a letter, dated 16 August 1778, by Titus Hosmer, a delegate from Connecticut to the Continental Congress. Hosmer discussed the internal workings of that body: “I hope you are determined and preparing to come here as soon as possible [when] you give me leave to introduce you to Congress, & attempt to give you an imperfect Idea of the Course of Business in Congress and in the several Substitute divisions of Congress. We meet at nine & continue sitting till two in the after noon [sic], after prayers the States are called, nine are a quorum to proceed on Business, the public Letters are first read & disposed of. Next Reports from the Treasury & then Reports from the Board of War. These matters by a standing Order must be gone thro’ [through] before any other Business can be moved, for the Rest points are started, debated, and determined in nearly the same manner as in our Assembly, [saying] that much Time is spent, too much I think in all Conscience in debating points of Order, they are referred to the House, and the Decision does not seem to depend on any

fixed or known Rules, but the present Opinion of what is decent & proper in the Case before us, which gives much the same, in deed a greater Latitude than in debating points of Common Law in our Courts. Besides the General Business which is originated & discussed in Congress, the House is subdivided into standing Committees or Boards each of which is to pay their Attention to some one [sic] Capital Branch, give Orders in the Executive part, and report to Congress where its Aid is wanted to regulate and enforce. These are as follows[:] 1. [A] Board of Treasury, this should consist of one Member from a State, five are a Quorum, they Superintend the finances, consider in the first Instance all applications for money, & Report what is to be advanced regulate the Striking of Bills, give their Opinion when Emissions are necessary, & prepare draughts of Resolves for that purpose, consult of & propose ways and means for raising Money, propose Regulations to prevent Counterfeiting, Depreciation of or to Appreciate the Currency they examine Claims, adjust Accounts & in general do every thing [sic] in this Branch, they are assisted by an Auditor General & Commissioner of Claims,- the Auditor keeps Accounts & the Comm’r [Commissioner] examine the particular Articles correct over-charges, reject improper ones & State Balances, all sums to be granted in Advance, on Account or for Ballances [sic] due are reported to Congress, granted by them, & drawn for by warrant under the Hand of the president. 2. [A] board of War, formerly consisting of Members of Congress, now of Commissioners chosen at large, assisted by some Members, the Objects of their Duty is particularly enumerated in the Resolve for Constituting & impowering [sic] them which I trust you have Seen, it extends to the superintending the Departments of the Commissary Gen.1. Quartermaster Gen1. Clothier Gen1. Adjutant General, Commissary General of Ordnance & Military stores planning Expeditions & in short every thing [sic] almost that related to the Army or Military Operations. 3. Marine Comittee [sic]. [T]his board considers of Rules and Regulations for well governing the Navy, the number of Ships & other Vessells

xxiiPreface [sic] to be built, superintend & direct the Building and employing them, examines into all mismanagement of Officers, directs Enquiries & Trials furnishes Transports & in short exercises the Office of Lord high Admiral with more extensive Powers than any Britishoner [sic] ever had & are only checked by the Necessity of obtain’g the sanction of Congress to their rules and Regulations which however in general is given of Course, as few Gentlemen have ability or Leisure to Canvass [ ?] their measures, this Observation may indeed be extended to all the other Committees General as well as the marine Comittee [sic]. 4. [A] Commercial Comittee [sic]. [A]ll the Commercial Business of Congress is under their Direction & is you will find a very extensive & perplexed branch of Business[.] 5. [A] Committee of Foreign Affairs, they Correspond with our Ministers at foreign Courts, with Agents in Europe and with all such Gentlemen of Character in foreign parts as are disposed to give us Intelligence, they prepare Instructions for Ministers & propose proper Courts or States to send embassys [sic] to. 6. [T]he Committee of Foreign Applications, they are Gentlemen acquainted with the French or other European Languages, and receive Applications from foreign officers, proposals, Schemes, & projects from a Shoal of Europeans who wish to fish for Wealth or Honour [sic] in our troubled Waters 7. [A] Medical Committee, who superintend the medical Department in the Army, & are consulted by & direct the Director General. These Committees proceed in general upon the present State of Information & decide upon the Circumstances of each particular Case without any general or established Rules, at least if they have such Rules I have not been able to find them, some of them are Temporary & will end with the War, others are in their Nature permanent, these last it is an object with Congress, when they can find Time to put into Commission & critically to limit, define & regulate their Jurisdiction.” [10]

Acknowledgments The material in many of the biographies of the men who served in the Continental Congress come from “The Biographical Directory of the United States Congress.” Printed in numerous volumes over the years to reflect the growing number of Representatives and Senators, it eventually was placed on the internet; the main page of this invaluable source is http://bioguide. congress.gov/biosearch/biosearch.asp. Finally, I would like to thank The British Library, both at the old building at The British Museum, and the new one at St. Pancras, where I spent literally thousands of hours over nine years copying books, articles, papers, and spending a small fortune doing it. I would like to thank the myriad members of the staff of that noble institution, who put up with my countless questions, my numerous book and article requests, and the many times I had paper jams in the copy room in the Humanities 2 section of the building. I also thank the staff of the British National Archives at Kew (and of the former archives, the Public Record Office in London), the New York Public Library, the Library of Congress, and Arizona State University in Tempe, Arizona, as well as the hundreds of people around the world who supported this effort. Without these magnificent institutions, their staff, and their collections, this work would still be on the drawing board. [1] Eddis, William, “Letters from America, Historical and Descriptive; Comprising Occurrences from 1769, to 1777, Inclusive. By William Eddis, Late Surveyor of the Customs, &c. At Annapolis, in Maryland” (London: Printed for the Author, and Sold by C. Dilly, in the Poultry, (1792), 158-61. [2] John Adams to Abigail Adams, 8 September 1774, in Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), I:20. [3] Joseph Warren to Arthur Lee, 16 May 1775, in Frank Arthur Mumby, “George III and the American Revolution: The Beginnings” (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1925), 406-07. [4] Fiske, John, “The Critical Period of American History, 1783-1789” (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1899), 92-93. [5] Lossing, Benson J., “The Pictorial Field-Book of the Revolution: Or, Illustrations, by Pen and Pencil, of the History,

Prefacexxiii Biography, Scenery, Relics, and Traditions of the War for Independence” (New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers; two volumes, 1855), I:125. Historian Paul F. Boller, Jr., states that Allen made this quote up. Boller writes, “Some of the men who were at the fort with Allen later said the Vermonter had shouted, ‘Come out of here, you damned old Rat.’ Others remembered his exclamation: ‘Come out of there, you sons of British whores, or I’ll smoke you out.’” See Paul F. Boller, Jr., and John George, “They Never Said It: A Book of Fake Quotes, Misquotes, and Misleading Attributions” (Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 1989), 4. [6] Extract of a Letter from a Gentleman in Virginia to his Friend in Edinburgh, Scotland, dated Middlesex, September 1, 1775 in Peter Force, ed., “American Archives: Consisting of a Collection of Authentick Records, State Papers, Debates, and Letters and Other Notices of Publick Affairs, the Whole Forming a Documentary History of the Origin and Progress of the North America Colonies; of the Causes and Accomplishment of the American Revolution; and of the Constitution of Government for the United States, to the Final Ratification Thereof. In Six Series”

(Washington: Published by M. St. Clair Clarke and Peter Force; ten volumes, 1837-53), IV:III:620. [7] “The Life of Thomas Paine, Secretary for Foreign Affairs to Congress in the American War; Author of ‘Common Sense,’ ‘Rights of Man,’ Etc. Interspersed with Sundry Letters, &c. Not Before Published, and Containing His Last Will and Testament, Verbatim; With Notices of the American and French Revolutions. Compiled from Authentic Documents. ” (Glasgow [Scotland]: Printed and Published by Muir, Gowars, * Co. 42, Argyll-Street, Opposite the Buck’s Head, 1833), 8. [8] Lossing, Benson J., “The Pictorial Field-Book of the Revolution,” op.cit., 4. [9] Drake, James D., “Appropriating a Continent: Geographical Categories, Scientific Metaphors, and the Construction of Nationalism in British North America and Mexico,” Journal of World History, XV:3 (September 2004), 325. [10] Smith, Paul H., ed., “Letters of Delegates to Congress, 1774-1789” (Washington, DC: Library of Congress; 26 volumes, 1976-2000), X:450.

Introduction In the Grey House tradition of providing reference works that offer unparalleled information and insight, we are pleased to present a new first edition–Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses–the most comprehensive look at the subject ever presented. This work includes not only detailed essays of those members who served in the First and Second Continental Congress, but also of those individuals who had an impact on the workings of this formative body, despite not having served. Here you will read about members, men who were elected but declined to serve, women who influenced important issues, the many men who fought for freedom at great personal risk, and advocates of the cause—the man who printed the Declaration of Independence, the tavern owner who hosted early meetings of the Congress, and the farmer who encouraged his neighbors to stand firm against unjust taxes. In addition to these detailed biographies, this reference work includes in-depth accounts of places, battles, laws, treaties, and court cases that were significant to the workings of the Continental Congress.

the passage of The Sugar Act and the Currency Act, both of which led to protest in the colonies. It ends in 1789, when the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives met in New York City, marking the official end to the Continental Congress. These 131 entries are detailed and informative. Primary Documents The 31 Primary Documents in this section offer additional insight into this period of American history in general, and the workings of the Continental Congress in particular. These fully reprinted documents include speeches, letters, resolutions, declarations, and more. Here you will find the usual suspects, like John Henry’s famous speech, as well as more obscure documents, like a letter from John Adams describing his journey to the First Continental Congress. All documents include a brief but illuminating introductory note. Appendices These six appendices offer interesting details in an easy-to-find format: A–Delegates to the Continental Congress by State B–Signers of the Declaration of Independence by Occupation C–Signers of the Articles of Confederation by State D–Presidents of the Continental Congress E–Places and Times of Sessions of the Continental Congress F–Statistics on the Thirteen Colonies

As the author’s Preface indicates, finding the comprehensive story of the Continental Congress was not easy. Personal records were scattered and poorly kept, and official material was not consistent. This compilation is one of a kind. A to Z Listings The Table of Contents lists the 509 entries in the Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses, from Andrew Adams to John Joachim Zubly. Browsing down the list, you’ll note an impressive collection of topics, including The Bank of the United States, Relations with France, Lexington and Concord, Nassau Hall, and The Olive Branch Petition. All entries include either a photo or a state seal, italicized excerpts from relevant documents, and footnotes. Historical Timeline Following the A to Z listings, the back matter starts with an Historical Timeline, beginning in 1764 and

Bibliography This comprehensive Bibliography groups material by type. The majority of the entries are listed under Books and Articles. However, a significant number of resources fall under additional categories: Unpublished Dissertations, Master’s Theses, and Other Works; Newspapers and Magazines Used; Continental Congress and Other Federal Colonial Documents; U.S. Government Documents post 1789; Colonial and State Government Documents; Other U.S.

xxv

xxviIntroduction Government Documents; British Government Documents; and Manuscript Collections. Subject Index This detailed Subject Index helps readers quickly find just what they are looking for, including

individuals, places, battles, acts, and other items of interest to the Continental Congresses. Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses is also available as an ebook. For more information, visit www.greyhouse.com.

A Andrew Adams (1736–1797)

Andrew Adams served as a delegate to the Continental Congress from Connecticut (1778), was a signer of the Articles of Confederation (1778), and, just prior to his death, served as a member of the Connecticut Supreme Court (1789-97), rising to serve as chief justice of that body (1793-97) [1]. Born in Stratford, Connecticut, on 7 January 1736, Adams was, according to the small biography of him put together in an 1856 work, “[b]eing of a very respectable family.” [2] According to the Daughters of the American Revolution, Adams was the son of Samuel Adams, no apparent relation to the Samuel Adams who played such a pivotal role in the period before and during the American Revolution, and his wife Mary (née Fairchild) Adams. As other young men during this time, he apparently received a “classical education” (the description of studies dealing with history, languages, and other subjects), and graduated from Yale College (now Yale University), in Connecticut in 1760. Four years later, in 1764, Adams began the practice of law in the city of Litchfield, Connecticut, and he soon became one of that city’s leading attorneys. He

married Eunice Buel, and they would have one child, a son, also named Andrew Adams. Adams served in numerous elected and appointed positions in Connecticut. He also served as a member of the Connecticut Council of Safety for two years. When the war against Britain broke out in 1775, he volunteered for service in the Connecticut militia, seeing action and rising to the rank of Colonel. He then returned to Connecticut, where he was elected to the state House of Representatives, serving from 1776 to 1781, and serving as the Speaker of that body in 1779 and 1780. More importantly, Adams served as a delegate to the Continental Congress in 1778. And while he did not sign the Declaration of Independence, he was a signatory to the Articles of Confederation in 1778. In his history of the men and correspondence of those delegates who served in the Continental Congress, historian Edmund Cody Burnett explains that Adams was elected on 11 October 1777 but “did not attend in 1777.” [3] According to the “Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, 1774-2005,” Adams is listed as a member of the Continental Congress, having served, according to the directory, in 1778, the same year that he signed the Articles of Confederation, the first official governmental blueprint of the new American nation that came into existence in 1783. [4] Andrew Adams was considered a leading player in not only Connecticut politics of the period, but in national politics as well. In August 1778, Jonathan Trumbull, the governor of Connecticut and the older brother of Continental Congress delegate Joseph Trumbull, wrote to Roger Sherman, Titus Hosmer, and Adams, on the military movements being conducted in the area of what is now the states of New England: Our expectations from the expedition against Rhode Island are again like[ly] to be blasted. The French fleet, which have suffered considerably from the late very unusual gale of wind, have taken a resolution to go for Boston to refit and repair their damages.

2

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

This event will put our army on too precarious a footing to remain long on an island; unless some sudden and desperate attempt is made (which I wish them to avoid) I think their operation against the enemy must cease and their whole attention be turned to getting themselves safe landed on the continent. I wish this may be affected without loss, I was in hopes the fleet would have run themselves into New London [Connecticut], where I think their damages might be repaired with safety to them, and the same time their lying in harbour so contiguous to Rhode Island might have proved a security to the operations of the army. But they are gone, and with them are fled our fond hopes of success from this enterprise. This event will put a new aspect on our affairs. The Lord reigneth is our hope; let it be our trust and confidence. [5]

Connecticut. Today, that burial ground is officially known as the West Cemetery, still located in Litchfield. In 1909, historian Dwight C. Kilbourn wrote that, at that time, Adams’ tombstone in the West Burying Ground was “a rapidly crumbling marble slab.” The stone read, “In memory of the Hon. Andrew Adams, Esq., Chief Judge of the Superior Court, who died November 27, 1797, in the 63d year of his age. Having filled many distinguished offices with great ability and dignity, he was promoted to the highest judicial office in the State, which he held for several years, in which his eminent talents shone with uncommon lustre, and were exerted to the great advantage of the public and the honor of the High Court in which he presided. He made an early profession of religion, and zealously sought to protect its true Interests. He lived a Life and died the Death of a Christian. His filial Piety and paternal tenderness are held in sweet Remembrance.” [8]

Adams and Hosmer, from their posts as delegates to the Continental Congress from Philadelphia, answered the governor’s message: “The desire we have of preserving every appearance of attention in our correspondence with your Excellency induces us to embrace this opportunity to write to Major Bigelow [6], though nothing very material hath come to our knowledge worthy to be communicated. The finances of the States are at present the principal subject of the deliberations of Congress. Tuesday, Thursday, and Saturday of every week are set apart for this purpose; but little progress is yet made. A plan of organizing a Board of Treasury is laid before Congress, and is to be taken into consideration this day. It is long and complex-time will not allow us to attempt giving you an abstract of it.” [7] In 1789, a year after leaving the Continental Congress, Adams was named by Governor Trumbull as a member of the Connecticut Executive Council. That same year, Trumbull appointed Adams to a seat as a judge on the Supreme Court of Connecticut. Rising to become one of the leading counselors on that court, in 1793 Adams was named as chief justice, a post he held until his death. Adams died in Litchfield, Connecticut, on 26 November 1797 at the age of 63. His remains were interred, according to his Congressional biography, in the East Cemetery in Litchfield,

[1] Adams biography from “Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, 1774-2005” (House Document 108-222) (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 2005), 541. [2] Marshall, James V., “The United States Manual of Biography and History” (Philadelphia: James B. Smith & Co., 1856), 136. [3] See the short entry on Adams in Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), II:xxxix. [4] “Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, 17742005. The Continental Congress, September 5, 1774, to October 21, 1788, and The Congress of the United States, From the First Through the One Hundred Eighth Congresses, March 4, 1789, to January 3, 2005, Inclusive” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 2005), 541. [5] Trumbull to Sherman, Hosmer, and Adams, 25 August 1778, in “The Papers of Jonathan Trumbull” in “Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Seventh Series, Vol. II” (Boston: Published by the Society, 1902), 256-57. [6] No name is given here for this “Major Bigelow”; however, Benedict Arnold mentions in his Memoirs that a “Major Bigelow” served as the head of the 15th Massachusetts Regiment, and lists of officers of this unit show a Colonel Timothy Bigelow to have been at its command, so it may be assumed that the unnamed Bigelow may be him. [7] Adams and Hosmer to Trumbull, 29 August 1778, in “The Papers of Jonathan Trumbull,” 257-59. [8] Kilbourn, Dwight C., “The Bench and Bar of Litchfield County, Connecticut, 1709-1909: Biographical Sketches of Members. History and Catalogue of the Litchfield Law School. Historical Notes” (Litchfield, CT: Published by the Author, 1909; reprint, Clark, NJ: The Lawbook Exchange, 2002), 217.

John Adams (1735–1826)3

John Adams (1735–1826)

The influence and range of service that John Adams offered to the building of the American nation is incalculable. A diplomat, a writer and diarist, an agitator and a lawyer, a farmer and politician, he rose to become one of the leading members of the Continental Congress and, in 1788, was elected the first vice president of the United States. In 1796 he was elected the nation’s second president, after George Washington, but served only one term before losing in an acrimonious defeat to his former ally and friend, Thomas Jefferson, in 1800. The two men, who reconciled in the years before they both died on the same day—4 July 1826, the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence—were considered elder statesmen in the second decade of the 19th century, giving their nation important leadership when it needed it the most. The son of John Adams and his wife, Susanna (née Boylston) Adams, and the eldest of three sons, John Adams was born in Braintree (now Quincy), about 10 miles south of Boston, in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, on 19 October 1735. Andrew Adams, a member of the famed Adams

family of Massachusetts, compiled a genealogical history of the clan in 1898. According to this history, Henry Adams, a native of Devonshire, left with his family for the New World about 1630, settling in and becoming one of the original landowners in the town of Braintree, which was in 1639. His great-great-grandson, John Adams, would one day serve as president of the country that Henry Adams sailed to in that third decade of the seventeenth century. John Adams (16911760), the father of John Adams, was a deacon and a shoemaker in Braintree. Although he had not desired to be involved in religion, his own father had insisted that he follow in the footsteps of his own uncle, Joseph Adams, who had been a noted clergyman in the area. As such, the elder John Adams had attended Harvard College (now Harvard University), and had become a leader in his church [1]. In 1871, Charles Francis Adams, the grandson of the subject of this biography, explained, “It is in the order of the dispensations of Providence to adapt the characters of men to the times in which they live. The grandfather of John Adams had given to the eldest of his twelve children a college education for his only inheritance. And a precious inheritance it was; it made him for nearly seventy years an instructor of religion and virtue. And such was the anticipation and design of the father of John Adams, who, not without some urgent advice and even solicitation, prevailed upon his son to prepare himself for college.” [2] On his mother’s side, John Adams was descended from a family that included Dr. Zabdiel Boylston, who introduced the first inoculations for smallpox into the American colonies. Adams wrote about his family in his diary, now housed at the Massachusetts Historical Society: My Father by his Industry and Enterprize soon became a Person of more Property and Consideration in the Town than his Patron had been. He became a Select Man, a Militia Officer and a Deacon in the Church. He was the honestest Man I ever knew. In Wisdom, Piety, Benevolence and Charity In proportion to his Education and Sphere of Life, I have never seen his Superiour . . . My Mother was Suzanna Boylston a Daughter of Peter Boylston of Brooklyne, the oldest son of Thomas Boylston a Surgeon and Apothecary

4

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

who came from London in 1656, and married a Woman by the Name of Gardner of that Town, by whom he had Issue Peter my Grandfather, Zabdiel the Physician, who first introduced into the British Empire the Practice of Inocculation for the Small Pox, Richard, Thomas and Dudley and several Daughters. [3]

much younger cousin found each other, despite their age difference of nine years [7]

Following in his father’s footsteps, John Adams studied at Harvard, and among his instructors there was Josiah Quincy (1709-1784), a noted educator and merchant who became a close friend and correspondent with Benjamin Franklin, but who would become embittered and estranged from his own son, also named Josiah Quincy (1744-1775), who would take up the fight for American independence in opposition to his father. Tasked with presenting the grievances of his fellow colonists to the English government, he sailed for America but died before he could reach land at the age of 31. [4] In 1755, John Adams was presented with a bachelor of arts degree from Harvard; three years later, in 1758, the same school awarded him a master of arts degree. William Cranch, who would later serve as an official reporter of the US Supreme Court, wrote in 1827, “It is said that, while at college, he [Adams] was distinguished by great assiduity in his studies, a retentive memory, acuteness of reasoning, originality and boldness of thought, strength of language, and an openness and honesty of character, which could neither assume, nor tolerate disguise.” [5] Adams’ grandson, Charles Francis Adams, who had a storied career as a diplomat in service to the American government, most notable during the American Civil War, wrote in a memoir of his grandfather published in 1856, “From the time of the admission of Mr. Adams to the bar, he resided at his father’s house, in Braintree; and, after the decease of his father, which happened on the 25th of May 1761, he remained with his mother, until his marriage, in 1764.” [6] John Adams also would live nearly a decade longer than the woman who was to become his wife, mate, and lifelong partner in everything he would do, Abigail Smith Adams. Before his marriage to Abigail Smith, Adams had been engaged to Abigail’s older cousin, Hannah Quincy, but that had ended. Somehow Adams and Hannah’s

Born as Abigail Smith on 11 November 1744 in Weymouth, Massachusetts, she, like her husband, had a father actively involved in the church, although the Reverend William Smith gave his daughter the upbringing few at that time enjoyed. However, he did not believe that women should be educated, and it was left to Abigail to educate herself. She became an active writer, encapsulating most of her life in letters and diaries. She read the great philosophers of history and taught herself French. Just prior to her death, she told her family to “Pray, burn all my Letters,” but her wishes were ignored, and today we have the rich history of the love shown between John and Abigail Adams through their voluminous correspondence. The two met while John was courting Abigail’s cousin, and, from John’s letters, we find that he did not find her, at least at first, a particularly interesting person. It was through John’s good friend William Cranch, who was courting and would later marry Abigail’s older sister Mary in 1762, that Adams became more acquainted with Abigail. He quickly found her expansive knowledge, rare for a woman in those days, to be most attractive to him. And thus began a romance that would last until Abigail’s passing in 1818. Even when the two were separated—during John’s service in the Continental Congress, as well as his work as a diplomat in Europe, and continuing throughout his time first as vice president until the end of his sole term in office as president—the two corresponded. In all, from 1762 until 1801, they penned some 1,160 letters to each other, all of which survive. The love that these two people showed for each other, as their nation struggled to become an independent country, is as much a part of history as any official correspondence a politician may turn out. In one letter, dated 4 October 1762, Adams, addressing Abigail as “Miss Adorable,” penned to her, “By the same Token that the Bearer hereof satt up with you last night I hereby order you to give him, as many Kisses, and as many Hours of your Company after 9 OClock as he shall please to Demand and charge them to my Account. This Order, or Requision call it which you will is in Consideration of a similar order

John Adams (1735–1826)5 Upon Aurelia for the like favour, and I presume I have good Right to draw upon you for the Kisses as I have given two or three Millions at least, when one has been recd, and of Consequence the Account between us is immensely in favour of yours.” [8] Historian Rosemary Keller, in a 1977 dissertation on Abigail Adams, explained: In 1763, Abigail Smith and John Adams were engaged in a courtship of more profound consequences than their stern Puritan forebears could have conceived. Their marriage, which took place the next year, developed into one of the remarkable unions in history and culminated over several generations in America’s most distinguished family line. Even in their early love letters, the nineteen-year-old parson’s daughter demonstrated why she was an exceptional woman of her day who would become the firm force behind the rise of this family dynasty. In a letter written in September 1763 to the aspiring lawyer, nine years her senior, he reflected that “they were both cast in the same mould [sic].” While his might be of a “harder smile,” she surmised that they probably possesse “an eaquil [sic] quantity of Steel.” [9] John Adams would probably have remained as a lawyer, perhaps a famous one, in Boston, if not for the events of 5 March 1770, which catapulted Adams, as well as the American colonies, on a path towards war with England. A number of colonists assembled and surrounded a British soldier who was guarding the customs house in Boston. Panicked, the sentry’s commander, Capt. Thomas Preston, sent reinforcements to help the lone soldier. Whether or not the soldiers felt their lives in danger, or if the angry crowd reacted when they were unarmed, will never be known. What is known is that some of the troops fired into the crowd, killing five and wounding several others. Now known as the Boston Massacre, the riot caused intense hatred of the British and threatened to ignite potential warfare. John Adams, almost alone in his thinking, came to the defense of the British troops, believing that they had been provoked. “Endeavors had been systematically pursued for many months by certain busy characters to excite quarrels, reencounters [sic] and combats, single or compound, in the night, between the inhabitants of the lower class, and the soldiers, and at all risks to enkindle an immortal hatred between them,”

he explained in a letter. “I suspected that this was the explosion which had been intentionally wrought up by designing men, who knew what they were aiming at, better than the instruments employed. If these poor tools should be prosecuted for any of their illegal conduct they must be punished. If the soldiers in self-defense should kill any of them, they must be tried, and if truth was respected, and the law prevailed, must be acquitted.” [10] A 19th century magazine, The New-England Galaxy and United States Literary Advertiser, explained in its edition of 10 June 1825: The tragedy of the 5th of March, 1770, denominated, in the language of that period, “The Boston Massacre,” had wrought the whole people of Massachusetts, and above all the inhabitants of Boston, to the highest pitch of rage and indignation. The populace breathed only vengeance. Even minds better instructed, and of higher principles than the multitude, in the excitement of the moment, could not endure the doctrine, that it was possible for the armed soldiers to fire and kill unarmed citizens, and commit a crime less than murder. Political animosity and natural antipathy to troops stationed in the metropolis, sharpened this vindictive spirit. The friends of the government were either silent, or only expressed regret and lamentation at the event. The friends of freedom were loud in their indignation, and clamorous for that justice which declares, that “blood shall be the penalty for blood.” [11] Adams took the side of the soldiers, and, with the aid of his cousin, Samuel Adams, defended the soldiers in court and got an acquittal. Historians have long pondered just why John Adams, who would become one of those colonists who helped to break away from England five years later, would side with British troops over his fellow colonists. In 1787, Adams wrote to a friend, Benjamin Hichborn, “I begin to suspect that some Gentlemen who had more Zeal than Knowledge in the year 1770 will soon discover that I had good Policy, as well as sound Law on my side, when I ventured to lay open before our People the Laws against Riots, Routs, and unlawful assemblies. Mobs will never do—to govern States or command armies. I was as sensible of it in 1770 as I am in 1787. To talk of Liberty in such a state of things!” [12]

6

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Perhaps around this time—there is no exact date of its occurrence—Adams was involved in an incident that demonstrates his general demeanor. As noted in a letter to The Times of London in 1851: “When John Adams was a young man he was invited to dine with the Court and Bar at the house of Judge Paine, an eminent Loyalist, at Worcester. When the wine was circulated round the table Judge Paine gave as a toast, ‘the King.’ Some of the Whigs were about to refuse to drink it; but Mr. Adams whispered to them to comply, saying, ‘We shall have an opportunity to return the compliment.’ At length, when John Adams was desired to give a toast, he gave ‘the Devil.’ As the host was about to resent the supposed indignity, his wife calmed him, and turned the laugh upon Mr. Adams by immediately saying, ‘My dear, as the gentlemen has seen fit to drink to ‘our’ friend, let us by no means refuse, in our turn, to drink to ‘his.’” [13]

then departed Braintree, his wife and his family, on 10 August 1774 for the trip to Philadelphia. On 29 September, he wrote to William Tudor on the conditions in that city:

Despite his defense of the British soldiers in Boston, Adams was nevertheless a harsh critic of the policies of the so-called “Mother Country,” and he spoke out against them. When tensions between England and her colonies had reached a decisive point, calls went out from individual colonies for a meeting of delegates from the colonies to shape their own policies in defiance of the Crown and Parliament. In June 1774, the Massachusetts House elects John Adams, his cousin Samuel Adams, and Thomas Cushing as three of the colony’s five delegates (a fourth, Robert Treat Paine, did attend, but the fifth, James Bowdoin, did not) to a “Continental Congress” to be held in the “national capitol” of Philadelphia. As historian William Dehler wrote in 1939, “Fearing that the Royal Governor [Gen. Thomas Gage of the British army] would dissolve their assembly, the member of the Massachusetts House of Representatives ordered the doors of the chamber to be locked, June 17, 1774 . . . By an overwhelming majority they voted to send delegates to Philadelphia to consult with the delegates from the other colonies and to determine ‘wise’ and proper measures . . . for the recover and establishment of their just rights & liberties, civil and religious, and the restoration of union & harmony between Great Britain and the Colonies.” [14] Adams finished his circuit duties (the court for all of New England was in present-day Maine),

You can have no adequate Idea of the Pleasures of the Difficulties of the Errand I am now upon. The Congress is Such an Assembly as never before came together on a Sudden, in any Part of the World. Here are Fortunes, Abilities, Learning, Eloquence, Acuteness equal to any I ever met with [in] my Life. Here is a Diversity of Religious Educations, Manners, Interests, Such as it would Seem almost impossible to unite in any one Plan of Conduct. Every Question is discussed with a Moderation, and an Acuteness and a minuteness equal to that of Queen Elizabeths [sic] privy Council. This occasions infinite Delays. We are under Obligations of Secrecy in every Thing except the Single Vote which you have Seen approving the Resolutions of the County of Suffolk. What Effect this Vote may have with you is uncertain. What you will do, God knows. You Say you look up to the Congress. It is well you Should: but I hope you will not expect too much from Us. [15] During his time in that First Continental Congress, Adams made his mark by proposing the naming of George Washington as the commander-in-chief of the Continental Army, and he worked to help draft, with his friend, Thomas Jefferson, the document that came to be known as the Declaration of Independence. As well, he helped to draft the “Model Treaty of 1776.” Historian Felix Gilbert wrote, “The American-French alliance, concluded in 1778, was a further significant step toward traditional diplomacy. Astonishment has frequently been expressed about the success of the American negotiators in getting their ideas excepted by Europe’s most powerful monarchy. Indeed, the Treaty of Amity and Commerce between France and the United States followed closely by the Model Treaty of 1776 with its new and radical principles for commerce and navigation.” [16] During his time in the Continental Congress, Adams remained a writer of many letters—to friends, to intimates, and to others. In a letter, discovered in England in 1931, addressed to Archibald Bulloch, the governor of Georgia on 1 July 1776, he wrote, “This morning is assigned for the greatest debate of all—a Declaration that these Colonies are free and independent States

John Adams (1735–1826)7 has been reported by a Committee, appointed some weeks ago for that purpose, and this day, or to-morrow, is to determine its fate.” [17]

reasoning and persuasion often succeeded in carrying measures which were at first sight of an unpopular stature.” [19]

In a letter to Joseph Ward, the Muster-Master General of the Continental Army, later the Commissary-General of Prisoners, Adams, from Philadelphia, wrote:

From 1774 to 1777, Adams worked himself into near exhaustion. Not being able to go home for any length of time because of the distance of the journey back to Massachusetts, and not being able to see his wife and correspond with her only through numerous letters, all served to nearly destroy his health. In 1777, he retired from the Continental Congress, when he was named as a joint commissioner to go to England to negotiate a peace with the British government. He took along with him his eldest son, John Quincy Adams, to France to see that country and to gain foreign experience, experience that the younger Adams utilized in eventually serving as secretary of state and, then, as president of the United States. The defeat of the British Army at Saratoga in September 1777 left little doubt as to what would happen between the American representatives and those representing Britain in Paris for the peace talks: the Americans had the upper hand and would not settle for anything less than full independence. The British had little choice but to sign the treaty. Adams returned to Massachusetts in August 1779, where, now living not in a colony but in one of the 13 American states, he assisted in writing the state constitution. Adams melded the document to reflect his own belief in what he wrote in a letter as the state government being a “government of laws, and not of men.” Writing to fellow Continental Congress delegate (and later vice president) Elbridge Gerry, Adams explained, “I am clear for three branches in the legislature, and the committee have reported as such, though awkwardly expressed . . . We have so many men of wealth, of ambitious spirits, of intrigue, of luxury and corruption, that incessant factions will disturb our peace without it, and, indeed, there is too much reason to fear, with it. The executive, which ought to be the reservoir of wisdom, as the legislature is of liberty, without this weapon of defence, will be run down like a hare before the hunters. But I have not time to enlarge.” [20]

It is a great work to fortify Boston harbour, and will require many men—But however, I am not sufficiently informed to judge of the propriety of this measure— if there is the least reason to expect that Howe’s army will return to Boston, it was wrong to remove so many men so soon, but it is hard to believe that that army will very suddenly return to that place. The Militia of that Province are tremendous to the enemy, and well they may be, for I believe they don’t know of each other . . . Every motive of self-preservation, of honour, profit, and glory, call upon our people to fortify the harbour so as to be impregnable. It will make a rendezvous for men of war and privateers, and a mart of trade. [18] Adams became disgusted with that First Con­ tinental Congress, which did little more than advocate the refusal of merchants in the colonies to not purchase British goods shipped into the individual colonies. Many of his fellow delegates saw him and others like him as radicals who merely wanted to break away from England and declare independence. This frustrated Adams. At the Second Continental Congress, the followup meeting of delegates, Adams took charge. This second congress met following the opening shots of what would become the American Revolution, which began at the Massachusetts towns of Lexington and Concord. With this new attitude, that colonists now had to fight, and needed to get their independence, Adams and others like him were able to shift control of that second congress to their way of thinking. Benjamin Rush, a fellow delegate from Pennsylvania, wrote, “He was a most sensible and forcible speaker. Every member of Congress in 1776 acknowledged him to be first in the house. Dr. Brownson (of Georgia) used to say when he spoke, he fancied an angel was let down from heaven to illumine the Congress. He saw the whole of a subject as a single glance, and by a happy union of the powers of

Before his draft constitution could come up for a vote, Adams was named by the Continental Congress to go to France to sign a peace and commercial treaty with Britain. He took along his sons, John Quincy Adams and

8

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Charles Adams. The talks broke down over Adams’ insistence that Britain recognize the independence of the United States. Adams also clashed with the French Foreign Minister, the Comte Charles Gravier de Vergennes, when Adams refused to call on the Continental Congress to repay French debts in America in full instead of depreciated currency, arguing that France, as the first ally of the new nation, would gain exponentially in trading that Britain could not secure. Adams wrote to Vergennes, “No man is more ready than I am to acknowledge the obligations we are under to France; but the flourishing state of her marine and commerce, and the decisive influence of her councils and negociations [sic] in Europe, which all the world will allow us to be owing, in a great measure, to the separation of America from her inveterate enemy, and to her connexions [sic] with the United States, shall that the obligations are mutual. And no foreign merchants ought to expect to be treated in America better than her native merchants, who have hazarded their property through the same perils of the seas and of enemies.” [21]

us, is commerce, not politics, much less war. America has been the sport of European wars and politics long enough.” [22]

Unable to get France to move any further, Adams left for Holland, where he also received diplomatic recognition of the United States, as well as a much-needed loan from the Dutch. In November 1782 he returned to France, after the British relented and decided to sign the peace treaty with their former colonies in exchange for an end to the war and commercial relations. While fellow delegate (and US minister to France) Benjamin Franklin had already ironed out much of what would be the final treaty, he wanted more protections for France, but Adams worked closely with one of the British negotiators, Richard Oswald, to forge an agreement. Explaining the situation in a letter to the president of the Continental Congress, Samuel Huntington, Adams wrote, “We ought, therefore, to be cautious how we magnify our ideas, and exaggerate our expressions of the generosity and magnanimity of any of these powers. Let us treat them with gratitude, but with dignity. Let us remember what is due to ourselves and to our posterity, as well as to them. Let us, above all things, avoid as much as possible entangling ourselves with their wars or politics. Our business with them and theirs with

Adams remained in Europe until 1788, negotiating for additional loans from Holland, gaining diplomatic recognition from several European nations and serving, from 1785 until 1788, as the first US minister to the Court of St. James, the post known today as the US Ambassador to the United Kingdom. With his work in Europe finished he sailed for home, this time with his wife and children by his side. While he had been gone, the nation had completed and confirmed the new US Constitution, which set up national elections for president and vice president in 1788. Adams was named as one of the first candidates for president of the United States. Although he was extremely popular in the country as a whole, he could not overcome the popularity of General George Washington, and Adams received 34 of the 69 available electoral votes, giving him the vice presidency. Adams wrote, “I know not how it is, but in proportion as danger threatens I grow calm. I am very apprehensive that a desperate anti-federal party will provoke all Europe by their insolence. But my country has, in its wisdom, contrived for me the most insignificant office that ever the invention of men contrived or his imagination conceived; and as I can do neither good nor evil, I must be borne away by others and meet the common fate.” [23] Although Adams felt that he had been installed into a meaningless office, nevertheless he worked closely with President Washington to formulate policy for the new nation. Most of his time was taken by serving as president of the US Senate, where he set a record of breaking ties in votes. In 1792, Adams was reelected vice president with Washington, this time receiving 77 of the possible 134 electoral votes, defeating New York governor George Clinton. Four years later, when Washington begged off a third term, Adams was the candidate of the Federalist Party. Although he ran with a vice presidential candidate, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, prior to the passage of the 11th amendment to the US Constitution candidates ran separately, with the two top vote-getting candidates being elected. While Adams received the most electoral votes— 71—it was Anti-Federalist candidate Thomas Jefferson, who had once been a close friend of

John Adams (1735–1826)9 Adams, who received the second most number of electoral votes, 68, and was elected vice president. During the four years of his administration, Adams found himself in one controversy after another. Just days after he took office in March 1797, Adams learned that France had begun to seize American trading ships that were sailing for England, and that Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, the US Minister to France, had been dismissed from representing his country before the French government. The country prepared for war with France. Adams convened his cabinet and sent John Marshall and Elbridge Gerry to join Pinckney in France to negotiate with the French government an end to the crisis. When Marshall and Gerry reached France and joined Pinckney, they found that they were refused a meeting with the French Foreign Minister, the Marquis de Tallyrand. Instead, the French government sent four emissaries—Lucien Hauteval, Jean Hottinger, Nicholas Hubbard, and Pierre Bellamy— to meet with the American delegates. They presented the three Americans with conditions that had to be met before they could meet Talleyrand: The United States would have to give France a low interest loan, would have to pay any claims lodged by American merchants for ships and goods seized by France, and pay a large bribe directly to Talleyrand himself. The three Americans, shocked and disgusted at the terms, refused. Marshall and Pinckney returned to the United States, while Gerry remained in France to try to help stop a war from breaking out. When Adams heard of the disgraceful way the three Americans had been treated, he prepared for war. The nation as a whole was stunned; the four Frenchmen (for some reason, only three seem to have been named) were given the nicknames “X, Y, and Z,” and the meeting was called the XYZ Affair. While a land war never occurred, fighting among American and French ships did occur. The crisis led to intense negotiations, leading to the Convention of 1800, also known as the Treaty of Mortefontaine. It was because of this so-called “Quasi-War” with France that led the government to establish a Department of the Navy, and initiated, under

Adams, construction of the first warships that would give the United States power on the seas; among these was the USS Constitution, also known as “Old Ironsides,” which is still in existence and is retired as a visitor’s site in Charlestown, Massachusetts. Perhaps the most controversial matter during Adams’ administration was the passage in Congress of the Alien and Sedition Acts in 1798. These pieces of legislation, enacted in response to the French Revolution which overthrew the government as well as the monarchy led by King Louis XVI, were actually four pieces of separate legislation passed by the Federalist-dominated Congress. It ordered the imprisonment or deportation of those considered “dangerous to the peace and safety of the United States,” extending the period of residency needed for American citizenship from five to fourteen years. The most controversial of these laws was the Sedition Act, or, as it was known, “An act for the punishment of certain crimes again the United States.” The act set penalties against persons who would “unlawfully combine or conspire together, with intent to oppose any measure or measures of the government of the United States, which are or shall be directed by proper authority, or to impede the operation of any law of the United States, or to intimidate or prevent any person holding a place or office in or under the government of the United States, from undertaking, performing, or executing his trust or duty . . . ” [24] Writing to Vice President Thomas Jefferson on 20 May 1798, James Madison stated, “The Alien bill proposed in the Senate is a monster that must forever disgrace its parents. I should not have supposed it possible that such a one could have been engendered in either House and still persuade myself that it cannot possibly be fathered by both. It is truly to be deplored that a standing army should be let in upon us by the absence of a few sound votes. It may however all be for the best.” [25] The laws became an integral issue in the 1800 president campaign, a rematch of the 1796 contest between Adams and Jefferson. The vice president’s supporters used the Alien & Sedition Acts as a cudgel against the president, with both sides employing vile threats and cursing few campaigns have ever seen. In the end, Adams lost to Jefferson, 73 electoral votes

10

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

to 65, and, after one term, Adams was retired from office.

for the third time, the best letter that was ever written by an octogenarian, dated June 1 . . . I have not sprained my wrist, but both my arms and hands are so overstrained that I cannot write a line . . . I cannot mount my horse, but I can walk three miles over a rugged, rocky mountain, and have done it within a month; yet I feel when sitting in my chair as if I could not rise out of it; and when risen, as if I could not walk across the room. My sight is very dim, hearing pretty good, memory poor enough.” [27]

Returning to Braintree, Adams enjoyed the first break from service in more than 30 years. He and his wife Abigail, their children, and grandchildren, all congregated at the Adams’ residence. Adams himself remained connected to politics, writing books and articles and letters on numerous subjects. As evident from all of his writings and correspondence, Adams was a staunch opponent of slavery. In a letter that Adams wrote from Quincy, Massachusetts, on 18 June 1819, he summed up his feelings about the practice: The turpitude, the inhumanity, the cruelty and the infamy of the African commerce in slaves, have been so impressively represented to the public, by the highest powers of eloquence, that nothing I could say would increase the just odium in which it is and ought to be held. Every measure of prudence, therefore, ought to be assumed, for the eventual total extirpation of slavery from the United States . . . . I have, through my whole life, held the practice of slavery in such abhorrence that I have never owned a negro, or any other slave, though I have lived for many year [sic] in times when the practice was not disgraceful; when the best men of this vicinity thought it not inconsistent with their characters, and when it has cost me thousands of dollars for the labor and subsistence of freemen, which I might have saved by the purchase of negroes when they were very cheap.” [26] Even while Jefferson was in office, the two men reconciled their differences, becoming, over the next two decades, close friends, as evidenced from their voluminous correspondence that survives. They wrote about a number of issues, including the political scene in America. They shared intimate moments in each others’ lives, and comforted each other as loved ones passed away, including Adams’ wife, Abigail, in 1818. Four years later, Jefferson wrote to Adams, “It is very long, my dear sir, since I have written to you. My dislocated wrist is now become so stiff that I write slowly and with pain, and therefore write as little as I can. Yet it is due to mutual friendship to ask once in a while how you do.” Adams replied, “Half an hour ago, I received, and, this moment, have heard read

On 4 July 1826, the fiftieth anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, both men were near death. At 1 p.m., Jefferson expired, at age 84. Adams, in Braintree, wanted to see the fireworks that evening. He told his attendant, “It is a great and glorious day.” His last words were, “Jefferson survives.” He did not know that the Sage of Monticello had preceded him in death. Adams was 91. The former president, like Jefferson, was universally mourned in the nation he had served for so long. The American Mercury of Hartford, Connecticut, stated in an editorial, “That bold and energetic spirit which inspired the councils of America with the determination to become independent has ascended on high, and that eloquent tongue which urged its declaration on the fourth of July, 1776, on the fourth of July, 1826, was palsied in death.” [28] The Daily National Intelligencer of Washington, D.C. said, “The angel of death seems to have been walking with him for months, but was not permitted by Omnipotence to call him away until the Jubilee of American Liberty had fully come, and not then, until his soul had been cheered with the loud acclamation of a joyous People for the blessings of the day.” [29] Historian Francis Russell, in his sweeping history of the Adams family, penned this about John Adams: As [the] Second President of the United States, John Adams in his single term has been overshadowed by both his predecessor and successor. Yet this chubby, opinionated New Englander, stubborn and egotistical, was truly a Founding Father, one of the handful of men without whom it would be impossible to imagine later America. Washington, reserved and aloof, even while

John Adams (1735–1826)11 President, became a symbol, a presence sufficient to chill the hand of anyone presumptuous enough to slap him on the back. The Father of his Country stood apart from ordinary humanity. Adams was all too obviously human, from his outer appearance to his tactlessly assertive manner, cranky, jealous, yet with a razor-sharp intellect and a keen awareness of his own weaknesses. An English diplomat considered him the most ungracious man he had ever encountered. Benjamin Franklin thought him “always an honest man, often a wise one, but sometimes in some things absolutely out of his senses.” The three-branched system of American constitutional with its built-in system of checks and balances owes more to him perhaps than to any other one man. Though he was equally opposed by Jefferson’s democratic and Hamilton’s aristocratic extremists, he did establish governmental precedents at a time when it was a question whether the American experiment would survive. [30] See also: Samuel Adams; The Boston Massacre

[1] Adams, Andrew N., compiler and ed., “A Genealogical History of Henry Adams, of Braintree, Mass., And His Descendents; also John Adams, of Cambridge, Mass., 1632-1897” (Rutland, VT: Published by the Author [by] The Tuttle Company, Printers, 1898), 3-4. [2] Adams, Charles Francis, “The Life of John Adams. Begun by John Quincy Adams. Completed by Charles Francis Adams” (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott & Co.; two volumes, 1871), I:16. [3] See L.H. Butterfield, ed., “The Diary and Autobiography of John Adams” (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of the Harvard University Press; four volumes and a supplement, 1961-66), III:256. [4] For information on Josiah Quincy and his son, see Josiah Quincy, “Memoir of the Life of Josiah Quincy Jun. of Massachusetts: By His Son, Josiah Quincy” (Boston: Published by Cummings, Hilliard & Company, 1825), 5. [5] Cranch, William, “Memoir of the Life, Character, and Writings of John Adams; Read, March 16, 1827, in the Capitol, in the City of Washington, at the Request of The Columbian Institute, and Published by Their Order” (City of Washington: S.A. Elliott, Printer, Eleventh Street, Near Pennsylvania Avenue, 1827), 12. [6] Adams, Charles Francis, “The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States: With a Life of the Author, Note and Illustrations” (Boston: Little, Brown and Company; two volumes, 1856), I:45. [7] Whitney, Janet, “Abigail Adams” (Boston: Little, Brown & Company, 1947), 10. [8] John Adams to Abigail Adams, 4 October 1762, in Margaret A. Hogan and C. James Taylor, eds., “‘My Dearest Friend’: Letters of Abigail and John Adams” (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 2007), 4. [9] Keller, Rosemary Skinner, “Abigail Adams and the American Revolution: A Personal History” (Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Illinois at Chicago Circle, 1977), 2. [10] John Adams, quoted in Frederic Kidder, “History of the Boston Massacre, March 5, 1770; Consisting of the Narrative of the Town, the Trial of the Soldiers: and a Historical Introduc-

tion, Containing Unpublished Documents of John Adams, and Explanatory Notes” (Albany, NY: Joel Munsell, 1870), 18. [11] “Extracts from the Memoirs of Josiah Quincy, Jr.,” New England Galaxy and United States Advertiser [Boston, Massachusetts], 10 June 1825, 1. [12] Adams to Benjamin Hichborn, 27 January 1787, in Charles Francis Adams, ed., “The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States: With a Life of the Author, Notes and Illustrates” (Boston: Little, Brown and Company; 10 volumes, 1850-56), IX:551. [13] “An Anecdote of John Adams,” The Times [London, United Kingdom], 28 July 1851, 3 [14] Dehler, William A., “John Adams in the Continental Congress” (unpublished Master of Arts degree, Loyola University, 1939), 1. [15] Adams to William Tudor, 29 September 1774, in Robert Joseph Taylor, ed., “Papers of John Adams” (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of The Harvard University Press; sixteen volumes, 1977), III:176. [16] Gilbert, Felix, “To the Farewell Address: Ideas of Early American Foreign Policy” (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1961), 84. [17] “A John Adams Letter: The Declaration of Independence,” The Times [London, United Kingdom], 3 June 1931, 18. [18] “Literature. Relics of Seventy-Six: Comprising Original Valuable Letters and Documents Found Among the Papers of the Late Col. Joseph Ward, ‘Muster-Master-General of the Continental Army,’ and Subsequently ‘Commissary-General of Prisoners.’ Third Paper. Letters of John Adams,” The Literary World, CLXXIX (18 September 1852), 179-80. [19] Biddle, Louis Alexander, “A Memorial Containing Travels Through Life or Sundry Incidents in the Life of Dr. Benjamin Rush. Written by Himself. Also Extracts from His Commonplace Book, as well as a Short History of the Rush Family in Pennsylvania” (Privately Printed, 1905), 103. [20] Adams, Charles Francis, “The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States: With a Life of the Author, Note and Illustrations” (Boston: Little, Brown and Company; two volumes, 1856), IX:506. [21] Adams to the Count de Vergennes, 22 June 1780, in Sparks, Jared, ed., “The Diplomatic Correspondence of the American Revolution: Being the Letters of Benjamin Franklin, Silas Deane, John Adams, John Jay, Arthur Lee, William Lee, Ralph Izard, Francis Dana, William Carmichael, Henry Laurens, John Laurens, M. Dumas, and Others, Concerning the Foreign Relations of the United States during the Whole Revolution; Together with the Letters in Reply from the Secret Committee of Congress, and the Secretary of Foreign Affairs. Also, the Entire Correspondence of the French Ministers, Gerard and Luzerne, with Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by John C. Rives; six volumes, 1857), III:158-59. [22] Adams to Samuel Huntington, 17 April 1780, in Adams, Charles Francis, “The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States: With a Life of the Author, Note and Illustrations” (Boston: Little, Brown and Company; two volumes, 1856), VI:151. [23] Adams to “My Dearest Friend” [Abigail Adams], 19 December 1793, in Adams, Charles Francis, ed., “Letters of John Adams, Addressed to his Wife” (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown; two volumes, 1841), II:133. [24] “An Act in addition to the act, entitled ‘An act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States’ in Richard Peters, ed., By Authority of Congress. The Public Statute at Large of the United States of America, From the Organization of the Government in 1789, to March 3, 1845. Arranged in Chronological Order. With References to the Matter of Each Act and to the Subsequent Acts on the Same Subject, and Copious Notes of the

12

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Decisions of the Courts of the United States, Construing Those Acts, and Upon the Subjects of the Laws. With an Index to the Contents of Each Volume, and a Full General Index to the Whole Work, in the Concluding Volume. Together with The Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the Constitution of the United States; and Also, Tables, in the Last Volume, Containing Lists of the Acts Relating to the Judiciary, Imposts and Tonnage, the Public Lands, Etc.” (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown, 1845), I:596. [25] James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, 20 May 1798, in “Letters and Other Writings of James Madison, Fourth President of the United States. In Four Volumes. Published by Order of Congress” (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott & Co.; four volumes, 1865), II:142. [26] “John Adams on Slavery,” The New-York Evangelist, 6 March 1845, 1-2. [27] “Thomas Jefferson and John Adams in 1822,” Potter’s American Monthly, IV:42 (June 1875), 413-14. [28] “Death of John Adams,” American Mercury [Hartford, Connecticut], 11 July 1826, 3. [29] “Death of John Adams,” Daily National Intelligencer [Washington, DC], 4 July 1826, 3. [30] Russell, Francis, “Adams, an American Dynasty” (New York: American Heritage Publishing Co., 1976), 1-2.

 serve, like John Adams, as a delegate to the Continental Congress, and was a signer of the Declaration of Independence, his also served as both lieutenant governor, and then governor, of Massachusetts.

Samuel Adams (1722–1803)

A lthough he had a lengthy political career in his native Massachusetts, Samuel Adams spent  much of his life in the shadow of his cousin, John Adams. And while Samuel Adams rose to

A native of Massachusetts like his Adams’ brethren, Samuel Adams was born in his family’s home on Purchase Street in Boston on 27 September 1722, the son of Samuel Adams and his wife Mary (née Fifield) Adams. Historian George A. Simmons wrote in 1877, “His father was a man of good social and political standing, universally esteemed and respected; his mother, a woman of rare piety and dignity.” [1] Historian James K. Hosmer also wrote in 1877, “The progenitor in America of the Adams family, so numerous and famous, was Henry Adams, who, with a family of eight children, settled at an early period near Mount Wollaston in Quincy. The inscription on his tombstone, written by President John Adams, describes him as having come from Devonshire, in England. English families of the name trace their descent from a remote Welsh ancestor; there is a possibility, therefore, of a mixture of Celtic blood in the stock.” [2] Of Mary Adams, historian Ira Stoll stated, “Samuel Adams’ mother, Mary, is described by one Adams biographer as a woman ‘of severe religious principles.’ Beyond that Mary Adams suffered the loss of nine of her twelve children, little is known of her.” [3] The elder Samuel Adams was a large landowner and investor in buildings and real estate in the Massachusetts Colony, as well as operating his own brewery. He was also elected to several colonial offices, including as a selectman and a member of the Massachusetts Provincial Assembly. His son, the subject of this biography, was slated to enter the ministry, and he was trained for location when he was sent to study at Harvard College (now Harvard University). He graduated from that institution in 1740; three years later he received a master’s degree in theology. However, that appears to be the last time that Adams contemplated a life in the ministry. He never lost his ties to religion, later writing in a letter that he could “dwell on the Importance of Piety & Religion, of Industry & Frugality, of Prudence, Economy, Regularity & an even Government, all which are essential to

Samuel Adams (1722–1803)13 the Well being of a Family.” [4] Unable to find a vocation, Adams studied the law for a short time before going to work as a clerk in the counting house of one Thomas Cushing. Adams finally relented and joined his family brewing business, where he worked from 1756 to 1760. He also worked as a tax collector. In the 1740s, family matters clashed with the political arena. The elder Adams was the owner and director of a large land bank that gave out loans for land and building purchases in Massachusetts. However, in an effort to force potential landowners to get their money from England rather than from colonial banks, in 1741, after years of restrictions imposed by London on all colonial currency, Britain banned the issuance of all paper money by the colonies. When the elder Adams joined with a group of merchants to issue their own currency, the royal governor, Jonathan Belcher, opposed the plan and, to strike back at Adams, fired him from his position as a justice of the peace. A new royal governor, William Shirley, also opposed Adams, and when the colonial legislature named the elder Adams for a seat on the Governor’s Council, an advisory body, in 1746, Shirley vetoed the move. By this time, however, Shirley, his entire administration, as well as British rule, were growing more and more unpopular in Massachusetts. Desiring to enter the political realm, the younger Adams was elected by the Boston Town Meeting in March 1747 as a clerk of the town market. At the same time, Adams joined with several friends to found The Independent Advertiser, a journal that opposed the Shirley administration, with Adams serving as editor. The first issue appeared in January 1748 and remained as a weekly until it went out of business in 1750. Both Adams’ were thorns in the side of the royal government. Governor Shirley later wrote in a letter asking “where the Devil this brace of Adamses come from.” [5] The elder Adams, perhaps from the effects of fighting to stave off the collapse of his family’s assets from British rule, died on 8 March 1748, two months shy of his fiftieth birthday. Although there is no evidence that his son wrote his eulogy, The Independent Advertiser wrote that he was “one who well understood and rightly pursued the Civil and Religious Interests of this People.” It called him “a true New-England Man” and “an Honest Patriot.” [6]

The death of his father gave Samuel Adams a new impetus. He had come to believe that the British administration in the colonies was corrupt, incompetent, and unjust, and he set out to find ways to chip away at the power of the colonial government. In 1749 he married Elizabeth Checkley; the couple would have two children prior to her death in 1757. In 1764, Adams married Elizabeth Wells, but they had no children together. In 1765, Adams was elected as a member of the Massachusetts General Court, the lower house of the Massachusetts colonial legislature, to fill the vacancy left by the death of Oxenbridge Thacher. Adams served there until 1774; in 1766, when he was reelected, the General Court named him as the clerk of that body. Adams took a leading role in opposing the harsh economic and other matters enacted by the British Parliament in London against the colonies. When Governor Francis Bernard supported these measures, Adams delivered a speech in the General Court giving his views on these subjects. He said: Furthermore, your Excellency tells us that the right of the Parliament to make laws for the American Colonies remains indisputable in Westminster. Without contending this point, we beg leave just to observe that the charter of this Province invests the General Assembly with the power of making laws for its internal government and taxation; and that this charter has never yet been forfeited. The Parliament has a right to make all laws within the limits of their own Constitution. Among these, is the right of representation in the same body which exercises the power of taxation. There is a necessity that the subjects of America should exercise this power within themselves, otherwise they can have no share in that most essential right, for they are not represented in Parliament, and indeed we think it impracticable. Your Excellency’s assertion leads us to think that of a different mind with regard to this very material point, and that you suppose we are represented; but the sense of the nation itself seems always to have been otherwise. The right of the Colonies to make their own laws and tax themselves has been never, that we know of, questioned; but has been constantly recognized by the King and Parliament. The very supposition that the Parliament, though the supreme power over the subjects of Britain universally, should yet conceive of a despotic power within themselves, would be most

14

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

disrespectful; and we have it to your Excellency’s consideration, whether to suppose an indisputable rights in any government to tax the subjects without their consent, does not include the idea of such a power. [7]

in London. The letter outlined Parliament’s attempt to control the colonial legislatures and deny colonists their natural rights as British subjects. For Adams and the Assembly, Parliament expressed disdain for the colonial temperament.” [9] Adams’ letter appeared in The Boston Gazette and Country Journal for 4 April 1768. In the letter, Adams wrote:

The British—in London, as well as their representatives in the colonies—did not listen, or care to listen, to the concerns of the colonists. In 1764, the British Parliament passed the Sugar Act, a revision of the Sugar and Molasses Act of 1733. Also known as the American Revenue Act, this law enacted a tax in the colonies on sugar, wine, and other commodities. This was quickly followed a year later by the Stamp Act, also known as the Duties in American Colonies Act, which raised prices on all paper products utilized in the colonies: this included newspapers, paper for letter writing, ship and merchants’ bills of sale, and even playing cards. Instead of ameliorating the growing anger of the colonists, the acts pushed them even further towards a potential movement of independence from London—ideas which up until that time had been whispered only by those considered too radical in the colonies to be listened to. Samuel Adams was named as one of the leaders of a group called “The Sons of Liberty,” which would work to fight the oppressive laws. Samuel’s cousin John Adams wrote in his diary, “About this time I called upon my friend, Samuel Adams, and found him at his desk. He told me the town of Boston had employed him to draw instructions for their representatives; that he felt an ambition which was very apt to mislead a man; that of doing something extraordinary; and he wanted to consult a friend who might suggest some thoughts to his mind. I read his instructions, and showed him a copy of mine. I told him I thought his very well as far as they went, but he had not gone enough. Upon reading mine, he said he was of my opinion, and accordingly took into his some paragraphs from mine.” [8] In 1768, even after the Parliament repealed the harsh economic measures known as the Townshend Acts, Adams felt that the British government continued its policy of disrespect to its colonies and the colonists. Historian Michael P. Kane wrote, “Adams wrote to Dennis DeBerdt, the [Massachusetts] colony’s agent

Since the last sitting of the General Court, divers [various] Acts of Parliament relating to the Colonies have arrived here: And as the people of this Province had no share in the framing [of] those laws, in which they are so deeply interested, the House of Representatives [of the colony], who are constitutionally entrusted by them, as the guardians of their rights and liberties, have thought in their indispensable duty carefully to peruse them, and having so done, to point out such matters in them as appear which to be grievous to their constituents, & to seek redress. The fundamental rules of the constitution are the grand security of all British subjects, and it is a security which they are equally entitled to, in all parts of his Majesty’s extended dominions. The supreme legislature in every free state derives its power from the constitution, by the fundamental rules of which it is bounded and circumscribed. As a legislative power is essentially requisite, where any powers of government are exercised, it is conceived, the several legislative bodies in America were erected, because their existence, and the free exercise of their power within their several limits, are essentially important and necessary, to preserve to his Majesty’s subjects in America the advantages of the fundamental laws of the constitution. [10] Adams served in the various offices he held until June 1774, when the Massachusetts General Court elected him and five other men—his cousin, John Adams, James Bowdoin (who ultimately declined the honor), John Hancock, Thomas Cushing, and Robert Treat Paine—as delegates to the new Continental Congress, a body formed among the colonies to draft articles in protest of the harsh economic measures instituted by the British Parliament. Traveling to Philadelphia, at that time the economic center of the colonies, Adams soon became one of the leaders of that body. Historian Matthew Seccombe explained, “While the prestige of Massachusetts and the relative harmony in Congress were due mainly to this basis concensus [sic], clever

Samuel Adams (1722–1803)15 maneuvering played its part, and here Samuel Adams was at his best. Congress showed its colors at the start by assembling in Carpenters’ Hall, a whig stronghold, and choosing as [its] secretary Charles Thomson, ‘the Saml. Adams of Phyladelphia [sic].’ Two congressmen struck a discordant note, however, when they claimed that the religious diversity of the members would prevent them from conducting common prayers. Combining a plea for unity with a favor for his Anglican southern friends, Adams rose and said that ‘he was no Bigot, and could hear a Prayer from a Gentleman of Piety and Virtue, who was at the same Time a Friend to his Country.’” [11]

Members, added to the Necessity and Importance of their visiting their several Colonies and attending their respective Conventions, have induced them to make a Recess during the sultry Month of August. My Stay with you must be short, for I suppose the Congress will meet again early in September . . . [13]

Adams and his fellow Massachusetts delegates were considered to be traitors to the Crown as soon as London heard of their selection to the Continental Congress. A letter that appeared in The New-York Journal, written by the Earl of Dunmore stated:

Although he was now considered a traitor to his “country,” Adams seems to have also attracted some admirers in England. The Hibernian Magazine, a British publication, published in their edition of February 1776 a biography of Samuel Adams:

From unquestionable authority I learn, that about a fortnight ago, dispatches were sent from hence by a sloop of war to General [Thomas] Gage, containing, among other things, a royal Proclamation, declaring the inhabitants of Massachusetts Bay, and some others, in the different Colonies actual rebels; with a blank commission to try and execute such of them as he can get hold of; with this is sent a list of names, to be inserted in the commission as he made judge expedient. I do not know them all, but Messrs. Samuel Adams, John Adams, Robert Treat Payne [sic], and John Hancock, of Massachusetts Bay; John Dickenson, of Philadelphia; Peyton Randolph, of Virginia; and Henry Middletown, of South Carolina, are particularly named, with many others. This black list [sic], the General will, no doubt, keep to himself, and unfold it gradually, as he finds it convenient. [12]

Samuel Adams, Esq. is a gentleman who has made a great figure in America, and who has take so active a part in all her disputes with the mother-country, that he was joined Mr. [John] Hancock, in being the only persons refused pardon on returning to their duty to the British administration, in the proclamation issued last summer by general [Thomas] Gage. He is a man of fortune, a native of New England, about fifty-four years of age, and early inbibed [with] a love for constitutional liberty, which love he carried to a degree of enthusiasm, that would out permit him to be a silent spectator of the disputes which arose first about the stamp act, and since on the tea. He took every opportunity to warn his countrymen of the dangers arising to their liberties; and however some may think the question problematical, yet he always acted from principle, if he is evening [sic] mistaken, he has a just claim to the title of an honest man.” [15]

Despite being on this deadly blacklist, Adams attended the Continental Congress from its earliest days. Adams wrote to his wife, Elizabeth (whom he called Betsy), from Philadelphia on 30 July 1775 to tell her about the goings-on in the body: My dear Betsy[,] As I have no doubt but the Congress will adjourn in a few days, perhaps tomorrow, I do not expect to have another opportunity of writing to you before I set off for New England. The arduous Business that has been before the Congress and the close Application of the

Regarding the resolution that Adams mentions in this letter, historian Edmund Cody Burnett explains, “No record has been found showing in what connection this resolution was drawn up or whether it was ever actually proposed, but it is placed here as probably belonging to this period of protest and declaration.” [14]

Adams appeared before the Continental Congress on 1 August 1776 to deliver an oration on the role of religion in daily life. The speech was so well received that it was printed in pamphlet form. Adams rose before his fellow delegates and said: I would gladly have declin’d an honor to which I find myself unequal. I have not the Calmness and impartiality which the infinite importance of this occasion demands. I will out deny the Charge of

16

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

my Enemies that Resentment for the accumulated Injuries of our Country, and an Ardour for her Glory, riing [sic] to Enthusiasm, may deprive me of that accuracy of Judgment and expression which Men of cooler passions may possess. Let me beseech you to hear me with Caution; to examine without prejudice, and to correct the mistakes into which I may be hurried by my Zeal . . . [o]ur Fore-Fathers, consented to be subject to the Laws of Great-Britain. I will not at present dispute it nor mark our the limits and Conditions or their submission; but will it be denied that they contracted to pay obedience, and to be under the controul [sic] of Great Britain, because it appear’d to them most beneficial in their then present Circumstances and Situation? We, my Countrymen, have the same right to consult and provide for our happiness, which they had to promote theirs. If they had a view to posterity in their Contracts, it must have been to advance the felicity of their Descendents. If they err’d in their expectations and prospects, we can never be condemned for a Conduct which they would have recommended, had they foreseen our present condition. [16]

would hear the colonists’ cries and respond to them, with no necessity for a second meeting— Adams returned home to Massachusetts, where he was elected as a delegate to the Massachusetts Provincial Congress, a colonial body that would work on issues exclusive to that Massachusetts Bay. He ultimately returned to Philadelphia for the Second Continental Congress, serving as a colonist and British subject until 4 July 1776, when the Declaration of Independence was signed, forever breaking the ties between London and the colonies. Adams was a signatory to that document, and he penned, to friends, a series of letters detailing his thoughts on the signing of this historic document. To Joseph Hawley, his fellow Continental Congress delegate from Massachusetts, he wrote, “The Congress has at length declared the Colonies free and independent States. Upon this I congratulate you, for I know your heart has long been set upon it. Much I am afraid has been lost by delaying to take this decisive Step. It is my opinion that if it had been done Nine months ago we might have been justified in the Sight of God and Man, three Months ago.” [17] To delegate Richard Henry Lee, from Virginia, he penned, “Our Declaration of Independency has given Vigor to the Spirit of the People. . . . [A] Plan for Confederation has been brot [sic] into Congress wich [sic] I hope will be speedily digested and made ready to be laid before the several States for their approbation. A Committee has now under Consideration the Business of foreign Alliance.” [18] Finally, to James Warren, he stated, “Our Declaration of Independence has already been attended with good Effects. It is fortunate beyond our Expectation to have the Voice of every Colony in favor of so important a Question.” [19]

During the First Continental Congress, Adams served on a committee which, as his speech above illustrates, served to publish the documentation on the rights of all of the colonies and their inhabitants. At the same time, this committee also demanded of London, prior to the start of the shooting war that opened up into the American Revolution, that they have the same rights as British subjects as those people who lived in England. He wholeheartedly supported his colony when they passed the so-called “Suffolk Resolves,” a series of resolutions by the city of Boston and other towns in Suffolk County in Massachusetts, which called for total disobedience and opposition to the harsh economic measures enacted by the British Parliament against the colonies, particularly Massachusetts Bay. Adams was one of its supporters when it was introduced in the Continental Congress, to be passed as a “national” law. When fellow delegates Joseph Galloway of Pennsylvania introduced a resolution which would have conceded that colonial rights were to be superseded by the Parliament, Adams was one of the most outspoken in opposition. When that First Continental Congress dissolved in October 1775—the hope was that London

Adams also seems to have escaped the clutches of British General Thomas Gage, with his “list” of traitors, who apparently crossed Adams and John Hancock off as he feared that their capture would ultimately result in bloodshed by civilians against British troops who occupied, at differing periods, Boston and New York. Gage also might have considered that he could possibly deal with Adams if the British needed a leader trusted by the colonists to speak to. Such a need never arose, however. In that Second Continental Congress, Adams served

Samuel Adams (1722–1803)17 on the Board of War and Ordinance, which oversaw the management and supply as well as other matters in the Continental Army. [20] He remained in the Second Continental Congress until 1781, when he refused additional terms and returned home to Massachusetts. Despite swearing off any further elective office, as soon as he returned home Adams was elected to a seat in the Massachusetts state Senate, and, in that body, he was elected as its president. In 1788, following the writing of a new Federal Constitution for the new national government, Adams served as a member of the Massachusetts state constitutional convention, which ultimately ratified the document. Under the new Constitution, national elections for the new US House of Representatives and US Senate were held that same year; Adams ran for a House seat, but lost to Fisher James, who later served in the US Senate. In 1789, however, Adams was elected as the lieutenant governor of Massachusetts, under Governor John Hancock, replacing Lieutenant Governor Benjamin Lincoln, who retired after one term. Adams served in the second position in state government until 1793, when Hancock died, and Adams served as the interim governor. The following year, he was elected to a term of his own, and he remained in office until January 1797, when he retired. Samuel Adams died at his home in Boston on 2 October 1803, a little more than a week after his 79th birthday. He was laid to rest in a simple grave in Boston’s famed Granary burial ground, not far in the same cemetery where the five victims of the Boston Massacre are laid to rest as well. His second wife, Elizabeth Welles Adams, survived him by five years. The Boston Commercial Gazette said of the deceased patriot, “[y]esterday morning, between the hours of 8 and 9, the Death of the Hon. Samuel Adams, Esq. late Governor of this Commonwealth, was announced to the inhabitants, by the toling of all the bells in town. Mr. Adams long a valetudinarian [defined as “a person unduly anxious about their health”]; [he] had experienced much of the indisposition and bodily pain, natural to the infirmity of age—He had reached his 82d year.” [21] The Charleston Courier of South Carolina noted, “Mr. [John] Randolph [of Virginia], in his

introductory remarks to a resolution that the members of the House of Representatives of the United States should wear crape on the left arm for one month, in consequence of the decease of the late patriot, Samuel Adams, observed, that the latter ‘made an early and decided stand against British encroachment, while souls more timid, were trimbling [sic] and irresolute.’ From the attachment of Mr. Randolph to ‘the greatest Man in America,’ there is no reason to conclude that any sarcasm was levelled at living patriots, in his remarks.” [22] In a eulogy, the Republican Farmer of Danbury, Connecticut, said, “He lived to see his enemies confounded, his political principles triumphant, and his most fervent wishes accomplished. His name and his virtue will be revered by a greatful posterity, when the ephemeral politicians of the present day, who have rudely assailed his character and his theory, shall be remembered only in the remembrance of their vices. His glory shall ‘flourish in immortal youth,’ when their ashes shall be scattered by the wind of Heaven, and their names shall have perished from the face of the Earth!” [23] In addition to Samuel Adams being remembered because a best selling beer bears his name, he deserves attention for his career in politics, his service to his nation in time of peace and war, his writings, and his speeches. He is overshadowed by his much more famous cousin, John Adams, who rose to become president of the United States. Historian Pauline Maier wrote, “When John Adams reflected on how future historians would remember his cousin Samuel, he was filled with forebodings. Samuel Adams’s character ‘will never accurately be known to posterity,’ he wrote, ‘as it was never sufficiently known to its own age.’ And on October 3, 1803, the day after Samuel Adams’s death, a Salem clergyman confided very similar observations to his diary. Adams seemed to have ‘an impenetrable secrecy,’ the Reverend William Bentley claimed; he was ‘feared by his enemies’ yet remained ‘too secret to be loved by his friends.’” [24]

[1] Simmons, George A., “Samuel Adams,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, I:1 (1877), 439.

18

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

[2] Hosmer, James K., “American Statesmen: Samuel Adams” (Boston and New York: Houghton Mifflin and Company, 1887), 13-14. [3] Stoll, Ira, “Samuel Adams: A Life” (New York: The Free Press, 2008), 16. [4] Samuel Adams to Thomas Wells, 22 November 1780, in Harry Alonzo Cushing, ed., “The Writings of Samuel Adams” (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons; four volumes, 1904-08), IV:225. [5] Miller, John C., “Sam Adams: Pioneer in Propaganda” (Stanford, CA: Stanford University President, 1916), 88. [6] Alexander, John K., “Samuel Adams: America’s Revolutionary Politician” (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2002), 9. [7] Wells, William V., “The Life and Public Services of Samuel Adams, Being a Narrative of His Acts and Opinions, and of His Agency in Producing and Forwarding the American Revolution. With Extracts From His Correspondence, State Papers, and Political Essays” (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company; three volumes, 1865), I:73. [8] Adams, Charles Francis, “The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States: With a Life of the Author, Note and Illustrations” (Boston: Little, Brown and Company; two volumes, 1856), II:153-54. [9] Kane, Michael P., “Samuel Adams’s Resistance to British Authority 1764-1770” (Ph.D. dissertation, California State University, Dominguez Hills, 2012), 55. [10] “A Letter to Dennis DeBerdt, Esq; Agent for the House of Representatives, 12 January 1768,” in The Boston Gazette, and Country Journal [Boston, Massachusetts], 4 April 1768, 1. [11] Seccombe, Matthew, “From Revolution to Republic: The Later Political Career of Samuel Adams, 1774-1803” (Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University, 1978), 88. [12] “New-York, April 13. The following Letter came from the Earl of Dunmore[,] Capt. Lawrence, just arrived from London,” The New-York Journal; or, The General Advertiser, 13 April 1775, 3. [13] Adams to Elizabeth Adams, 30 July 1775, in Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), I:184. [14] Ibid., I:184. [15] “Some Account of Samuel Adams, Esq.; One of the Delegates from the Province of Massachusett’s Bay to the General Continental Congress of North-America,” The Hibernian Magazine: Or, Compendium of Entertaining Knowledge, VI (February 1776), 73. [16] Adams, Samuel, “An Oration, Delivered at the State-House, in Philadelphia, to A Very Numerous Audience; on Thursday the 1st of August, 1776; By Samuel Adams, Member of the General Congress of The United States of America” (Philadelphia: RePrinted by J. Exshaw, Dame-Street, 1776), 5-6, 11-12. [17] Adams to Joseph Hawley, 9 July 1776, in Harry Alonzo Cushing, ed., “The Writings of Samuel Adams” (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons; four volumes, 1904-08), III:294-95. [18] Adams to Richard Henry Lee, 15 July 1776, in ibid., I:296-97. [19] Adams to James Warren, 16 July 1776, in ibid., III:299-300. [20] See Horgan, Lucille E., “Forged in War: The Continental Congress and the Origin of Military” (Westport, CT: Greenwood Publishing Group, 2002). [21] Boston Commercial Gazette, 3 October 1803, 2. [22] Untitled editorial in the Charleston Courier, as quoted in the Gazette of the United States, 22 November 1803, 1. [23] “From the National Ægis. Samuel Adams!,” The Republican Farmer [Danbury, CT], 14 December 1803, 2. [24] Maier, Pauline, “Coming to Terms with Samuel Adams,” The American Historical Review, LXXXI:1 (February 1976), 12.

Thomas Adams (1730–1788)

Thomas Adams, a signer of the Articles of Confederation, was born in New Kent County, Virginia, sometime in 1730. According to several sources, his parents were Ebenezer Adams and Tabitha (née Cocke) Adams, and he was the grandson of Richard Adams, of Abridge, County Essex, England, a tailor and leading merchant of London. [1] According to his official congressional biography, Adams attended the common school—the name for local nonurban institutions of learning at that time; although if he received any higher education, it is unknown. [2] Adams also served as the clerk of Henrico County, Virginia. In 1762, Adams traveled to England, where, according to his congressional biography, he had “extensive business interests there,” and he remained there until 1774, just prior to the outbreak of the American Revolution. [3] As the colonies stirred up in opposition to harsh economic and other measures pushed by the English Parliament, Adams sided with his fellow colonists. Just after his return to his native land, he was elected as a delegate to the Virginia House

Robert Alexander (c. 1740–1805)19 of Burgesses, at that time the legislative body in that colony. As a delegate, Adams signed the Articles of Association (27 May 1774), which was signed by 89 members of the House of Burgesses in a fit of protest after the colonial governor, John Murray, the Earl of Dunmore, dissolved the body. Adams then served as the chairman of the New Kent County Committee of Safety in 1774.

[2] Adams’ biography, courtesy of The Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, online at ttp://bioguide.congress. gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=A000049. [3] Ibid. [4] Adams’ information in Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), III:lxi.

In 1778, Adams was elected as a delegate in the Continental Congress, where he served in 1778 and 1779. Historian Edmund Cody Burnett writes that Adams was elected on 9 December 1777, following the resignation of delegate Joseph Jones. He ultimately was reelected on 29 May 1778, serving from 16 April to 28 August 1778. Burnett states that “Adams’ earlier credentials are not mentioned in the Journals [of the Continental Congress], neither are they found among the Virginia credentials in the Library of Congress.” He adds that during his tenure in the Continental Congress, “Adams did not vote [on] May 19 and 23, and there is no other record of him after May 15 until June 11. His absence may not[,] however[,] have been so extensive. The Journals record ‘Mr. T. Adams’ as having been appointed on a committee Dec. 17 but this was doubtless Samuel Adams, as there is no indication that Thomas Adams was in Congress at that time.” [4]

Robert Alexander (c. 1740–1805)

Adams signed the Articles of Confederation in 1778; two years later, he moved to Augusta County, Virginia. His public service continued here: he served as a member of the Virginia state Senate from 1783 to 1786. It appears that he retired from public duty following this service, settling on his estate, “Cowpasture,” in Augusta County. Adams died there in August 1788, either age 57 or 58. And while his name is on important colonial and state documents in Virginia, as well as on the list of delegates to the Continental Congress and the Articles of Confederation, few details of his life appear to have been retained by history. Almost none of his letters survive; the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia, has nine letters involving Adams, but mostly dealing with his family’s burial yard in Virginia as well as his genealogy.

[1] “Adams, Thomas” in Lyon Gardiner Tyler, ed., “Encyclopedia of Virginia Biography” (New York: Lewis Historical Publishing Company; five volumes, 1915), II:3.

One of the many members of the Continental Congress who later turned against their colonial brethren and became “Loyalists,” still subservient to the Crown, Robert Alexander was a longstanding member of the Maryland community from whence he came, serving his native colony in the Continental Congress in 1776. Perhaps it was the signing of the Declaration of Independence, making the break between the colonies and London permanent, that ultimately forced Alexander to flee to England, where he died in 1805, his properties in the United States confiscated. He was born on his family estate in Cecil County (now located in the city of Elkton), Maryland, about 1740—the exact date is unknown. He was the son of William Alexander and his wife, Araminta Herman (née Young) Alexander. An Anglican, Robert Alexander came from deep Scottish roots. According to his biographer and historian Janet Bassett Johnson, “Among the forebears of the Marylander who came to the

20

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

colony there was a Scotchman who bore the name, Robert Alexander. This elder Alexander may have been attracted to Maryland because here men and women had unusual opportunities for freedom of worship, political rights, and a chance to make a living. Yet, whatever may have been the motive for his coming to the New World, the record testified to his signal success: In the same year (1723) Robert Alexander, from Glasgow, Scotland, then a merchant of Annapolis, had lands in the same part of Cecil County, which in 1737 he left to his cousin William Alexander of Scotland.” [1]

the Convention, We made Application to Congress to grant permission to consume the Tea imported before the 1st of Feby last. The Application was referred to a Committee of the whole House, where the Subject was debated for two Days, and overruled by a Majority 7 Colonies to 5, the last N. York, Jersey, Penna. Delaware and Maryland, and a Report made by the Chairman, that it was inexpedient to alter the Association. this Report now lies on the Table.

Alexander studied the law, and was admitted to the Maryland colonial bar, afterwards opening a law practice. He did not stay in the law for long; instead, he entered politics and, in 1774, he was elected to a seat in the Provincial Convention of Maryland, serving in the sessions of 1774, 1775, and 1776. In 1775, he served as the secretary of the Baltimore Committee of Observation, and as a member of the colonial Council of Safety. When the revolutionary war broke out, he entered the Baltimore militia, on 6 June 1776, commissioned with the rank of first lieutenant. [2] Alexander married Isabella Lawson, and together, the couple had six children. Alexander was one of the earliest members of the Continental Congress. According to the official records of the state of Maryland, he was elected on 9 December 1775 to that body, and then reelected on 21 May 1776. He ultimately attended sessions from 3 January to 15 May 1776; historian Edmund Cody Burnett writes that “Alexander may have been absent for a few days in the early part of March (he was present Feb. 27, Mar. 9, 19). After the withdrawal of the Maryland delegates [on] 15 May, there is no record of Alexander’s return. [3] Only a few pieces of correspondence from Alexander survive. In a letter to the Maryland Council of Safety, dated 30 January 1776, Alexander wrote: You have inclosed two Resolutions of Congress one respecting the Collection of Gold and Silver for the Pay of the Troops in Canada, the other on the Case of Mr. Juge, referred to Congress by the Convention of your Province. In Consequence of the Resolve of

The Instructions of the Convention are come to Hand, but not as yet laid before Congress. I am much pleased with them, they intirely coincide with my Judgment and that Line of Conduct which I had determined to persue. The Farmer’ and some others to whom in Confidence they wvere [sic] shown, say they breath that Spirit, which ought to govern all publick Bodies, Firmness tempered with Moderation. [4] In another letter to the same body, dated 16 February 1776, he wrote: I send you inclosed Copies of the Instructions and private Signals of the several Men of Warr and Transports on the American Station. As these may be of essential Service to the different armed Vessels now fitting out in America, Copies by order of Congress have been transmitted to the different Colonies, and I am ordered by Congress to acquaint you, that as they have bound themselves to Secresy, so it is expected that you will consider yourselves under the like Tie, and the Copy you deliver to the Capt. of your armed Vessel, be under Seal inclosed, to be opened after his sailing. [5] Finally, in a third letter to the Council of Safety, this one dated 27 February 1776, Alexander penned: Your Lr e [letter] by the Post is received, and on Application to Congress, they have ordered 22ooo Dollars equal to £8250 to be advanced, this money I shall receive and transmit you by the first safe Conveyance. [W]hat Measures Congress may pursue in Consequence of this Act, I know not with me every Idea of Reconciliation is precluded by the conduct of G. Britain, and the only Alternitave, absolute Slavery or Independancy. the latter I have often reprobated both in public and private, but am now almost convinced the Measure is right and can be justified by necessity . . . I make no doubt you have heard Mr Chase is ordered

Andrew Allen (1740–1825)21 to Canada. he sets off in a few Days. Mr Rogers has Leave of Absence. Should he leave Congress, Maryld will be without Representation. I mention this, to shew the Necessity of your requesting Messrs. Johnson and Stone to attend. I wrote Mr Tilghman, but have not any Answer; altho’ my private Business requires my Presence in Maryland, I shall not leave this City until a Suffit number of my Brethern arrive. [6] On 12 June 1776, the Maryland Council of Safety wrote to Alexander: Mr Purviance has just now informed us of your return to Balto Town, after your long absence from your family and friends, which as it must afford you and them great joy and satisfaction, we most sincerely congratulate you thereon. We have sometimes found much difficulty in transaction of business that originally had been under your direction, for the want of the contracts and other papers relative thereto, and we should be glad that you would transmit to us, as soon as you conveniently can, all the agreements and papers you have in your possession respecting the public, & which properly may come under the inspection and cognizance of our Board. We hope soon to hear of your being restored to perfect health. [7] Alexander remained loyal to the British Crown, even as the country he was born in, the United States, went to war against King George III, first to fight harsh economic measures passed by the British Parliament, and then for American independence. It was the latter move, the declaration of American independence, in July 1776, that pushed Alexander to side against the colonies. He joined the pro-British group known as the Associated Loyalists of America, hoping to preserve those rights for those who sided with the crown in America. Finding that he could not remain in his native land, in 1782 Alexander and his family fled to England and left his entire life behind, including his home and property in Maryland, which was later sold. Two years earlier, in 1780, a Maryland court had judged him to be guilty of high treason, and ordered that properties in his name should be confiscated. Once in England, Alexander was appointed as an agent for fellow Maryland loyalists to fight for their rights and try to get compensation for their claims against the American government. [8] According to the state of Maryland, Alexander

spent the remainder of his life in exile in England. He died in November 1805 in his flat in Norfolk Street, in the Strand, in London. His burial place remains unknown.

[1] Johnson, Janet Bassett, “Robert Alexander: Maryland Loyalist” (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1942), 3. [2] Alexander biography, courtesy of The Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, online at http://bioguide.congress. gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=A000101. [3] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), I:xlv. [4] Robert Alexander to the Maryland Council of Safety, 30 January 1770, in Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), I:334. [5] Ibid., I:352-53. [6] Ibid., I:366-67. [7] The Council of Safety to Robert Alexander, 12 June 1776 in William Hande Browne, ed., “Journal and Correspondence of the Maryland Council of Safety, August 29, 1775 to July 6, 1776” (Baltimore: Maryland State Archives; twelve volumes, 1892-97), XI:487. [8] “Alexander, Robert” in James Grant Wilson, ed., “Appletons’ Cyclopædia of American Biography” (New York: D. Appleton and Company; six volumes and four supplements, 1887 -1901), VII:5.

Andrew Allen (1740–1825)

The scion of a famed Philadelphia family, Andrew Allen rose to become a member of the Pennsylvania provincial assembly and the

22

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

colonial provincial council. He was appointed a colonial attorney general in 1765, a member of the Committee of Safety in Pennsylvania, and a member of the Continental Congress (1775, 1776). However, Allen later turned against the colonial cause when he fled to England, and, although he attempted to regain his confiscated land, he was denied, and he died in his adopted country, bitter and unknown in 1825. “He never returned to the land of his birth.”

university, Allen studied the law under his father (historian Charles P. Keith wrote in 1887 that Allen in fact studied under Benjamin Chew, one of the leading attorneys in the colonies at that time who, during this period, was serving as the attorney general of the Pennsylvania colony. [5] Allen then traveled to London, where he continued his legal studies at the Middle Temple, one of the legendary four Inns of Court of British legal studies located in London. He returned to Pennsylvania in 1765 and was admitted to the Pennsylvania bar on 20 April 1765.

He was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, in June 1740, the son and one of six children of William Allen (1704-1780), an attorney who was later to serve as chief justice of the colony of Pennsylvania (and become a leading Loyalist after the American Revolution began), and Margaret (née Hamilton) Allen. Ironically, as Edward De Lancey wrote in 1877, “No Pennsylvanian of his day stood higher in public esteem than William Allen, and no name is more intimately connected with the ‘Old State House,’ or Independence Hall, both in its origin, and in its history, and with Philadelphia itself, than his.” That Independence Hall should be identified with Allen, where his son and others met in the Continental Congress to plot the separation of the American colonies from England is of those amazing quirks of history. [2] Margaret Hamilton Allen was the daughter of Andrew Hamilton (1676-1741), the Scottishborn colonial attorney who rose to defend German publisher and printer John Peter Zenger’s right to publish articles and editorials criticizing the colonial governor in New York, winning Zenger’s acquittal in 1735, a case that laid the groundwork for freedom of the press in America. [3] When Hamilton died in 1741, his will, probated in Philadelphia, deeded land to his daughter, son-in-law, and, as specified to his grandson Andrew Allen, “the Lots lately purchased of John and William Bullock.” [4] Perhaps because of the status of William Allen, his son Andrew was able to attend the finest schools in the Pennsylvania colony. He attended the Academy and College of Philadelphia (now the University of Pennsylvania) from 1751 to 1759, graduating in the latter year with his brother James Allen as well as William Paca, who, like Andrew Allen, would serve in the Continental Congress After leaving the

Rising rapidly in the colonial government, Allen began his service as a member of the Provincial Assembly in 1765, later serving on the Provincial Council starting in 1768. He was named as the provincial attorney general in 1765 replacing his mentor, Benjamin Chew, upon Chew’s resignation. Over the next, he held a series of provincial postings, including service as a member of the Common Council of Philadelphia in 1768, remaining as colonial attorney general until the opening shots of the American Revolution. In 1774 the Provincial Council sent Allen and James Tilghman to Virginia, to ask that colony’s governor, John Murray, the 4th Earl of Dunmore, to ask the king of England, George III, to settle the boundaries between the to colonies. [6] Allen was elected to a seat in the Continental Congress on 4 November 1775, and, being close to Philadelphia, he was able to attend his first session on 6 November, holding the seat until about 20 May 1776. The Pennsylvania Gazette reported in its addition of 7 November 1775, “Last Saturday the Hon. Assembly elected the Delegates at the Continental Congress, for the ensuing year, viz. The Hon. John Morton (the Speaker) [,] John Dickinson, Robert Morris, Benjamin Franklin, Charles Humphreys, Edward Biddle, Thomas Willing, Andrew Allen, and James Wilson, Esqrs.” [7] Historian Edmund Cody Burnett wrote in his compilation of the letters to and from the members of the Continental Congress, published in eight volumes, “There is no record in the Journals of Allen’s attendance between Dec. 8, 1775, and Jan. 15, 1776, but that is not necessarily an indication that he was absent. As a member of the committee

Andrew Allen (1740–1825)23 sent to New York . . . he was absent from Jan. 26 to Feb. I, 1776. The last record of him in the Journals is Mar. 25, 1776, but he was probably in attendance until about May 20, when he attended the Pennsylvania assembly, of which he was a member . . . Allen was paid June 14, 1776, for his attendance at Congress £14o. The rate being 20 s. per diem, his credit for attendance was 14o days . . .” [8] Allen appears to have sided with the colonial cause as long as the colonies remained a part of Great Britain. The slow movement towards a declaration of independence from London, which gathered steam in early 1776, particularly in the Continental Congress, seems to have changed Allen. Historian Merrill Jensen wrote in 1968 that Allen inserted himself into local Philadelphia elections: Attention then turned to the election of 1 May [1776]. The Philadelphia committee prepared a slate of four candidates for the new seats awarded the city and so did ‘the moderates’ who wanted reconciliation with Britain. That the issue in the election was independence was understood by everyone. A South Carolina doctor noted soon after he arrived that “the body of the people were for independence. The proprietary, [Governor] John Penn, and most of the gentlemen of the city . . . were against it lest the form of government should be changed.” The opponents of independence turned out in force at the election and won a stunning victory. They captured three of the four new city seats with a ticket headed by Andrew Allen, an outspoken opponent of independence. [9] By the autumn of 1778, Allen had thrown his lot entirely in with the Loyalists against the colonists. After he traveled to New York to assist in that city’s defense against the troops led by General George Washington, Allen fled with the British forces when the Continental Army retook the city. Leaving his entire life behind, Allen sailed for Great Britain. He never returned to the land of his birth. In London, Allen was one of the signatories to a petition to King George III, which reads, in part: To the Right Honble Lord Geo. Germaine his Majestys Seettary [sic] of State for the American Department

My Lord We his Majesty’s most dutiful and Loyal Subjects, who from America have taken Refuge in Great Britain, being desirous in the Present critical Juncture of affairs, of contributing as far as lies in our Power to the Public Safety: beg leave, thro your Lordship to make an humble Tender of our Personal Services to his Majesty, in Case the daring Design of invading this Kingdom, should be carried into Execution. We ask no Reward for our Endeavours to be useful on this alarming occasion, but his Majesty’s approbation, which we hope we shall Merit; and we are Ready to be Employed in any Manner which his Majesty may think, will best Answer the Purposes of our Engagement. We have taken the Liberty to address ourselves to your Lordship on this Subject; and we entreat your Lordship to communicate to his Majesty our Desires to serve him and Readiness to Sacrifice our Lives in Defence of his Person and Government. [10] The Pennsylvania Assembly took the brutal step of declaring Allen a traitor to the Commonwealth, and confiscated all of his real estate holdings and bank accounts, as well as any property that was lodged in his name. In 1799, Allen sued the United States for confiscating his properties. Ironically, his case was heard in Philadelphia. Allen brought forth the lawsuit under the auspices of the sixth article of the Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation, signed between the United States and the United Kingdom in 1794. As part of his lawsuit, Allen stated, “That he is, and from his birth ever has been, a subject of the King of Great-Britain, and under the allegiance of the said King: That on the first day of March, in the year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and seventy eight, the Legislature of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania passed a law, whereby they attained him the said Andrew Allen of high treason against the said Commonwealth, for his adherence to his said Majesty, and confiscated and forfeited to the use of the said Commonwealth, under certain terms, all the estate real and personal, of him the said Andrew Allen, within the said Commonwealth.” [11]

24

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

When the American courts found against him, Allen had no further recourse. Instead, the British government awarded him a pension of ₤400 per year. Allen died in London on 7 March 1825, at the age of 84. An announcement regarding his death in a New Hampshire paper, stated, “In London, Eng. March 7, Andrew Allen, Esq., aged 85 [sic]. Mr. A. was attorney general of Pennsylvania prior to the revolution, and [was the] son of a former Chief Justice of Pennsylvania.” [12] Allen’s place of burial is unknown.

John Alsop (1724–1794)

[1] Allen’s biography, courtesy of The Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, online at http://bioguide.congress. gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=A000113, merely mentions that he died in London in 1825, but does not state a place of burial. [2] De Lancey, Edward F., “Chief Justice William Allen,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, I:2 (1877), 202. [3] See “The Tryal of John Peter Zenger, of New-York, Printer, Who was Lately Try’d and Acquitted for Printing and Publishing a Libel against the Government. With the Pleadings and Arguments on Both Sides” (London: Printed for J. Wilford, behind the Chapter-House, St. Paul’s Church-Yard, 1738). [4] Withington, Lothrop, “Pennsylvania Gleanings in England,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, XXXII:2 (1908), 212. [5] Keith, Charles P., “Andrew Allen,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, X:4 (January 1887), 361. [6] For more on this mission, see “James Tilghman and Andrew Allen to Lord Dunmore” and “Lord Dunmore to James Tilghman and Andrew Allen,” in “The Olden Time; a Monthly Publication, Devoted to the Preservation of Documents and Other Authentic Information in Relation to the Early Explorations, and the Settlement and Improvement of the Country Around the Head of the Ohio,” I:11 (November 1846), 488-504. [7] “Philadelphia, November 7,” The Philadelphia Gazette, 7 November 1775, 511. [8] For information on Allen’s election to the Continental Congress and his subsequent service, see Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), I:lviii. [9] Jensen, Merrill, “The Founding of a Nation: A History of the American Revolution, 1763-1776” (London: Oxford University Press, 1968), 683. [10] “Petition of American Loyalists, 1778,” The William and Mary Quarterly, Second Series, I:1 (January 1921), 70-71. [11] “The Claim and Answer with the Subsequent Proceedings in the Case of Andrew Allen, Esquire, Against The United States. Under the Sixth Article of the Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation, Between His Britannic Majesty and the United States of America” (Philadelphia: Printed by James Humphreys, Opposite the Bank of the United States, 1799), 3-4. [12] “Deaths,” New-Hampshire Patriot & State Gazette [Concord, New Hampshire], 30 May 1825, 3.

Few delegates to the Continental Congress are as wholly unknown as is John Alsop, a delegate from New York who served in that body from 1774 to 1776. A merchant from New York, Alsop did not sign the Declaration of Independence because he felt that his commission from New York did not give him the proper authority to do so. He was born in New Windsor, in Orange County, New York, the son and eldest of two sons of John Alsop, Sr., an attorney, and his wife Abigail (née Sackett) Alsop. According to a genealogical record of the many families related to Alsop, “John Alsop [Sr.] . . . son of Captain Richard Alsop, who was said to be a lineal descendant of the Richard Alsop who was Lord Mayor of London in 1597.” Abigail Sackett Alsop was the daughter of Captain Joseph Sackett, who settled on what is now New York’s Long Island in the 1680s or 1690s. [1] The younger Alsop learned a trade as a merchant in New York City with his brother Richard, establishing a business that sold dry goods (various items of value to ordinary buyers) and cloth. John Alsop received his education apparently from what were called at the time “preparatory studies”—in short, studies in subjects deemed important at the time, such as history, literature, and languages such as French and German. However, there seems

John Alsop (1724–1794)25 to be no record of what Alsop studied, or if he received any further education other than this. [2] John Alsop was also involved in the colonial politics of New York City. Elected to a seat in the New York colonial legislature, he was of the leaders who called for a national meeting of delegates from all of the colonies to draft articles of disagreement that would be sent to King George III to demonstrate the anger of the colonies over a series of harsh economic policies enacted by the British Parliament. Despite the growing anger in New York, the Assembly could not agree to send delegates to what would become the Continental Congress instead, revolutionary committees in each county elected separate delegates. In 1774, Alsop, along with John Jay, Philip Livingston (who, ironically, was Alsop’s brother Richard’s business partner), James Duane, and Isaac Low were elected to represent the colony when the Continental Congress convened in Philadelphia. According to historian Edmund Burnett, “Alsop’s election in 1774 was by and for the city and county of New York, the election being approved at sundry dates by several other counties of the colony.” [3] However, Alsop could not join the entire New York delegation when it arrived in Philadelphia number 5 September 1774; instead, delegate John Jay presented Alsop’s credentials, along with the rest of the New York delegation, on that date, and Alsop did not arrive in Philadelphia until 14 September. Another source on Alsop’s service is the series “Letters of Delegates to Congress, 17741789.” It states that Alsop was first elected on 28 July 1774, attending sessions from 14 September to 26 October 1774; re-elected on 22 April 1775, he then served from 10 May to 17 July 1775. [4] However, we do know that Alsop served up until, and perhaps for a short time after, the signing of the Declaration of Independence in July 1776. Historian Brian N. Morton wrote in 1977: The Secret Committee of Congress was created on 18 September 1775 for the procurement of military supplies. Its first chairman was Thomas Willing, who was succeeded in December 1775 by his business partner, Robert Morris. Other original members were Franklin, Silas Deane, Robert R. Livingston, John Alsop, John Dickinson, Thomas McKean, John Langdon and Samuel Ward. The [sole] qualification to become a member was experience in foreign trade. This Committee is frequently confused with the

Committee of Secret Correspondence of which Robert Morris was also a member. It was this Committee which commissioned Franklin, Deane and Lee to be the American Commissioners in Paris. The affairs of the two committees frequently overlapped. On 17 April 1777, the Committee of Secret Correspondence was renamed the Committee of Foreign Affairs and is the forerunner of the State Department. In July 1777 the Secret Committee of Congress was renamed the Committee of Commerce, becoming today the Department of Commerce. [5] Despite his leadership position, there do not appear to be any major correspondence from Alsop regarding the Congress, or his work in that body. There are only a handful of notes about him in Philadelphia; one of these is from Thomas Wharton, writing to his brother, Samuel, on 6 May 1775; “By letter I received from J Alsop of the 3rd inst. I have the following intelligence[:] ‘Since Sunday week . . . There are 20 companies formed in this city who are daily learning the exercises, they may amount to about 2000 men; the same spirit I am told is diffusing itself through this and the neighboring provinces.—I was told by a person of good judgment that he believed there were upwards of 70,000 men on the continent now learning the use of arms.— [John] Hancock and [John] Adams are just arrived to attend the Continental Congress.’” [6] And while there is little evidence of Alsop’s work in the Continental Congress, a document in the “Secret Journal” of that body, dated 27 July 1775, states: On motion, Resolved, That the sum of twenty-five thousand dollars be paid by the continental treasurers to Reese Meredith, George Clymer, Samuel Meredith, and Samuel Mifflin, merchants, of the city of Philadelphia; and that the like sum of twenty-five thousand dollars be paid by the said treasurers to Philip Livingston, John Alsop, and Francis Lewis, merchants, of New York, to be by them applied to the purpose of importing gunpowder for the continental armies; and that they be allowed out of the same five per cent, for their trouble and expenses therein: That they keep all their proceedings, as much as possible, a secret from every other person, but the Congress, and the general of the continental forces for the time being: That they keep up a correspondence

26

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

with the said general; and make such dispositions of the powder they may import, as he shall order. [7]

British general Henry Clinton arrived aboard a frigate, accompanied by a troop transport. Lee promptly set the tone of his stay in New York. If the warships opened fire because of his presence in the city, he promised to use the first burning building as a funeral pile for one hundred Tories.)9 Townspeople immediately started a general evacuation of the city. Those who had money bought farms or houses in the country; many moved to nearby Jersey towns; the poor merely trudged out to await the outcome. Even John Alsop in Philadelphia, hearing some days later of the situation, asked McDougall to look after his house if he had time. The incident was merely a sample of things to come. Lee soon halted all communications with British ships, his troops fired upon suspicious colonial boats moving in the harbor, and Governor Tryon’s servant, ashore once a week with laundry, was seized and jailed. [9]

What little is known of Alsop’s work—albeit important service—was his time spent back in New York City as a leader of the so-called Committee of Sixty, leading city leaders, opposed to the harsh economic measures of the British colonial government, which later became, after the start of the shooting war of the American Revolution, as the provisional government of that city. And even though the agreements in the city to refuse to purchase British-made goods in New York ultimately harmed his own business, nevertheless he supported the agreements. Even though Alsop had served in the First Continental Congress, his service in the New York Provisional Congress, where he helped to raise funds to train and supply militia to defend the state from British invasion, ultimately led to his being elected to a seat as a delegate in the Second Continental Congress; his dates of service at that time are listed above. Of this second election, historian Carl Becker wrote in 1903, “The old city delegates were men of the highest 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.” The two exceptions, noted Becker, were delegates John Alsop and Isaac Low. [8] The onset of 1776 changed everything—for the colonies, for King George III, for British troops in the colonies trying to bring the rebellion under control, and, especially, for the Continental Congress. Historian Roger J. Champagne explained how the opening weeks of that year set the stage, especially for New York residents such as John Alsop: The worst fears of conservatives and moderates alike were realized on February 4 when General Lee entered New York City at the same time that visiting

The few sources on John Alsop’s life mention that he was invited to sign the Declaration of Independence in July 1776, but he refused—not because he didn’t want to sign, but because he felt that he had not received instructions from his constituents to commit himself, and themselves, to such an action without their consent and/or strict permission to do so. By the time he could write back to New York, the document was signed, and Alsop missed out in his place in history. In another rare piece of correspondence, Alsop sent a letter of resignation to the Continental Congress: Philadelphia, July 16, 1776. HONOURABLE GENTLEMEN: Yesterday our President read in Congress a resolve of your honourable body, dated the 9th instant, in which you declare New York a free and independent State. I can’t help saying that I was much surprised to find it come through that channel. The usual method hitherto practised has been for the Convention of each Colony to give their Delegates instructions to act and vote upon all and any important question. And from the last letter we were favoured with from your body, you told us that you were not competent or authorized to give us instructions on that grand question; nor have you been pleased to answer our letter of the 2d instant, any otherwise than by your said resolve transmitted to the President. I think we were entitled to an answer.

Benjamin Andrew (c. 1730–c. 1799)27 I am compelled, therefore, to declare, that it is against my judgment and inclination. As long as a door was left open for a reconciliation with Great Britain upon honourable and just terms, I was willing and ready to render my country all the service in my power, and for which purpose I was appointed and sent to this Congress; but as you have, I presume, by that declaration, closed the door of reconciliation, I must beg leave to resign my seat as a Delegate from New York, and that I may be favoured with an answer and my dismission [sic]. I have the honour to be, with esteem, gentlemen, your most obedient, humble servant, JOHN ALSOP [10] In discussing Alsop’s post-Continental Congress service, historian Carl Becker explained in 1903, “John Alsop . . . merely retired to Connecticut without taking any part in the contest after 1776.” [11] Alsop remained there until the end of the war in 1783. He had been one of the incorporators of the New York Hospital, and served as its governor from 1770 to 1784. He also served as a vestryman of the Trinity Church in lower Manhattan, in New York City. His daughter, Mary Alsop, married Rufus King of New York, who served as a US senator as well as the US minister to the Court of St. James, now better known as the US Ambassador to the United Kingdom. John Alsop died at his home in Newtown, in Queens County, New York, on 22 November 1794 at the age of 69 or 70. Few documents of Alsop’s survive, except for some scattered correspondence that he signed with others, such as a letter of the New York delegates “to the Chairman and Freeholders of Dutchess County,” New York. Delegate George Read, in a letter to his wife of 18 May 1775, wrote, “Our daily table is formed by the following persons, at present, to wit: Messrs. Randolph, Lee, Washington, and Harrison, of Virginia, Alsop of New York, Chase of Maryland, and Rodney and Read.” [12]

[1] “The Family Record. Devoted for 1897 to the Sackett, the Weygant and the Mapes Families, and to Ancestors of their intersecting Lines,” V (May 1897), 51. [2] Alsop biography, courtesy of The Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/ scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=A000164.

[3] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), lii. For the papers regarding Alsop’s election with the rest of the New York delegation, see Hubley, Bernard, “The History of the American Revolution: Including the Most Important Events and Resolutions of the Honourable Continental Congress During that Period and also, the Most Interesting Letters and Orders of His Excellency General George Washington, Commander-in-Chief of the American Forces” (Northumberland, PA: Printed for the Author, by Andrew Kennedy; two volumes, 1805), I:48. [4] Smith, Paul H., ed., “Letters of Delegates to Congress, 17741789” (Washington, DC: Library of Congress; 26 volumes, 19762000), Smith, Paul H., ed., “Letters of Delegates to Congress, 1774-1789” (Washington, DC: Library of Congress; 26 volumes, 1976-2000), I:xxix. [5] Morton, Brian N., “‘Roderigue Hortalez’ to the Secret Committee: An Unpublished French Policy Statement of 1777,” The French Review, L:6 (May 1977), 884. [6] Thomas Wharton to Samuel Wharton, 6 May 1775, in “Selections from the Letter-Books of Thomas Wharton, of Philadelphia, 1773-1783,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, XXXIV:1 (1910), 44-45. [7] “Secret Journals of the Acts and Proceedings of Congress, From the First Meeting Thereof to the Dissolution of the Confederation, by the Adoption of the Constitution of the United States” (Boston: Printed and Published by Thomas S. Wait; four volumes, 1821), I:23-24. [8] Becker, Carl, “Election of Delegates From New York to the Second Continental Congress,” The American Historical Review, IX:1 (October 1903), 75. [9] Champagne, Roger J., “New York’s Radicals and the Coming of Independence,” The Journal of American History, LI:1 (June 1964), 38. [10] “A Letter from John Alsop, Esq., dated the 16th instant, resigning his seat in the Continental, Congress, which had been received and read some days ago, was again read, and is in the words following, to wit,” in Peter Force, “American Archives: Consisting of a Collection of Authentick Records, State Papers, Debates, and Letters and Other Notices of Publick Affairs, the Whole Forming a Documentary History of the Origin and Progress of the North American Colonies; of the Causes and Accomplishment of the American Revolution; and of the Constitution of the Government of the United States, to the Final Ratification Thereof By Peter Force. Prepared and Published under Authority of an Act of Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by M. St. Clair Clarke and Peter Force; nine volumes, 1837-53), I:1428-29. [11] Becker, Carl, “The Nomination and Election of Delegates From New York to the First Continental Congress, 1774,” Political Science Quarterly, XVIII:1 (March 1903), 24. [12] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), I:192.

Benjamin Andrew (c. 1730–c. 1799) This son of Georgia, Benjamin Andrew, served for a short period (1780) as a delegate to the Continental Congress.

28

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

He was born in Dorchester, South Carolina, about 1730, the son of John Andrew. [1] Historian Charles C. Jones, Jr., writing in 1891, stated, “Andrew led the life of a planter. He came of that sturdy Puritan congregation which, abandoning England in 1630, after a residence of some sixty-five years in Massachusetts, removed to South Carolina and formed a settlement on the northeast bank of the Ashley River about eighteen miles above Charles Town. In 1754 Mr. Andrew, bringing his family with him, left Dorchester in South Carolina, and made a new home in the Midway District, subsequently constituting a part of St. John’s Parish in the Colony of Georgia. Here he became the owner of a swamp plantation and engaged in the cultivation of rice.” [2]

and until others shall be appointed.” Burnett adds that he “did not attend in 1780-81.” [3] However, there are no letters from or records of any portion of Andrew’s service in the Congress.

In 1754, when he was about 24 years old, Andrew moved to the colony of Georgia, where he purchased an estate in St. John’s Parish, now part of Liberty County, southeast of Savannah on the eastern coast of the state. When the American colonies struggled against harsh economic measures enacted in the British Parliament against the colonies, Andrew quickly sided with those who began to call for a break from the British Crown. When John Houstoun, a former member of the Continental Congress, was elected governor of Georgia in January 1778, the new state leader named Andrew as a member of the Governor’s Council, an advisory group; a year later, he was named president of the council. He served on the council during the administrations of Governors William Glascock, Seth John Cuthbert, and several others. In 1780, when the British were able to win some areas of Georgia, they reinstalled a royal regime in Savannah under James Wright, who had previously served as the royal governor from 1760 to 1776. When Wright declared all who had served in the government following his leaving as traitors, the name of Benjamin Andrew was included. The revolutionary government fled, but they were able to run a government covering the remainder of the state. Wright was later captured by the British and held until 1781. In 1780, Andrew was elected as a delegate to the Continental Congress. According to historian Edmund Cody Burnett, Andrew was elected on 11 January 1780 “during the ensuing year,

Following his service in the Continental Congress, Andrew returned to Georgia, where he served as an associate justice for Liberty County, for what his congressional biography states was “for several terms.” Andrew died in Liberty County. His burial place is unknown; however, his wife, Susanna Andrew, who died in 1762 (age unknown), is buried in the Midway cemetery in Midway, Liberty County, Georgia. No description of Andrew apparently survives; however, William Bartram, the scientist and traveler of the 18th century, visited and became friends with Andrew. Historian Francis Harper wrote in 1953, “While still in Georgia, Bartram had established cordial relations with two men besides McIntosh who became Revolutionary leaders in that colony: Benjamin Andrew and Jonathan Bryan. The former, he says, ‘received and entertained me in every respect, as a worthy gentleman could a stranger, that is, with hearty welcome, plain but plentiful board, free conversation and liberality of sentiment.’” [4]

[1] Official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide. congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=A000241. [2] “Benjamin Andrew” in Charles C. Jones, Jr., “Biographical sketches of the Delegates from Georgia to the Continental Congress” (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, 1891), 2-3. [3] See Andrew’s information in Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), V:lvi. [4] Harper, Francis, “William Bartram and the American Revolution,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, LXXXXVII:5 (30 October 1953), 574.

Annapolis State House While the seat of the federal government is now fixed in Washington, D.C., during the years that the Continental Congress operated, that body was forced to move its sessions several times to differing cities. One of those cities that held sessions was Annapolis, Maryland, with the meetings being held in the Annapolis State House. In 1783, the Continental Congress met

Annapolis State House29 for a short time in Princeton, New Jersey, but because of the war with Britain, which ended that year, the delegates had to move, allegedly to keep themselves safe, although that may not be completely true. For instance, Connecticut delegate Oliver Ellsworth, in a letter to Jonathan Trumbull, the governor of Connecticut, stated, “A very liberal offer is made by Maryland to induce Congress to fix its residence at Annapolis. One less so had before been made by the State of New York of the town of Kingstown. Which, or whether either of them, will be accepted is uncertain; tho’ it is generally agreed that Congress should remove to a place of less expense, less avocation and less influence than are to be expected in a commercial and opulent city.” [1] Pennsylvania delegate Richard Peters, in a letter to fellow Pennsylvania delegate Thomas FitzSimons, explained, “At this Time they suppose the Place each has in View will stand a Chance. All agree we cannot stay here and indeed that such a Place cannot accomodate us without the necessary Buildings are previously erected. This being the Case Annapolis is inviting because there are Buildings. Williamsburg has its Conveniencies on that Account and New York will be also open.” [2] A vote was taken on the move; according to delegate James McHenry, writing to William Paca, the governor of Maryland, “The Subject of temporary residence was next considered. Trenton was tried and lost, Ph’a was then put up and lost also. Annapolis had 62 votes. Congress adjourned.” [3] The Continental Congress opened its session in the Annapolis State House on 13 December 1783 because that was the first possible date on which a sufficient number of delegates could be assembled. On that date, according to the “Journals of the Continental Congress”: “A number of members met [November 26] according to adjournment, but there not being a sufficient number of states assembled to proceed to business, Congress was adjourned from day to day, till the present, when the following states and members appeared from: New Hampshire,  Mr. A[biel] Foster, Massachusetts  Mr. E[lbridge] Gerry,  Mr. S[amuel] Osgood,  Mr. G[eorge] Patridge,

Rhode Island,  Mr. W[illiam] Ellery,  Mr. D[avid] Howell, Pensylvania [sic],  Mr. T[homas] Mifflin,  Mr. C[adwalader] Morris, Delaware,  Mr. J[ames] Tilton,  Mr. E[leazer] McComb, Maryland,  Mr. J[ames] McHenry,  Mr. E[dward] Lloyd, Virginia,  Mr. T[homas] Jefferson  Mr. S[amuel] Hardy,  Mr. A[rthur] Lee,  Mr. J[ames] Monroe, North Carolina,  Mr. B[enjamin] Hawkins,  Mr. H[ugh] Williamson,  Mr. R[ichard] D[obbs] Spaight, South Carolina,  Mr. J[acob] Read. The delegates for Pensylvania [sic] and Maryland produced credentials, which were read.” [4] The Annapolis State House, now called the Maryland State House, is the oldest state capitol still in use by legislators, and is the only state house to be utilized as a national capital building, which it served as during the period when the Continental Congress sat there from 26 November 1783 to 19 August 1784. Originally built in 1772, it was completed seven years later mainly due to the fighting of the American Revolution. According to the history of the State House: When the Continental Congress came to Annapolis to meet in the Old Senate Chamber from November 1783—August 1784, they found a State House which was still unfinished. Although the Old Senate Chamber was complete, the roof was not and it had leaked during the last few winters, damaging the upstairs rooms. The dome—or cupola—atop the State House was variously described as inadequate, unimpressive, and too small for the building and, it, too, leaked. In order to rectify the situation, Joseph Clark, an Annapolis architect and builder, was asked to repair the roof and the dome. Clark first raised the pitch of

30

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

the roof to facilitate the runoff of water and covered it with cypress shingles. The crowning achievement of Clark’s work on the State House was, of course, the extraordinary dome which he designed and built. It is not known where Clark’s inspiration for the unusual design of the dome came from, but it is very similar to one in Karlsruhe, Germany called the Schlossturm. [5]

(which also included a drawing of the structure at that time), wrote of this building that housed the Continental Congress during the last months of the American Revolution:

During the nine months that the Continental Congress sat in Annapolis, two important events to the new nation happened here: on 23 December 1783, General George Washington resigned his commission as the commander-in-chief of the Continental Army, and, on 14 January 1784, the Continental Congress ratified the Treaty of Paris, which formally ended the war between the American colonies and Great Britain. Referring to the latter issue, Thomas Jefferson wrote to George Rogers Clark from Annapolis, “[T]he definitive treaty of peace is at length arrived, it is not altered from the preliminaries, the cession of the territory West of Ohio to the United states has been at length accepted by Congress, with some small alterations of the conditions. Congress have been lately agitated by questions where they should fix their residence. they first resolved on Trentown. the Southern states however contrived to get a vote that they would give half their time to Georgetown at the Falls of Patowmac. still we consider the matter as undecided between the Delaware and Patowmac. we urge the latter as the only point of union which can cement us to our Western friends when they shall be formed into separate states.” [6] Foreign affairs of the new nation were handled in Annapolis by the Department of Foreign Affairs, which had no sitting secretary. Instead, on 2 March 1784, the delegates of the Continental Congress elected Henry Remsen, Jr. (1762-1843), a financier and bank officer in New York City, as the undersecretary for foreign affairs to conduct the affairs of that department, which was merely an office in the better sense of the word. Remsen remained at the helm of the department until a new Secretary, John Jay of New York, was elected by the Continental Congress. (Remsen later served as the private secretary to Thomas Jefferson during the latter’s presidency.) In February 1789, The Columbian Magazine, in a major article on the Annapolis State House

This handsome edifice, which has been many years in erecting, and is not yet finished, is built chiefly of brick, and decorated in a style of great taste; but there is a disproportion between the dome and the body of the building which must hurt the eye of every spectator. This defect might be considerably lessened by adding a parapet wall, of a few feet in height, which would conceal the roof from the eye, and at the same time, extend the height of the walls, to the apparent diminution of that of the dome. The parapet wall might be pierced and ornamented so as to add symmetry, lightness and elegance to the whole. The rising ground, too, on which it stands, is happily calculated to aid the effect intended by the proposed addition: for a vertical cut might be made in the earth, at a proper distance from the structure, and drawn either around the whole, or along the front of it, so as to leave an handsome terrace when the outer part of the hill should be removed and made level with the streets. This terrace, ascended by a flight of steps, would give body to a edifice whose only conspicuous defect is the want of it, and which, if assisted by the additions proposed, would doubtless reflect honour on the skill of its ingenious architect, and do credit to the munificence of a sister state. [7] See also: Capitals of The Continental Congress

[1] Oliver Ellsworth to Jonathan Trumbull, 4 June 1783, in Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VII:180. [2] Richard Peters to Thomas FitzSimons, 26 July 1783, in ibid., VII:234. [3] James McHenry to William Paca, 11 October 1783, in ibid., VII:331. [4] Ford, Worthington Chauncey, et al., “Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789. Edited from the Original Records in the Library of Congress by Worthington Chauncey Ford, Chief, Division of Manuscripts” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; 34 volumes, 1904-37), XXV:809-10. [5] “History of the State House and Its Dome,” courtesy of The Maryland State House, online at http://msa.maryland.gov/msa/ mdstatehouse/html/story.html. [6] Thomas Jefferson to George Rogers Clark, 4 December 1783, in “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress,” VII:378. [7] “A Description of the STATE-HOUSE at Annapolis, the Capital of Maryland,” The Columbian Magazine (February 1789), 81.

John Armstrong, Sr. (1717–1795)31

John Armstrong, Sr. (1717–1795)

The roster of the Continental Congress boasts the names of two men who were named Armstrong— John Armstrong, Sr. and John Armstrong, Jr.—a father and a son who represented the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in that preFederal legislative body. The elder Armstrong was born in County Fermanagh, in Ulster, Ireland, in what is now Northern Ireland, on 13 October 1717. Nothing is known of his exact birthplace, his parents’ names (although there is specification that his father’s name may have been James), or his family background. [1] In an early biography from 1877, less than a century after his death, the author, William Darlington, wrote that Armstrong’s date of birth was 1720; however, Darlington does report that Armstrong emigrated to the colony of Pennsylvania “sometime between 1745 and 1748, and settled in the Kittatinny Valley, west of the Susquehannah River, then the frontier of the province.” [2] According to historian Carl Edward Skeen, a biographer of John Armstrong, Jr. and a chronicler of his service as secretary of war during the War of 1812, wrote that John Armstrong, Sr. and his wife Rebecca Lyon (née Armstrong) Armstrong, “both natives of Ireland, had emigrated to America between 1745 and 1748, and . . . [the elder Armstrong] had helped survey and lay out the town of Carlisle, Pennsylvania.

[He] participated in the French and Indian War, and won early fame as the ‘Hero of Kittanning’ for leading an expedition that destroyed a particularly troublesome Delaware village on the Allegheny River in September 1756.” [3] Rebecca Armstrong was the daughter of Archibald Armstrong. John Armstrong was trained in the art of surveying, and he made it his profession. Sometime during the 1740s he left his native land, never to return, and settled first in what is now Delaware before moving permanently to what is now Pennsylvania. There, he helped survey areas of that colony, laying out the plans for the town of Carlisle, and, eventually, major portions of what is now Cumberland County. At some point, he decided to get into politics; in 1749, he was elected to a seat in the Pennsylvania Assembly, representing York County. Two years later, he was elected to the same body to represent the newly formed Cumberland County. He then served in a series of appointed positions, including as a justice of the peace and as a magistrate or judge. In 1754, he was selected as a delegate for Pennsylvania in negotiating with the colony of Connecticut to move settlers from the latter colony to the former. By 1757, Armstrong had become a judge in the Court of Common Pleas, and, at a time when there were few courts in that area of Pennsylvania, Armstrong was basically the sole judicial authority for most of the area. He was respected nevertheless for his judicial temperament. A Presbyterian elder in his church, in 1773 Armstrong was one of the founding trustees that formed the educational institution, which later became Dickinson College. When John Dickinson, for whom the institution was named, could not serve as its president, it was Armstrong who served as the leader in his place. But, more than anything, Armstrong would earn his reputation as a soldier. The French and Indian War gave him the opportunity to serve his adopted nation. Serving at the side of British forces, Armstrong used his surveying skills to cut trails into the forests to open supply routes for British soldiers and goods. He also planned a series of forts that also aided the British cause. In 1756, Armstrong, as the commander of Pennsylvania provincial forces, led British and colonial troops against a tribe of Indians after the defeat of British

32

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

General Edward Braddock. This battle, coming at Kittanning, where a major force of Delaware Indians held control of the Allegheny River, led to the death of the leader of the Delawares, known as “Captain Jacobs.”

one of the letters, Armstrong relates to military operations and to his discussions with General George Washington. Armstrong wrote, “General Washington has to write [to the] Council, that the same number of Militia may be kept up throughout the Winter as we are at present in the Field, or as thro [sic] the course of the campaign. Of these with me, I look for a return this morning, but shall not detain the Express for it. I take the number to be about 1600, and with General Potter, yet in Chester, 4 or 5 hundred. Of these a considerable number look to be free in January.” [5]

Historian John S. Fisher wrote in 1927, “It is difficult for us to relate the scenes of one hundred and seventy years ago with the ceremonies of this occasion. Then, the wilderness, the trail, the rifle, the tomahawk, the scalping knife, the war whoop, the wild savagery: Now, the broad acres and lowing herds on yonder hills, this great Benjamin Franklin Highway running at our feet from sea to sea, the whirr and rush of passing vehicles, hose immense establishments and implements of modern industry, the hum and roar and rush of trade, yon high school and churches, these beautiful homes of comfort and convenience that surround us, and everywhere the visible signs and emblems of our marvelous civilization.” [4] The defeat at the hands of Armstrong’s force was so decisive and complete that it led to Jacobs’ successor, Teedyuscung, to sue for peace. And while Armstrong had been wounded in the battle, and had lost seventeen men, nevertheless he became an instant celebrity, branded as the “Hero of Kittanning.” Two years later, he led Pennsylvania forces in a full assault on Fort Duquesne, under the command of General John Forbes, and the combined group was able to retake the position. Continuing his military career, in 1763 Armstrong was called into action to put down the revolt known as Pontiac’s Rebellion. After his military career was finished, Armstrong returned to his home in Carlisle and became a respected elder and religious leader of his community. He would have remained retired had it not been for the start of the American Revolution. When the shooting war opened up between colonial and British forces, Armstrong once again took up arms, this time against troops from his native Ireland and Britain. He was commissioned as a brigadier general in 1776, and he served until 4 April 1777. For the remainder of the war, he served as a major general of the Pennsylvania state militia. A series of letters written by Armstrong to Thomas Wharton, the president of Pennsylvania, starting in December 1777, survive to this day. In

In 1779, Armstrong was elected as a delegate to the Continental Congress, representing Pennsylvania. With the Congress meeting in Philadelphia, Armstrong did not have to travel far to attend the congressional sessions. According to historian Edmund Cody Burnett, Armstrong was elected on 20 November 1778 to the Continental Congress, and was reelected on 12 November 1779, although his exact term was not specified, “but evidently for the ensuing year as was customary.” He attended sessions from 26 February 1779 to 14 October 1779. As Burnett noted, “Armstrong must have been absent for a week or ten days prior to 22 July. After his letter of 12 July, there is no record of his presence until the 22nd. He obtained leave of absence [on] 11 October, is last recorded as voting [on] 13 October, and his letter of 15 October indicate that he is leaving.” [6] According to his official congressional biography, Armstrong did indeed serve in the Continental Congress from February 1779 to August 1780. [7] Armstrong expressed his feelings for service in the Continental Congress in a letter he wrote to Horatio Gates: “The great depreciation of our Money is truly allarming, a subject that must again. be immediately taken up. That of the Army has also long called for farther consideration. These three topicks [sic] require equal dispatch, yet have their constant interruptions not only from the daily dispatches on one branch or another of the publick busines, but also from the spurious sources of Pride, Ambition or intrigue for one purpose or another, whereby annimositys, divisions and destruction of time must ensue— so that compared to Congress in it’s present attitude, I call the Army a Bed of ease, a Pillow of Down.” [8] Armstrong remained close with

John Armstrong, Jr. (1758–1843)33 General George Washington, writing to him on 10 May 1779: Necessarily as now you must be led to consider on the one hand, the various distributions of your Army, I mean the Seneca or Northern Expedition—some force at Fort Pitt, together with the representation of Governor Green on behalf of the Providence Plantations and adjacent Country which stands exposed to the contrasted force of the Enemy at Rhode Island—And on the other, the intelligence of Mr. Gerrard respecting the return of the Count De Estaing [sic] to our Coasts, with a resolution of this day, throwing into your hands entirely and afresh the military operations of the opening Campaign, to vary and even recind [sic] former determinations at pleasure, a step this however honorary and confidential it may be, that must in present Circumstances inevitably embarrassed y’r Excellency. [9] Following his congressional service, Armstrong returned home to Carlisle, where he spent the remainder of his life. He was a quiet but active supporter of the revision known as the US Constitution in 1787. His wife, Rebecca, passed away on 16 November 1797; Armstrong died at his home in Carlisle on 9 March 1795 at the age of 77. Both were buried in the Old Graveyard in Carlisle. The couple had two sons, of whom the most famous was John Armstrong (1758-1843), also known as John Armstrong, Jr., who, like his father, served as a delegate to the Continental Congress—as well as secretary of war in the administration President James Madison from 1813 to 1814.

[4] Fisher, John S., “Colonel John Armstrong’s Expedition against Kittanning,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, LI:1 (1927), 13-14. [5] Armstrong to Thomas Wharton, 22 December 1777, in “Letters of General John Armstrong to Thomas Wharton, President of Pennsylvania, 1777,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, XXXVIII:2 (1914), 206. [6] Refer to the information on Armstrong in Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), IV:lxi. [7] Armstrong congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=A000281. [8] Armstrong to Gates, 3 April 1779, in Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), IV:135. [9] Armstrong to Washington, 10 May 1779 in ibid., IV:204. [10] See the obituary for Armstrong in The American Minerva, and The New-York Evening Advertiser, 16 March 1795, 3. [11] A similar obituary appears in Gazette of the United States and Daily Evening Advertiser, 14 March 1795, 3.

John Armstrong, Jr. (1758–1843)

John Armstrong’s passing was barely noted in the nation’s newspapers. One, The American Minerva of New York, merely stated, “Died on Monday the 9th instant, Gen. JOHN ARMSTRONG, in an advanced age, being a resident in this town for many years past.” [10] Similar obituaries, barely taking notice of Armstrong’s long service to his adopted country, are to be found in many other newspapers. [11]

[1] Armstrong biography, courtesy of The Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, online at ttp://bioguide.congress. gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=A000281. [2] Darlington, William M., “Major-General John Armstrong,” Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, I:2 (1877): 183. [3] Skeen, Carl Edward, “John Armstrong and the Role of the Secretary of War in the War of 1812” (Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1966), 8.

Like his father, John Armstrong, Jr. served as a delegate to the Continental Congress. His father was a beloved military figure in Pennsylvania; the son, who would rise to serve as secretary of war in the administration of President James Madison, would be forced to resign in disgrace,

34

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

blamed for the debacle that led to the British invasion and ultimate burning of the nation’s capital, Washington, DC.

When the war ended and the American colonies were granted their full independence from England, Armstrong returned home to Pennsylvania, where he became the secretary of the Pennsylvania Supreme Executive Council, an advisory group that assisted in creating policy in the Commonwealth. (Armstrong’s official congressional biography states that he instead was elected as secretary of state for Pennsylvania.) [2] In this role he became involved in the Third Pennamite War in Pennsylvania. Also called the Yankee-Pennamite wars, they began in 1775 between settlers in the Wyoming Valley territory belonging to Pennsylvania who wanted to be part of Connecticut, and the Pennsylvania government. By 1784, two conflicts had taken place, and, in that year, a third broke out. As the Adjutant General of Pennsylvania, Armstrong led troops into the area to put down a rebellion. Armstrong’s harsh policy made a bad situation all that worse. Despite this (and the fact that the settlers later won their claims), Armstrong’s political career was not harmed. In 1786 he was named as a delegate to the Annapolis Convention, a parley that met in Annapolis, Maryland, in September 1786 to decide to hold a federal convention to reform the Articles of Confederation. Although Armstrong did not serve as a delegate to the eventual convention held in Philadelphia, which eventually drafted what became the US Constitution, he was elected to one of the last sessions of the now-antiquated Continental Congress, which would be superseded by the new US Congress as established under the Constitution. Historian Edmund Cody Burnett wrote of Armstrong’s service in the Continental Congress that he was elected on “March 24, 1787 (term not specified but presumably for the remainder of the federal year); Nov. 13, 1787 (presumably for the customary term “the ensuing year”); Nov. 14, 1788 (ibid.). Attended: Apr. 18 to Oct. 29, 1787. Jan. 21 to Feb. 29 (or later); July 28 to Aug. 13 (or later); Sept. 3-13 (or later), 1788. Did not attend in 1789. The autumnal elections in Pennsylvania were customarily for the ensuing year, although often not specified.” [3] Some correspondence from Armstrong to various members of the Continental Congress as well as to military figures during his service in the Continental Congress survives. On 20 April 1787, Armstrong wrote to fellow delegate William Irvine:

This John Armstrong, better known as “Junior,” was born in Carlisle, Pennsylvania, the town that his father, an Irish emigrant, helped to establish and survey, on 25 November 1758, the son of John Armstrong, better known as “Senior,” and his wife Rebecca, Lyon (née Armstrong) Armstrong, who may have been a cousin or other family member of her husband’s. From an early age, the junior Armstrong was in the shadow of his famous father, who earned a reputation as a strong military figure when he helped to win the battle of Kittanning during the French and Indian War, and, during the early years of the American Revolution, as a military leader in the Pennsylvania militia. The junior Armstrong attended the College of New Jersey (later Princeton University), but, after just two years, departed the school to join the Continental Army, then in the opening shots against the British who would fight for the next nine years to subdue the independence-minded American colonies. In the midst of this service, Armstrong was named as the aide-de-camp to Brigadier General Hugh Mercer as well as Major General Horatio Gates, and given the rank of major. Armstrong saw action at the battles of Trenton (1775), Princeton (1777), and at Saratoga (1777). [1] As one of the leaders of the American military, Armstrong took notice when a number of American troops came to him with grievances against the military, most importantly the lack of pay due to the soldiers. Attempting to get the Continental Congress to fix these problems, Armstrong anonymously sent a letter to Congress asking that that body respond to these arguments. The letter, which has become known through history as the “Newburgh Addresses,” was taken as a challenge to the authority of General George Washington as well as to the entire continental Army. When Armstrong’s authorship of the letter became known, he was accused of fomenting a conspiracy to take command of the Army. When Washington heard his reasoning for the letter, he realized that there was no conspiracy; however, the incident ultimately harmed Armstrong’s military career.

John Armstrong, Jr. (1758–1843)35 I’m glad to find you at Liberty to return, to your several questions on that point I answer-1st, that I am now the only Delegate from Pennsylvania, Meredith having gone home about a fortnight since. 2nd, We have now a prospect of very suddenly making a Congress. No adjournment can or will take place. ‘Tis held to be particularly necessary that we should remain together during the session of the Convention. An adjournment at the present moment would look illy and bear a construction which ought to be stifled or excluded. Viz: an abandonment of the government under its present shape, and 3, Abstractedly from these considerations, there is business of much moment to be done The requisitions, goverment of the Western Country etc. are hanging in the Air, and must drop entirely if not soon taken up and decided upon. These facts will no doubt determine you to come forward. The sooner perhaps the better, as it is not probable that our Philadelphia Colleagues will at this time feel themselves much disposed to leave home. [4] To General Horatio Gates (whom Armstrong called “My dear Gen[eral]”), he penned: There is no part of my conduct on which I would not wish your approbation and I have yet no reason to think the resignation of my judicial appointment an improper step. On the contrary I think with you it was right and that a little in Society is much more desireable than a great deal in a desert. The career however which the new Government opens I’m far from thinking flattering to men of any Age or character for though a friend and advocate of the system (as a step towards common sense and practicable Government) yet it falls so far short of what I know to be the situation and believe to be the character of this Country, that I despair at once of both the stability and convenience of the office. The fact is my dear Gen. that my creed as to popular Governments is evry much chang’d under a little experience of their operation-and I suspect that shape them as you will you must find them on experiment both foolish and feeble . . . [5] With his political service complete, Armstrong declined a post as one of three judges for the newly established Northwest Territory; instead, he married Alida Livingston, the daughter of Robert R. Livingston, a member of one of New York’s most important political families of that period. Perhaps due to the influence of his new in-laws, Armstrong moved with his new wife to a home in Dutchess County, New York, near what was called Lexington Manor.

Although it appeared that both his military and political careers were over, in 1800 Armstrong was elected to the US Senate to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of Senator John Laurance. The term, which Armstrong took up on 6 November 1800, ended on 3 March 1801; however, the New York state legislature, which at that time elected senators, elected Armstrong to a full term that lasted until he resigned on 5 February 1802, succeeded by DeWitt Clinton. When Clinton resigned on 4 November 1803 after he had been elected the mayor of New York City, Armstrong, ironically, was elected to replace him for the remainder of his term, which ended on 3 March 1807. Again, he was elected to fill a vacancy, this time caused by the resignation of Theodorus Bailey, serving from 25 February 1804 to 30 June 1804, when he resigned to serve as the US minister to France, where he was from 1804 to 1810. In 1806, he also served, for a short time, as the US minister to Spain. His time in Paris was difficult, to say the least. Historian A.J. Langguth explains, “As America’s minister to Paris . . . Armstrong recommended that the United States annex the Floridas, as well as Canada and Nova Scotia, by going to war against both France and England at the same time. His idea was dismissed as absurd, and yet some men were arguing that once Britain was defeated, France should be America’s next target.” [6] By the end of the first decade of the 19th century, years of commercial and other tension between the United States and Great Britain led to the outbreak of war between the two countries in 1812, a conflict known simply as the War of 1812. Despite his age, Armstrong was commissioned as a brigadier general in the US Army. He never saw action, however. Instead, in 1813, Armstrong was named to succeed William Eustis, who had resigned as secretary of war, by President James Madison. Armstrong ultimately served in Madison’s cabinet from 13 January 1813 until 27 September 1814. Under William Eustis, the War Department was largely blamed for a series of military mishaps that led to severe American losses in the war against England. Eustis became the scapegoat for all of the military’s problems, and he was quickly removed from office. In came John Armstrong, given a task which few men would be willing to take on. However, writes historian John R. Grodzinski, “[Armstrong] failed to provide sufficient leadership to overcome supply, financial, and personnel

36

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

problems of the department and the army. While making some reforms in the department he was not a good administrator. His overall performance must be judged as a failure.” [7]

[2] See “Armstrong, John, Jr.,” official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay. pl?index=A000282. [3] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VIII:xciv. [4] John Armstrong, Jr., to William Irvine, 20 June 1787, in ibid., VIII:612 [5] John Armstrong, Jr., to Horatio Gates, 30 May 1788, in ibid., VIII:742-44. [6] Langguth, A.J., “Union 1812: The Americans Who Fought the Second War of Independence” (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2006), 221. [7] Grodzinski, John R., “The War of 1812: An Annotated Bibliography” (New York: Routledge, 2008), 210. [8] Skeen, C. Edward, “John Armstrong and the Role of the Secretary of War in the War of 1812” (Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1966), 307. [9] For the correspondence, see “Record of Events,” The Monthly Recorder (June 1813), 207-20. [10] For the infighting in the cabinet, see Skeen, C. Edward, “Monroe and Armstrong: A Study in Political Rivalry.” New-York Historical Society Quarterly, LVII (April 1973), 121-47.

Edward Skeen, Armstrong’s main biographer, wrote in 1966, “John Armstrong entered the office of Secretary of War at a critical time. The 1812 campaign was miserably ineffective and reflected many of the difficulties which Armstrong had to surmount. Supply organization, hastily organized on the eve of war, was rudimentary. The regular army was far below authorized strength because of antiwar sentiment in some sections [of the country] and the preference of most Americans for the less rigorous militia service . . . Armstrong not only assumed the vast task of organizing the War Department, the supply departments, and the raising and equipping of the armies in the field, he also assumed the duty of planning strategy, communicating his plans to his commanders, and coordinating the movement of the armies in the field.” [8] Correspondence to Armstrong from commanders in the field demonstrate the continued failures of the entire American military structure. [9] At the same time, Armstrong was in a constant battle with Secretary of State James Monroe, which also contributed to the continued military disasters that befell the American army. [10] In short, it may be that no matter who had been placed in charge of the War Department, they would ultimately have failed. Armstrong merely got the blame for being there at the time. When the British invaded, and ultimately burned Washington, D.C. to the ground, Armstrong was blamed for the debacle, and he was forced out of this final office that he held. With his resignation from the cabinet, Armstrong returned to his home in New York, where, for the remainder of his life, he engaged in what one biography called “literary pursuits,” writing the multivolume work “Notices of the War of 1812” (New York: G. Dearborn; two volumes, 183640). Armstrong lived much longer than most of his contemporaries; he died in Red Hook, in Dutchess County, New York, on 1 April 1843 at the age of 84. He was buried with his wife’s family in Rhinebeck Cemetery, in Rhinebeck, New York.

[1] Skeen, C. Edward, “John Armstrong, Jr., 1758-1843: A Biography” (Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Press, 1981), 1-5.

Jonathan Arnold (1741–1793)

A  physician who represented his native Rhode Island in the Continental Congress, Jonathan  Arnold had a long and distinguished political career prior to, and after, his service in the  Continental Congress. The son of Josiah Arnold (1716-1747) and his wife Amy (née Phillips) Arnold, Jonathan Arnold was

Jonathan Arnold (1741–1793)37 born in Providence, in what was known at the time as the Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, on 3 December 1741. Nothing is known about his parents or where they came from, or what family they might have had. Jonathan Arnold had a very limited education; he attended an academy but did not go to university. Instead, he studied medicine and, after he became a doctor, he opened a practice in Providence. [1] Arnold would have probably remained as a country doctor had it not been for the onset of a fight between the American colonists and the English crown. Arnold was one of the earliest of supporters to the colonist cause, calling for opposition to a series of harsh economic measures passed against the colonies by the English Parliament. He volunteered for service in a grenadier company, which he commanded, and, as a member of the Rhode Island colonial Assembly, wrote a legal statute that repealed an earlier act forcing an oath of allegiance to the British crown. During the war between the colonies and Britain, Arnold served as the chief surgeon of the Revolutionary Hospital of Rhode Island. [2] In 1782, Arnold, a harsh critic of any attempts to reform the weak Articles of Confederation, was elected as a delegate from Rhode Island to the Continental Congress. According to historian Edmund Cody Burnett, Arnold was elected on 1 May 1782 “for One Year and until another should appear to take his seat.” Burnett notes that “Arnold arrived [on] Oct. 5 but did not take his seat until the 10th,” and ultimately served from 10 October 1782 until 31 December 1782. [3] Burnett’s date of Arnold’s arrival in Philadelphia by a letter sent by Arnold to William Greene, the governor of Rhode Island, dated 8 October 1782: “I have the honor to inform you that I arrived in this city the 5th Instant, since which Congress having been engaged on business by Committees, and interrupted by the City Election, I have not gained such acquaintance with the public measures now pursuing, as enables me to give useful information.” [4] A second letter, also to Governor Greene, complains of the alleged conduct of fellow Continental Congress member David Howell, also of Rhode Island: I have nothing more to communicate in respect to Public affairs but what the Extracts from the Journals of

Congress, and my Colleagues and my joint Letters will do. Yet I cannot refrain from troubling your Excellency, with a few observations upon the Conduct of Mr. Howell, since my Arrival in this City and which I believe, from various reasons, has been invariably the same ever since he had a seat in Congress. It appears to have been his first and only wish to serve his Country, generally, and especially his Constituents, with unshaken fidelity, he has had no separate interested views, to lead him from these Objects. He clearly understood the Force of the Articles of Confederation, and distinguished between the rights relinquished by the Separate States and those retained, and on this, appeared desirous to fix his decisions on such questions as were discussed. On other occasional and detached points, he ever showed a desire to [do] Justice, consistent with Honor and Economy, and judging that in many instances the gratuities and Salaries of the Civil Officers was beyond what the present Circumstances of the People could well bear he has missed no Proper Opportunity of speaking freely his opinion thereon, and to enforce the necessity of their Reduction. He has been Zealous and Active in endeavouring to obtain Justice in regard to the Western Territory, part of which is already Ceded. He has also exerted himself to obtain some effectual measures whereby the Public Accounts might be collected and settled, upon Constitutional principles and the Public Credit thereby restored, without the necessity of recurrence to measures unknown in and Contrary to such Principles. But I am sorry to say in this his exertions have hitherto proved fruitless. For his conduct in the preceding matters, he has been looked upon in an invidious light by those, whose principles and Conduct have been opposed to him. He has been treated with a Coldness and indifference, which must have been extremely mortifying to his feelings, and which to avoid, would have swerved from the Purpose, any one, not endowed with an uncommon share of Firmness. As he is soon to return, I have reason to expect that the inveterate enmity which his honest and patriotic Zeal in his countrys cause has Raised in the breasts of those to whom he has necessarily been opposed, will be exerted, and follow him to his home and that the most unremitted industry will be used to injure him in the State he has with so much integrity represented. My duty therefore to the State to prevent impositions upon them, and to him as a Colleague in whose confidence and friendship I have been singularly happy during my residence here, and with whom I have on most Occasions been united in sentiment, as

38

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

to public measures, oblige me unknown to him to give this public Testimony of his Conduct.

[4] Arnold to William Greene, 8 October 1782, in ibid., VI:498. [5] Arnold to William Greene, 6 December 1782, in ibid., VI:555-56. [6] Mays, Terry M., “Historical Dictionary of Revolutionary America” (Oxford, United Kingdom: Scarecrow Press, Inc., 2005), 16.

Hoping and trusting, while his principles and Conduct continue as at Present, he will have the love and esteem as well as the Approbation and Support of his Constituents, and be considered as he really is a very worthy and able defender of their Rights and liberties. [5]

Peleg Arnold (1751–1820)

Another letter of Arnold’s which survives, in the archives of the Rosenbach Museum & Library in Philadelphia, has Arnold writing to an unknown correspondent, 7 December 1782, complaining of the work in the Continental Congress, which “giv[es] a rather despondent account of the doings of Congress, complaining of high salaries paid officials and the non-payment of soldiers.” After completing his service in the Continental Congress, Arnold returned home. According to historian Terry Mays, “Arnold actively supported the admission of Vermont as a state in the Union, and later moved there.” [6] Arnold settled in the town of St. Johnsbury, Vermont, in 1787, where he spent the remainder of his life “engaged in agricultural pursuits.” He served as a member of the Vermont Governor’s Council, and was appointed a judge on the court of Orange County, Vermont, when he suddenly died in St. Johnsbury on 1 February 1793 at the age of 51. Arnold was buried in the Mount Pleasant Cemetery in St. Johnsbury, Vermont. His home in that town is marked by Arnold Park. Married three times (only his final wife, Cynthia Hastings Arnold Ladd, survived him and remarried after his death), he had at least five children, one of whom was Lemuel Hastings Arnold (1792-1852), who served as the governor of Rhode Island (183133), and he was the great-great-grandfather of Theodore Francis Green, who served as the governor of Vermont (1933-36) as well as serving that state in the US Senate (1937–61).

[1] See Arnold’s biography, courtesy of The Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, online at http:// bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=A000289. [2] Bellesiles, Michael, “Arnold, Jonathan” in John J. Duffy, Samuel B. Hand, and Ralph H. Orth, eds., “The Vermont Encyclopedia” (Lebanon, NH: University Press of New England, 2003), 42. [3] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VI:li.

A  delegate from “Rhode Island and Providence Plantations,” Peleg Arnold was an important  political figure in that colony prior to the outbreak of the American Revolution. He was  born in Smithfield, Rhode Island, on 10 June 1751, the son of Thomas Arnold and his wife Patience (née Cook) Arnold. Peleg Arnold’s great-grandfather, Richard Arnold (1641-1710) was born in Middlesex, Massachusetts, his father, Thomas Arnold having been born in Ilchester, Somerset, England, in 1589. Patience Cook Arnold, who had been born in Newport, Rhode Island, in 1720, her grandfather,—John Cook having lived in Portsmouth, Rhode Island, at the end of the 17th century. [1] Peleg Arnold attended the common schools of Smithfield—probably a locally-run academy or rural school, popular at that time—before he attended Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island. There, he studied the law, and was admitted to the bar, opening a practice of the law, presumably in Smithfield.

Peleg Arnold (1751–1820)39 In 1777, Arnold was elected as a deputy to the general assembly of Rhode Island, served from October 1777 to October 1778, and, later, when he was elected a second time to that body, he served from May 1782 to May 1783. During the Revolutionary War, Arnold served as a colonel in the Second Regiment of the Providence County Militia in 1780. This appears to be his only military service. [2] In 1787, Arnold was elected to a seat as a delegate in the Continental Congress. The NewHaven Gazette and the Connecticut Magazine stated in its edition of 11 May 1786, “At the General Election held at Newport Yesterday, the Gentlemen following were declared to be elected to the Offices prefixed to their respective Names, viz., Delegates to represent the State in Congress. Honourable JAMES M. VARNUM, Esq; 1st. NATHAN MILLER, Esq; 2d. GEORGE CHAMPLIN, Esq; 3d. PELEG ARNOLD, Esq; 4th.” [3] According to historian Edmund Cody Burnett, Arnold was elected as a delegate to the Continental Congress on 3 May 1786 “for One Year from the First Monday in November next,” and, ultimately reelected on 2 May 1787. He served from 9 April 1787 until 15 May 1787, then from 6 May to 7 August 1788, and, finally, from 8 September to 1 November 1788. Rhode Island had gone for a tremendous amount of time without a representative in the Continental Congress when delegates Peleg Arnold and Jonathan Hazard appeared in Philadelphia. Historian Edmund Cody Burnett explained, “The early days of May [1788], strange to tell, saw the beginning of a flood tide of members flowing over the doorsill of the Congress chamber. By the 2d of June there were actually eleven states in attendance, only Connecticut and Maryland being absent. Remarkably enough, Rhode Island had ceased for a brief space of time to sulk and had duly deposited her requisite two members, in the persons of Peleg Arnold and Jonathan Hazard.” [4] On 11 July, Arnold wrote to Welcome Arnold, Peleg Arnold’s father, “We have this Day Thirteen States on the Floor of Congress which has not been until the present case Since the year 1776.” He continued:

Ten States having Ratified the New Constitution, Congress are now Deliberating on the Time for the States to appoint Ellectors, to Choose a President, and when Proceedings Shall commince under said Constitution. In this Important Business from the perculiar Situation of our State the Delegation have Declined to act From the preasent appearance this is the Last year that Congress will assemble under the old Confediration; The time Reported by the Com’tee to assemble under the New Government is the first monday in February Next. That Question has not yet been Ditermin’d on; but I beleave it will not Exceed that Time. The information from this States Convention has generally Been that they would not addopt the New Constitution; But the Last Reports say that the Federal Party gain Strength and it is generally believed here that it will be addopted I presume the amendments by the Virginia Convention have had Considerable influence on the minds of the Members of this State Convention which has ocationed [sic] this change. [5] In another piece of correspondence, dated 20 October 1788, Arnold wrote to John Collins, the governor of Rhode Island: I have Inclosed herewith for the Information of your Excellency and the State the Journal of this year to the first Day of this Inst. The Secry. Informs that the part preceding this has been officially Transmitted. By the resolution of the 2oth Sept. you will find an Indent requisition on the States for the present year. I presume that Indents may be obtained on better Terms at this time then at a future time and that it will be for the Interest of the State to make timely Provesion to Discharge her Quota of Indent Requisitions. By the Resolution of the nine and thirteen Sept. Three Commissioners are appointed in pursuance of the Ordinance of May 7th, 1787, They being Empowered by Said ordinance to admit claims against the Union that are not supported by vouchers (as therein set forth) on principles of Equity and Justice. If the State have any such Claims, I suggest whether-it will not be Necessary to appoint some Person having good Information of the Nature of them to attend the Commissioners after they meet in order to State to them the Nature of all such Claims! As it will be but a short time befor a New form of government will take place in the United States, and as the State which I have the Honour to represent have not thought proper to adopt that Form of Government; I submit whether it is not Expedient for the State to take the Proposed Constitution under Consideration

40

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

and make their objections to the particular parts that are Incompatible to a good System of Government, and make Known to the States in the Union on what terms the State would Join them. This is a Subject on which I have Contemplated for a Considerable Time and it appears of such Importance as to require United wisdom and mature Deliberation to inable the State to pursue Prudent Measures.

an anti-Federalist, he was an unsuccessful candidate for election to a seat in the US House of Representatives. Two years later, when Rep. Benjamin Bourne of Rhode Island resigned his seat in the Congress, Arnold ran to succeed him, but was unsuccessful. Instead, however in 1795 he was named as the chief justice of the Supreme Court of Rhode Island, serving from June 1795 to June 1809, and again from May 1810 to May 1812. In 1803, Arnold served as the president of the Smithfield Union Rank; as well, in 1810 he served as the president of the Smithfield Academy. He was elected a third time as a deputy in the general assembly of Rhode Island, serving from October 18 17 to May 1819.

The Federal Lands in the Western Country which on principles of go[o]d Policy must be appropriated as a fund for sinking the National Debt, are selling and preparing for sale for that purpose. The Geographer is now in that Country Surveying, and measures have been taken to hold a gene’l Treaty with the Different Tribes of Indions inhabiting those Lands in order (if Possible) to Establish a perm[an]ent Peace and Extinguish their Claims to them. I am under the Necessity of Informing that my Situation renders it Expedient for the State to make further Provision for my support. Such Matters as are unfinish’d at the end of this Year, and others that concern the Union will be taken into Consideration by the Congress which are to assemble the first [M]onday in Novr. Next,.if it is the Desire of the hon’le [sic] assembly that I should represent the State the next year, I hope they will give Direction for one of my Colleagues to take his seat. [6] Arnold was reelected to the Continental Congress in 1788, in the final months of that body’s existence prior to the establishment of the new government under the US Constitution. As reported in The American Magazine in March 1788, “The General Assembly last night ordered the Hon. Peleg Arnold, and Jonathan J. Hazard, Esquires, two of our delegates to the Congress, to proceed is immediately to New-York, to take their seats in that Honorable Body. Our State is divided on the great question of the Constitution, as they were on the subject of paper money, with scarcely an exception.” [7] Following his service in the Continental Congress, Arnold returned home to Smithfield, Rhode Island, where he served for a time as the “keeper” of the “Peleg Arnold Tavern.” In 1790, however, he was elected as the assistant governor of Rhode Island, what we call today the lieutenant governor of a state. A strong advocate against slavery, in 1790 Arnold was an incorporator of the Providence Society for the Abolition of Slavery. In 1794, running as

Peleg Arnold died in Smithfield, Rhode Island, on 13 February 1820 at the age of 68. One newspaper noted, “In Smithfield (R.I.) on the 13th inst. the hon. Peleg Arnold, aged 68. He was a delegate from that state in the old Congress, had been frequently elected a member of the general assembly from Smithfield, and for many years sustained the office of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of Rhode-Island.” [8] Arnold was buried in the Union Cemetery in Union Village near Woonsocket, Rhode Island. He had married once, to Alpha Arnold (no apparent relation), and they remained married until her death in 1818. Arnold’s devotion to religion was reemphasized in 1896, when a new Baptist church was opened in the city of Pawtuxet, Rhode Island. A local magazine reported at the time, “The Pawtuxet Baptist church, Rev. N.J. Wheeler, acting pastor, had the pleasure, June 24th, of publicly dedicating their new and beautiful house of worship, that has been a year in building. It is 86 x 42 feet, of colonial design, with a tower about 100 feet high, and happily located on ground given for worship in 1764 by Peleg Arnold.” [9]

[1] Arnold’s ancestry has been traced by family members on the website Ancestry.com, where this information was obtained. [2] Arnold biography, courtesy of The Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, online at http://bioguide.congress. gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=A000293. [3] “Providence, May 4, 1786,” The New Haven Gazette and the Connecticut Magazine, I:13 (11 May 1786), 102. [4] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VIII:lii. [5] Peleg Arnold to Welcome Arnold, 11 July 1788, in ibid., VIII:761.

The Articles of Confederation41 [6] Arnold to John Collins, 20 October 1788, in ibid., VIII:808. [7] “Extract of a letter from Providence, March 2,” in The American Magazine, Containing a Miscellaneous Collection of Original and other Valuable Essays, In Prose and Verse, And Calculated both for Instruction and Amusement, March 1788, 207. [8] “Died,” Ladies’ Literary Cabinet, I:16 (26 February 1820), 128. [9] “Rhode Island Notes,” The Watchman [Boston, Massachusetts], 2 July 1896, 27.

The Articles of Confederation W  ith the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776, the members of the Continental Congress found themselves with an “independent nation”—of course, independent in name only—with a weak governmental structure to handle the affairs of all the colonies acting as one nation. The colonies, in fact, did not operate as one nation; there were differences of opinions as to laws, trade, currency, and other matters that threatened to split the nation before it had even come into existence. John Witherspoon, a delegate to the second Continental Congress from New Jersey, wrote in 1776 about the times that the new nation had just experienced: “Honour, interest, safety and necessity” had come together in “such a degree of union through these colonies, as nobody would have prophecied, and hardly any would have expected.” [1] As the military conflict against Great Britain continued, there were increased calls from members of the Continental Congress as well as from the colonies to formulate a new system of government for the entire colonial structure. On 7 June 1776, delegate Richard Henry Lee of Virginia proposed to the Continental Congress “[t]hat these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States,” and “[t]hat a plan of confederation be prepared and transmitted to the respective Colonies for their consideration and approbation.” [2]

sincerely that unlimited power was not to be safely trusted to any man or set of men on earth. Thus when the Articles were again taken up he realized that the Dickinson draft was full of potential danger to the independence of the individual states, particularly the third article, which in Burke’s words, “expressed only a reservation of the power of regulating the internal police, and consequently resigned every other power.” He therefore proposed an amendment to the Articles which stated that all sovereign power was in the states separately; that Congress could exercise only those powers delegated to it by the states. Burke was so convincing that Congress supported him overwhelmingly and an amendment was added to the Articles of Confederation stating this point of view with complete precision. [3] The debate over the voting rights of the states, based on the proportion of male population, as well as taxation of the states, bogged down the ultimate passage of the Articles. Delegates became more and more frustrated. William Williams, a delegate from Connecticut, wrote to Joseph Trumbull, in which she explained, “We make slow Progress in them [the passage of the Articles] as every Inch of Ground is disputed and very jarring Claims and Interests are to be adjusted among us, and then all to be agreed to by sev[eral] Legislatures, so that between both I almost Despair of seeing it accomplished.” [4] Even as the delegates argued over these fine points, the Committee of the Whole worked studiously to finish their task. On 20 August, they produced a draft of the Articles based on the Dickinson plan, and sent it to the Congress for debate and an ultimate vote.

To this end, delegates John Dickinson and Benjamin Franklin devised drafts for such a government. Historian Merrill Jensen wrote in 1950:

That vote, however, would be long in coming. Despite the pressing need for a central government, whether strong or weak, the delegates seem to have placed the proposed plan on the table and did not take it up until the following 8 April. At that time, the leaders ruled that the Articles would be debated for at least two days a week until they were voted on. [5]

Men like Thomas Burke were truly alarmed [by Dickinson’s draft]. He saw at once when he came to Congress that the landless states were trying to create a central government powerful enough to take land away from the other states. He believed

Delegate Roger Sherman also complained to Governor Trumbull in a letter of 9 April 1777: “All the States are now Represented, and next Monday is assigned for considering the Articles of Confederation. I wish there was a more full representation from our state . . .” [6]

42

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Delegate Benjamin Franklin argued the points of a large state that the smaller colonies should not have “equal” representation like those of the larger states. “Let the small Colonies give equal money and men, and then have an equal vote. But if they have an equal vote without bearing equal burthens [sic], a confusion upon such iniquitous Principles will never last long.” [7] Franklin’s fellow Pennsylvanian Benjamin Rush disagreed with the respected elder Franklin. “We have been too free with the word independence; we are dependent on each other, not totally independent states,” he said. [8] Delegate John Witherspoon of New Jersey also dissented from Franklin’s view, stating, “Colonies sld [sic] in fact be considered as individuals; and that as such in all disputes they should have an equal vote.” [9]

and Perpetual Union, was approved by the Continental Congress and sent to the states for ratification on 15 November 1777. Because the Continental Congress provided the Articles of Confederation be ratified unanimously by all of the states, this held up the entire process, allowing states to endlessly debate the document. One state, Maryland, held up their ratification until 1781. It took three and a half years to get all thirteen states to ratify the document, completed with Maryland’s acceptance by 1 March 1781. Despite the arguing over the ratification and the rights of the states under its auspices, even before it was ratified the document was used by the Continental Congress to oversee national matters. With the ratification, the Continental Congress had a legitimacy it had not had before to issue orders regarding military offensives and defensives, conduct diplomacy with the nations of Europe both to earn diplomatic recognition from these countries while at the same time trying to obtain loans to finance the war and further trade. The Articles of Confederation also allowed the Continental Congress to deal with the tribes of Native Americans who, in some cases, had joined the British to fight the colonies.

Under the Articles as they were passed to the states, the individual states held most of the power in the nation. For instance, there would be no “national” Supreme Court, while state Supreme Courts would be the final word in each individual state with regards to the law. Despite this, Article IX gave the nation as a whole special judicial powers. For instance, if two states had a territorial or trade or other dispute that they could not settle, the case would be taken to the Continental Congress which would hold a hearing to settle the case through arbitration. If this arbitration did not end the matter, Congress could then establish an ad hoc judicial board composed of carefully selected members to hear the case and make a final decision. That decision would be binding. This device was used in several instances, most notably between Connecticut and Pennsylvania over settlers in the Wyoming Valley who wanted to remain a part of Connecticut. While the Continental Congress’ board ultimately found for Pennsylvania, the decision was later reversed by a court under the US Constitution, which superseded the Articles of Confederation in 1789. The Continental Congress also established boards that oversaw matters dealing with admiralty law, shipping, and international concerns such as trade. Ultimately, the delegates of the Continental Congress ironed out an agreement preserved the rights of each separate state as sovereign, while embracing a “national” governmental system, which established one standard for military matters, trade, and taxation. The agreement, formally known as The Articles of Confederation

While the Articles of Confederation provided the colonies with a governmental structure all of them could recognize, the document was decidedly weak. An article in the Yale Law Review, in 1978, explained, “The leading historian of the Articles of Confederation asserts their adoption represented a victory for ‘radicals,’ who wanted a weak central government, over ‘conservatives,’ who favored greater national power for the protection of property rights.” [10] However, writes historian Paul Ferrino, “The Continental Congress had no formal constitutional basis and no way of compelling the various states to concerted action. This was very important because the Congress was trying to manage a mortal conflict with the most powerful military force on the planet, the British Empire. The de facto government of the rebellious thirteen colonies without any real power became the de facto government of the thirteen states without any real power. Nonetheless, ratification of the Articles of Confederation was a critical step in the direction of establishing the United States of America as a coherent nation, albeit a nation of thirteen distinct entities, in the international community of nations.” [11]

The Articles of Confederation43

Table 1: The Signers of the Articles of Confederation, by State Connecticut: Roger Sherman Samuel Huntington Oliver Wolcott Titus Hosmer Andrew Adams Delaware: Thomas McKean John Dickinson Nicholas Van Dyke Georgia: John Walton Edward Telfair Edward Langworthy Maryland: John Hanson Daniel Carroll The Massachusetts Bay: John Hancock Samuel Adams Elbridge Gerry Francis Dana James Lovell Samuel Holten

New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett John Wentworth Jr. New Jersey: John Witherspoon Nathaniel Scudder New York: James Duane Francis Lewis William Duer Gouverneur Morris North Carolina: John Penn Cornelius Harnett John Williams Pennsylvania: Robert Morris Daniel Roberdeau Jonathan Bayard Smith William Clingan Joseph Reed

The weakness of the new government under the Articles of Confederation came to light almost immediately. Since the beginning of the war, the British had been circulating counterfeit colonial money, which slowly destroyed the economies of the states. Historian Ben Baack explained in 2001, “Congress took several further steps which it hoped would enhance its position in this game. Since the limited powers granted to it under the [A]rticles did not allow the coercion of the states or the prosecution of those who counterfeited its currency, Congress resorted to recommending to the states that they pass laws against the counterfeiting of the Continental dollar. Rewards were offered to informants whose testimony led to conviction under any such state laws and broadsides were circulated describing counterfeit Continental dollars. In addition, Congress resolved to have withdrawn and replaced the entire issues of 20 May 1777 and 11 April 1778

Rhode Island and The Providence Plantations: William Ellery Henry Marchant John Collins South Carolina: Henry Laurens William Henry Drayton John Mathews Richard Hutson Thomas Heyward Jr. Virginia: Richard Henry Lee John Banister Thomas Adams John Harvie Francis Lightfoot Lee

as they had been extensively counterfeited by the British.” [12] Despite its fundamental weaknesses, nevertheless the Articles of Confederation gave the new nation a governmental structure it did not have before. As the following table explains, while the Articles had its deficiencies, nevertheless it was an important step for the new nation to take. Under the Articles of Confederation, a “President of the United States in Congress Assembled” was elected to oversee all of the workings of the Continental Congress. This office is not similar to the current president of the United States; the heads of the Continental Congress were administrators with few powers, and were fundamentally weakened by the Articles of Confederation. Thus, when some historians pose the question of whether or not these men were the “first true” presidents of the United States, the answer is a solid no.

44

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Table 2: The Articles of Confederation Compared to the US Constitution Powers

Allowed under the Articles of Confederation?

Allowed under the US Constitution?

Yes

Yes

Yes Yes Yes Yes No No No No

Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes Yes

The right to declare war and   make peace Conduct foreign affairs Control monetary sources Print money and coins Establish a postal system Call out state militia Impose taxes Initiate trade regulation Take other steps to manage   national and state affairs

Table 3: Presidents of the United States in Congress Assembled, 1781–88 The following list is of those who led the Congress of the Confederation under the Articles of Confederation as the presidents of the United States in Congress Assembled. Under the Articles, the president was the presiding officer of Congress, chaired the Committee of the States when Congress was in recess, and performed other administrative functions. He was not, however, an executive in the way the successor president of the United States is a chief executive, since all of the functions he executed were under the direct control of Congress. President of Congress

Office Start

Office End

Samuel Huntington Thomas McKean John Hanson Elias Boudinot Thomas Mifflin Richard Henry Lee John Hancock Nathaniel Gorham Arthur St. Clair Cyrus Griffin

March 1, 1781 July 10, 1781 November 5, 1781 November 4, 1782 November 3, 1783 November 30, 1784 November 23, 1785 June 6, 1786 February 2, 1787 January 22, 1788

July 9, 1781 November 4, 1781 November 3, 1782 November 2, 1783 October 31, 1784 November 6, 1785 May 29, 1786 November 5, 1786 November 4, 1787 November 2, 1788

For more information on the specific men listed in Tables 1 and 2, please refer to their individual biographies. The weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation ultimately led to its undoing. By the mid-1780s, many members of the Continental Congress as well as national and state leaders realized that a strong central government was needed for the

United States, but that such a government could not be established under the Articles. Thus, the movement towards what ultimately led to the drafting of the US Constitution in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787, began. The Articles of Confederation were replaced (or superseded or succeeded) by the US Constitution when it went into effect on 4 March 1789.

The Articles of Confederation45 What, then, is the final word on the Articles of Confederation? Historian Jack Rakove explained in 1982 in terms of how those who drafted the US Constitution looked upon those who had drafted the Articles: The repudiation of the Confederation was not, however, indiscriminate. There was no need, for example, to challenge either the motives or the abilities of the framers of the Articles (some of whom were in attendance at Philadelphia). As [John] Randolph observed in his initial speech, the framers were to be “considered . . . as having done all that patriots could do, in the then infancy of the science, of constitutions, & of confederations.” So historical a view of the confederation may have helped to dilute the subversive character of the Convention’s early decision. It meant that the delegates did not have to assume that the Articles had been consciously designed to subordinate the interests of the union to the rights of the states; the earlier framers had simply failed to perceive how potentially feeble a confederation they were in fact creating. [13] The Articles of Confederation are still debated in some circles. Historians like to examine it to see whether it was drafted in a weakened state on purpose, or because that was the best deal that could be gotten at the time by a nation at war. The US Supreme Court sometimes mentions the Articles in their arguments: for instance, in an 1869 decision, Woodruff v. Parham (75 US 123), the court held that the Articles’ use of the words “imports and imposts” deals “with exclusive reference to articles imported from foreign countries.” In a more recent decision, Camps Newfound/Owatonna, Inc. v. Town of Harrison, et al. (520 US 564 [1997]), Justice Clarence Thomas argued, “As to the first nontextual argument, the Woodruff Court was selective in its use of history, to say the least. It first asserted that, in Articles VI and IX of the Articles of Confederation, the words ‘imports, exports, and imposts are used with exclusive reference to foreign trade, because those articles have regard only to the treaty-making power of the federation.’ Even if the Woodruff Court’s assertion was accurate as to Articles VI and IX, which is doubtful, Article IV cannot be so read. That Article expressly permitted ‘duties’ and ‘impositions’ to be levied on property removed from one State to another, as long as the property

was not owned by ‘the United States, or either of them.’” See also: Josiah Bartlett; John Dickinson; The “Dickinson Draft” of the Articles of Confederation; The “Franklin Draft” of the Articles of Confederation

[1] John Witherspoon speech in Congress, 30 July 1776, in Paul H. Smith, ed., “Letters of Delegates to Congress, 1774-1789” (Washington, DC: Library of Congress; 26 volumes, 1976-2000), IV:584-87. [2] Ford, Worthington Chauncy, ed., “Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789. Edited from the Original Records in the Library of Congress by Worthington Chauncey Ford, Chief, Division of Manuscripts” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; 34 volumes, 1904-37), V:425. [3] Jensen, Merrill, “The New Nation: A History of the United States During the Confederation, 1781-1789” (New York: Vintage Books, 1965), 25. [4] William Williams to Joseph Trumbull, 7 August 1776, in Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), II:41. [5] “Secret Journals of the Acts and Proceedings of Congress, from the First Meeting thereof to the Dissolution of the Confederation, by the Adoption of the Constitution of the United States. Published under the Direction of the President of the United States, Conformably to Resolution of Congress of March 27, 1818, and April 21, 1820” (Boston: Printed and Published by Thomas B. Wait; two volumes, 1821), I:239. [6] Sherman to Jonathan Trumbull, 9 April 1777, in Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: The Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), II:320-21. [7] John Adams, “Notes of Debates,” 30 July 1776, in Ford, Worthington Chauncey, “Journals of the Continental Congress, 17741789. Edited from the Original Records in the Library of Congress by Worthington Chauncey Ford, Chief, Division of Manuscripts” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; 34 volumes, 190437), VI:1079. [8] Ibid., VI:1081. [9] Thomas Jefferson, “Notes of Debates,” in Worthington Chauncey Ford, et al., eds., “Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789. Edited from the Original Records in the Library of Congress by Worthington Chauncey Ford, Chief, Division of Manuscripts” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; 34 volumes, 1904-37), VI:1102-06. [10] “The United States and the Articles of Confederation: Drifting Toward Anarchy or Inching Toward Commonwealth?,” The Yale Law Review, LXXXVIII:1 (November 1978), 143-44. [11] Ferrino, Paul, “The Idea of Union: From the Revolutionary Covenants of the 1776 Pennsylvania Constitution and the 1781 Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union to the Nationalist Compacts of the 1780 Massachusetts Constitution and the 1787 Constitution of the United States” (Master’s thesis, Southern Connecticut State University, 2011), 70-71. [12] Baack, Ben, “Forging a Nation State: The Continental Congress and the Financing of the War of American Independence,” The Economic History Review, LIV:1 (November 2001), 646. [13] Rakove, Jack, “The Legacy of the Articles of Confederation,” Publius, XII:1 (Autumn 1982), 45-66.

46

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

John Baptista Ashe (1748–1802)

and the city of Ashville in North Carolina are named in his honor. Samuel Ashe outlived his son John by more than a decade.

A member of the Continental Congress and the US Congress under the new Constitution, John Baptista Ashe—referred to in some histories as John Baptist Ashe, was one of America’s leading politicians during his lifetime. A native of North Carolina, he served in both military service and elective office for his nation. He was born in Rocky Point, in New Hanover County, North Carolina, in 1748, the son of Samuel Ashe (1725-1813), a noted jurist, and his wife Mary (née Porter) Ashe, who was a first cousin to her husband. John Baptista Ashe was named for his paternal grandfather, John Baptista Ashe, a wealthy planter who had served on the King’s Council of North Carolina and rose to become the Speaker of the North Carolina colonial House of Commons. The family name was originally Ash; Samuel Ashe’s great-greatgrandfather, John Ashe of Freshford, Somerset, served as a Member of Parliament for Westbury Wilts in the Long Parliament, called by Charles I in November 1640 during the English Civil War. [1] Samuel Ashe served as the colonial assistant attorney, representing the Crown; he later served as the first judge for North Carolina under statehood, and, from 1795 to 1798, as the ninth governor of North Carolina. Ashe County

John Baptista Ashe grew up in a world of privilege, rarely known at that time. His father Samuel, in addition to being one of the colony’s leading legal scholars, also ran a tobacco plantation, known as the “Neck,” where he learned how to cultivate tobacco while being taught by a private tutor. It appears, however, that Ashe did not finish his studies past the tutoring stage. Instead, in 1771, at the age of 23, he decided to enter colonial military service to fight a group of men, mostly country folk, who used violence to end corruption among local officials in what are now considered suburban areas of North Carolina. These men were known as Regulators. Perhaps because his own father was a colonial official, Ashe decided to fight these armed gangs. Fighting with the New Hanover militia, Ashe was captured by the Regulators and severely beaten. Ashe’s capture marked a turning point in the Regulator War: because of this event, Governor William Tryon sent a colonial militia of some 1,200 men to hunt down the Regulators. The two armies met at Alamance on 16 May 1771, and, despite the fact that the colonial force was outnumbered by some 2,000 Regulators, the colonial militia won a decisive victory, ending the Regulator War. [2] When the American Revolution broke out in 1775, Ashe joined Colonel Alexander Lillington’s militia, which won a decisive victory at Moore’s Creek, North Carolina, on 27 February 1776, over a force of British loyalists. According to one biography, Ashe was prompted to the rank of Captain in the Sixth Regiment of the North Carolina Continental Line, and “thereafter he saw continuous service until about a month before Yorktown,” when the British surrendered and ended the war against the colonies. [3] Ashe had been prompted to the rank of Major in early 1777, and saw action at Valley Forge during the harsh winter there of 1777-78. In 1779, Ashe married Elizabeth Montfort, the daughter of a Masonic leader, Joseph Montfort; the couple would have one child together. The following year, when Ashe was luckily not with his regiment, they surrendered at Charleston, South Carolina, to the British under Lord Cornwallis.

John Baptista Ashe (1748–1802)47 On January 1780, Ashe was prompted to the rank of lieutenant colonel, and he served in Wilmington, North Carolina, purchasing goods for the American troops. The following July, 1781, he was sent to South Carolina to fight alongside Major General Nathanael Greene, and he saw action at the battle of Eutaw Springs on 8 September 1781. Just prior to the end of the war, which came with the surrender of British troops under the command of Lord Cornwallis at Yorktown, Ashe was given a reward of 4,457 acres of land in North Carolina for his service to his country. After the war, Ashe served in the North Carolina chapter of the Society of the Cincinnati, a veterans’ organization formed after the war, and he later became that chapter’s president. At that time, instead of retiring, Ashe entered the political realm and was elected to a seat in the North Carolina House of Commons, where he served for three terms (1784-86), rising to become Speaker of that body in 1786. [4] On 16 December 1786, Ashe was elected to a seat as a delegate to the Continental Congress. According to all sources, he attended sessions from 28 March 1787 to 10 May 1787, and then from 13 August 1787 to 29 October 1787, when the Continental Congress was in its final days; under the new US Constitution, which was signed and ratified by the states that summer of 1787, the Continental Congress would be succeeded by a federal Congress, composed of a US House of Representatives and a US Senate. Continental Congress historian Edmund Cody Burnett wrote that Ashe’s election, which came due to the resignation of delegate Charles Johnson, was “for one year to commence the first Monday in November next.” [5] One letter by Ashe appears in Burnett’s work—one to Richard Caswell, the governor of North Carolina, dated 16 August 1787: I have the honor this day to receive your Excellency’s favour of the 11th of July, inclosing a receipt of Mr. Robert Stewart’s to Mr. Whitaker for 11o, 104 lbs. of Tobacco, which I shall pay every necessary attention to, also, a Copy of your letter of the 15th of Jan’y last, to the Delegation, requiring their attention, towards procuring the Muster Rolls of the line of our State, or duplicates of them, and forwarding of them to you; rest assured Sir, in this, we have not been inattentive, early in March we procured an Order of Congress directing the Secretary at War to furnish us with Duplicates but the Paymaster with his principal Clerk, going shortly

after to Virginia on public business, and who has not yet returned has been the cause (and is yet) of our not obtaining them, he is hourly expected, when the Secretary promises them without delay. Col. Blount and myself brought forward a Resolution, purporting Congress’s [sic] disavowal of such part of the Hopewell Treaty as ceded certain Territory within the limits of the State to the Indians as hunting grounds, and stated our Claim to the same, which statement was thought insufficient; and as the Boundary of a State was of a very weighty and consequential nature, we concluded it best to let the business rest there, until we could procure every document necessary to support our Claim, to which end I will be Obliged to your Excellency to procure (from among the old Council papers where I presume it was lodged) and send forward, those Temporary lines, intended and Confirmed by the Commissioners appointed by the Legislatures of North and South Carolina, Agreeable to the Order of the late King George the 2nd. which are the lines peremptorily claimed in our bill of rights as our Southern Boundary, and from which we cannot varie; Congress by this Treaty and the application of North Carolina must be thrown under some embarrassment, for its Obvious they cannot ratify an Act so flagrantly abusive in its consequences, if enforced, also in express words contrary to the Confederation, and our Bill of rights, and to disavow a Compact or part of a Compact entered into by their Servants, they may consider as impolitic and improper. I will further trouble your Excellency, with sending forward to the Delegation a Resolution of the last Assemblies expressive of their Opinion of the Indian Treaty, and giving some direction to their Delegates. I am and have been here alone for some time, have expected Mr. Burton to arrive every hour, for three weeks past, I now much despair of his coming on at all, shou’d he not Mr. Blount promises me he will return at the rising of the Convention, when we hope to have a very full Congress. [6] Ashe was reelected to the Continental Congress for the term beginning in November 1788—the new US Constitution would not take effect until 1789—but Ashe declined the honor. Returning home to North Carolina, Ashe served as a member of the convention in his state, which met in Fayetteville to ratify the US Constitution. Ashe voted, with the majority, to ratify the document. The following year, Ashe served in the state Senate, where he sat as the Speaker pro tempore, as well as the chairman of the Finance

48

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Committee. When national elections were called for under the now-ratified US Constitution, Ashe was elected to a seat in the First Congress (178991), which met in New York, and to a seat in the Second Congress (1791-93), which met, like the Continental Congress did, in Philadelphia. During these two congresses, Ashe served as a so-called “anti-Administration” member, in opposition to the policies of President George Washington. Ashe left the Congress at the end of the Second Congress on 3 March 1793, and he returned home to North Carolina.

of Congress, 1787-1793, and his portrait could have been painted by Peale at that time.” [9]

For the remainder of his life, Ashe engaged in what his official congressional biography called “agricultural pursuits,” most likely farming on his estate. In 1795, he was again elected to a seat in the North Carolina state Senate, where he served for a single term in that year. Even in his final years, Ashe was continuing to serve the public. In 1802, Ashe was a candidate for governor of North Carolina. A notice in the Raleigh Register for 23 November 1802 noted, “A message was from the Senate fixing upon this morning as the time for balloting for a Governor for the ensuing year, and nominating for that office, John Baptist [sic] Ashe, Joseph Taylor and William Polk, in which the House concurred.” [7] Weeks later, in December 1802, the Scioto Gazette of Ohio reported, “John Baptist [sic] Ashe, a firm republican, is elected Governor of North-Carolina. The votes for Governor were for Mr. Ashe 103, for William Polk 49, [and] for Joseph Taylor 19.” [8] Ashe was prepared to take office when he suddenly died before he could be inaugurated on 27 November 1802. Ashe was buried in his family’s burial ground in Rocky Point, in Pender County, North Carolina. There is no grave; there is just a marker that states: “In Memory of Lt. Col. John Baptista Ashe[,] Eldest Son of Gov. Samuel Ashe and Mary Porter[.] 1748-1802[.] Buried [in] Halifax, N.C.” Historian Charles Coleman Sellers, in a 1952 examination of the artistic works of Charles Willson Peale, wrote of a potential image in Peale’s collections: “A portrait of ‘General Ash’ was owned in 1834 by James Reid Lambdin, and had apparently been obtained from Peale’s Museum. It seems unlikely that the subject was Gen. John Ashe (c. 1720-1781), who led his North Carolina troops to a disastrous defeat at Briar Creek. Another North Carolinian, Col. John Baptista Ashe (1748-1802), was a member

[1] Wright, David McCord, “‘Mr. Ash’: A Footnote in Constitutional History,” The South Carolina Historical Magazine, LXIII:1 (October 1962), 227. [2] For information on the Regulator War in North Carolina, see W.H. Bailey, “The Regulators of North Carolina,” American Historical Register, January, 1896, 554-67. [3] Davis, Curtis Carroll, “Ashe, John Baptist,” in William S. Powell, ed., “Dictionary of North Carolina Biography” (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press; six volumes, 1979-96), II:52-53. [4] See Ashe’s biography, courtesy of The Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, online at http://bioguide.congress. gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=A000307. [5] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VIII:xcii. [6] Ashe to the governor of North Carolina, Richard Caswell, 16 August 1787, in ibid., VIII:639-40. [7] Message about gubernatorial election in Raleigh Register, and North-Carolina State Gazette, 23 November 1802, 3. [8] The Scioto Gazette [Chillicothe, Ohio], 18 December 1802, 2. [9] Sellers, Charles Coleman, “Portraits and Miniatures by Charles Willson Peale,” Transactions of the American Philosophical Society Held at Philadelphia for Prompting Useful Knowledge, XLII:1 (1952), 25.

Samuel John Atlee (1739–1786)

Samuel John Atlee did not sign any major legislation while he served as a member of the Continental Congress and was captured and

Samuel John Atlee (1739–1786)49 held as a prisoner of war by the British during the American Revolution. Atlee was born in Trenton, New Jersey. A biography of Samuel Atlee in 1878, stated, “his father, William Atlee, of Fordhook House, England, married against the wishes of his family Jane Alcock, of William Pitt [who later served as prime minister of England], and being, perhaps for that reason, thrown upon his own resources, obtained, through the assistance of Pitt, a position as secretary to Lord Howe. He came with Howe to America, landing in Philadelphia, in July, 1734.” [1] Samuel Atlee was the second child of this marriage, born when his parents temporarily moved from Pennsylvania to New Jersey for some unknown reason. In 1754, the marriage of Atlee’s parents apparently broke up, and Atlee moved with his mother back to Pennsylvania. There, Atlee was educated by a private tutor, and he then studied the law, but abandoned his studies to enter the military during the French and Indian War. Historian John B. Linn, in an 1874 article on Atlee, notes, “On the 23d of April 1756, when only seventeen years of age [Samuel Atlee] was commissioned a Lieutenant in the Augusta Regiment, Col. Wm. Clapham, and came very near his death during the building of Fort Augusta. Col. Bard, in a letter to the governor [Edward Shippen], speaks of Lieut. Atlee as a young gentleman of some education, a sprightly young man, has good spirit, and does his duty well. He served in the Forbes campaign, participating in the battle near Fort Duquesne[,] September 14, 1758, and that of Loyal Hanna [on] October 12, 1758, and was commissioned a Captain on the 15th of April, 1760.” [2] In 1762, Atlee married Sarah Richardson, the daughter of a farmer in Lancaster, Pennsylvania. With the marriage, Atlee retired near Lancaster as a gentleman farmer. This apparently would have remained his life’s work had no other events intervened. The onset of military strife between the American colonies and Britain exploded in 1775; Atlee picked up his gun and went to work organizing troops to fight for the Pennsylvania militia. On 21 March 1776, Atlee was appointed as the head of the Pennsylvania Musketry Battalion, with the rank of colonel. Atlee left his family, as did many fathers, to fight for his country.

Atlee consistently complained that his troops were without shirts or stockings or shoes and could not properly fight the enemy. He wrote that his troops were “in a disgraceful situation with respect to clothing.” Marching to New York to join other colonial forces, Atlee went into battle on 27 August 1776. During the fight, Atlee found that other troops fighting alongside with him had retreated without telling him, forcing Atlee and at least forty men in his company to surrender. Taken prisoner by the British, Atlee was held as a prisoner of war until 1 October 1778, a period of some 26 months when he was confined with his troops on a prison ship. Following his exchange for British forces, Atlee was recommended by the Supreme Executive Council of Pennsylvania to General George Washington to be prompted to the rank of Brigadier General, writing to Washington that Atlee’s “merit and sufferings rendered him worthy [of] their Regard & Attention,” but the recommendation was not acted upon. Instead, to reward Atlee for his service, the Council elected him to a seat as a delegate to the Continental Congress on 21 November 1778. This is confirmed by the entry in the Journals of Congress, from 1 January 1778 to 1 January 1779: “The order of the day being called for and read, the house proceeded by ballot to the election of delegates in Congress for the ensuing year, when the following gentlemen were chosen, viz. Daniel Roberdeau, William Clingan, Edward Biddle, John Armstrong, William Shippen, the elder, Samuel Atlee, and James Searle, Esq.” [3] This is confirmed by a document in “The Journals of Congress,” which is dated 20 November 1778, signed by John Morris, the Clerk of the General Assembly, attesting to the election of these delegates. Despite this, other sources note that Atlee served in the 1782-83 period. According to historian Edmund Cody Burnett, Atlee served in the Continental Congress from approximately 1-6 March 1782 (the exact date is unknown), then from 14 April to 18 June 1782, about 17 August to about 3 December 1782, then from about 21 January to about 12 July 1783, then from about 15 August to about 28 October 1782, although these dates may be in dispute. Burnett explains, “Atlee appears to have been named on a committee July 12, 1782; otherwise no positive evidence appears that he attended between June

50

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

17 and Aug. 15. Occasional reports of committees of which he was a member do not necessarily imply his presence.” [4] Writing about fellow delegate John Sullivan, Burnett explains that “Sullivan was absent from the floor of Congress some part of November on account of illness, though engaged most of the time in committee work. [On] Jan. 3, 1781, he was appointed, with [delegate John] Witherspoon [of New Jersey] and [delegate John] Mathews [of South Carolina] [and] Atlee and [delegate Theodorick] Bland [of Virginia] were added Jan. 5, on a committee to negotiate with the mutineers of the Pennsylvania line and was absent from Congress on that business until Jan. 15.” [5]

late Samuel Atlee, late member for Lancaster, who died suddenly last Saturday, in the Street before he could reach his lodgings. The funeral professional ceeded to Christ Church, where the services were conducted by the Rev. Mr. Andrews. The corpse was buried in the Churchyard. Charles Biddle, vice president of the Executive Council attended with his associates; their President Benjamin Franklin was absent[,] not being in health.” [8]

There appears to be only one piece of correspondence from Atlee: a letter to Joseph Reed, the President of Pennsylvania (in effect, the head of the governing council), on 11 February 1781: “Every exersion in my Power has been employed in the important Office Councill were pleased to entrust with me, I flatter myself with full Satisfaction to that Honorable Board. It will give me infinite pleasure to find any Gentleman Councill shall please to appoint as my Successor in Office, shall perform the Duties with greatest Satisfaction to the Publick [sic] and to the Board for whence he derives his Powers.” [6] After his service in the Continental Congress was completed, Atlee returned home and served in the Pennsylvania General Assembly in 1782, 1785, and in 1786. In 1783, he was elected as a Supreme Executive Councilor for Lancaster County, and, the following year, was named as one of the commissioners to deal the the Native American tribes for unpurchased lands in Pennsylvania. [7] He was one of the charter members of the Society of the Cincinnati, a veterans’ group composed of Revolutionary War veterans. Samuel Atlee died in Philadelphia on 25 November 1786 while attending a session of the General Assembly; he was either 46 or 47 years of age. His body was laid to rest in the Christ Churchyard (now the Christ Church Burial Ground) in that city. A citizen of Philadelphia, one Jacob Hiltzheimer, wrote in his diary, “November 28. At 10 o’clock the House two and two set out for the residence of Peter Helm on Race Street [near Second], the lodgings of the

In the churchyard of the Christ Episcopal Church is a memorial—Atlee’s grave appears to be lost— which reads: “IN MEMORY OF COLONEL SAMUEL JOHN ATLEE Second son of WILLIAM ATLEE, Gentleman of Fordhook House, England, Who Served This Country Well In the Trying Times of the Revolution Both as a Soldier and in Her Councils, He Died on the 25th Day of November 1786 In the 48th Year of His Age, And His Remains Were Interred in the Yard of Christ Church.”

[1] Pennypacker, Samuel W., “Samuel John Atlee,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, II:1 (1878), 74. [2] Linn, John B., “Biographical Sketches: Col. Samuel John Atlee,” American Historical Record, III:34 (October 1874), 448. [3] See “Journals of the American Congress: From 1774 to 1788. In Four Volumes” (Washington, DC: Printed and Published by Way and Gideon; four volumes, 1823), III:134. [4] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VI:xlix. [5] Ibid., V:lix. [6] Ibid., V:569. [7] Atlee biography, courtesy of The Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, online at http://bioguide.congress. gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=A000333. [8] Hiltzheimer, Jacob, “Extracts from the Diary of Jacob Hiltzheimer, of Philadelphia, 1768-1798 (Continued),” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, XVI:2 (July 1892), 172.

Crispus Attucks (c. 1723–1770) See: The Boston Massacre

B Reverend Isaac Backus (1724–1806) A Baptist minister and historian, Isaac Backus did not serve as a delegate to the Continental Congress; however, he did call upon that body to issue a declaration calling for religious liberty in the colonies, and, with independence from England, the protections of such liberty in the Articles of Confederation and then the US Constitution. He is better known as one of America’s earliest religious leaders, who spent much of his life in the pursuit of theological studies and pressing his native land to become more religious, and to have the government be more religious as well as protect the rights of people to worship freely without interference from the state. He was born in the village of Yantic, near Norwich, Connecticut, o9 January 1724, the fourth child of seven of Samuel Backus, a farmer, and his wife Elizabeth (née Tracy) Backus. In Backus’ memoir, published in 1859, historian Alvah Hovey explains, “Samuel Backus, the father of Isaac, was a quiet, enterprising farmer, prosperous in his own business, but having little to do with public affairs. He was an affectionate husband and kind father; but he made no profession of religion until 1736, four years previous to his death . . . the mother of Isaac Backus was, in the truest and highest sense of the expression, an excellent woman. Often does [her son] speak of her in terms of deep respect and love. With special satisfaction does he dwell upon the fruits of genuine piety which appeared in her life. In a sermon occasioned by her death he calls her ‘my dear godly mother’; and there is ample reason for the belief that she was worthy of such a designation.” [1] Backus’ family was of the Congregationalist faith, and, as such, he was baptized into his parents’ church as a child. He spent much of his childhood in the Congregationalist faith. The death of his father in 1740, when Isaac Backus was 16, forced him to leave school and handle all of his family farm’s operations. The following year, when he was 17, Backus went down a different road with regards to his religion. In that year, he was converted by the teachings of such men as Eleazar Wheelock

and James Davenport, who were apostates from the Congregationalist Church. Becoming more and more disenchanted with his religion, in 1745, Backus told his church that he would refuse to pay taxes to support the church and its principles. He, his mother, and his brother were all arrested and spent some time in jail for their disobedience. When he was released, Backus, several unnamed family members, and friends bolted from the church his family had long belonged to, and established their own church under the “banner” of the Separate Baptist religion. A year later, Backus felt the need to become a traveling preacher of his new religion, and, in 1748, he took up duties as the new pastor of the Separate Baptist Church in Middleborough, Massachusetts. Backus married Susanna Mason of Rehoboth, Massachusetts, on 29 November 1749, and together the couple had nine children; Backus was widowed in 1800 and lived the last six years of his life alone. In 1751, Backus was rebaptized in this new religion. He tried to pastor using open Communion lines, as had been done in his old church, but, finding this to be impossible, he ended his association with the Separate Baptists in 1756 and instead opened the First Baptist Church of Middleborough based on Calvinist principles and dogma. Backus remained as the pastor there until his death in 1806. [2] In addition to service to his church, Backus spent a great deal of time in the political arena. For instance, he served as a trustee of Brown University in Providence, Rhode Island, from 1765 to 1799. In 1771, Backus was named as an “agent” for the Warren Association of Baptists (according to a history of the Baptists, the Warren Association was founded in 1768 in Warren, Rhode Island, to advocate for the religion on a nationwide basis), and he traveled to various parts of the colonies to spread the Baptist message and confer with other members of the Association. In this capacity, he traveled to Philadelphia in 1774 to speak to the members of the Continental Congress, calling upon them to make sure that religious liberty, especially

52

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

for Baptists, was to be upheld and protected in the colonies. He was ultimately unsuccessful in gaining a universal declaration of such rights.

what a risk do they run in their way! If reason can be heard, it will make every one in earnest to know and live to GOD. [4]

Backus also was an important writer of religious tracts during his lifetime. Two of them are of notice to historians: “An Appeal to the Public for Religious Liberty” (1773) and “The Doctrine of Universal Salvation Examined and Refuted” (1782). In the first tract, he explained in the introduction:

However, most historians of the Baptists as well as those who have studied Backus consider his greatest work to be “A History of New England, with Particular Reference to the Denomination of Christians called Baptists” (Boston: Printed by Edward Draper, at his Printing-Office in Newbury-Street, and Sold by Philip Freemen, in Union-Street; three volumes, 1777–96). This massive work was reprinted in two volumes in 1871, edited by David Weston.

It is supposed by multitudes, that in submitting to government we give up some part of our liberty, because they imagine that there is something in their nature incompatible with each other. But the word of truth plainly shews, that man first lost his freedom by breaking over the rules of government; and that those who now speak great swelling words about liberty, while they despise government, are themselves servants of corruption. What a dangerous error, yea, what a root of all evil then must it be, for men to imagine that there is any thing in the nature of true government that interferes with true and full liberty! A grand cause of this evil is, ignorance of what we are, and where we are; for did we view things in their true light, it would appear to be as absurd and dangerous, for us to aspire after any thing beyond our capacity, or out of the rule of our duty, as it would for the frog to swell till he bursts himself in trying to get as big as the ox, or for a beast or fowl to dive into the fishes element till they drown themselves. Godliness with contentment is great gain: But they that will take a contrary course fall into temptation, and a snare, and into many foolish and hurtful lusts, which drown men in destruction and perdition. [3] In his 1782 work, “The Doctrine of Universal Salvation Examined and Refuted,” Backus wrote: Every soul now is either a slave to sin, or a servant to righteousness; either under the bondage of corruption, or in the liberty of God’s children, in a greater or less degree. Our present as well as eternal welfare is therefore what immediately concerns this present argument. The more we can obtain of victory over corruption, and of real conformity to the will of God, the happier we are here. Great peace have all they who love his law, and nothing shall offend them; but they who walk after their own lusts, are murmurers and complainers. Could it therefore be possible, that the torments of the damned would have an end, yet we are certainly as safe as our opponents; but, on the other hand,

Backus was an early supporter of the rights of the colonists to get harsh economic conditions imposed by Britain lifted; when that failed, he supported the right of the colonies to declare independence from England. After the war ended, in 1788 Backu s served as a delegate from Middleborough to the Massachusetts ratifying convention which debated, and then ratified, the US Constitution that year. He returned to his church in Middleborough, where he continued as the pastor until after the start of the 19th century. Backus died on 20 November 1806 following a pair of strokes. Poulson’s American Daily Advertiser wrote in their edition of 11 December, “Died, in Middleborough, Massachusetts, Rev. ISAAC BACKUS, Pastor of the first Baptist church in that town, aged 83. His writings, which are considered voluminous, contain much ecclesiastical and historical information.” [5] The Independent Chronicle of Boston, Massachusetts, stated, “He continued his public labors until a few months before his death; when a stroke of the palsy, deprived him almost of sensation. Mr. Backus has been the uniform friend, and advocate of civil and religious liberty . . . few men have exemplified the excellency of the gospel, by a holy, humble, blameless life, more than Mr. Backus. So long as he was capable of communicating his views and feelings, he discovered the most entire resignation to the will of [G]od . . .” [6] In his diary, Backus wrote that he was “stirred” by two printed works he had read that made an impact on his life: Martin Luther’s, “A Commentary on St. Paul’s Epistle to the Galatians” (1535) and Samuel Davies’, “The State

Abraham Baldwin (1754–1807)53 of Religion among the Protestant Dissenters in Virginia” (1751). [7]

Abraham Baldwin (1754–1807)

Backus was laid to rest in the Titicut Parish Cemetery in Middleboro, Plymouth County, Massachusetts. His true burial plot is unknown; however, a stone is set in the cemetery which reads in part: Elder Isaac Backus A Pioneer Champion of Religious Liberty, and the Earliest Baptist Historian in America. Born 1724; Died 1806 [8] Historian William McLoughlin wrote in 1968, “The role of Isaac Backus and the Separate Baptists in the development of the American tradition of separation of church and state not yet been given its due . . . the Baptists found in Backus any [sic] most energetic and eloquent [spokesman]. In his long, active career and his trenchant tracts he provided a dedicated, effective leadership for eighteenth-century sectarian pietism that entitles him to rank with [Roger] Williams, [Thomas] Jefferson, and [James] Madison as a key proponent of this fundamental tenet of the American democratic faith.” [9]

[1] Hovey, Alvah, “A Memoir of The Life and Times of The Rev. Isaac Backus, A.M.” (Boston: Gould and Lincoln, 1859), 18. [2] For history of the Separate Baptists in New England, see C.C. Goen, “Revivalism and Separatism in New England, 1740–1800: Strict Congregationalist and Separate Baptists in the Great Awakening” (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1962). [3] Backus, The Rev. Isaac, “An Appeal to the Public for Religious Liberty, Against the Oppressions of the Present Day” (Boston: Printed John Boyle in Marlborough-Street, 1773), 3–4. [4] “The Doctrine of Universal Salvation Examined and Refuted. Containing a Concise and Distinct Answer to the Writings of Mr. Relly, Mr. Winchester, Upon That Subject. By Isaac Backus, Preacher of the Gospel” (Providence, RI: Printed and Sold John Carter. Also Sold by Philip Freeman, in Union-Street, Boston, 1782), 40. [5] “Died,” Poulson’s American Daily Advertiser [Philadelphia, Pennsylvania], 11 December 1806, 3. [6] “Deaths,” The Independent Chronicle [Boston, Massachusetts], 1 December 1806, 3. [7] See Julie Hedgepeth Williams, “The Significance of the Printed Word in Early America: Colonists’ Thoughts on the Role of the Press” (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1999), 98. [8] This information comes from Backus’ memorial on the website Find-a-Grave, online at http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/ fg.cgi?page=gr&GSln=Backus&GSfn=Isaac&GSby=1724&GSbyrel =in&GSdyrel=all&GSob=n&GRid=5842318&df=all&. [9] McLoughlin, William G., “Isaac Backus and the Separation of Church and State in America,” The American Historical Review, LXXIII:5 (June 1968), 1392–93.

Although his name is rarely identified today, in his time Abraham Baldwin was considered one of the leading lights of the move towards independence. A founder of the University of Georgia he served in both the Continental Congress and the federal Congress (in the US House of Representatives and the US Senate), as well as a member of the Constitutional Convention in 1787. A historical work written less than half a century after his death explained, “It was justly remarked . . . that the annals of our country have rarely been adorned with a character more venerable, or a life more useful than that of Abraham Baldwin.” [1] Baldwin was born in North Guilford, Connecticut, on 22 November 1754, the son and one of five children to Michael Baldwin, a blacksmith, and his wife Lucy (née Dudley) Baldwin. [2] Not much is known of the genealogy of Baldwin’s family. In fact, historian R. P. Brooks writing about Baldwin in 1927 noted that, “Abraham’s ancestors and his brothers and sisters belonged distinctly to the intellectual element of Connecticut.” [3] However, another source, a biographical dictionary of the men who served the nation in war and in political

54

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

during the period of the American Revolution, states, “The Baldwins were numbered among the earliest New England settlers. Arriving in Connecticut in 1639, the family produced succeeding generations of hard-working farmer, small-town tradesmen, and minor government officials.” [4] When her son Abraham was four, Lucy Baldwin died in childbirth while having her fifth child. Michael Baldwin raised his family, alone, for 10 years, until he married Theodora Wolcott, with whom he had seven additional children, including Henry Baldwin (1780–1844), who became a leading legal authority in the 19th century, rising to serve as an associate justice on the US Supreme Court (1830–44). Michael Baldwin, burdened at first with a large family and then a large family as a widower, spent much of his time working to send his children to school. Abraham, the first to gain a secondary education, worked to give similar benefits to his siblings. Michael Baldwin borrowed tremendous amounts of money to send Abraham first to private schools in Connecticut, and then to Yale College (now Yale University), which he entered in 1768 at age 14, and graduated four years later. He studied theology in preparation to become a minister. In 1775, he was given a license to preach, while at the same time being hired as a teacher at Yale. He served as a tutor there until 1779, during the most turbulent years of the American Revolution. In that year, however, Baldwin departed from his teaching position to serve as a chaplain for the Continental Army. Although it is not known if he ever saw action, he did serve with the Second Connecticut Brigade from 1777 until 1783.

his most notable achievement was the authorship and introduction of the plan that chartered a state educational system for the state; the first of these colleges was Franklin College, now the University of Georgia. As soon as the university was established, Baldwin served as its first president, from 1786 to 1801. Historian Henry Clay White, one of Baldwin’s earliest biographers, wrote of him, “[Baldwin] came to Georgia seeking neither land nor fortune. He came as a missionary in the cause of education. Happily, we may well believe, his mission, for the moment, proved ill-timed. It was not abandoned but deferred, and, in the political service to which, he, perforce, was turned, he developed a genius which was of the inestimable benefit to his State and Country.” [5]

The war changed Baldwin from a man whose goal was to serve the Lord to one in which he lent his time to the building of his nation. In 1783, when British forces were defeated and forced to sign a treaty that ended the conflict, Baldwin, instead of going home to Connecticut, moved to the state of Georgia, where he purchased some land. He studied the law and was admitted to the Georgia bar. (In those days, there were no “schools of law” as there are today.) He opened a practice for a short time in Fairfield, Georgia, but soon moved to Augusta, where he continued his practice. The following year, in 1785, Baldwin was elected to a seat in the Georgia state House of Representatives, where

In 1785, less than two years in his adopted state, Baldwin was elected to serve as a delegate from Georgia to the Continental Congress. Historian Patrick Furlong wrote: In May, 1785, when he had been a Georgian for less than two years, Baldwin was sent by his adopted state to the Continental Congress. He traveled northward almost immediately to claim his seat. Congress had of course declined greatly from the glorious days of ‘76, and Baldwin did not accomplish any rejuvenation. He calmly attended to his new responsibilities, and unlike many of his fellow Congressmen he attended regularly even though he represented the most remote state of the Union. Baldwin may well have been chosen as delegate to Congress by his Georgia colleagues because of his willingness to leave his affairs and undertake a burdensome and often unwanted duty. Congress honored him in 1788 with the onerous assignment to the commission appointed to settle the tangled financial accounts between the general government and the several states. [6] According to historian Edmund Cody Burnett, who has thoroughly documented the Continental Congress and the writings of its delegates, Baldwin was elected on 5 May 1785 “until the first Tuesday in January [1786] or until others shall be appointed,” and was reelected on 7 November 1787 “from the first Monday in November instant to the first Monday in November next.” He attended sessions from 30 May to 13 October 1785, from 23 November to 2 December 1785, then from 5–10 November 1787, 21 January to 9 February 1788, and, finally, from 5 May

Abraham Baldwin (1754–1807)55 to 18 September 1788. Burnett explains that “[Baldwin] [d]id not attend in 1786. It is noted in the Journals [of the Continental Congress] that Baldwin’s credentials for the federal year Nov. 1787-Nov. 1788 were delivered Nov. 5, 1787, and read in Congress Jan. 21, 1788. As those credentials bear the date Nov. 7, 1787, they could not of course have been delivered Nov. 5. By what authority Baldwin and [Continental Congress delegate William] few were permitted to take their seats Nov. 5 and continue in them, Baldwin at least, until Jan. 21, remains unexplained. Few’s credentials, which bear the same date as Baldwin’s, were not presented until May 26, 1788.” [7] In a letter allegedly written to Joseph Clay (it is noted that this letter is not in Clay’s official collections, for some reason), dated 31 March 1788, Baldwin wrote: I was much obliged by your very particular information respecting Indian affairs, the greater part of the time we are without any information from Georgia. I have written the Governor constantly, ever since I left the state, and have never received a line, or known whether any of my letters arrived. Our situation with our near neighbours on both sides, has been for some time critical, and a ground of very just uneasiness. The intentions of the majority of congress respecting our Indian affairs, I am convinced, has been very good, merely to adopt a system of measures, in their own nature suited to preserve the peace of the United States. There are some here who are constantly passionate, and provoking on the subject. Our back territory has been considered as a very enviable possession, particularly by the back land states. I have assured them, it is want of experience on that subject, that makes them think so. I have seen by the papers that uneasy apprehensions have been entertained of the conduct of the Spaniards. I had several times in free conversation with Mr. Gardoqui, who is a very free and friendly man, hinted to him, that I feared, we should loose [sic] that respect that we had entertained for their good policy, by some of their late proceedings; he always has denied every such suggestion. A few days since, on the arrival of the Spanish packet, he called on me, and said he was very glad to have it in his power to inform me, and he did inform me officially, that the King had given pointed orders to the Governors of their Provinces, to endeavour to preserve peace between the United States and the Indian nations, and to do nothing to disturb it.

I believe we are to find the greatest difficulty among ourselves, to be able to manage our own affairs. I have as little confidence in the manner in which we take our measures, but feel myself greatly encouraged by the prospect that our state politicks will be soon on a different footing. A man who hopes for any happiness in society cannot want for inducements to use all his information and influence on that occasion. I know your prospects of any good under our old government [sic] have long been very small; but may I not hope, that the political horizon is brightening, so that you will think it worth a while to go aboard and help? We have had a congresg [sic] this winter but a small part of the time; the old simile of money being the sinews, must convince you that we must be in a very paralytic state at present. Maryland convention is to meet the 21st of April, South Carolina and Maryland are counted upon as sure, where to find the ninth, is matter of anxious enquiry. The prospects from the other five are unpromising. [8] In a letter to delegate Thomas Jefferson of Virginia, 20 April 1788, Baldwin gives an insight into Georgia politics: “My expectation is, that the state of Georgia will soon make a cession of their western territory to congress. They have long only waited an issue of our present great national question, whither they might expect protection in return.” [9] Reflecting on work inside the Continental Congress, delegate Nicholas Gilman wrote to the President of New Hampshire, John Langdon, “This day has also completed the election of the Commissioners for settling the national accounts agreeably to the ordinance of May 1787. The Board consists of General William Irvine of Pennsylvania, Mr. J. T. Gilman of New Hampshire and Mr. Abraham Baldwin of Georgia.” [10] In 1787 Baldwin was among the delegates appointed to the US Constitutional Convention. In a report of “Intelligence” from Philadelphia, dated March 1787, it was noted that “William Few, Abraham Baldwin, William Pierce, George Walton, (the delegates in Congress for the present year) and William Houston and Nathaniel Pendleton, esquires, by the state of Georgia, are appointed deputies to a convention, proposed to be held in Philadelphia in May next [year], for the purpose of revising the federal constitution.” [11] Of his role prior to, during, and after the Constitutional Convention,

56

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

historian Joseph C. Morton explained, “Abraham Baldwin was the most distinguished, best-educated, most politically experienced in the four-member Georgia delegation to the Constitutional Convention.” [12]

January 1796, Hamilton published two essays under the pen name Camillus to support the treaty. Hamilton responded to contrary arguments based on “pretended interference with the power of Congress.” Among lengthy arguments based on public policy and practice, Hamilton argued that his understanding had been shared by the Convention and the “people in adopting it.” He noted that he could not have “any formal proof of the opinions and views which prevailed in digesting the power of treaty.” However, “from the best opportunity of knowing the fact,” he argued it “was understood by all to be the intent of the provision to give to that power the most ample latitude.” He “appeal[ed] . . . with confidence to every member of the Conventionparticularly to those in the two houses of Congress.” He named Madison and Baldwin. He added, to “suppose them capable of such a denial were to suppose them utterly regardless of truth.” [14]

On 2 July 1788, the Continental Congress “[o] rdered that the ratification of the Constitution of the United States transmitted to Congress be referred to a Committee to examine the same and report an Act to Congress for putting the said Constitution into operation in pursuance of the resolutions of the late federal Convention.” Baldwin was named to this committee, along with delegates Edward Carrington of Virginia, Pierrepont Edwards of Connecticut, Samuel Allyne Otis of Massachusetts, and Thomas Tudor Ticket of South Carolina. [13] Under the new US Constitution, national elections for president and members of the US House of Representatives and US Senate were set up. Baldwin was elected to the House for a seat in the First Congress (1789–91) through to the Fifth Congress (1797–99). In April 1796, the US House of Representatives had a debate over the Jay Treaty with Great Britain. Also called “Jay’s Treaty,” it is officially titled “Treaty of Amity, Commerce, and Navigation between His Britannic Majesty and the United States of America.” Negotiated by former Continental Congress delegate John Jay, who by this time was sitting as the chief justice of the US Supreme Court, it was initially signed between the two powers in November 1794 to calm tensions over issues that had lingered since the end of the American Revolution, most notably the continuation of British forts in the northwestern territories, as well as British interference in American trade and commerce. War clouds loomed, and it appeared that the treaty would head off conflict. However, provisions of the treaty were met with harsh opposition in the United States, and there was a threat that the treaty would not get the necessary two-thirds vote needed for approval in the US Senate. The treaty was also debated in the US House of Representatives, which did not have a vote on the matter. Historian Mary Sarah Bilder wrote: In the surrounding debate, Madison and Hamilton made use of arguments about the Convention for opposite conclusions. At the beginning of

In 1799, the Georgia legislature elected Baldwin to the US Senate, where he sat until his death. He was reelected in 1805 to a second six-year term. He served as the president pro tempore during the Seventh Congress (1801–03). Baldwin died suddenly in Washington on 4 March 1807 at the age of 52. He was laid to rest not in his native state of Connecticut, or in his adopted state of Georgia, but in Rock Creek Cemetery in Washington, D.C. Baldwin County, Georgia which encompasses Milledgeville, the old capital of the state, was named in his honor. Historian Seldon Marvin Ely wrote in 1918, “The bones of Senator Abraham Baldwin, of Georgia, lie in Rock Creek Cemetery under a small marble monument, erected jointly to the memory of his sister, Mrs. Joel Barlow, and himself. The remains of Senator Baldwin were thrice interred, first in Rock Creek, beside his colleague, Senator James Jackson, then transferred to Kalorama, and finally again to Rock Creek, just down the slope from the famous Saint Gaudens’ figure. The Biographical Congressional Directory gives a splendid patriot record for Senator Baldwin. He was also a member of the National Constitutional Convention.” [15] Despite the services that he gave to his country, the name of Abraham Baldwin is almost unknown to this day. In 1877, less than 75 years after Baldwin’s death, historian Ralph D. Smith wrote, “It is a remarkable circumstance, and an

John Banister (c. 1734–1788)57 instance of assidiuty almost without parallel that, during his long congressional life, he was never known to be absent a single hour during the session of congress [sic], on account of disposition or any other cause, until the week preceding his death. He was a man of great industry and talents, and his distinguished patriotism, learning and public services shed an honor on his active state as well as that of his adoption.” [16] The Georgia Historical Quarterly, in comparing fellow Georgia delegates to the Continental Congress Abraham Baldwin and James Jackson, concluded in 1919, “During the violent agitation of parties which have disturbed the repose of public men in this country for the last ten years, [Baldwin] has always been moderate, but firm; relaxing nothing in his republican principles, but retaining all possible charity for his former friends who may have abandoned theirs. He has lived without reproach, and has probably died without an enemy.” [17]

[12] “Abraham Baldwin” in Joseph C. Morton, “Shapers of the Great Debate at the Constitutional Convention of 1787: A Biographical Dictionary” (Westport, CT: Greenwood President, 2006), 22. [13] Order of 2 July 1788, in Ford, Worthington C., ed., “Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774–89. Edited from the Original Records in the Library of Congress by Worthington Chauncey Ford, Chief, Division of Manuscripts” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; 34 volumes, 1904–37), XXXIV:281. [14] Bilder, Mary Sarah, “How Bad Were the Official Records of the Federal Convention?,” The George Washington Law Review, LXXX:6 (November 2012), 1674. [15] Ely, Selden Marvin, “The District of Columbia in the American Revolution and Patriots of the Revolutionary Period Who Are Interred in the District or in Arlington,” Records of the Columbia Historical Society, Washington, D.C., XXI (1918), 143. [16] Smith, Ralph D., The History of Guilford, Connecticut: From its First Settlement in 1639” (Albany, NY: J. Munsell, Printer, 1877), 128. [17] “Two Georgia Patriots: Abraham Baldwin and James Jackson,” The Georgia Historical Quarterly, III:4 (December 1919), 171.

John Banister (c. 1734–1788)

See also: John Laurance

[1] “Abraham Baldwin” in H.J. Herring, ed., “The National Portrait Gallery of Distinguished Americans: With Biographical Sketches. In Four Volumes” (Philadelphia: D. Rice & A.N. Hart; four volumes, 1853–54), I:1. [2] See Baldwin’s official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay. pl?index=B000084. [3] Brooks, R.P., “Abraham Baldwin, Statesman and Educator” The Georgia Historical Quarterly, XI:1 (June 1927), 172. [4] “Abraham Baldwin” in Robert K. Wright, Jr., and Morris J. MacGregor, Jr., “Soldier-Statesmen of the Constitution” (Washington, DC: United States Army Center of Military History, 1987), 64. [5] White, Henry Clay, “Abraham Baldwin, One of the Founders of the Republic and Father of the University of Georgia, the First of American State Universities” Athens, GA: The McGregor Company, 1926), 54–55. [6] Furlong, Patrick, “Abraham Baldwin: A Georgia Yankee as Old Congress-man Abraham Baldwin: A Georgia Yankee as Old Congress-man,” The Georgia Historical Quarterly, LVI:1 (Spring 1972), 54. [7] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921–36), VIII:lxxxv. [8] Baldwin to Joseph Clay [?], 31 March 1788, in ibid., VIII:712–13. [9] Baldwin to Thomas Jefferson, 20 April 1788, in ibid., VIII:723. [10] Nicholas Gilman to John Langdon, 13 September 1788, in ibid., VIII:794. [11] “Intelligence. Philadelphia, March,” The Columbian Magazine for March 1787 (March 1787), 349. The full list of all of the delegates chosen up to that time also appears in The Worcester Magazine [Massachusetts], III:3 (May 1787), 87.

In addition to his service in the Continental Congress, John Banister signed the Articles of Confederation in 1778 and was a leading attorney in his colony and then state of Virginia. He was born about 26 December 1734 on his family’s estate, “Hatcher’s Run,” near Petersburg,

58

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

in Dinwiddie County, Virginia, the son of Captain John Banister and his wife Martha Wilmette (née Munford) Banister. [1] At an early age, his father, a ship’s captain, took his son to England, where John Banister attended a private school in Wakefield, south of Leeds. He then studied the law at the prestigious Temple Inn, one of the four Inns of Court in England, located in London.

It’s not having taken effect as yet has been owing to a thin representation. Virginia the Leader in this great Business, for want of the constituent Number to form a Representation, remains a Cypher, without Suffrage, at this Momentous Period. Did I not fear to intrude upon your Hours of essential business I should sometimes write to you for my own information on military Subjects; here being the greatest Ignorance in every Occurrence of that kind mixt with an inactivity that permits affairs of the greatest magnitude to lie dormant and give place to local Trifles. [Author’s emphasis] I have said with freedom in few words what has often occurred since I have been here. I wish I had the Capability to apply an instant Remedy for nothing procrastinated will do. However the military establishment will come out soon. God knows what other Regulations may take place. Virginia’s drafted Men will come on soon, and I believe may amount to 1700 instead of 2000 voted, as it is highly probable more men desert of those compelled into Service, than if they had entered voluntarily. Colo: Harrison’s artillery Regimt. are on their march. Would volunteers, provided they can be had, be of Service to your operations? Certain it is they will not come out in such Numbers as some have conjectured, but I believe a considerable Body, perhaps two Battalions may be induced to venture their persons in this time of danger. [3]

Banister returned to Virginia and opened a law practice in Petersburg, Virginia, although the date appears to be unknown. He also worked as a planter, a word loosely used to define a series of positions, most usually as a farmer or one engaged in agriculture. Entering the political arena, Banister was elected to the Virginia House of Burgesses, and served in the sessions of 1765, 1766–74, and 1775. He was also elected to the Virginia state House of Delegates, where he served in 1776, 1777, and 1781–83. In 1777 (not 1778, as most sources state), he was elected as a delegate representing Virginia in the Continental Congress. According to historian Edmund Cody Burnett, Banister was elected on 19 November 1777 to replace delegate Mann Page, who had declined his election to the body. Banister was subsequently reelected on 29 May 1778; he attended sessions from 16 March to about 9 April 1778, 16 April to about 29 April 1778, 23 May to 15 August 1778, and 22 to 24 September 1778. Burnett adds, “On the final ballot Banister received 51 votes against 5o for Thomas Adams. Banister, together with Roger Sherman, was added Aug. 1o to the committee on arranging the army, and he was engaged from Aug. 15 to Sept. 22 with that committee at headquarters. In December Banister resigned, and William Fleming was elected Dec. 14 for the unexpired term, but did not serve during the year 1778.” [2] Although few pieces of correspondence survive from Banister, one that does is this interesting missive to General George Washington: It was with the most painful Sensibility that I perused your last letter on the Subject of the present State of the Army, and am equally concerned in reflecting that I do not see effectual Measures taken to ward off the impending Blow. As to the Establishment, I am under no doubt of its being adopted, and put upon a ground of Stability.

Washington responded, from Valley Forge, in part: I thank you very much for your obliging tender of a friendly intercourse between us; and you may rest assured that I embrace it with cheerfulness and shall write you freely, as often as leisure will permit, on such points as appear to me material and interesting. I am pleased to find, that you expect the proposed establishment of the army will succeed; though it is a painful consideration, that matters of such pressing importance and obvious necessity meet with so much difficulty and delay. Be assured, the success of the measure is a matter of the most serious moment, and that it ought to be brought to a conclusion as speedily as possible. The spirit of resigning commissions has been long at an alarming height, and increases daily. The Virginia line has sustained a violent shock in this instance. Not less than ninety have already resigned to me. The same conduct has prevailed among the officers from the other States, though not yet to so considerable a degree; and there are but too just grounds to fear, that it will shake the very existence of the army, unless a remedy is soon,

The Bank of the United States59 very soon, applied. There is none, in my opinion, so effectual as the one pointed out. [4] This, I trust, will satisfy the officers, and at the same time it will produce no present additional emission of money. They will not be persuaded to sacrifice all views of present interest, and encounter the numerous vicissitudes of war, in the defence of their country, unless she will be generous enough on her part to make a decent provision for their future support. I do not pronounce absolutely, that we shall have no army if the establishment fails but the army which we may have will be without discipline, without energy, incapable of acting with vigor, and destitute of those cements necessary to promise success on the one hand, or to withstand the shocks of adversity on the other. It is indeed hard to say how extensive the evil may be if the measure should be rejected, or much longer delayed. I find it a very arduous task to keep the officers in tolerable humor, and to protract such a combination for quitting the service, as might possibly undo us for ever. [5] As previously noted, following his service in the Continental Congress Banister did serve in the two legislative houses of Virginia. In 1781, he was one of the framers, and eventual signers, of the Articles of Confederation, the preconstitutional blueprint of the US government just after the American Revolution had ended. Prior to the end of the war, Banister enlisted in the Continental Army, and served with the rank of Major, and then Lt. Colonel, in the Virginia Militia. As one source noted, “The British destroyed his property in retaliation for his political and military activity.” [6] Banister died, at his family estate, “Hatcher’s Run.” However, in a story in The TimesDispatch of Richmond, Virginia, that was published in 1908, Banister in fact built his own home, “Battersea,” which the paper said was “a tremendous homestead near Petersburg, and died there.” [7] Wherever he did pass away, Banister died suddenly in Virginia on 30 September 1788 at the age of 53. His body was laid to rest in the family burial yard on his family’s estate, “Hatcher’s Run.”

[1] Banister official congressional biography, online at http:// bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=B000109.

[2] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921–36), III:lxi. [3] Banister to George Washington, 16 April 1778, in ibid., III:168–69. [4] George Washington to John Banister, 21 April 1778, in Jared Sparks, ed., “The Writings of George Washington; Being His Correspondence, Addresses, Messages, and Other Papers, Official and Private. Selected and Published from the Original Manuscript; With A Life of the Author, Notes and Illustrations. By Jared Sparks” (Boston: Ferdinand Andrews, Publisher; 12 volumes, 1833–39), V:321–23. [5] Sparks explained here, “That is, an establishment of halfpay for the officers after the termination of the war. A plan for this purpose had been agreed upon by the committee in camp, and was now under debate in [the Continental] Congress. It was thought extremely important by General Washington, as appears by some of his preceding letters, and he used his utmost endeavour to promote it; but there was a division in Congress.” [6] Mays, Terry M. “Historical Dictionary of Revolutionary America” (Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, Inc., 2005), 21. [7] “The Times-Dispatch Genealogical Column,” The Times-Dispatch [Richmond, Virginia], 14 June 1908, 10.

The Bank of the United States Five years into the war against the greatest military power in the world, Great Britain, the “United States” was a nation in name only. The thirteen colonies that had declared independence in 1776 were now thirteen independent entities, with separate banking systems, currencies, law enforcement, militias and armies, educational systems, and systems of taxation. In short, the “independence” of the former colonies threatened to tear apart a nation whose fabric was not very strong to begin with. One of the matters that had to be addressed was the establishment of a national finance system. Farmers in the states had a terrible time trying to get loans to finance their agricultural pursuits; industrialists who wished to build factories could not gain credit for these ventures. Each separate state had its own currency, and the currency that the Continental Congress had authorized to be a sort of “national currency” was virtually worthless. The Continental Congress itself could not raise enough money to pay the debts that were being incurred with each passing day that the war continued. The entire financial and credit system of the infant nation was threatened with collapse. Today, the leading stories about the government and the American economy deal with

60

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

unemployment and the deficit and the national debt. In 1780, as the nation was in the worst throes of the war of independence against Britain, a proposal was brought before the Continental Congress to establish a “national bank,” which would coordinate banking matters between the states, even as the war continued. On 21 June 1780, a “proposition for the establishment of a Bank” was introduced in the Continental Congress. As the journals of that body note:

banking system. Morris had broached the idea of a “national bank” in a letter to John Hancock, when he was the governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, which earned some interest but was not needed as much as it was by the late 1770s. Now, with the new nation’s financial health on the line, Morris approached the delegates of the Continental Congress through correspondence and offered his services to draft a report laying out the foundation for a “national bank.” Morris then reported to the Continental Congress by writing to that body’s president, Samuel Huntington of Connecticut, on 17 May 1781:

In CONGRESS, June 21, 1780. A letter of this day, from the Board of War, was read, informing “that a number of patriotic persons, having formed a plan for the establishment of a bank, whose object is the public service; the directors have applied to that Board, to represent to Congress the desire of the company that a committee of this body may be appointed to confer with the inspectors and directors on the subject, to-morrow morning.” Whereupon, Ordered, That a committee of three be appointed, for the purpose above mentioned. The members chosen were, Mr. [Oliver] Ellsworth [of Connecticut], Mr. [James] Duane [of New York], and Mr. [John Morin] Scott [of New York]. [1] When Duane and Ellsworth could not attend— the reason is not given, with the record merely noting that they were “absent”—the Continental Congress named delegates Robert R. Livingston of New York and Samuel Adams of Massachusetts to the committee on 23 June 1780 to examine the potential of such a proposal. While this committee studied the feasibility of a national bank, in stepped Robert Morris, a former delegate from Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress. Born in Liverpool, England, in January 1734, Morris came to the United States when he was 13 years old, and initially settled in the colony of Maryland. Attending school in Philadelphia, then the political and financial capital of the colonies, he became a merchant in Philadelphia in 1748. When the colonies went to war against his native land, Morris sided with the colonies, serving as a member of the Pennsylvania Council of Safety in 1775. That same year, he was elected to a seat in the Continental Congress, where he served until 1778, signing the Declaration of Independence in 1776. A member of the Pennsylvania state Assembly from 1778 to 1781, he saw the constant battle of merchants to survive without a proper national

Sir: I beg leave to submit the enclosed plan for establishing a national bank in these United States and the observations on it to the perusal and consideration of Congress. Anticipation of taxes and funds is all that ought to be expected from any system of paper credit. This seems as likely to rise into a fabric equal to the weight as any I have yet seen or thought of; and I submit whether it may not be necessary and proper that Congress should make immediate application to the several States to invest them with the powers of incorporating a bank, and for prohibiting all other banks or bankers in these States, at least during the war. I have the honor to be, &c., Robert Morris [2] Following the presentation of Morris’ report, a committee of the Continental Congress studied it. Then, on 26 May 1781, that committee reported to the full Continental Congress on their findings: Proceedings on the incorporation of the Bank of North America. May 26, 1781. On the report of a committee, consisting of Messrs. [John] Witherspoon [of New Jersey], [John] Sullivan [of New Hampshire], M[eriwether] Smith [of Virginia], and [George] Clymer [of Pennsylvania], to whom was referred a letter from Mr. R. Morris, with the plan of a bank: Resolved, That Congress do approve of the plan for establishing a national bank, in these United States, submitted to their consideration by R. Morris, on the 17th May, 1781, and that they will promote and support the same, by such ways and

The Bank of the United States61 means, from time to time, as may appear necessary for the institution, and consistent with the public good. That the subscribers to the said bank shall be incorporated agreeably to the principles and terms of the plan, under the name of the “President, Directors, and Company of the Bank of North America,” so soon as the subscription shall be filled, the directors and president chosen, and application for that purpose made to Congress, by the president and directors elected. [3] The delegates of the Continental Congress then voted on the motion of whether or not to authorize the establishment of such a bank; the vote, according to the Journal of the Continental Congress, was “in the affirmative.” [4] Historian Janet Wilson explained, “The Bank of North America was founded by Robert Morris in 1781, the blackest year of the Revolution, when the Continental Congress turned to Morris to save the country’s finances. Morris declared that the bank would bolster the tottering national treasury by making loans from its capital, and supply the need of a circulating medium by issuing notes on the credit of the stock. The country’s plight was desperate. Morris’ arguments were persuasive; and in 1781 the Bank of North America was granted a charter by both the Continental Congress and the state of Pennsylvania.” [5] In 1793, the magazine The Columbian Museum did a story on “thoughts concerning the Bank of North America,” writing: The debates and publications, concerning the Bank of North America, have already been so numerous and extended, that, were the subject of less importance, further investigation would be an inexcusable trespass on the public time. But as these institutions were generally unknown among us before the revolution, and as they are universally admitted to be objects of the first consequence, it is confided, that a decent endeavour to bring before the government and people of Pennsylvania some matters connected with the subject, which are not yet sufficiently known and understood, will be favored with an intelligence indulgent reception . . . It appears then, that a former assembly [the Continental Congress], influenced by wise and patriotic considerations, did, from the nature and necessity of the times and the novelty of the subject, grant a charter to the bank of North America, differing from precedents—that it contained mainly extreme dangers—that[,] however,

the institution so constituted, retained its monopoly (with all its other privileges) during the time for which the Assembly had granted it—that another Assembly, discovering the dangers it contained, determined to destroy it when the public good would, perhaps, have been better consulted in retaining it. [6] With the establishment of the Bank of North America, a director for the institution was needed. The man chosen for this incredibly important position was not Robert Morris, but instead fell to a fellow Pennsylvanian, Thomas Willing. Willing was born in Philadelphia in 1731, and he spent nearly all of his life in that city until his death nearly 90 years later. He was schooled in Bath, England, and studied law at the Inner Temple in London. He eventually served on several judicial courts in Pennsylvania, most notably as a justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. According to one biography, “His legal training was also of value to him in his mercantile career, in the important position of President of the Bank of North America, and after that in the equally responsible post of President of the First Bank of the United States.” [7] Willing was at the forefront of the “birth” of this important commercial venture. As historian Eugene Slaski explained in 1980, after the bank was chartered, “[t]wenty-three Philadelphians, mainly merchants, met at the City Tavern on 1 November, to organize the new bank. Among the twelve directors elected at the meeting were Willing, [John] Wilson, and Morris. On the following day, the new directors reconvened at the tavern, read the plans for establishing the bank, elected Willing [as] president. Probably the wealthiest man in Philadelphia in 1781, Willing understood, as did his close associates, Morris and Wilson, the financial requirements of the young country. Willing was a practical businessman of proven ability and experience.” [8] Historian George David Rappaport wrote in 1976: America’s first commercial bank, the Bank of North America, opened its doors on January 7, 1782. Several weeks later John Wilson, the bank’s accountant, wrote a letter describing the fledgling institution. Wilson’s letter is the fullest early account of American commercial banking that is known to exist. The letter reveals that the bank’s staff had a surprisingly firm grasp on the basic principles of commercial banking. Although the

62

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

staff possessed neither previous experience nor banking manuals, they distinguished between time and demand deposits. Moreover, they understood the uses to which deposits could be put in financing and expanding the discount business. At the same time, Wilson’s letter exposes crudities in banking theory and practice which the institution’s newness would lead us to expect. Thus, while the value of deposits had already been recognized, the bank had not decided to adopt a policy designed to attract them. The bank officers also perceived deposits as cash transferred by a customer to the bank for the customer’s convenience. Time would pass before bankers came to see that they create deposits when they discount. [9]

Robert Gibbes Barnwell (1761–1814)

The Bank of North America opened its doors in Philadelphia in 1781 and remained, until succeeded by the First Bank of the United States, formed under the new US Constitution, the leading financial institution in the nation. Although no longer in operation, it is the oldest such institution in American history. See also: James Duane; Oliver Ellsworth; Robert Morris; John Morin Scott; Thomas Willing

[1] See “Journals of the American Congress: From 1774 to 1788. In Four Volumes” (Washington, DC: Printed and Published by Way and Gideon; four volumes, 1823), III:470. [2] “Morris to the President of Congress [Samuel Huntington], 17 May 1781” in Francis Wharton, ed., “The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States. Edited Under Direction of Congress” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; six volumes, 1889), IV:421. [3] Matthew St. Clair Clarke & D.A. Hall, comps., “Legislative and Documentary History of the Bank of the United States: Including the Original Bank of North America” (Washington, DC: Printed by Gales and Seaton, 1832), 11–12. [4] Ibid., 12. [5] Wilson, Janet, “The Bank of North America and Pennsylvania Politics: 1781–1787,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, LXVI:1 (January 1942), 3. [6] “Thoughts concerning the Bank of North America, with some facts relating to such establishments in other countries, respectfully submitted to the honorable The General Assembly of Pennsylvania, by one of their Constituents—Supposed to be written by Tench Coxe, Esq.,” The Colombian Museum, or, Universal Asylum for the year 1793 (January 1793), 5, 14. [7] Balch, Thomas Willing, “Thomas Willing of Philadelphia (1731–1821),” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, XLVI:1 (1922), 2. [8] Slaski, Eugene R., “Thomas Willing: Loyalty Meant Commitment,” Pennsylvania History, XLVII:3 (July 1980), 234–52. [9] Rappaport, George David, “The First Description of the Bank of North America,” The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, XXXIII:4 (October 1976), 661.

Robert Barnwell of South Carolina, a delegate to the Continental Congress (1788–89), also spent time as a prisoner of war from 1780 to 1781. He served in the US House of Representatives in the Second Congress (1791–93), and was a member of the South Carolina state House of Representatives, rising to serve as that body’s Speaker. He was born in Beaufort, South Carolina, on 21 December 1761. Although his middle name is almost never used—the few sources on his life merely refer to him as “Robert Barnwell”— his gravestone carries the name “Robert Gibbes Barnwell.” (Some sources that do list a middle name for him mistakenly use “Giddes” or even “Gidden.”) The Daughters of the American Revolution, which has Barnwell as a member, has his middle name listed as “Gibbes.” [1] His parents were Colonel Nathaniel Barnwell and Mary Barnwell, and, it appears that Robert Barnwell was one of fourteen children, one of whom, Edward, is listed as a half-brother. A genealogical biography of Colonel Barnwell (1705–1775) says of him, “[He] was involved in the development of sea island indigo plantations during the colonial period.” [2] Mary Barnwell, whose maiden name is alternatively given as Gibbs, Gibbes, and

Robert Gibbes Barnwell (1761–1814)63 Gibben, was born in 1722 and died in 1801 in South Carolina; she was the granddaughter of Governor Robert Gibbes (1644–1715) of South Carolina, who was an aide-de-camp to James Oglethorpe, the founder of the Georgia colony, in an expedition to Florida in 1740. [3] Robert Barnwell was educated in the common schools—a term that was applied to rural schools of the period in which “classical” studies, such as literature and theology, were taught—as well as by private tutors, possibly owing to his family’s ability to pay for such an education. According to his official congressional biography, Barnwell volunteered for service to fight the British when he was 16 years old. He saw action in several clashes, most notably at the battle on John’s Island, South Carolina (usually spelled Johns Island), in 1779, in which he suffered some seventeen different wounds but survived. By the following year, he was back in action, and served as a lieutenant with his company of South Carolina militia during the siege of Charleston by the British in 1780. When that city fell to the invading forces, Barnwell was captured and, as a prisoner of war, was imprisoned on board the prison ship Pack Horse in Charleston Harbor. In June 1781, he and other prisoners of war were released during a general exchange of prisoners between the two sides. Although the war did not end for an additional two years, for Barnwell the combination of injury and imprisonment had taken their toll, especially on such a young man, and he left the service when he became free. Barnwell took a position as the president of the board of trustees of Beaufort College, and served in that position for many years. In 1788, Barnwell was elected as a delegate to the Continental Congress. All sources agree that he was elected in 1788, and served for some period during that year as well as parts of 1789. The South Carolina state archives list him as a delegate during this period. However, in the most comprehensive work of the letters and correspondence of the members of the Continental Congress, done in eight volumes by historian Edmund Cody Burnett, there is no listing for Robert Barnwell. [4] Following his service in the Continental Congress, Barnwell served as a member of the South Carolina state convention held to debate the US

Constitution which was drafted in Philadelphia in 1787 and submitted to the states for ratification. Under this new Constitution, elections for the new national US House of Representatives and US Senate were held in 1788. Two years later, in 1790, Barnwell ran as a pro-Administration candidate—in other words, allied with the administration of President George Washington— for a seat in the US House of Representatives. Barnwell was elected, and served in the Second Congress (1791–93). In 1792, after only a single term in office, he declined to be a candidate for re-election. Instead, he returned to his native South Carolina, where he served in the state House of Representatives (1794–1801), rising to serve as Speaker of that body in 1795. In 1805, Barnwell was elected to the South Carolina state Senate, where he served from 1805 to 1806, rising to serve as president of that body in 1805. Barnwell died in Beaufort, South Carolina, on 24 October 1814 at the age of 52. He was buried in Saint Helena’s Episcopal Churchyard in Beaufort. The Charleston Courier, reporting the date of his death incorrectly, nevertheless stated on 1 November, “DIED, at Beaufort, on the 23d of October, and in the 53d year of his age, ROBERT BARNWELL, Esq. In the death of this distinguished man, society has lost one of the highest citizens.” [5] In a eulogy that appeared in The Worcester Magazine after his death, someone who gave a sermon at Barnwell’s funeral said: Our deceased friend was a public character, not only known in his native town, but as a distinguished member of Congress, throughout our whole continent. Of his political life and other civil qualifications I shall say nothing. But concerning the conversion of his heart to God, and with reference to his attachment to the doctrines and government of our Church, I conceive I should do no wrong to be totally silent . . . In his last remaining hours he was constantly engaged in prayer, and although his journey through the dreary valley was clouded with many doubts and fear, yet did he express the firmest faith in the testimony of the divine word, and the liveliest gratitude for the kind acts of his attending friends. Shortly before his death, he partook of the memorials of the Saviour’s dying love with the sweetest satisfaction, in charity with all men, and meek resignation to the will of his heavenly Father. [6] His son, Robert Woodward Barnwell (1801– 1882), served in the US House of Representatives

64

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

(1829–33), the US Senate (1850) and, during the Civil War as a member of the Confederate Senate (1861–65).

and 1778), Dr. Josiah Bartlett also was a signer of the Declaration of Independence (1776) and the Articles of Confederation (1779).

[1] “Robert Barnwell,” courtesy of the DAR Genealogical Research System (GRS), online at http://services.dar.org/public/ dar_research/search_adb/?action=full&p_id=A006602. [2] “Nathaniel Barnwell,” courtesy of Geni, online at http://www. geni.com/people/Nathaniel-Barnwell/6000000008552495232? through=6000000008552767223. [3] Information under Nathaniel Barnwell, in “Barnwell of South Carolina,” The South Carolina Historical and Genealogical Magazine, II:1 (January 1901), 51. See also Henry S. Holmes, “Robert Gibbes, Governor of South Carolina, and Some of His Descendants,” The South Carolina Historical and Genealogical Magazine, XII:2 (April 1911), 78–105. [4] The South Carolina state archives lists Barnwell among the personages who served from the state in the Continental Congress; see this information online at http://www.carolina.com/ SC/Congress/continental_congress_from_sc.htm [5] “Died,” Charleston Courier, 1 November 1814, 2. [6] “For the Christian Journal. A Short Biography of Col. Robert Barnwell: in an extract from a Sermon preached at his funeral,” The Christian Journal, and Literary Register, IV:4 (April 1820), 109–10.

Dr. Josiah Bartlett (1729–1795)

A physician who rose to serve his nation as a delegate to the Continental Congress (1775, 1776,

Bartlett was born in Amesbury, Massachusetts, on 21 November 1729, the son and youngest of seven children of Deacon Stephen Bartlett, a shoemaker, and his wife Hannah (née Webster) Bartlett. Although every source on Josiah Bartlett’s life lists his date of birth as 21 November 1729, a genealogical history of the entire Bartlett family, published by a Levi Bartlett, a relation to Josiah Bartlett, in 1876, states that he was actually born on 21 November 1728; there is no reason given for the discrepancy. According to this genealogical study, the family can be traced back to John Bartlett, Sr., “[who] came to Newbury [Massachusetts] in the ship ‘Mary and John’ in 1634; [he] made freeman, May 17, 1637, being one of the earliest settlers. He had a wife, Joan, who died February 5, 1679. He died April 13, 1678, leaving a son John (born in England) who married Sarah.” Of Stephen Bartlett, this history states that he “was taught the trade of a shoemaker, and worked at this trade for several years.” Of Josiah’s mother Hannah Webster Bartlett, the history merely says that her father was “wealthy in landed property.” [1] A biographical sketch of Josiah Bartlett from 1822 added, “His ancestors were of Norman origin, and came to England with William, Duke of Normandy, afterwards King of England, and settled in the south of that island. A branch of this family came to America during the 17th century, and settled at Beverly in Massachusetts.” [2] Perhaps because of his large family, and his father’s inability to earn a large amount of money, Josiah Bartlett did not get much schooling. Instead, at a young age, he was apprenticed to a relative by marriage, a Dr. Nehemiah Ordway, and under his tutelage Bartlett studied medicine. In 1750, after three years of medical studies, Bartlett moved to the colony of New Hampshire, and he opened a medical practice in the town of Kingston. Bartlett soon became an expert in diseases that at the time were usually fatal, including fevers. In such a small community as Kingston was during this time, the ability to have such a skilled physician in their midst was a blessing to the people there.

Dr. Josiah Bartlett (1729–1795)65 In 1751, the year following his move to New Hampshire, owing to the tremendous growth of his medical practice, Bartlett was able to purchase a tract of some twelve acres of land from one Thomas Turner. He then had a home built on this land. On 15 January 1754, Bartlett married his cousin, Mary Barton Bartlett (1730– 1789), of Newton, New Hampshire; she was the daughter of Bartlett’s father’s brother Joseph and his wife Sarah (née Hoyt) Bartlett. Together, the couple had twelve children, eight of whom lived until adulthood. The couple remained married until Mary’s death in 1789. Although he remained a physician, Bartlett entered the political arena when, in March 1757, he was elected as a selectman—a type of alderman or city councilman—for the town of Kingston. He served in this capacity through several reelections up until 1775, when that body was dissolved by the royal governor in the fight over what would become the American Revolution. In 1763, Bartlett sought to expand his landholdings, when he and a group of investors settled the town of Warren, New Hampshire, with Bartlett serving as an original grantee of the village. He also served as an original grantee for the villages of Wentworth, New Hampshire, as well as Sudbury, Vermont, and he was a proprietor for the villages of Salisbury and Perrystown (now Sutton), both in New Hampshire. In 1765, Bartlett may have tired of politics, because he returned to the practice of medicine, joining a three-year partnership with Dr. Amos Gale in Kingston. Two years later, however, when Governor John Wentworth became the governor of New Hampshire, he appointed a legislative committee to examine and propose reforms of the provincial laws. That same month, September 1765, Wentworth named Bartlett as a justice of the peace. It appears that Bartlett and Wentworth had a close relationship, especially when in March 1770 the governor named Bartlett to a legislative committee to help establish a colony-wide system of equitable taxation. Later that year, in November, Bartlett was commissioned into the 7th New Hampshire Regiment, with the rank of lieutenant. This period, following the Boston Massacre in March 1770, led to increased hostility between

the colonists and the English authorities. For the most part, Bartlett appears to have stayed out of the fray, at least until 1774, when a series of harsh economic measures enacted by London on the colonies gave rise to a spirit of violent anger against all things British. Bartlett was appointed to a legislative committee of correspondence, which used letter writing to secretly contact persons in other colonies with similar anti-British feelings. In July 1774, Bartlett attended the First Provincial Congress, held in Exeter, New Hampshire, where strategy was plotted. Governor Wentworth had turned against the colonists, and had dissolved the colony assembly after that body met to denounce the five so-called “Intolerable Acts,” enacted by the English Parliament in response to The Boston Tea Party. Unable the meet officially, the members of the assembly met at this First Provincial Congress, where they voted to send delegates to the Continental Congress, being held in Philadelphia, the economic center of the colonies. What followed was the outbreak of hostilities, caused in part by the raid by colonists on Fort William and Mary, on the Piscataqua River in Portsmouth Harbor, 14–15 December 1774. A store of small arms and gunpowder was seized by the colonists so it would not be used by British troops; although Bartlett did not take part in the raid, he did alert the state militia after he heard that the raid had occurred and he prepared for a British response. Bartlett also attended the Second Provincial Congress, held in January 1775, and served on the body’s Committee of Correspondence. His attendance at these meetings led to a crack between he and Governor Wentworth, and Bartlett was relieved of his duties as a justice of the peace and as a lieutenant in the colonial militia. Nevertheless, he attended the Third Provincial Congress, in April and May 1775, and served on the committee which sent letters of support to the Massachusetts Provincial Congress, held following the clashes between colonists and British forces at Lexington and Concord. On 23 August 1775, Bartlett was elected as a delegate to the Second Continental Congress, the second session of which drafted the document that became the Declaration of Independence, the statement of independence from Great Britain.

66

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

The leading historian of the Continental Congress, Edmund Cody Burnett, explained that Bartlett was elected on 23 August 1775 and subsequently on 23 January 1776, attending meetings of the body from 16 September 1775 to about 18 March 1776, then from 18 May 1776 to 4 July 1776, when he affixed his signature on the Declaration of Independence. Burnett writes that Bartlett’s second election, on 23 January 1776, was “for the term of one year.” [3] Bartlett was then reelected on 24 December 1776 “for one year from 23 January 1777.” [4] Burnett then states that after Bartlett signed the Declaration, he attended sessions from 5 July 1776 until 26 October 1776, Burnett wrote in 1921, “In a letter of Sept. 30 [1776], Bartlett wrote: ‘I have not been able to attend either the Marine or Secret Committee for some time past, and Congress but little . . . By the advice of my friends and physicians, I design to leave this city in a few days, and try to move homeward.’” [5]

Employ workmen, oversee the Business, to keep Exact and Regular accounts of the whole, to Draw on the Marine Committe of Congress for money to Cary on the Business, and to be accountable to said Committee; for all which they will be handsomely Rewarded. As the Ship Building business is out of my Sphere I am unwilling to nominate the said overseers: I am therefore Directed by said Committee to Desire you immediately to Consider of proper overseers also of a proper place for Building said vessel, both for Safety and Convenience of materials and workmen: She will be about 700 tons; an Exact Draught will be sent forward in a few Days; in the meantime it will be necessary for the overseers to Buy up without Loss of time, Every necessary for Building and fitting out [sai]d Ship and what Cant be had in our Colony must [be not]ified to the marine Committee at Philadelphia [in order that] they may provide it. [7]

Bartlett’s correspondence, in Dartmouth University, is extensive, giving a clear insight into his thinking as well as his discussions on his ideas of topics of the times. For instance, in a letter to the New Hampshire Committee of Safety, 13 November 1775, he wrote of the Continental Congress, “When the Congress will rise, [I] can’t say, But fear it can’t till winter, if it can before Spring. The affair of the ships taken at Portsmouth has not been considered by Congress, by reason of urgent Business; But I expect soon, that that and several other captures will be taken under consideration and some General Rules adopted; when any thing is Determined on it, will inform you by the first opportunity. I am Directed by the Congress to send you the Inclosed Resolves for making salt petre, and I would earnestly Recommend the putting them in practice.” [6] In another letter to the New Hampshire Committee of Safety, this time dated 21 December 1775, Bartlett wrote: The Congress having Determined to Build at Continental Expense a number of Ships of war in the united Colonies to be ready for sea if possible by the last of march next: Have agreed that one, of the Inclosed dementions, to Cary [sic] 32 guns, be Built in our Colony. It is proposed that one or 2 persons well skilled in ship building, of approved integrity, be forthwith appointed to provide the materials,

As the Declaration of Independence became more of a document rather than an idea, Bartlett reported to John Langdon, the president of New Hampshire, on 1 July 1776, three days before Bartlett signed it along with the other 55 signers: The affair of Independency has been this day determined in a Committee of the whole House; by next Post, I expect you will receive a formal declaration with the reasons; the Declaration before Congress is, I think, a pretty good one. I hope it will not be spoiled by canvassing in Congress. [8] And while Bartlett does not write about the Declaration of Independence, historian John Sanderson, in a collection of biographies of the men who signed that historic document that was published in 1823 did state: The subject of a Declaration of Independence had been some time in agitation, and freely and fully discussed. In many places the public opinion was much divided; the partizans [sic] of Great Britain strongly opposed it, and many of the best friends to the country had doubts of the policy of the measure at that moment; but the more firm and zealous patriots warmly urged its adoption, and used every argument in its support. On the first of July, it was found that a majority was in favour of the measure; but it was calmly and deliberately discussed until the fourth day of that month, with the view of obtaining as unanimous a vote as possible. On that memorable day, it was deemed expedient to take the sentiments of the house [in short, the Continental Congress], beginning with the northernmost colony, or New

Dr. Josiah Bartlett (1729–1795)67 Hampshire. The name of Doctor Bartlett was first called, and he answered in the affirmative; the other states were then called in rotation. John Hancock, the president of congress, first signed the declaration, and was immediately followed by Dr. Bartlett, he being the first who voted for, and the first after the president, who signed the important document. [9] Bartlett does write about his thoughts on the British operations that forced many members of the Continental Congress to escape from Philadelphia for their own safety. Writing to his fellow New Hampshirite, William Whipple, who would succeed Bartlett in the Continental Congress, Bartlett explained: By that time this reaches you I expect you will be near ready to set out on your return to this city. Make all convenient haste. The Congress is, at this time, very thin. Colonel [Henry] Lee is arrived here, but several others have taken leave of absence, among them Mr. [Thomas] Jefferson and Mr. Haywood [10]. The unhappy affair of the 27th, on Long Island, has occasioned the evacuation of our works there and on Governour’s Island. Our people were ensnared, and, what vexes me, in a very careless manner. [11] In another letter, this time to John Langdon, dated 19 October 1776, Bartlett penned that he wished to leave Philadelphia and return home, but could not because his successor, Colonel William Whipple, had not arrived yet. Bartlett wrote “I shall look for him every day now till I see him, when I shall, return home, and, after your example, enjoy the pleasure of residing in my own country in future.” [12] From the time after he signed the Declaration of Independence, Bartlett contemplated the outlines of the new nation’s governmental structure. Historian Robert F. Williams wrote in 1987, “As early as July 15, 1776, Josiah Bartlett of New Hampshire, which had already adopted a temporary state constitution in January 1776, wrote home from Philadelphia to John Langdon, a future delegate to the federal Constitutional Convention, that the constitutions ‘of Virginia and New Jersey are in this city. I shall send them forward, and the Constitutions of the other Colonies as they are formed, as possibly something may be taken from them to amend our own.’ This interest in, and direct involvement with, the state constitutions continued through

the decade leading up to the 1787 Constitutional Convention.” [13] Bartlett left Philadelphia when he retired from the Continental Congress in November 1776, having put his mark on history. The following month, after he was back home in New Hampshire, he declined another term as a delegate to the Continental Congress. Instead, he joined his fellow militiamen by lending support to American troops in Rhode Island. In August 1777, at the battle of Bennington, he used his medical skills to care for wounded American soldiers. After he returned home, in early 1778 he was named as the chairman of a legislative committee of the New Hampshire legislature to consider whether or not the state should support the Articles of Confederation. When his state called upon him to serve again in the Continental Congress, Bartlett reluctantly agreed to the appointment, and, it was during this second service in that body that he signed the Articles of Confederation, the document he had been discussing in his home state. In a letter to General Nicholas Folsom, 12 June 1778, Bartlett wrote from Philadelphia: I arrived here the 21st ulto & was obliged to put up at Stake’s Tavern for several Days before I could procure other lodgings; I now put up at one Hoffman’s on the west side of the Bridge quite at the west end of the town at a German House, where I am obliged to be a German in most Respects. We have been in hopes ever since I arrived here, that we should soon get back to Philadelphia, But the accounts from thence are so various & contradictory and the arrival of the Brittish Commisrs makes the Enemys Design of Removal somewhat Problematical; If they mean to Evacuate the place, I expect it will soon be Effected, as Gen’l. Washington has Removed our army towards the City; The latter end of May Geni. Clinton & Lord Howe sent the late famous Acts of the Brittish Parliament to G. Washington and requested leave to send out a person to him, which He Refused & informed them that if what they had to communicate to him was what came under the military Department, He Desired it might be sent him in writing, but if it was of any other nature their application ought to be made to Congress[.] [14] After this short stint was over, he returned home to New Hampshire where he continued to serve in several capacities, including as a member of the State Executive Council, as well as being a member of the Court of Common Pleas.

68

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

In 1779, Bartlett was again elected to a seat in the New Hampshire state legislature, where he was named as a delegate to a convention to draft a new state constitution. In 1781, Bartlett was appointed as a justice on the State Superior Court, at that time the highest court in the state. For his work to the people of his state, in 1784, even though not a member, he was allowed to preside over the inaugural session of the new state legislature as formed under the new state constitution. In 1790, Bartlett was selected as the Chief Executive of New Hampshire—under the new constitution, the “governor” of the state would now be called “the Chief Executive”—and he was reelected three times. In 1792, when the state revised its new constitution, the term “governor” was reinstated, and under this new change, Bartlett took office as the first popularly elected, as well as constitutional governor of New Hampshire. One of the acts he signed as governor established the New Hampshire Medical Society, and, when Bartlett left office, he served as the society’s first president. According to the newspaper The Oracle of the Day of Portsmouth, New Hampshire, in that paper’s edition of 15 February 1794, “His Excellency JOSIAH BARTLETT we are informed, has resigned his office.” [15]

above the ground. The town of Bartlett, New Hampshire, was named in Bartlett’s honor. His son, Josiah Bartlett, Jr. (1768–1838), served in the US House of Representatives in the Twelfth Congress (1811–13); further, his distant relative, Roscoe Gardner Bartlett (1926- ) served as a member of the US House of Representatives (1993–2013).

That same newspaper reported a proclamation, made by Bartlett as governor in the waning days of his administration, “[F]or a day of public Fasting, Humiliation and Prayer.” In the proclamation, Bartlett wrote, “As it is the duty and happiness of all men to acknowledge their dependence on the Supreme Governour [sic] of the Universe, penitently to confess their sins, and devoutly to implore his mercy: I have thought fit, by and with the advice of the Council, and at of the request of the General Court, to issue his proclamation, appointing THURSDAY the twenty-fourth day of March next, to be observed as a general and public FAST throughout this State.” [16]

See also: The Articles of Confederation; The Declaration of Independence

The death of Bartlett’s beloved wife, Mary, on 14 July 1789, led to his own health suffering, although he served as governor in the years after her death. On 19 May 1795, less than a year after he left the governorship, Bartlett suffered a fatal stroke and died at his home in Kingston at the age of 65. He was laid to rest next to his wife in the cemetery of the Congregationalist Church in Kingston in a sarcophagus that is

Historian Frank C. Meyers, in a biography of Josiah Bartlett, wrote: Josiah Bartlett’s integrity, self-confidence, and concern for human welfare won him the trust of the public and his fellow leaders. His trust in them was pervasive. Although his letters are sober, they betray an optimistic belief in the good of the revolutionary cause. In closing a letter to his wife on 24 June 1776, he noted his hope that “Kind Providence will order all things for the best, and if Sometimes affairs turn out Contrary to our wishes, we must make our selves Easy & Contented, as we are not Certain what is for the best.” The abundant records of the era reveal his prodigious involvement in nearly every activity of public life in New Hampshire, while his personal papers portray his care of his medical patients and his deep and abiding love for his family. The state government that so clearly bore his stamp incorporated a town in his honor in 1790. [17]

[1] Bartlett, Levi, “Genealogical and Biographical Sketches of the Bartlett Family in England and America” (Lawrence, MA: Geo. S. Merrill of Crocker, Printers, 1876), 13, 42. The date given for the birth of Josiah Bartlett appears on page 46. [2] “Biographical Sketch of the Honorable Josiah Bartlett: One of the Delegates who Signed the Declaration of Independence, and the first Governor of New-Hampshire,” Collections, Topographical, Historical & Biological, Relating Principally to New Hampshire, I:3 (1 August 1822), 141. [3] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921–36), I:lxix. [4] More information on Bartlett’s service in ibid., II:lii. [5] Ibid., II:lii. [6] Bartlett to the New-Hampshire Committee of Safety, 13 November 1775, in ibid., I:254–55. [7] Bartlett to the New-Hampshire Committee of Safety, 21 December 1775, in ibid., II:282. [8] Bartlett to John Langdon, 1 July 1776, in ibid., I:519–20. [9] Sanderson, John, “Biography of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence, by John Sanderson” (Philadelphia: Published by R.W. Pomeroy; --- volumes, 1823), III:139. [10] Bartlett refers here not to “Haywood,” but to delegate Thomas Heyward of South Carolina.

John Bubenheim Bayard (1738–1807)69 [11] Bartlett to William Whipple, 3 September 1776, in Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921–36), I:66. [12] Bartlett to John Langdon, 19 October 1776, in ibid., II:126–27. [13] Williams, Robert F., “Experience Must Be Our Only Guide: The State Constitutional Experience of the Framers of the Federal Constitution,” Hastings Constitutional Law Quarterly, XV (1986–87), 407. [14] Bartlett to Nicholas Folsom, 12 June 1778, in “Letters of Some Members of the Old Congress,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, XXIX:2 (1905), 194–96. [15] For the announcement, see The Oracle of the Day [Portsmouth, New Hampshire], 15 February 1794, 3. [16] For the proclamation, see “By His Excellency Josiah Bartlett, Esq. Governour and Commander in Chief of the State of NewHampshire. A Proclamation, For a day of public Fasting, Humiliation and Prayer,” The Oracle of the Day [Portsmouth, New Hampshire], 15 March 1794, 1. [17] Meyer, Frank C., “Bartlett, Josiah,” in John A. Garraty and Mark C. Carnes, gen. eds., “American National Biography” (New York: Oxford University Press; 24 volumes, 1999), II:279–81.

John Bubenheim Bayard (1738–1807)

A member of one of the most important political families in America in the 18th and 19th centuries, John Bubenheim Bayard served as a delegate to the Continental Congress (1785–86) as well as serving in the military during the American Revolution. A noted Philadelphia merchant, Bayard was a leading figure in his time.

John Bayard was born at Great House, Bohemia Manor, his family’s estate, in Cecil County, Maryland, on 11 August 1738, the son of James Asheton Bayard, a planter, and Ann (née Ashton) Bayard. The family had been in the New World since the middle of the 17th century: history James Grant Wilson, in an address published in 1885, noted, “The same ship that brought to the Western World and landed in New Amsterdam, as New York was then called, in the month of May, 1647, the last of the Dutch governor of the New Netherlands, had also on board [Peter] Stuyvesant’s beautiful wife, and his stately sister Anna, widow of Samuel Bayard. This lady was accompanied by her daughter, Catherine, and three sons, Petrus [Peter], Balthazar, and Nicholas. These brothers are the ancestors of the American Bayards, and from the first named is descended C0lonel John Bayard, of Bohemia Manor, Maryland.” [1] John Bubenheim Bayard, who dropped the use of his middle name early in his life, was educated at the Nottingham Institution in Nottingham, Maryland, by Samuel Finley (1715–1766), a Scottish-born Presbyterian preacher who later served as the fifth president of the College of New Jersey (now Princeton University), as well as receiving private tutoring by The Reverend George Duffield (1732–1790), a leader in the Presbyterian Church who presided over that religion’s churches in the frontier villages of Pennsylvania and Maryland. [2] Following the conclusion of his education, Bayard went to Philadelphia, then the economic center of the colonies, where, according to historian Jan Onofrio, Bayard “entered the business house of John Rhea.” [3] Three years later, in 1759, Bayard married Margaret Hodge (1740–1780), the daughter of fellow Philadelphia merchant. (His brother James married Margaret’s younger sister.) Prior to her death at the age of 40, Margaret Bayard bore her husband an unknown number of children, eight of whom lived to adulthood, including the novelist Margaret Bayard Smith. In the years before the outbreak of the American Revolution, John Bayard successfully grew his business into one of the most successful in Philadelphia. When his father, James Asheton Bayard, died in 1770, John Bayard invited his

70

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

siblings, including his twin brother, James Asheton Bayard, Jr., to come to Philadelphia to live with him and his children. The death of his beloved wife Margaret in 1780 left Bayard a widower until he remarried, this time to Mary Grant Hodgson, herself a widow, of South Carolina. The couple had no children before Mary Bayard’s death, and Bayard married a third time, to Johannah White, in 1787, and this marriage produced no children either.

following year. A biography of Bayard written upon his death in 1807 said of this period:

John Bayard would have remained a major merchant in Philadelphia if not for a series of harsh economic measures imposed by London on the colonies. These measures, which included the Sugar Act (1764), the Stamp Act (1765), and others, all served to heighten colonial anger against the British authorities in the colonies as well as the government in London. In 1765, Bayard joined merchants in Philadelphia and other colonies in signing the Nonimportation Agreement, which demanded of merchants who shipped goods to Britain to refuse to sell England any further orders until the Stamp Act was repealed. The following year, Bayard joined the Sons of Liberty. Begun in Boston the previous year, the group began as The Loyal Nine, merchants who secretly plotted ways to avoid paying duties under the Stamp Act. For some reason, the years between Bayard’s joining the Sons of Liberty and the start of the American Revolution are almost completely blank. The few sources that do exist on his life skip from the period of 1765 to 1774, merely stopping to note that Bayard’s twin brother, Dr. James A. Bayard, died suddenly in 1770, leaving his brother in great shock. (Dr. Bayard’son, also named James A. Bayard, served in the US Senate {1804–13} from Delaware.) What is known is that Bayard also joined the Philadelphia Committee of Inspection and Observation, in 1774. That same year, Bayard’s brother’s widow died just four years after her husband, leaving their children without parents. John Bayard adopted his brother’s children and brought them up as his own. In 1776, Bayard was elected to a seat in the Pennsylvania General Assembly. During his time in the Assembly, Bayard served for several terms as the Speaker of that body. In 1776, he was also elected to become a member of the Council of Safety for Pennsylvania, serving until the

At the commencement of the late revolutionary war, which terminated in the independence of these American States, Mr. Bayard took a very active and decided part in favour of his country. He was at first chosen [as] a captain, then Major, and finally Colonel of the second battalion of the Philadelphia militia. At the head of this corporations he marched to the assistance of General Washington at the close of the year 1776, and was present and engaged at the battle of Trenton. When the army retired to winter quarters, the militia were allowed to revisit their homes, at which time Colonel Bayard had an opportunity of returning to the bosom of an affectionate and anxious family. The alarm which had been spread in the city of Philadelphia by the apprehension of British depredations, induced Colonel Bayard to remove his family a few miles into the country, out of the way of immediate danger . . . In the autumn of the year 1777, the British forces, after landing at the head of [the] Elk river, and obliging the American army to retire before them, crossed the Schuylkill and took possession of Philadelphia. [4] Bayard had taken part in the Pennsylvania Provincial Convention in January 1775 as well as the First Pennsylvania Provincial Conference in June 1776. His growing influence in the colony’s politics made him such an important figure, both in the business of the colony as well as in its politics, that, in his diary chronicling his travels to, and his initial attendance at, the First Continental Congress, delegate John Adams of Massachusetts wrote in his diary for the day of 31 August 1774, when he arrived in Philadelphia, “Wed. Breakfasted at Mr. Bayard’s, of Philadelphia, Mr. [James] Sprout, a Presbyterian minister.” [5] The August 1775 edition of The Pennsylvania Magazine stated that on 16 August 1775, “At an election, held Aug. 16 at the State-House, for chusing [sic] a Committee for the city of Philadelphia and its districts, the following Gentlemen were duly chosen, viz.” Bayard’s name was then listed as being number 22, elected of a total of 28. [6] Bayard later served as a member of the Board of War, an early incarnation inside the Continental Congress, which was the progenitor of the Department of War, which came before

John Bubenheim Bayard (1738–1807)71 the modern Department of Defense. In May 1775, Bayard was commissioned into the second battalion of the Philadelphia Associators, also known as The Associators of Philadelphia. Historian Russell Weigley wrote of this group that they had been formed as early as 1747, to protect the city from invasion by privateers, establishing “an association for defense” of the shops of merchants, their homes, and their families. [7] As part of this militia group, Bayard saw military action at Perth Amboy and Princeton, both in New Jersey, as well as at Brandywine and Germantown, rising to the rank of colonel in 1777. Although intimately involved in the economic war against Great Britain from the start, Bayard did not believe, at least for several years during this period, that the colonies needed to break away completely from England. He also argued for protections for the right of free speech and association, and, when the new Pennsylvania constitution was enacted in 1776, he led a meeting that October calling for reforms of the document. When his calls for reform were not heard, Bayard ran for a seat in the state Assembly, winning in November 1776. He was ultimately elected to a total of five terms, rising to serve as Speaker of that body for much of his tenure. And although he had been elected on a platform to reform and amend the new constitution, he came to see it for its protections and by 1777 he had backed it fully, although he continued to ask for minor reforms. In October 1777, when the state Council of Safety was expanded to seat additional members, Bayard was named to that body. Although clashes with other members over policy and allegations that his being named to the Council of Safety was due to payoffs, he continued in his role until he resigned in 1782. He then attempted to form a “Bank of Philadelphia,” which would rival the Bank of North America, formed by the Continental Congress to help push loans throughout the new states, believing that the national bank was a monopoly. The idea for Bayard’s new bank never got enough funding, and it never got off the ground. On 11 November 1785, as the Continental Congress neared its end—in 1787, delegates to the Constitutional Convention would draft the new US Constitution, ushering in national elections for a US House of Representatives and

US Senate—Bayard was elected to a seat in that older body. Historian Edmund Cody Burnett, who documented not only the periods of service of the delegates to the Continental Congress but collected their correspondence in eight volumes in 1921, wrote of the Pennsylvanian that Bayard was elected on the date mentioned above “presumably ‘for the ensuing year,’” and attended sessions of the body from 23 November to 28 December 1785, then on about 1 June 1786 and then from 26 June to about 14 September 1786, and, finally, from 11 October to 13 November 1786. Unlike many other delegates, Burnett does not give additional comment on Bayard’s service. [8] Two pieces of Bayard’s correspondence from the Continental Congress appear to have survived. To his son, Samuel Bayard (1767–1840), a lawyer and judge, he explained on 1 December 1785: I find Congress opens a new scene of Action to me and candidly confess it requires greater abilities than I am possesed [sic] of to make a distinguished Appearance on that Floor—there are several Gentlemen who shine as speakers, particularly a Mr. Rufus King from Massechusets. He has a graceful Attitude, a fine flow of Words and in genral a thorough acquaintance of the Subject on wich He speaks—this gives him an unrival’d Influence the Debates are conducted in general with great Decency and propriety and the Members treat each other with the utmost politeness. The greatest inconvenience is, that we have so many good speakers, each willing to display their Abilities on the Subject in debate that they are frequently lenthned [sic] out, and exhausted and become rather tiresome. [9] To John Nicholson, a Welsh-born publisher and land speculator who had served previously as the clerk to the Board of Treasury (a sort of Treasury Department) of the Continental Congress, who at the time of this letter was serving as the Comptroller General of the commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Bayard explained: I this day received your Letter of the 4th Inst[ant] in answer to mine of the 8th Ult[imo]. I can readily pardon your not answering me sooner as I know how much your Time is taken up with publick [sic] Business. Mr. [Charles] Pettit [a delegate to the Continental Congress from Pennsylvania] by his Letter of the 9th Inst[ant] informs me that Mr. [James] Wilson [a delegate to the Continental Congress from Pennsylvania] will sett off on Monday or tuseday

72

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

[sic] for this place, this has determined me to leave this for Philada. on Wensday [sic] or thursday [sic] at farthest, so that I shall shortly have the pleasure of seeing you when I hope it will be in my power to settle Matters to mutual Satisfaction. I am much pleased with the Conduct of our Assembly in passing the Laws agreably [sic] to the Report of their Committeehowever We may be devided [sic] by Party We stand well with Congress as a Federal State. I wish I could say as much for N[ew] York. I hope to have the pleasure of seeing you in a few days. [10]

the gentleman whose loss we now deplore.” [13] Bayard was buried in the First Presbyterian Churchyard in New Brunswick in Middlesex County, New Jersey.

Bayard was not named as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention in 1787, which drew up the new US Constitution, and he was never elected to a seat in either the new US House of Representatives or US Senate. He did support the ratification of the Constitution, and in 1788 moved his family from Pennsylvania to New Jersey. Two years later he was elected the mayor of Brunswick, New Jersey, and later served as the judge for the Court of Common Pleas for Somerset County, New Jersey. A man of religion and education, Bayard served as the trustee of the College of New Jersey (now Princeton University), and as an elder in the First Presbyterian Church. Bayard died in Brunswick on 7 January 1807 at the age of 68. The magazine The Panoplist, in its January 1807 edition, simply wrote, “Obituary. In the city of New-Brunswick, state of New-Jersey, Jan. 13, in the 69th year of his age, Col. John Bayard, formerly a citizen of Philadelphia.” [11] The New-Jersey Journal added, “In New- Brunswick, on Wednesday last, Col. John BAYARD, in the sixty-ninth year of his age. We should be wanting in our duty, were we to pass over this afflicting event without expressing our deep sense of the loss society has sustained by the death of this most excellent man.” [12] Finally, the newspaper Poulson’s American Daily Advertiser of Philadelphia said, “Through the whole course of his useful life, Col. Bayard afforded a bright example of those virtues which adorn and dignify human nature— In the various offices and stations which he filled, whether political, charitable or religious, he was uniformly influenced by pure patriotism, genuine benevolence and integrity, and rational piety. Few men, we believe, possessed all these social, domestick qualities, which command the affectionate attachment and love of all around them in so eminent a degree, as did

John Bayard was the first major politician of a family which gave to America a tremendous amount of service during the 18th and 19th centuries. His great-nephew, Thomas Francis Bayard, Sr. (1828–1898) served as a US senator from Delaware (1869–85), as well as secretary of state in the administration of President Grover Cleveland (1885–89). Thomas’ son, Thomas Francis Bayard, Jr. (1868–1942), served as a US Senator from Delaware (1922–29).

[1] Wilson, Gen. Jas. Grant, “Colonel John Bayard (1738–1807) and the Bayard Family of America. The Anniversary Address Before the New York Genealogical and Biographical Society, February 27, 1885” (New York: Trow’s Printing and Bookbinding Co., 1885), 2. [2] Duffield also served as a delegate to the Continental Congress; see his biography under the Letter D. For more on the life and work of Duffield, see William A. McCorkle, “In Memoriam: A Discourse on the Life and Character of the Late Rev. George Duffield, D.D. (Detroit: O.S. Gulley’s Print, 1868). [3] “Bayard, John Bubenheim” in Jan Onofrio, “Maryland Biographical Dictionary” (St. Clair Shores, MI: Somerset Publishers, Inc., 1999), 36. [4] “Biography: A Short Sketch of the Life and Character of Col. John Bayard,” The Evangelical Intelligencer: New Series, I:1 (July 1807), 4. [5] Entry of 31 August 1774 in “Diary of John Adams” in Charles Francis Adams, “The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States: With a Life of the Author, Note and Illustrations” (Boston: Little, Brown and Company; two volumes, 1856), II:360. The information on Sprout comes from “Records of the Presbyterian Church in the United States of America, Embracing the Minutes of the General Presbytery and General Synod, 1700–1788. Together with an Index and the Minutes of the General Convention for Religious Liberty, 1700–1775” (Philadelphia: The Presbyterian Board of Publication and Sabbath-School Work; two volumes, 1841), II:483. [6] “Monthly Intelligence,” The Pennsylvania Magazine: or, American Monthly Museum (August 1775), 393. [7] For information on the Philadelphia Associators, see Weigley, Russell Frank, “Philadelphia: A 300 Year History” (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1982), 103. [8] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921–36), VIII:xciv. [9] John Bayard to Samuel Bayard, 1 December 1785, in ibid., VIII:266–67. [10] Bayard to John Nicholson, 11 May 1786, in ibid., VIII:320–21. [11] “Obituary,” The Panoplist; or, The Christian’s Armory, VIII:2 (January 1807), 392. [12] “Died,” New-Jersey Journal [Elizabethtown, New Jersey], 13 January 1807, 3. [13] “Died, in the city of New Brunswick,” Poulson’s American Daily Advertiser [Philadelphia], 10 January 1807, 3.

John Beatty (1749–1826)73

John Beatty (1749–1826)

John Beatty served as a delegate from New Jersey to the Continental Congress (1784–85), as well as in the US House of Representatives (1793–95). A physician and military official, Beatty had a long and distinguished career both in his native Pennsylvania as well as his adopted state of New Jersey. He was born on 19 December 1749 in Warwick, in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, the son of Charles Clinton Beatty, a Presbyterian minister and his wife, Anne (née Reading) Beatty. Charles Beatty (1715–1772) was the son of John Beattie (1645– 1729), who was born in Ayrshire, Scotland, and died in Ulster, County Antrim, Ireland (now Northern Ireland). [1] John Beatty attended the College of New Jersey (now Princeton University), from which he graduated in 1769. Three years later, he earned a Master’s degree from the same institution. Beatty then studied medicine under the tutelage of Dr. Benjamin Rush in Philadelphia; afterwards, he returned to New Jersey, where he opened a medical practice first in Princeton. Deciding to relocate to Pennsylvania, Beatty then opened a similar practice in the town of Hartsville, Pennsylvania, approximately 30 miles northeast

of Philadelphia. In 1774, Beatty married Mary Longstreet of Princeton, New Jersey; together, the couple had an unknown number of children, only one of which survived to adulthood. With the start of the American Revolution in 1774, Beatty put his medical practice on hold, as he and three of his brothers volunteered for service in the Continental Army. In January 1776, Beatty was commissioned in the Fifth Pennsylvania Battalion with the rank of captain. His troops were immediately dispatched to New York, where a potential British invasion was threatened. Beatty and his fellow Pennsylvanians were used to construct defensive works around the city, most notably at the northern part of what is now Manhattan Island. What Beatty and his troops did not know was that the threatened British invasion was a reality, and came even before they could properly prepare for such an onslaught. The British and allied forces invaded and took control of the place where Beatty and his men were working: Fort Washington. On 16 November 1776, while commanding the Sixth Pennsylvania Battalion, Beatty and his men were taken prisoner and imprisoned as prisoners of war. According to military records, Beatty was captured not by British troops when Fort Washington surrendered, but by Indians fighting side-by-side with the English. The records claim that Beatty was tortured following his capture. Beatty spent six long months as a prisoner of war on board a British prison ship docked in New York Harbor. He was then sent to a prisoner camp in Flatbush (now in Queens, New York) for an additional year. In May 1778, after 19 months as a prisoner of the British, he was exchanged back to the Continental Army during a prisoner swap. According to Beatty’s official congressional biography, “after his exchange [he] was appointed commissary general of prisoners with the rank of colonel May 28, 1778.” [2] Historian Betsy Knight added, “Congress appointed Boudinot commissary general of prisoners, with responsibility to supervise the care of prisoners on both sides, in Apr. 1777. He resigned in Apr. 1778 after collapse of the negotiations but served until June 1778. John Beatty, who succeeded him, served until Mar. 1780. Thereafter, Abraham Skinner served until Sept. 22, 1782, when Washington replaced him with Lt. Col. William Stephens Smith.” [3]

74

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Given the rank of colonel, Beatty served as the Commissary General of Prisoners, tasked to assist soldiers who had been captured by the enemy, either during their imprisonment or after. Although he had been held by the British in horrific conditions, Beatty nevertheless used his office to work closely with the British to make sure that American soldiers were treated as decently as possible. However, some came to believe that he was secretly working to aid the British, so much so that General George Washington ordered his arrest, and, in February 1780, Beatty was court-martialed. Although acquitted of the charges lodged against him, nevertheless his military career was finished. In March 1780 he resigned his commission after Washington publicly rebuked him.

& brushing up—I have been attempting to procure you the Care of a Begiment [sic] in the Pena Line, but some uneasiness prevailing among the Surgeons & a Prospect of a reduction of some of the Regt render it impracticable at present—perhaps you may have also, some other schemes in View—a good Wife, with a little fortune, will prepare the way exceedingly well, for sitting down in the Country to Business, if this is your View. I should be very sorry to break in upon your plan—advise me what I can do for you & nothing in my power shall be wanting. [4]

After leaving the military, Beatty returned home to New Jersey where he resumed his medical practice. He also worked as a farmer to supplement his income. He settled on his family estate, called “Windsor Hall.” To his brother Reading Beatty, he wrote on 1 May 1780:

Historian of the Continental Congress, Edmund Cody Burnett, wrote of Beatty that he was elected on 6 November 1783 “until the fifth day of November next, unless a new appointment shall sooner take place.” He was reelected on 29 October 1784 “to commence the first Monday in November next” and that his term would end on 1 November 1785 “unless a new appointment shall sooner take place.” [5] Unfortunately, Burnett does not include any correspondence to or from Beatty during his time in the Continental Congress. What can be found is in the “Journals of Congress,” which cover the sessions of the Continental Congress as it sat, not in Philadelphia, but in Trenton, New Jersey. On 29 November 1784, the “Journals” state that “[s]ix states assembled, namely, Massachusetts, New-Jersey, Virginia, North-Carolina, South-Carolina and Georgia; and from the state of Pennsylvania, Mr. J[oseph] Gardner.” Mentioned as attending from the state of New Jersey are delegates William Churchill Houston and John Beatty. [6] This same source notes that on 31 May 1785, “On the report of a committee, consisting of Mr. [Hugh] Williamson, Mr. [David] Howell and Mr. [Rufus] King, to whom was referred a memorial of J. Beatty, late commissary-general of prisoners. Resolved, That in settling the accounts of Mr. John Beatty, late commissary of prisoners, he be allowed to charge such expenses of travelling [sic], as were necessary in the discharge of his office. That Mr. Beatty’s account for pay be settled according to the act of June 6th, 1777, compared with the act of June 3d, 1784.” [7]

I was happy to find by Majr [Garret] Van Waggenen, 29 that you were well in Health, altho you did not think it worth while to give me a line—I cannot say however, I could reasonably have expected such a favour, considering the Ballance [sic] against me in this Case—I am content, if in my retired situation, you will now & then think of Windsor Hall near Princeton—I left Mrs Beatty & Dick well a few days since & am now here, with a View to close my affairs in my late Department. New troubles I find, arise on this score also, and there is the utmost difficulty in doing a little Business with these great people so much Ceremony & Form is to be gone thro, that I was Eight days in Philada. and could do nothing more, than barely lodge my acct, with a promise, that perhaps in a Month a leisure hour might arise, in which they could be attended to—I grow out of all patience with such dilatory conduct, & am daily more & more happy in the reflection of being disingaged from all public Buisness [sic]—My little Farm affords me much amusement & some Profits. I hope to cultivate it to more advantage this year—I find the repairs expensive, but feel the more reconciled from the Prospect of future Gains—I shall not attempt the beginning of the practice of Physic, untill towards the Fall—My affairs will not admit of it & besides I feel extreamly awkward in the way of my profession & shall require some reading

In 1781, Beatty was named as a member of the New Jersey State Council, serving until 1783. In November of that latter year, the New Jersey state legislature elected him as a delegate to the Continental Congress.

John Beatty (1749–1826)75 In 1787, Beatty stepped back on the national stage when he was named as a Federalist delegate to the convention in New Jersey, which ratified the new US Constitution that had been drawn up in Philadelphia that summer. Elected to a seat in the New Jersey state Assembly two years later, Beatty served as Speaker of that body in 1789 and 1790. In this capacity, he signed the official document congratulating the new US President, George Washington, following his inauguration in March 1789. Returning to the practice of medicine, Beatty served as an important officer in the New Jersey state medical society. He also served as a trustee of the College of New Jersey, his old alma mater. In 1792, in the third federal election for the US House of Representatives, Beatty was elected to a seat in the Third Congress (1793–95), representing the Fifth Pennsylvania district. He supported the establishment of a Department of the Navy, which would help to defend the country on the seas. Although that department was not created until 1798, nevertheless it was due to the work of John Beatty that six frigates were initially built to aid the US Army. After he left Congress, Beatty moved to the capital city of Trenton, serving as the New Jersey secretary of state (1795–1805) and investing in business interests. The National Intelligencer, or Washington Advertiser of Washington, D.C., said in its edition of 24 November 1800 that a meeting had been held in “[t]he honourable, the legislature of New Jersey, on the seventh inst., enacting a law, whereby . . . a election is to take place throughout the state, for choosing five persons as representatives in the seventh cong of the United States.” He signed that document as secretary of the legislature in John Beatty. [8] Beatty was named as the president of the Delaware Bridge Company, which built the first bridge across the Delaware River for the use of the city of Trenton. Following the death of his wife Mary in 1815, Beatty remarried three years later to Katherine De Klyn Lalor; the couple had several children, none of which survived to adulthood. From 1815 until his death, Beatty served as the president of the Trenton Banking Company. Beatty died in Trenton on 30 May 1826 at the age of 76. The Washington Whig newspaper stated:

We last week mentioned the death of Gen. JOHN BEATTY, of Trenton. We have since met with the following remarks on his decease in the True American and feel it our duty to copy them. Possessing native talents of no ordinary character, which were improved by a classical education, his capacities for usefulness, soon met the observation of a discerning people, and called him into public life. At an early age, fired with a noble zeal to serve his country in her struggle for independence, he sought employment in her armies as an officer, and led her embodied sons to battle. During the numerous vicissitudes of the revolution, having attained the rank of Lieut. Colonel, he bravely contended with his country’s enemies, until captured and incarcerated by them, he tasted in the perstilential [sic] recesses of a prison, the cruelty of their mercy. When exchanged, he still, as Commissary of Prisoners, served his country until her freedom was conquered and her peace secured. In 1785 and [178]6, he was succesively elected a delegate to Congress, under the old confederation. In the archives of that body, his acts are recorded, and they do him honor. [9] Beatty was laid to rest in the First Presbyterian Churchyard in Trenton, in Mercer County, New Jersey. See also: Elias Boudinot

[1] See Rogers, Fred B., “See General John Beatty (1749–1826): Patriot and Physician,” The Journal of the Medical Society of New Jersey, LV:11 (November 1958), 613–61. Further information on Beatty’s genealogy comes from several online sources, mostly genealogical sites. [2] Refer to Beatty’s official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay. pl?index=B000282. [3] Knight, Betsy, “Prisoner Exchange and Parole in the American Revolution,” The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, XLVIII:2 (April 1991), 204. [4] “Letters of the Four Beatty Brothers of the Continental Army, 1774–1794: Joseph M. Beatty Jr., John Beatty, Charles Clinton Beatty, Erkuries Beatty, Reading Beatty,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, XLIV:3 (1920), 216–17. [5] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921–36), VII:lxx. [6] “Journals of Congress: Containing Their Proceedings From November 1, 1784, to November 4, 1785. Published by Authority” (Philadelphia: From Folwell’s Press, 1801), 5–6. [7] Entry for 31 May 1785, in ibid., 133. [8] “Federal Meeting,” The National Intelligencer, or Washington Advertiser [Washington, D.C.], 24 November 1800, 2. [9] “Died,” Washington Whig [Bridgeton, New Jersey], 17 June 1826, 3.

76

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Gunning Bedford (1742–1797)

the fact that the two men were cousins and not father and son. About 1763, having educated his son Gunning, William Bedford moved his family back to Delaware. Several years later, in 1769, Gunning Bedford married Mary Read, the sister of George Read (1733–1798), who would eventually serve in the Continental Congress and sign both the Declaration of Independence as well as the US Constitution. The couple had no children.

Although he served with his cousin, Gunning Bedford, Jr., this elder Bedford is not known as “Sr.” He played an important role in the founding of America, despite being named as a delegate to the Continental Congress, an honor which he ultimately declined. He was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on 7 April 1742, the son of William Bedford, who was a wealthy landowner, and his wife Catherine (née Jacquett) Bedford. Bedford’s official congressional biography states that he was born in Philadelphia [1], while historian Gaspare J. Saladino, in the “American National Biography,” says that he was born in New Castle County, Delaware. [2] Historian Nancy Capace reports Philadelphia [3], as do others, while historian Gordon Denboer says that it was indeed New Castle. [4] The family history states that the Bedfords originated in England. Mary Evarts Webb, in a history of the Bedford family, wrote in 1919, “The Bedfords came from England, the first settlers in America, forming part of the Jamestown Colony in Virginia in 1621 . . . The Bedfords, William and Gunning, came from England and landed at Jamestown. I found a record of William Bedford as a resident of Jamestown, in the records at Richmond. Gunning must have come to Maryland or Delaware.” [5] Gunning Bedford, the grandfather of the subject of this biography, was born in New Castle in 1686, although his date of death is unknown. His son, William Bedford (1712–1788) also was born in New Castle, and died there. The family background of Catherine Jacquett Bedford remains unknown. In 1752, William Bedford moved his family from Delaware to Philadelphia, at that time the political and financial capital of the American colonies. His son Gunning was sent to attend the College, Academy, and Charitable School of Philadelphia (now the University of Pennsylvania), where he remained until 1756. It was at this time that the confusion over Gunning Bedford, born in 1742, and his cousin, also named Gunning Bedford, born in 1747, began. The second Bedford, the son of William Bedford’s brother, added a “Jr.” to his last name. Later, the elder Gunning Bedford would add a “Sr.” to his name, despite

Although Bedford did not inherit his father’s Delaware plantations until the elder Bedford’s death in 1789, he was able to parlay his connection to the Read family into political positions that earned him a living. The Reads were Anglo-Irish, conservatives with deep ties to “Mother England,” and as such they found any disagreements with London to be most unacceptable. Bedford, whose allegiance to the British was slight if at all, bridged the divide between those who supported England and those grew more and more angry by a series of harsh economic measures enacted by the English Parliament, most notably the Sugar Act (1764), the Stamp Act (1765), and the Townshend Acts (1767), all of which punished the colonies in all facets of their economy, including paper (for newspapers and for writing) and other commodities. The murder of five colonists in Boston in 1770, called “The Boston Massacre,” enabled ever more anger against England; when a fight opened up to control a store of weaponry in Massachusetts in 1774, a shooting war began that branched out into what is known as the American Revolution. In May 1775, Bedford was named as the leader of the New Castle, Delaware, county militia, given the rank of Major. That September he was named as a delegate to the colonial Council of Safety, a militia-type group that was locally controlled, first giving out information to local citizens, but also communicating with other Councils of Safety, or Committees of Safety, in other colonies; he remained on the Council until November 1776. In January 1776, the Second Continental Congress, sitting in Philadelphia, accepted Delaware’s recommendation and appointed Bedford as the head of the First Delaware Regiment of the Continental Army, with the rank of Lieutenant Colonel, in Colonel John Haslet’s command. Taking his troops into battle against the British, Bedford saw action at White Plains (28 October

Gunning Bedford (1742–1797)77 1776) and at Princeton (3 January 1777). He was wounded, albeit not seriously, at White Plains, and after his immediate superior was killed in action at Princeton Bedford was offered the vacant position by General George Washington but he refused it. Instead, Bedford accepted an appointment as Muster Master-General in 1776. The following year—some historians report that date as 1778—Bedford was attached to the Second Regiment of Delaware militia, with the rank of lieutenant colonel. In June 1778, he was promoted to the rank of full colonel. He remained with the militia until 1781. At the same time, back home in Delaware, Bedford was appointed to a series of state offices: in February 1777 he was named to the state’s Privy Council, which advised state leaders. The following month he was named as a prothonotary, or clerk, for the Court of Common Pleas for New Castle County, rising the following year to serve as the Register for wills for that county. Studying the law, Bedford was admitted to the state bar in 1779. [6] The connection to George Read paid off in 1781 when, Read, the Vice President of Delaware and the state’s acting president (this was at a time when the term “governor” was not used), got Bedford a commission as a justice of the peace for New Castle County, and he was recommissioned to that office in 1789. In 1784, Bedford was elected as a member of the Delaware General Assembly from New Castle County, where he served until 1786. Working closely with Read and other conservatives to shape state policy, in October 1786 Bedford was rewarded with an appointment as a delegate to the Continental Congress. According to historian Edmund Cody Burnett, who has documented not only the correspondence of the delegates of the Continental Congress, but catalogued the dates of service of the specific members, Bedford was “elected [October 27, 1786 from the first Monday in November, 1786, until the first Monday in 1787.” As Burnett quickly explains, Bedford declined the honor, and Dyer Kearny was elected in his stead.” [7] In a letter, not from Bedford, but to him, from Nathaniel Mitchell, himself a delegate to the Continental Congress from Delaware, we learn of perhaps one of the reasons why Bedford declined to serve in that body: Mitchell writes about the “removal” of

Congress to Philadelphia from New York, a move that Bedford may have seen as disruptive to his own life. Mitchell explains: The very important question of a removal of Congress to Philadelphia is shortly to be agitated, we wait nothing but the Voice of Delaware. If your intentions are not to serve for any length of time I think on the present occasion you may venture to give us your Company, it may be decided in one or two days. As it will obviate the inconvenience of going to Congress by bringing them to us, I think it behoves [sic] us above all Pennsylvania excepted to forward the measure. I build much on your coming, you will be received with open Arms by all the Southern States. If you do not come I flatter myself you will use your endeavours to send on some other Gentleman who is in the Delegation. It must be done before the 21St of the Month for then the time’s of the Gentlemen from S. Carolina expire. [8] Historian Gaspare J. Saladino speculates that Bedford actually preferred to stay in Delaware because he wanted to serve as Read’s “political agent.” Nevertheless, Bedford never served in a national office such as this. His cousin, Gunning Bedford, Jr., as well as George Read, served as delegates to the Constitutional Convention held in Philadelphia in 1787, which drew up a new US Constitution to amend the Articles of Confederation. Bedford did serve in the state convention in December 1787, which ratified the Constitution. In November 1790, for a period of one year, Bedford again served on the state Privy Council, replacing Read after his resignation from that word. In 1795, after a period in which he had spent speculating on land and helping to incorporate the New Castle Common, an area near New Castle, Bedford elected as the governor of Delaware under its new state constitution, over Archibald Alexander. Bedford served as governor of Delaware from 13 January 1796 until his death on 30 September 1797, a period of which little has been written. A biography Bedford, written by the National Governors Association, states, “During his tenure, transportation was improved throughout the state, the incorporation of the Bank of Delaware was authorized, and the initial groundwork was sanctioned for the creation of Delaware’s public school system.” [9]

78

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

On 15 August 1797, a month before his death, Bedford was written a letter from the justices of the US Supreme Court. In the missive, the justices explained:

[7] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921–36), VIII:lxxxiv. [8] Nathaniel Mitchell to Gunning Bedford, Sr., 10 February 1787, in ibid., VIII:538. [9] “Delaware Governor Gunning Bedford Sr.,” courtesy of the National Governors Association, online at http://www.nga.org/ cms/home/governors/past-governors-bios/page_delaware/col2content/main-content-list/title_bedford_gunning.html. [10] The Justices of the Supreme Court to Gunning Bedford, 15 August 1797, in Maeva Marcus, ed., “The Documentary History the Supreme Court of the United States, 1789- 1800” (New York: Columbia University Press; eight volumes, 1985- ), II:221–22. [11] See Delaware Federal Writers’ Project, “Delaware: A Guide to the First State” (New York: Hastings House, 1955), 242.

Upon the first arrangement of the Circuit Courts by Congress the Courts in the middle Circuit were held in the following Order[:]—New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, and Virginia—beginning with the first, and ending with the last; And the Circuit Court for the District of Delaware was held in the Spring on the 27th of April, immediately following that for the District of Pennsylvania which was, and is still held on the 11th of April. In June 1794 an Act of Congress made an alteration as to the Circuit Court for Delaware, by directing the Court, which was formerly to have been held on the 27th of April to be held on the ___ of June; and at the same time no alteration was made in the times of holding the other Courts upon the same Circuit, so that a considerable interval of time was in a maner [sic] lost, and those Judges who lived to the Southward of Virginia were put to the extreme hardship of returning from Virginia to Delaware to hold a Court there, instead of spending a few weeks in a short vacation with their Families, or subjecting some other Judge to the inconvenience of extra-duty in addition to a share oppressive enough under any circumstances. [10]

Gunning Bedford, Jr. (1747–1812)

Gunning Bedford died suddenly in office on 30 September 1797 at the age of 55. Mourned in his state for his lifetime of service, Bedford was buried in the Immanuel Churchyard (now the Immanuel Episcopal Church on the Green) in New Castle. [11]

[1] See Bedford’s official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay. pl?index=B000299. [2] Saladino, Gaspare J., “Bedford, Gunning,” in John A. Garraty and Mark C. Carnes, gen. eds., “American National Biography” (New York: Oxford University Press; 24 volumes, 1999), II:454–55. [3] Capace, Nancy, “Encyclopedia of Delaware” (Minneapolis: Somerset Publishers, Inc., 2000), 99. [4] DenBoer, Gordon R., ed., “The Documentary History of the First Federal Elections, 1788–1790” (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press; two volumes, 1984), II:93–94. [5] Webb, Mary Evarts, “Ancestry and Descendants of Nancy Allyn (Foote) Webb[,] Rev. Edward Webb[,] and Joseph Wilkins Cooch” (Wilmington, DE: The Star Publishing Co., 1919), 136. [6] “Sketches of Delaware Governors” in Henry C. Conrad, “History of the State of Delaware, From the Earliest Settlements to the Year 1907. In Three Volumes” (Wilmington, DE: Published by the Author; three volumes, 1908), III:827.

Unlike his older cousin, who declined his election to the Continental Congress (1783– 85), Gunning Bedford, Jr. did indeed serve in that body, as well as being a delegate to the Constitutional Convention that framed the US Constitution, which was signed in September 1787. Coming from a family of wealthy landowners, Bedford spent much of his life in service to his country. This Gunning Bedford was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, sometime in 1747—the exact date

Gunning Bedford, Jr. (1747–1812)79 is lost to history—the son of Gunning Bedford, a wealthy landowner, and his wife, Susannah (née Jacquett) Bedford. A history of the Bedford genealogy is contained in the biography for Gunning Bedford, Sr. The elder Bedford worked with the Philadelphia Carpenter’s Company, a large cooperative of carpentry and other skilled workers who banded together to gain work on public and private projects. As such, this wing of the Bedford family grew up in Philadelphia, where the younger Bedford attended the Philadelphia Academy until 1768, then entered Princeton University, receiving an A.B. degree from that institution in 1771, and an A.M. degree three years later. In 1771, Bedford married Jane Ballereau Parker; the couple had five children, of whom three survived to adulthood. Bedford studied the law in Philadelphia with Joseph Reed, a noted attorney of that city. When he graduated with his second degree from Princeton, Bedford was admitted to the bar in Pennsylvania; in 1779, he was admitted to the Delaware state bar. [1] On 16 January 1779, Bedford wrote to Caesar Rodney, the Governor of Delaware, asking him if he, Bedford, could be named as the Delaware state attorney general. In the letter, Bedford explained, “I wrote to when I was down at the NCastle court, which letter [Gunning] Bedford [Sr.] informs me, from a late message of yours to him, he believes you did not receive . . . In that letter Sir, I expressed my wishes to accept the office of attorney general for the State. Bedford had informed me you were so obliging as to incline to favour my application in preference to some others that had been made, if I had any intention of coming into the state to live. In answer to this, I expressed my gratitude to you are Excelly for your favourable disposition toward me. I further told you, from the favourable prospect of business & the introduction that the appointment might give me, I was much inclined to settle in the State.” [2] Rodney, consulting with Bedford’s cousin, Gunning Bedford, Sr., gave the younger Bedford the appointment, and he moved with his family to the state, settling first in Dover, then moving to Wilmington in 1783. Bedford ultimately served as attorney general of Delaware until September 1789. It was during this period that Bedford was elected to the first of three terms in the Continental

Congress. Historian Edmund Cody Burnett, one of the leading documentarians on the Continental Congress, wrote that Bedford was “elected [on] February 1, 1783 ‘for the ensuing year,’” again on 26 October 1784 “from the first day of November next ensuing, until the first day of November in the year 1785.” Bedford attended sessions of the Continental Congress from 10 March 1783 to about 29 March 1783, from about 15 April 1783 to about 24 April 1783, from about 30 May 1783 to 21 June 1783, from about 9 July 1783 two about 11 July 1783, from about 22 September 1783 to about 11 October 1783, then from 8 March 1784 to 13 March 1784, and, finally, from 1 December 1784 to about 11 December 1784. Burnett explains, “Bedford probably attended for some time after July 11, 1783, but there are no recorded votes between that date and July 29. On Mar. 13, 1784, the Delaware delegates in attendance (Bedford and Tilton) were disqualified, their delegation year having expired Feb. I. A special election was held Apr. 8, 1784, when John Vining, John McKinly, Henry Latimer, and Thomas Rodney were chosen, presumably for the term ending the first Monday in November following . . . Bedford and Vining presented Dec. 1 a certificate of the governor dated Oct. 30, but the election was Oct. 26.” [3] Bedford was elected to a third term on 4 November 1785, but he never attended that specific session. Several pieces of correspondence from his service survive; most notably a letter to Nicholas Van Dyke, the Governor of Delaware from 4 June 1783, in which he writes: I do myself the honor to inclose you the Papers of the day which contain all the news here. Mr. McCoomb transmitts the grants of N York and Maryland to Congress; I wish our State may be generous, and not loose [sic] so fine an opportunity of aggrandising herself. I have mentioned to you in person my idea on the subject, I will repeat it, that we should grant in fee simple two or three hundred acres to Congress including all the Hill back of Wilmingt’n with a jurisdiction of six or eight miles up between the christiana and Brandywine, or around includ’g New Castle etc. I have wrote to Wilmington inclosing the cessions of the corporations of Kingston and Annapolis, and requesting the proprietors to fix a moderate price for their respective shores, which I make no doubt (unless they are blind to their own interests) they will comply with. It is a matter of so much consequence to the State that I hope every exertion will be made. The

80

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

disposition of Congress is favourable to Wilmington, and I hope the very superior advantages of situation will make up for the deficiency of our purse.

be overruled without guaranteed equality. ‘I do not, gentlemen, trust you,’ thundered Gunning Bedford—a fiery representative from Delaware—to the big states. ‘If you possess the power, the abuse of it could not be checked; and what then would prevent you from exercising it to our destruction? . . . The small states never can agree to the Virginia Plan . . . Is it come to this, that the sword must decide this controversy, and that the horrors of war must be added to the rest of our misfortunes?’” [6] The debates of that convention noted that:

Present my compliments to all our gentlemen, and believe me with much respect. [4] In September 1786, a convention was held in Annapolis, Maryland, to address defects in the Articles of Confederation; Bedford was named as a delegate from Delaware to this meeting, but he did not attend. In 1786, however, Bedford was elected to a seat in the Delaware state House of Representatives where he sat until 1787. Despite his poor attendance record at the Continental Congress, when a convention was called to draft a new US Constitution to succeed the Articles of Confederation, Bedford was named as a delegate to this meeting, along with Richard Bassett, Jacob Broom, John Dickinson, and George Read. William Pierce, a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, wrote of Bedford, “[He] was educated for the Bar, and in his profession I am told, has merit. He is a bold and nervous Speaker, and has a very commanding and striking manner; but he is warm and impetuous in his temper, and precipitate in his judgment. Mr. Bedford is about 32 years old, and [is] very corpulant [sic].” [5] Bedford participated in many debates and discussions at the Constitutional Convention. He was for amending the Articles of Confederation, but only to a degree that would not impact the states’ power. Representing a small state, he felt that there should be a weak federal government, with the rights of the states protected. At the same time, he also felt that the smaller states, like Delaware, should have equal representation in the federal government along with larger states like New York and Virginia. This problem had been one of the larger stumbling blocks at the federal convention; one potential “cure” came from delegate James Madison, whose blueprint for a national government, dubbed the “Virginia Plan,” would establish a national legislature, composed of two houses, each elected according to a state’s population. Historian David Reynolds wrote, “This had hamstrung the Congress in war-time and infuriated the states such as Virginia and Pennsylvania, yet smaller states feared that their interests would

Mr. BEDFORD contended that there was no middle way between a perfect consolidation and a mere confederacy of the states. The first is out of the question; and in the latter they must continue, if not perfectly, yet equally, sovereign. If political societies possess ambition, avarice, and all the other passions which render them formidable to each other, ought we not to view them in this light here? Will not the same motives operate in America as elsewhere? If any gentleman doubts it, let him look at the votes. Have they not been dictated by interest, by ambition? Are not the large states evidently seeking to aggrandize themselves at the expense of the small? They think, no doubt, that they have right on their side, but interest had blinded their eyes. Look at Georgia. Though a small state at present, she is actuated by the prospect of soon being a great one. South Carolina is actuated both by present interest and future prospects. She hopes, too, to see the other states cut down to her own dimensions. North Carolina has the same motives of present and future interest. Virginia follows. Maryland is not on that side of the question. Pennsylvania has a direct and future interest. Massachusetts has a decided and palpable interest in the part she takes. Can it be expected that the small states will act from pure disinterestedness? [7] Delegate Rufus King, who supported Madison’s initial plan, called Bedford’s speech a “most intemperate speech uttered in the Convention,” which “challenged the large States to do their worst.” Bedford then served on a committee that drafted a change to Madison’s plan, giving the lower house of Congress representation based on population, while the upper house, the Senate, would be based on equal representation, with each state getting two votes no matter its size. Bedford was also deeply involved in the debate

Gunning Bedford, Jr. (1747–1812)81 over the size and scope and power of the men who would be styled as the chief executive of the nation, the president of the United States. In the debate on this specific subject shall on 1 June 1787, delegate James Madison wrote of Bedford’s contribution: “Mr. Bedford was strongly opposed to so long a term as seven years. He begged the committee to consider what the situation of the Country would be, in case the first magistrate should be saddled on it for such a period and it should be found on trial that he did not possess the qualifications ascribed to him, or should lose them after his appointment. An impeachment[,] he said[,] would be cure for this evil, as an impeachment would reach misfeasance [sic] only, not in capacity. He was for a triennial election, and for an ineligibility after a period of nine years.” [8] Despite numerous differences with the finished product, on 17 September 1787 Bedford signed the Constitution on behalf of Delaware; returning home, he was named as a delegate to the ratifying convention which approved of the new document on 7 December 1787. In the years after his service to both the Continental Congress and the Constitutional Convention, Bedford remained a local Delaware politician, serving as a member of the Delaware state Council from New Castle and, in his role as state attorney general, he denounced the congressional action establishing a federal judiciary, such as a US Supreme Court. Despite their differences, on 26 September 1789 President George Washington appointed Bedford as a federal district judge for the state of Delaware, where he sat until his death. He also served as a trustee of the Wilmington Academy, and, as an outspoken opponent of slavery, he served as a member of the Delaware Society for Prompting the Abolition of Slavery. Following President Washington’s death, Bedford penned “A Funeral Oration upon the Death of Washington” (1800). In October 1802, Bedford wrote what is now called an “op-ed” to the editors of the Gazette of the United States, a newspaper printed in Philadelphia. He penned: Not residing in Wilmington in the summer season, it was not till yesterday [that] I heard of a paragraph in one of your papers, stated to be “an extract of a letter from a respectable gentleman in Wilmington,” charging me with holding a District court for the

express purpose of admitting aliens to citizenship, to vote for the democratic candidate Ceasar [sic] Rodney. As this is a flagrant impeachment of the impartiality and integrity of my conduct as a judge, I must demand your author. The imputation is as false as it is malicious, and if the person had ever been admitted to my society; he would have known, that it has long been my fixed opinion, that one of the sources of the evils of our country is, the too easy admission of foreigners to a participation in the affairs of our government, and their interference therein; of course that he should extremely regret, the fate of any of our elections being influenced by him, and particularly that of the state in which I reside. He must also know, that I have too much character at stake, ever to prostitute my official situation to the mean purposes of party. Impartiality will I presume, induce you to make this public. [9] It is not known if Bedford ever found out who wrote the letter accusing him of impropriety. Bedford died in Wilmington, Delaware, on 30 March 1812, presumably aged 64 or 65. His body was laid to rest in the First Presbyterian Churchyard in Wilmington; it was later reinterred at the Masonic Home of Delaware, located just west of Wilmington. A sign placed in front of his second grave states, “In Honored Memory of Gunning Bedford Jr. Signer of the Constitution of the United States. By the Delaware State Society, NSDAR, in this Bicentennial Year, 1987.”

[1] Bedford official congressional biography, online at http:// bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=B000300. [2] Gunning Bedford, Jr. to Caesar Rodney, 16 January 1779, in Ryden, George Herbert, ed., “Letters to and from Caesar Rodney, 1756–1784” (Philadelphia: Published for the Historical Society of Delaware by the University of Pennsylvania Press, 1933), 291. [3] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921–36), VII:lxiv. [4] Gunning Bedford, Jr., to Nicholas Van Dyke, 4 June 1783, in ibid., VII:180. [5] “Major William Pierce[:] Characters in the Convention of the States Held at Philadelphia, May 1787” in Gaillard Hunt and James Brown Scott, eds., “The Debates in the Federal Convention of 1787 Which Framed the Constitution of the United States of America, Reported by James Madison, a Delegate from the State of Virginia” (New York: Oxford University Press, 1920), xcii. [6] Reynolds, David, “America, Empire of Liberty: A New History of the United States” (New York: Basic Books, 2009), 60. [7] Speech of Bedford, June 1787, in Jonathan Elliot, reviser and arranger, “The Debates in the Several State Conventions, on the Adoption of the Federal Constitution, as Recommended by the

82

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

General Convention at Philadelphia, in 1787. Together with the Journal of the Federal Convention, Luther Martin’s Letter, Yates’s Minutes, Congressional Opinions, Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions of ‘98-’99, and Other Illustrations of the Constitution. In Four Volumes” (Washington, DC: Printed for the Editor; four volumes, 1836; reprinted with a Supplement: Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott & Co.; five volumes, 1881), V:267–68. [8] “Notes of James Madison,” 1 June 1787, in Harold C. Syrett, ed., “The Papers of Alexander Hamilton” (New York: Columbia University Press; 27 volumes, 1961–87), IV:163. [9] “To the Editors of the Gazette of the United States,” Gazette of the United States, For the Country [Philadelphia], 26 October 1802, 2.

Bee was also a planter—the name given at the time to a farmer, usually one who owned a substantial amount of land. He entered politics soon after gaining his law degree: He served as a member of the colonial assembly for South Carolina, representing St. Pauls, from 1762 to 1764, representing St. Peters in 1765, and representing St. Andrews from 1772 to 1776. A justice of the peace in 1775, he served that year and the next in the First (1775) and Second (1776) Provincial Congresses. With the declaration of independence from England, Bee served in the South Carolina state House of Representatives from 1776 to 1779, and again in 1782, serving as the Speaker of that body from 1777 to 1779. At this same time, he also served in the South Carolina Council of Safety (1775–76), as a law judge (1776–78), and as a member of the South Carolina state Legislative Council (1776–78).

Thomas Bee (1725–1812)

In 1778, Bee was elected lieutenant governor of South Carolina, with Governor Rawlins Lowndes, and he served until the end of his term in 1780. One of his duties was to coordinate war strategy with other state leaders; in one of the few pieces of correspondence from Bee that survives, a letter to Governor Richard Caswell of North Carolina, Bee wrote:

Thomas Bee was a delegate to the First (1775) and Second (1776) Provincial Congresses in South Carolina, a member of the South Carolina state House of Representatives (1776–79, 1782), a member of the Council of Safety (1775–76), a delegate to the Continental Congress (1780–82), and a judge on the US District Court for South Carolina (1790–1812). Bee was born in Charleston, South Carolina, sometime in 1725—the exact date is unknown— and the names of his parents have apparently been lost to history as well. He received a classical education in Charleston, later going to England where he attended Oxford University. He studied the law, either in England or back in the colonies, and was admitted to the South Carolina bar on 27 January 1761. He then opened a practice in that city. [1]

General [Benjamin] Lincoln having lately moved the Main Body of his Army towards Genl. [Andrew] Williamson’s Camp, opposite Augusta, where Col. [Richard] Butler, with 700 men from your State, had just arrived, he intended crossing Savannah River at that place & moving down the Country after the Enemy, leaving Genl. [William] Moultrie, with about 1,000 Men, at Black Swamp & Purysburg. The Enemy immediately Crossed over the chief of their force, & have obliged him to Retreat before them within 43 miles of this place, where he was this morning at 7 o’clock, still intending to retreat to Charles Town if pursued, his force being no way equal to oppose them in the field; their movements through the British part of this State has thrown the Inhabitants into the greatest confusion, & we despair of checking them until they reach this place. Governor [John] Rutledge, with about three hundred and fifty men, was on the March from his Camp at Orangeburg to join Genl. Moultrie, & Genl. Lincoln, by our latest accounts, was coming in the Enemy’s rear at least four days’ behind them in his march; this is our

Thomas Bee (1725–1812)83 present Situation, & I think every assistance you can possibly afford us will be necessary at this time—the Enemy’s force in Georgia is said to be five thousand, & they give out that they are to be joined by a reinforcement from New York. I make no doubt but your Excellency will use all your Endeavours to send us further Succours, of which I fear we shall stand in great need. A quantity of ammunition and arms forwarded from Congress by Land has been a considerable time on the Road, & I fear must be detained for want of proper assistance. I am to request your Excellency to hurry on the waggons [sic] with these articles, & to afford every aid to them in your power, they being much wanted here at present; if you could send forward the arms in Light waggons [sic] we might wait for the powder some time longer, having a large supply of that article at this time. Convinced of your Excellency’s readiness to give us every aid in your power. [2] After he left the lieutenant governorship, perhaps for his service to his state, Bee was elected as delegate to the Continental Congress. According to historian Edmund Cody Burnett, Bee was elected on 5 February 1779 “for the ensuing year,” and again on 1 February 1780 for a “term not fixed in [the] credentials.” [3] One short letter of Bee’s survives, a missive to General Benjamin Lincoln in which Bee wrote, “I wrote you last Week since which two Flaggs have arrived from Charles Town . . . our Prisoners suffer very much and Congress have done nothing for them as yet. I hope by tomorrow to Effect something.” The letter Bee refers to, in private hands, is some three pages in length and discusses the military situation in and around Charleston as well as prisoners of war held by the British. [4] Bee served as a member of the Continental Congress’ committee on the Treasury; as such, he was involved in the financial matters of the infant nation. In his diary entry of 27 August 1781, Robert Morris wrote he had a “Prepared Plan for arrangeing [sic] the Treasury Department. Met Messrs. [Roger] Sherman, Bee and [Samuel] Osgood on that Subject and on my Letter to Congress of the 24th; confered [sic] with them on the Modes of adjusting the several public Accounts. They pressed me to mention a Sum as the Salary for my Secretary which I declined. Explain my Ideas on the Arrangement of the Treasury

which they appeared to Approve, transmitted them the Plan.” [5] Bee’s service after leaving the Continental Congress are unknown, although he probably went home to South Carolina and worked as a lawyer or as a planter. A report in one South Carolina newspaper, 7 September 1784, says that “[a]t an election held yesterday for Wardens of this City, the following Gentlemen were returned duly elected.” Bee’s name was included as number 2 of the list of 13. [6] Another report, in another paper in 1788, states that “[y]esterday the following elections were made by the legislature,” and Bee’s name was listed as being elected with Charles Pinckney, Ralph Izard, and Thomas Waties as members of the state Privy Council. [7] On 14 June 1790, President George Washington sent Bee’s name for nomination to the US Senate to serve as a judge of the US Court for the District of South Carolina. The literary magazine The New-York Magazine reported in its June 1790 edition that Bee had been named “to be [a] Judge of the District of South-Carolina, vice William Drayton, deceased.” [8] The only work that he seems to be the author of is “Report of Cases Adjudged in the District Court of South Carolina” (Philadelphia: William P. Farrand and Co., 1810). Just prior to his death, according to a South Carolina newspaper, Bee served as a commissioner of the roads upon Charleston Neck. An advertisement on 23 January 1807 states that this group “had laid an assessment of ten per cent on the taxable property of the parishes of St. Philip and St. Richard, for keeping the Roads in repair.” [9] Thomas Bee died in Pendleton, South Carolina, on 18 February 1812; he was buried in the Woodstock Cemetery in Goose Creek, in Berkeley County, South Carolina. Thomas Bee has a simple stone on his grave, most likely placed there years after his death. It reads, “In Memory of the Honble. Thomas Bee Who Died in 1812[,] Aged 72.” In memory, the Alexandria Gazette of Virginia stated that Bee was “one of the oldest inhabitants of this city [Charleston], and Judge of this Federal District, to which honorable office he was appointed by President Washington, in the year 1790.” [10] Bee’s great-grandson, Carlos

84

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Bee (1867–1932), a Democrat, served in the US House of Representatives from Texas (1919–21).

Egbert Benson also served as the first state attorney general for New York State (1778–89) as well as in the US congress under the US constitution (1789–93, 1813).

[1] Bee official congressional biography, online at http:// bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=B000304. [2] Thomas Bee to Governor Richard Caswell, 5 May 1779, in Jerry Dale Lewis, “NC Patriots, 1775–1783: Their Own Words” (Little River, SC: Published by the Author; two volumes, 2012), II:161. [3] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921–36), V:lxiii. [4] Bee to Benjamin Lincoln, 18 August 1780, in ibid., V:335. [5] Diary entry of 27 August 1781 in Elmer James Ferguson, ed., “The Papers of Robert Morris” (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press; nine volumes, 1973- ), II:108–09. [6] See South Carolina Gazette, and General Advertiser [Charleston], 4–7 September 1784, 4. [7] The City Gazette, Or, The Daily Advertiser [Charleston], 1 February 1788, 2. [8] “Appointments,” The New-York Magazine; or, Literary Repository, VI:1 (June 1790), 373. [9] See “The Commissioners,” City Gazette, Or, The Daily Advertiser [Charleston], 23 January 1807, 3. [10] “Charleston: Obituary,” Alexandria Daily Gazette, Commercial & Political [Virginia], 7 March 1812, 3.

Egbert Benson (1746–1833)

Remembered more as a jurist than for his service in the Continental Congress (1784, 1787, 1788),

He was born on 21 June 1746 in New York City, the son and one of six children—four sons and two daughters—of Robert Benson and his wife Catherine (real name: Tryntje) (née Van Borsum) Benson. The family probably originated in Amsterdam; Robert Benson, the father of Egbert, was baptized on 27 November 1715. Historian Sebastian Talcott, documenting the family, explained, “The family resided in Cherry Street, New York. Both [Robert Benson] and his wife inherited a comfortable property, and had received the best education attainable in those days.” [1] Egbert Benson received a local education in New York City, and, in 1765, he graduated from King’s College (now Columbia University). He then studied the law in the office of John Morin Scott, after which he was admitted to the New York state bar in January 1769. Owing to an inability to gain legal clients in New York City, Benson moved to the town of Upper Red Hook in Dutchess County in 1772. [2] It was at this time that the American colonies were agitating against a series of harsh economic measures imposed by England, starting with the Stamp Act in 1765. Following the murders of five protesters by British soldiers in Boston in 1770, there were increased calls, in all of the colonies, for something to be done. After a shooting war began between the colonists and the British army in 1774, a number of people who sympathized or wholly supported the British, called “Loyalists,” fled from their homes to areas where the British could protect them. As such, many businesses, landowners, and employment positions became vacant. Benson was able to capitalize due to the number of loyalist attorneys who could no longer practice. In 1777, Benson was appointed as New York State’s first attorney general under statehood. Serving until 1788, he also served at the same time as an assemblyman in the state legislature (1777–81). In the former capacity, he served as an advisor to the city of Albany in a dispute over a ferry and the damming of a creek. In 1784, Benson was honored for his service to the state when he was appointed as

Egbert Benson (1746–1833)85 an associate justice of the Supreme Court of New York State. Historians Eugene Fingerhut and Joseph Tiedemann wrote of the reaction by the colonies to loyalists who sided with England. They explained: Dutchess County Assemblymen took the lead in calling for land confiscation. Although it was John Morin Scott of New York City who had proposed in the Assembly in 1778 the first serious plan for confiscating Loyalist land, the Dutchess County delegation of Henry Luddington, Jacobus Swarthout, and Dirck Brinkerhoff became the champions of land confiscation and redistribution. The statewide legislative battle over confiscation can be seen in microcosm in the Dutchess County delegation in the Assembly. Egbert Benson, a conservative revolutionary, who represented landlord interests in the new landscape of popular politics, fought against the confiscation and sale of land in the 1779–1780 Assembly debates. [3] On 26 October 1781, Benson was elected to a seat in the Continental Congress; however, he was so busy that he could not attend in either 1781 or 1782, according to historian Edmund Cody Burnett, the preeminent historian of that body. [4] Benson was elected to a seat in the Continental Congress, according to Burnett, on 26 October 1784 “for one year from the first Monday in November next; re-elected on 26 January 1787 and 22 January 1788, he attended sessions from 2 to 24 December 1784, 30 January to about 6 March 1787, about 13 April to about 12 May 1787, and from 14 July to about 13 August 1788.” [5] Despite his long record of debates on pertinent issues of the time, Burnett does not have any official correspondence from, or to, Benson during his service in the Continental Congress. In 1783, Benson had been named to a three-member panel of commissioners who investigated allegations of property confiscation of Tory Loyalists in New York State. Benson took a leading role in New York State calling for the ratification of the newly-drafted US Constitution when the state considered it in 1788.Under this new US Constitution, federal elections for all of the states for the new US House of Representatives and US Senate were mandated; in the elections held under this new

form of government in 1788, Benson was elected to a seat in the US House of Representatives in the First Congress (1789–91). He ultimately served through the Second Congress (1791–93). It was during this service that Benson was actively involved in the congressional work on the amendments to the Constitution that would eventually become the Bill of Rights. Historian Thomas McInnis wrote of Benson’s work on the Fourth Amendment: In the House the language that [James] Madison submitted was referred to the Committee of Eleven on July 31, 1789. The Committee revised the proposal to read: “The right of the people to be secured in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, shall not be violated by warrants issuing without probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and not particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” The House Committee of the Whole then met on August 13 to consider the language of the proposal. Elbridge Gerry successfully convinced the House to replace “secured” with “secure” and to bring back the “against unreasonable searches and seizures” phrase. The Committee of the Whole rejected an attempt by Congressman Egbert Benson to replace the phrase “by warrants issuing” with “and no warrants shall issue.” Despite the defeat of Benson’s proposal be used his position as chair of the Committee of Three, which had been appointed to arrange the amendments, to reinsert his preferred language which was accepted by the House and sent to the Senate for approval. Benson’s change is important because the pre-existing language could be interpreted to simply be a prohibition against general warrants. The final language makes it clear that the purpose of the amendment was to provide a general protection against all unreasonable searches and seizures. [6] He also served as a regent for New York University. However, in February 1801, President John Adams appointed Benson to a seat as a judge of the US Circuit Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. According to the Federal Judicial Center, an online collection of biographies of the men and women who have served on federal courts, “[He was nominated] to a new seat authorized by 2 Stat. 89. Confirmed by the Senate on February 20, 1801, and received commission

86

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

on February 20, 1801. Served as chief judge, 1801–1802. Service terminated on July 1, 1802, due to abolition of the court.” [7] Benson also served as the first president of the New York Historical Society from 1804 to 1816. In 1812, Benson ran again for a seat in the US House of Representatives, and was elected, serving in the Twelfth Congress (1811–13) from 4 March 1813 until his resignation on 2 August 1813.

and reprinted in 1865, was a “Vindication of the Captors of Major André,” which sought to dismiss cruelty allegations against the Americans who captured, and handed over for his eventual execution, of the British spy Sir John André. A third work, “Opinion of Mr. Justice Benson on the Question, Whether a Foreign Condemnation is Not Conclusive Against the Assured?” (1802), was a legal tome only. [9]

There is no record that Benson married, until he was 74 years old, and he married a younger cousin, Mary Conover, and together, until the end of Benson’s life, the couple had eight children. Egbert Benson died at his home in Jamaica, in Queens County, New York, on 24 August 1833, at the age of 87. He was laid to rest in Prospect Cemetery in Jamaica, Queens. A sign, recently placed by his grave, states, “Prospect Cemetery. Original Jamaica Town Burying Ground, Established 1660. Egbert Benson[,] Born 1746 Died 1833, Buried Here. First Attorney General, N.Y. State.” Obituaries for Benson were full of praise for his lengthy service to his country. The North America Magazine, a literary publication, said in an editorial: Judge Egbert Benson . . . was one of the whigs [sic] of the Revolution, and, with John Jay, one of the Committee of Safety, who, at the commencement of the struggle, exercised for a time almost all of the powers of the state of New York. In Congress, in the Legislature, as Attorney General, and finally as a Judge of the Supreme Cour—one of those appointed by Mr. Adams—Mr. Benson was ever the same upright functionary. His law learning was great. His classical erudition constituted, to the last period of his life, one of his greatest resources; and finally he crowned all the virtues of the citizen and the graces and amiability of private life, by the sincere but humble profession and practice of the duties of a Christian. [8] Benson apparently “penned” only three works: a “Memoir, Read Before The Historical Society of the State of New-York, December 31, 1816,” which, although so titled, is not a memoir, and contains no information on Benson’s life or family. A second work, published in 1817

Historians Martha Joanna Lamb and Burton Harrison wrote in 1896, “Judge Benson . . . had reached his sixtieth year honored and beloved. His integrity was a proverb. He was a man of superior talents as well as of efficient excellence, a ripe English and classical scholar, and well versed in Indian lore and Dutch history. Among his writings left us is an exhaustive paper on the subject of ‘Names,’ which, after reading before the Historical Society in 1816, he printed in a small pamphlet; it is now a rare antiquarian curiosity.” [10]

[1] Talcott, Sebastian V., “Genealogical Notes of New York and New England Families” (Albany, New York: Weed, Parsons and Co.; two volumes and index, 1883), I:16. [2] Benson official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=B000388. [3] Joseph S. Tiedemann and Eugene R. Fingerhut, eds., “The Other New York: The American Revolution beyond New York City, 1763–1787” (Albany: State University of New York Press, 2005), 143. [4] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921–36), VI:xlviii. [5] See ibid., VII:lxxi; VIII:xc. [6] McInnis, Thomas N., “The Evolution of the Fourth Amendment” (Plymouth, UK: Lexington Books, 2009), 20. [7] “Benson, Egbert,” biography courtesy of the Federal Judicial Center, online at http://www.fjc.gov/servlet/nGetInfo?jid=158&cid =999&ctype=na&instate=na. [8] “Obituary: Egbert Benson,” The North America Magazine, XII:2 (October 1833), 390. [9] See Benson, Egbert, “Memoir, Read Before The Historical Society of the State of New-York, December 31, 1816” (Jamaica, NY: Henry S. Sleight, Printer, 1825), as well as Egbert Bensson, “Vindication of the Captors of Major André” (New York: Published by Kirk & Mercein, at the Office of the Edinburgh and Quarterly Reviews, No. 22 Wall-Street, 1817). [10] Lamb, Martha Joanna; and Mrs. Burton Harrison, “History of the City of New York: Its Origin, Rise, and Progress. In Three Volumes” (New York: A.S. Barnes and Company; three volumes, 1877–96), III:509.

Richard Beresford (c. 1755–1803)87

Richard Beresford (c. 1755–1803)

Richard Beresford, from South Carolina, had a long and distinguished record in that colony and state, serving in several elective offices— including lieutenant governor of the state—as well as in the military during the American Revolution. Captured by the British, he spent a year in captivity. His service in the Continental Congress (1783–84) came at the end of his political career; he retired to his estate soon after. Beresford was born near Charleston, South Carolina. (Some sources, report the date of birth of 3 June 1755, but the “Biographical Directory of the United States Congress,” says that his “birthdate [is] unknown”), although he was baptized on 3 June 1755. [1] Beresford received his education in South Carolina and in England; owing to his family’s potential wealth, the exact amount which is not known, he received additional education in the law in England, studying at the Middle Temple, one of the four Inns of Court in London. When he returned to South Carolina, he was admitted to the bar and opened a private law practice, although its exact location is not known. Beresford did invest in numerous plantations in the colony, becoming a planter himself in and around Berkeley and Colleton Counties in South Carolina, as well as in England. Despite these investments in Britain, Beresford sided with the colonists after a shooting war broke

out between the two sides in 1774. He did not see military service until 1778, when, under the command of General Isaac Huger (1743–1797) in the fight for the state of Georgia, most notably at the Battle of Savannah (16 September-18 October 1779) in the fight against the British, led by General Sir Henry Clinton. Moving north, Huger’s forces were locked in at the siege of Charleston in spring, 1780; surrounded by British forces under the command of Colonel Banastre Tarleton, Huger was able to escape but many of his men, including Beresford, were captured. Beresford himself was sent south and imprisoned near St. Augustine, now in Florida, for a year, until a troop exchange was worked out and he was sent home. When he came back he was hailed as a hero, and was immediately elected to a seat in the South Carolina state House of Representatives, representing St. Philips and St. Michael parishes. The following year, Beresford was elected by the South Carolina state General Assembly to the state Privy Council, an advisory group. In January 1783, Beresford was elected as lieutenant governor of South Carolina, but he resigned shortly afterward when he was elected to a seat in the Continental Congress on 15 March 1783, according to historian Edmund Cody Burnett, “in the room of Thomas Sumter who had ‘declined accepting that Honor.’” He eventually served on 30 May to about 21 June 1783, from 26 July to 18 September 1783, from about 25 September to 11 October 1783, from an 17 to 21 October 1783, from 30 October to 4 November 1783, from 14 January to 8 March 1784, from 14 March to 2 April 1784, and from 12 April 1784 to 3 June 1784. Burnett notes that “[t]here is no record of Beresford’s attendance between May 3o and July 28 (he did not vote June 20, the only recorded vote in June), and his letter July 6.” [2] During his service, Beresford became very ill; in a letter to delegate Jacob Read of South Carolina, delegate John Rutledge, also of South Carolina, on 26 June 1783, mentioned Beresford’s illness: “Be pleased to inform me, by To Morrow’s Stage, what States have met, and whether they purpose to remain at Princeton, and for how long a Time, that I may make my Arrangements, accordingly. If you shd. Want only one Member, and will send to Bristol, for Mr. Beresford. I suppose he will attend, till I get up. pray give your Letter for

88

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

me, to Major Jackson. I have directed him how to forward it.” [3] Beresford wrote of this illness, in a letter to Read on 6 July 1783: “Can a Family be accommodated with two or three Rooms in a House in Case I should find it possible to repair to Prince Town? Indeed I have very little Prospect of it at present, my Health having yet recd. but very inconsiderable Benefit, and I have some Thoughts of visiting black Point for the Advantage of a Salt Bath.” [4] When the Continental Congress moved to Annapolis, Maryland, on 13 December 1783, Beresford was still ill and begged off attending. Two weeks later, on 1 January 1784, Thomas Jefferson addressed the situation to James Madison of Virginia: “We have never yet had more than 7 states, and very seldom that, as Maryland is scarcely ever present, and we are now without a hope of it’s attending till February, consequently having six states only, we do nothing. Expresses & letters are gone forth to hasten on the absent states that we may have 9 [states] for a ratification of the definitive treaty. [New] Jersey perhaps may come in, and if Beresford will not come to Congress, Congress must go to him to do this one act. Even now it is full late. The critical situation in which we are like to be gave birth to an idea that 7 [states]. might ratify. But it could not be supported. I will give you further account of this when it shall be finally settled.” [5] Finally, on 14 January 1784, Beresford attended the Continental Congress, giving the necessary nine states for a vote, and the body was able to move forward with important work, most notably the treaty with France.

Historian Elmer James Ferguson, the editor of Morris’ papers, wrote of this piece of correspondence, “South Carolina delegate Richard Beresford had been ill and unable to attend Congress. After his arrival in Annapolis on January 14 [1784], Congress, with [t]he requisite nine states now able to vote, ratified the definitive peace treaty [between the United States and France] and sent Josiah Harmar to France bearing one of the signed copies.” [6]

In his diary on 7 January 1784, Continental Congress delegate Robert Morris of Pennsylvania wrote, “Colo. Harmer [sic] Secy. To His Excy. the President of Congress arrived last night express to get the Honble. Mr. Beresford and other members to Congress. I went with him to Mr. President [John] Dickinson and to His Excy. the Minister of France to concert measures for prevailing on Mr. Beresford to go down which I believe will have the desired Effect and I requested the Minister to detain the French Packet untill [sic] the 20th. Instant that she may carry over the Ratification of the Definitive Treaty.”

After his congressional service, Beresford left politics forever, instead becoming a gentleman planter in South Carolina. He also pursued literary interests: among his few publications are “A Plea for Literature, More Especially the Literature of Free States. By A Member of the Old Congress” (Charleston, SC: Harrison & Bowen, 1793), “Nugae Canorae: Consisting of a Few Minor Poems, by the Author of A Plea for Literature” (Charleston, SC: W.P. Young, 1797), and “Sketches of French and English Politicks in America, in May, 1797, by a Member of the Old Congress” (Charleston, SC: W.P. Young, 1797). Richard Beresford died in Charleston, South Carolina, on 6 February 1803. The City-Gazette of Charleston, noted: “Died, in this city, on Sunday last, Richard Beresford, esq.” [7] Beresford was buried in Saint Thomas Cemetery in Berkeley County, South Carolina.

[1] See Beresford’s official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay. pl?index=B000402. [2] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921–36), VII:lxxv. [3] Rutledge to Read, 26 July 1783, in ibid., VII:201. [4] Beresford to Read, 6 July 1783, in ibid., VII:213–14. [5] Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1 January 1784, in Paul Leicester Ford, ed., “The Writings of Thomas Jefferson: Collected and Edited by Paul Leicester Ford” (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons; ten volumes, 1892–99), III:371. [6] Diary entry, 7 January 1784, in Elmer James Ferguson, ed., “The Papers of Robert Morris” (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press; nine volumes, 1973- ), IX:13–14. The “Colo. Harmer” mentioned in the diary entry refers to Col. Josiah Harmar, who, at the time, served as the official secretary to Thomas Mifflin, the President of the Continental Congress. [7] “Died,” City-Gazette and Daily Advertiser [Charleston, South Carolina], 8 February 1803, 3.

Edward Biddle (1738–1779)89

Edward Biddle (1738–1779)

A native son of Pennsylvania, Edward Biddle served in the Continental Congress as a delegate from that state. Biddle served his colony and his state with great distinction in several elective offices. He was born in Philadelphia the son and one of ten children of William Biddle (1697–56) and his wife Mary (née Scull) Biddle (1709–89). Edward Biddle was the great-grandson of William Biddle and Sarah Kempe Biddle, who emigrated from Birlingham Parish, Worcester, England in 1681 to find religious freedom, as they were both Quakers. The couple settled initially in Mount Hope, New Jersey, and their grandson, William Biddle, moved to Philadelphia, where his son Edward was born. Edward Biddle received what was called a classical education, studies in Latin and other languages, literature, and studies in matters that were deemed to be important at the time. He then attended the prestigious Academy of Philadelphia from 1752 to 1755, working as a tutor in the Academy’s English School for a short period. He entered the Pennsylvania provincial militia in 1754 with the rank of ensign, rising to the rank of Captain when he left in 1763. [1] In 1761, Biddle married Elizabeth Ross, whose sister, Gertrude Ross, married George Read, a delegate to the Continental Congress and a signer of the Declaration of Independence. The couple had two daughters, both of whom lived to adulthood.

Biddle quickly became involved in the politics of the times, particularly in Penn colonial and then state politics. In 1767 he was elected to the Pennsylvania state Assembly, where he served until 1775, and again in 1778, rising to serve as Speaker of that body in 1774. [2] In the latter year, Biddle was elected to a seat in the First Continental Congress. Historian Edmund Cody Burnett explains that he was elected on 22 July 1774, again on 15 December 1774, and, finally, on 4 November 1775. He attended sessions on 5 September to 26 October 1774, and 10 May to July 1775. Burnett adds, “He did not apparently attend in the autumn of 1775, or in 1776.” [3] Illness seems to have impacted Biddle, as it did others (see delegate Richard Beresford, for instance). Massachusetts delegate John Adams wrote to his wife, Abigail Adams, on 23 July 1775, “There is a young gentleman from Pennsylvania, whose name is Wilson, whose fortitude, rectitude and abilities too, greatly outshine his master’s. Mr. Biddle, the Speaker, has been taken off by sickness, Mr. Mifflin is gone to the camp, Mr. Morton is ill too, so that this province has suffered by the timidity of two overgrown fortunes. The dread of confiscation or caprice, I know not what, has influenced them too much; yet they were for taking arms, and pretended to be very valiant.” [4] Connecticut delegate Silas Deane, in a letter to delegate Joseph Trumbull, also of Connecticut, on 7 September (perhaps it may have been 17 September) 1775: “The Congress is well nigh full, little Business has yet been done, but This Week it will be seriously entered upon, and I wish in Vain, that Mr [Thomas] Mifflin [of Pennsylvania] was here. Mr Biddle continues dangerously ill, Mr [James] Willson [sic; should be Wilson] at Fort Pitt on an Indian Treaty, and Mr [Thomas] Willing [of Pennsylvania] a Constant attendant on Congress, will give Mr Mifflin a proper Idea of the representation of this Colony, to whom present my sincerest respects.” [5] Biddle also served as a delegate to the Pennsylvania Provincial Congress held in Philadelphia. Edward Biddle died in Chatsworth, near Baltimore, Maryland, on 5 September 1779. He was laid to rest in Maryland, and buried in St. Paul’s Churchyard in Baltimore. A “Friend of Justice,” writing to the newspaper The

90

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Pennsylvania Packet, eulogized the deceased politician, “The name of Col. Biddle will always be dear to those who knew he critical situation of our affairs in the year 1774. No difficulties or dangers appalled him. His eloquence in the counsels of our State, as well as in Congress, flashed like lightning with equal force upon the dignified Tory, and temporizing Whig.” [6]

Bingham is better known as having served as an agent of the Continental Congress in Martinique, negotiating treaties of military and financial support, as well as commercial relations, with potential European allies, most notably France.

[1] Biography of Biddle, courtesy of The University of Pennsylvania, online at http://www.archives.upenn.edu/ people/1700s/biddle_edward.html. [2] Biddle official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=B000440. [3] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921–36), I:lix. [4] John Adams to Abigail Adams, 23 July 1775, in ibid., I:175. [5] Silas Deane to Joseph Trumbull, 7 [perhaps 17] September 1775, in ibid., I:198–99. [6] “To The Printer of The Pennsylvania Packet,” The Pennsylvania Packet, Or The General Advertiser [Philadelphia], 11 February 1779, 3.

William Bingham (1752–1804)

Although he served as a delegate to the Continental Congress (1786–88), William

The son of William Bingham, a merchant in Philadelphia, and his wife Mary (née Stamper) Bingham, William Bingham was born in Philadelphia on 8 April 1752. Searches for the genealogy of the Bingham and/or Stamper families shows that William Bingham (1723– 1769) was probably born in the American colonies; nothing is known of his family’s ancestors, nor their place of residence or birth. A similar story appears to be for Mary Stamper Bingham, born in 1729. A collection of biographies of peerage, completed in the United Kingdom, lists William Bingham, the subject of this biography, but has no information on his parents’ family, from either side. [1] His early education is unknown, but it is known that he was apprenticed to learn a trade from Philadelphia merchant Thomas Wharton. Bingham later attended the College of Philadelphia, and graduated cum laude in 1768. The death of the elder Bingham in 1769 left William Bingham as the head of his family business, and, with his apprenticeship from Wharton, he traveled to Europe and spent the entire year of 1773 there. By this time, through his father’s business as well as his growing investments, Bingham was a wealthy man—in fact, he would eventually become one of the richest men in the colonies and then the United States. To this end, he purchased a number of vessels to send goods to Europe. By this time, the shooting war between the colonies and Great Britain broke out, and, even though Bingham did not have a history of being involved in the politics of the time, either for or against the colonial cause, nevertheless the Continental Congress’ Committee on Secret Correspondence named him as the panel’s secretary in 1775. In this capacity, the committee sent Bingham to French Martinique in 1776 as the Continental Congress’ official agent to arrange trade, loans, and commerce with European nations, most notably France, England’s mortal

William Bingham (1752–1804)91 enemy at the time. Historian Margaret Brown wrote in 1937, “Having sent [delegate] Silas Deane abroad early in 1776 to negotiate with the French court for such supplies, the Continental Congress adopted a resolution on May 18 instructing the Committee of Secret Correspondence to send a representative to the French West Indies to purchase arms and ammunition and to discover whether the French fleet assembling there was hostile or friendly to the United States. Such a task required the services of some responsible person. Sometime within the next sixteen days the Committee selected 24-year-old William Bingham of Philadelphia to carry out the wishes of Congress.” [2] Bingham spent his time in Martinique trying to get not only French financial and commercial support for the colonial cause, but to get France to intervene militarily in the conflict. At the same time that he was serving as an official agent of the Continental Congress, Bingham also used his contacts to increase his own personal fortune. Papers in the journals of the Continental Congress demonstrate the official work that Bingham did. For instance, on 30 November 1779, the journals reflect the following debate: Congress took into consideration the report of the committee, consisting of Mr. [Robert R.] Livingston, Mr. [Roger] Sherman, [and] Mr. [John] Matthews, on a letter of the 6th of October from Mr. W. Bingham; whereupon, Resolved, That Mr. Bingham’s letter of the 6th of October last, with the papers enclosed therein, and marked No. 1, 2, 3, 4, together with a certified copy of his appointment to the place of continental agent, be transmitted by the president to the legislature of the State of Massachusetts-Bay, with the following letter: “Gentlemen, I am directed by Congress to transmit to you the enclosed papers from Mr. Bingham. They contain an account of his proceedings relative to a vessel said to be Danish property, captured by the sloop Pilgrim, and carried into Martinique, about which, as he says, a suit is now commenced against him in your superior court. Upon a full examination of the papers, you will judge of the measures which ought to be adopted to prevent, on the one hand, injustice to individuals, and

on the other, the embarrassment of agents, who are obliged to conform to the will of the ruling powers at the place of their residents. courts are now instituted at Martinique for the trial of such causes, Congress submit to you whether it would not be advisable to stop the suit already commenced till judgment is obtained upon the principal question; after which it will be in Mr. Bingham’s power to discharge himself by delivering to the true owners the property placed in his hands for their use. If you should be of a contrary opinion, they request you to furnish Mr. Bingham’s agent with the enclosed papers.” [3] In 1780, Bingham returned to the United States, and married Anne Willing, a daughter of his business partner, Thomas Willing. With another partner, Continental Congress delegate Robert Morris, Bingham helped to form the Bank of North America in 1781, to expedite increased loans to businesses in the United States. Both Thomas Willing and Bingham were elected as major officials of that institution. In 1784, Bingham published “A Letter from an American,” in which he discussed the current political and military situation between the United States and Great Britain. In the preface, he explained: The secession of so considerable a part of the British Empire, as now constitutes the United States, and the general acknowledgment of their independence by the powers of Europe, must point out a very important era in the history of mankind. The causes that led to this great revolution, and the operations that insured its success, will hereafter afford abundant matter for the pen of some able historian. The immediate effects that it must have on the System of European Politics, form a very serious subject of present enquiry and contemplation; especially, as nations begin to be convinced of the futility of becoming great by conquest, and more inclined to abandon the cruel system of war, in order effectually to enrich themselves by pursuing the peacful [sic] line of commerce. [4] In 1786, Bingham was elected to the Continental Congress by the state of Pennsylvania. According to Continental Congress historian Edmund Cody Burnett, Bingham was elected on 31 October 1786, “presumably for the ensuing year,” as well as on 13 November 1787. He attended sessions from 20 to 24 November 1786, from 19 February to about 9

92

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

March 1787, from about 14 July to 26 July 1787, from an 26 September to 12 October 1787, from 20 May to about 7 August 1788, and from about 25 August to about 5 September 1788. [5]

Philadelphia. So violent are their Antipathies to this latter Place.

In the Continental Congress, Bingham was intimately involved with two specific issues: the passage and ultimate ratification of the US Constitution, starting in 1787, and the proposed site of the new US capitol, be it Philadelphia, New York, or some other location. On 20 September 1787, Congress assembled with nine states in attendance, to accept and debate the report of the Constitutional Convention, which had just finished drafting the new constitution. Regarding the latter, Bingham wrote to Thomas FitzSimons of Pennsylvania on 21 September 1787: You expressed a Desire of Knowing what reception the Conventional Government would meet with in Congress, and whether there was a Prospect of its passing thro’ the necessary Formalities in Congress, previous to the Adjournment of our legislature? It was yesterday received and read in Congress, and Wednesday next fixed as the Day for its Consideration. If I had been present, I should certainly [not?] have approved its Postponement to so distant a Day. As from Enquiry I find that every State on the Floor of Congress is disposed to adopt it, I will endeavor to bring on the Question immediately. I shall urge as an Argument the favorable disposition of our assembly, which is now in Sessions. I will inform you of the Result as soon as possible. [6] Discussing the placement of a national capitol, Bingham wrote to his business partner, Thomas Willing: My last Letter informed you that the Town of Baltimore had been fixed on by Congress as the Place for commencing Proceedings under the new Government. As this was a Southern Position, uniting the Suffrages of the seven southern states, it was expected that it would have been retained, until [sic] the Eastern States made overtures to accommodate, by offering Philadelphia as an alternative, in which they would concur. But our Expectations were defeated by the Defection of So. Carolina which State, on a Motion to strike out Baltimore and insert New York, gave an unreserved Concurrence, from an Idea suggested that Baltimore was only a circuitous Route to

The Delegates of Rhode Island, who are strong Antifederalists, and whose state has formally rejected the Constitution, were seduced into a Vote, (which was requisite to compleat the stipulated number to insure Success) to put a Government in Motion, highly inimical to their Views. The Indecency of such Conduct struck even their own Partisans with Astonishment. But a determination on the Place is only one part of the Ordinance; the Periods on which the Electors and the President are to be chosen etc, constitute very essential Objects, which they absolutely declined having any Agency in determining; It becomes necessary after the various Parts of the Ordinance have been individually deliberated on, and assented to, that a Question should be taken on the whole, which has no Authenticity untill [sic] it receives the sanction of seven States; A Sense of the striking Impropriety of concurring in an Act of this Nature, has determined the Delegates of the State of Rhode Island not to vote on this Question, more especially as it is clearly evident that they have no rightthey have made this Declaration in Congress. The consequence will be that Seven States will not be found, who will concur in the Ordinance, whilst New York continues the destined Place for assembling the new Congress. This must stagger the Minds of the Eastern Delegates, who are convinced that the present Arrangement is an Act of Partiality and oppression to the Southern States, and has a View to local Aggrandizement at the Expence of a considerable Part of the Union. [7] Bingham was elected to a seat in the Pennsylvania state House of Representatives, serving from 1790 to 1791, and as Speaker of that body in that latter year. William Maclay, in his journal from 6 January 1791, wrote of a dinner meal he had with Bingham. Maclay penned, “Dined this day with Mr. Bingham. I can not say that he affects to entertain in a style beyond anything in this place, or perhaps America. He really does so. There is a propriety, a neatness, a cleanliness that adds to the splendor of his costly furniture and elegant apartments. I am told he is my enemy. I believe it. But let not malice harbor with me. It is not as William Maclay that he opposes me, but as the object that stands in the way of his wishes and the dictates of his ambitions,

William Bingham (1752–1804)93 and on this principle he would opportunities perfection itself.” [8] Elected to the Pennsylvania state Senate, he served in that body from 1794 to 1795. In March 1795, Bingham was elected as a Federalist to a seat in the US Senate (this coming at a time when state legislatures elected US senators), for the term of 4 March 1795 to 3 March 1801. Starting in the 1770s, Bingham attempted to get a major city started in what was then parts of Massachusetts and even New York, now in the state of Maine. Purchasing a number of acres near the Kennebec River, he used his influence to try to gain political advantage for the area. Historian Anthony King wrote, “William Bingham, after whom the city was named, was a wealthy Philadelphia banker, socialite and land speculator who, following the end of the Revolutionary War, like many of his contemporaries, saw the capital that could be raised from land and purchased over 10,000 acres in the area. In 1778 he sent his land agent to lay down the grid, carve out the lots and either sell them off or rent them. Bingham himself, like the absentee landowners in Ireland, never managed to make the trip to the place named after him but stayed in Philadelphia; that is, when he was not traveling abroad.” [9] Bingham had penned a work, possibly published in 1793, trying to highlight the area as a great place to grow a city. [10] Nothing came of it, though. A town, named Bingham in his honor, was established there in 1812, and still exists to this day as a small backwater village. After his Senate term ended, Bingham and his family moved to Bermuda, to set up a new life there. Unfortunately, on 11 May 1801, after just a few months there, Bingham’s wife Anne Willing Bingham died, aged 36. She was laid to rest in Saint Peters Churchyard in Tucker’s Town, in Saint George’s Parish, Bermuda. Bingham, now widowed, moved again, this time to Bath, England, withdrawing from public life, according to his official congressional biography. [11] Bingham resided in Bath with one of his two daughters. Bingham died in Bath, in Somerset, England, on 7 February 1804, one month shy of his 50th birthday. His body was laid to rest in the

city in which he died: in the Bath Abbey, in the nave of that religious building. A plaque on his grave reads: Sacred To the Honourable WILLIAM BINGHAM A Native and Senator of The United States of America Where The Knowledge of the Interests of His Country And His Zeal for Their Advancement The Marks of Patriotism Equally Active and Enlightened Will Be Long and Gratefully Remembered. He Died in This Place on the 7TH of Feby 1804 Aged 49 Years. Cui Podor, Et Justitiæ Soror Incorrupta Fides, Nudaque Veritas. Bingham’s passing did not get much press attention, in either Great Britain or the United States. One American paper, the Eastern Shore General Advertiser of Easton, Maryland, said simply, “Died, At Bath, in England, on the seventh of February last, WILLIAM BINGHAM, Esq. of Philadelphia.” [12] Bingham’s daughter, Ann Bingham, married Alexander Baring, a British politician, who was later given the title of Lord Ashburton (1774–1848), who served in the House of Commons, and in 1842 was dispatched by his government to the United States to arrange a treaty over border issues between the United States and Canada with the US Secretary of State, Daniel Webster, culminating in the Webster-Ashburton Treaty of that year. Historian Margaret Brown, perhaps Bingham’s greatest biographer, wrote of him in 1937: Bingham does not seem to have been what is considered a popular man, but he held one political office or another throughout the greater part of these thirty-five years. His purpose in seeking political office may have been simply to obtain as much inside information as positive sible [sic], or he may have been ambitious for high office and the power that would go with it. Both Abigail Adams and Thomas Jefferson suspected him of the latter. If they were correct, however, Bingham should have gone farther politically than he actually did. William Maclay,

94

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Senator from Pennsylvania and politically opposed to Bingham, pictured him as the ruthless type who would let nothing stand in the path of his ambition. Bingham’s apparent carelessness of any spectacular advance in the political world indicates that his major interests lay in other fields. According to his own statement, politics were only a part of the picture: “the Interests of Commerce, as connected with Politics, are So Striking, that it is difficult to Separate one from the other.” [13]

Jonathan Blanchard (1738–1788)

[1] For the British peerage, see G.E. Cokayne; with Vicary Gibbs, H.A. Doubleday, Geoffrey H. White, Duncan Warrand and Lord Howard de Walden, eds., “The Complete Peerage of England, Scotland, Ireland, Great Britain and the United Kingdom, Extant, Extinct or Dormant” (London: The St. Catherine Press, Ltd.; 13 volumes in 14, 1910–98; reprint, Gloucester, UK: Alan Sutton Publishing; six volumes, 2000), I:277. [2] Brown, Margaret L., “William Bingham, Agent of the Continental Congress in Martinique,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, LXI:1 (January 1937), 55. [3] Entry for 30 November 1779, in “Journals of Congress: Containing Their Proceedings, From January 1, 1779, to January 1, 1780. Published by Authority” (Philadelphia: From Folwell’s Press, 1800), V:230–31. [4] Bingham, William, “A Letter From an American, Now a Resident in London, to a Member of Parliament, On the Subject of the Restraining Proclamation; and Containing Strictures on Lord Sheffield’s Pamphlet, On the Commerce of the American States. Said to be Written by William Bingham, Esquire; late Agent for the Congress of the United States of America, at Martinique. To Which are Added, Mentor’s Reply to Phocion’s Letter, with some Observations on Trade, Addressed to the Citizens of New-York” (Philadelphia: Printed and Sold by Robert Bell, in Third-Street, 1784), 3. [5] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921–36), VIII:xciv. [6] William Bingham to Thomas FitzSimons, 21 September 1787, in ibid., VIII:646. [7] William Bingham to Thomas Willing, 7 August 1788, in ibid., VII:773. [8] Maclay, William; and Charles A. Beard, eds., “The Journals of William Maclay, United States Senator from Pennsylvania, 1789 to 1791” (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1890), 355. [9] King, Anthony, “Spaces of Global Cultures: Architecture, Urbanism, Identity” (London, UK: Routledge, 2004), 193. [10] See Bingham, William, “A Description of the Situation, Climate, soil, and Productions of Certain Tracts of Land in the District of Maine and Commonwealth of Massachusetts” (Philadelphia: No Publisher, c.1793). [11] Bingham official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay. pl?index=B000474. [12] See “Died,” Eastern Shore and General Advertiser [Easton, Maryland], 27 March 1804, 3. [13] Brown, Margaret L., “William Bingham, Eighteenth Century Magnate,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, LXI:4 (October 1937), 387–88.

He served as a delegate from New Hampshire to the Continental Congress (1784), as well as his own state’s attorney general (1777). A farmer, politician, and statesman, Blanchard was an important leader in his state’s postcolonial development. He was born in Dunstable, Massachusetts (now in New Hampshire) on 18 September 1738, the son and one of 14 children of Colonel Joseph Blanchard and his wife Rebecca (née Hubbard) Blanchard. Jonathan Blanchard’s great-grandfather, Deacon John Blandford (1631-c. 1693) came from Dunstable, in Bedfordshire, England; he and his wife, according to one genealogical history, “for good service to the colony, 500 acres in Dunstable [Massachusetts] were granted to” Blanchard’s wife, for which they came to the New World and settled on. [1] Jonathan Blanchard attended the public schools of Dunstable, although it does not appear that he had any additional education. According to his official congressional biography, Blanchard entered the political arena when he was selected as a member of the “Council of Twelve,” a group that, working with the State House of Delegates, composed the state government of New Hampshire. That same year, he served

Jonathan Blanchard (1738–1788)95 as a delegate to the Fifth Provincial Congress. Historian Joseph Burbeen Walker wrote of this parley in a paper read in 1905, “The Fifth and last New Hampshire Provincial Congress assembled at Exeter, on the 21st day of December, 1775. It was composed of 76 delegates from 162 towns, parishes and places, and was organized by the choice of Matthew Thornton, president; Ebenezer Thompson, secretary; and Noah Emery, assistant secretary. . . . The proceedings of this Congress closely resembled those of its predecessors, and pertained largely to the raising, organization and maintenance of troops.” [2] Blanchard served in the New Hampshire state House of Representatives in 1776. The following year, 1777, he was appointed as the state attorney general. That same year, he served as a member of the state Committee of Safety, a service that lasted until 1778. In that year, he served as a commissioner to a commercial conference held in New Haven, Connecticut, organized to regulate certain prices in the states. [3] On 26 December 1783, Blanchard was elected to a seat in the Continental Congress, according to historian Edmund Cody Burnett, “untill [sic] the first Monday of November next unless sooner relieved or recall’d.” He was subsequently reelected on 11 June 1784 “to serve for one year from the first Monday in November, 1784.” Blanchard attended sessions of the Continental Congress from 1 March to 4 June 1784, and from 26 June to 9 August 1784. Burnett added, “Blanchard was the New Hampshire member of the Committee of the States. He ceased attendance on August 9 and on the 11th he, along with [Francis] Dana of Massachusetts and [Samuel] Dick of New Jersey, took his departure.” [4] Some correspondence from Blanchard during his service in the Continental Congress survives. In a letter to Josiah Bartlett, a fellow delegate from New Hampshire, Blanchard wrote from Annapolis, Maryland, on 1 March 1784, “I arrived in this City on saturday eve’ last after a Tedious and Expensive Journey and had the pleasure to find Mr. Foster well tho’ rather low in Finance. To day I have attended Congress and had the honour of dining with the Presidt. Some of the Memb’rs have been unwell, Others Absent for Several

days, that there has hardly been a Quorum of the house—there are 9 States now Represented in Congress. You will be pleased to Excuse a particular detail at this time, in my next I shall do my self the honour of Transmitting every degree of intelligence in my power, the post leaves this City early in the morning.” [5] In a follow-up letter to Bartlett, also from Annapolis, dated 5 March 1784, Blanchard explained, “A Packet from France arriv’d here Yesterday and bro’t despatches [sic] for Congress. The Letters from Dr. [Benjamin] Franklin are on the Subject of Commercial Treaties with the several powers in Europe. The papers are all committed and as soon as I can come at them I shall forward such Extracts as fully to inform you of every Matter on this head. Congress have in contemplation an Adjournment and Recess, after about io Weeks without leaving a Com’tee, in that case I shall instantly repair to New-Hamp’r and be careful to avoid Public expence. The Com’tee on the Civil list, have reported since my attendance, and reduced the pay of their servants to a very great amount.” [6] In a third letter to Bartlett, dated 20 April 1784, Blanchard wrote of the activities in the Continental Congress: I wish it were in my power to Give you an Agreeable Account of our debates in Congress, but very little has been done, since the present Year Commenced. Permit me to Suggest the Utility of an impost for the use of our State if that Measure is not already Adopted. It remains a Matter of great doubt Whether all the States in the Union will come into the recommendation of April 1783—Even so far as the impost. The States this way have agreed to a private impost, by which means they have raised very large sums. And it gives me no small pain to find so large a balance in the Public Account against New-Hampshire. I am Greatly at a loss to know how She can remit the amount, or even her proportion of the interest of the foreign debt. I think she can not. The Southern Gentry prefer extravagance to Oeconomy and seem to take a pleasure in Granting monies which they can not Command and were it not for the New-England Delegates the Lord only knows to what length Congress would run. I conceive it therefore very much to our purpose to keep up a Representation. If a pritty [sic] full Delegation is on the Ground in Novr. annually it is supposed that the

96

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Necessary business of these States may be compleated in the Space of three Months and I think under this view some of our best hand may afford to come and if thay Snarl some times at Others an Agreeable Amusement will take place. [7]

Congresses, July 21, 1774-January 5, 1776. A Paper Read in Part at a Meeting of the New Hampshire Historical Society, January 11, 1905. With an Appendix, Containing Brief Notices of Persons Mentioned Therein” (Concord, NH: Rumford Printing Company, 1905), 40. [3] Blanchard official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay. pl?index=B000540. [4] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921–36), VII:lxix. [5] Jonathan Blanchard to Josiah Bartlett, 1 March 1784, in ibid., VII:456. [6] Blanchard to Josiah Bartlett, 5 March 1784, in ibid., VII: 462–63. [7] Blanchard to Josiah Bartlett, 20 April 1784, in ibid., VII:496–97. [8] Blanchard to Meshech Weare, 15 May 1784, in ibid., VII:529. [9] For a short mention of the death of Blanchard, see Thomas’s Massachusetts Spy: Or, The Worcester Gazette [Worcester, Massachusetts], 21 August 1788, 3.

Finally, in a letter to Meshech Weare, the President of New Hampshire, from Annapolis and dated 15 May 1784, Blanchard penned: Congress have finally agreed to Instructions and the appointment of Com’rs for negociating [sic] Treaties of Amity and Commerce, with the Several powers in Europe. Mr. John Adams, Dr. [Benjamin] Franklin, and Mr. [Thomas] Jefferson, are put in Commission for that purpose. These Gentlemen being from the Eastern, the Middle, and the Western, parts of this Continent, will I trust give General Satisfaction. Mr. Jefferson has already set out, intending to go as far East as Boston, to take passage in some of our Eastern Vessels. This Mr. Jefferson is a Sensible Judicious Man, and particularly acquainted with the policy of the Southern states. I have the most Sanguine Expectations, of the good Agreement of the Com’rs and that they will affect Treaties, advantagious to the Commerce of these States. I trust that your Excellency is appriz’d that Congress are determind to adjourn, on the 3d of June, leaving at this place, a Com’tee of the States-the powers to be exercis’d in the recess, are not yet ascertaind, perhaps Generally that of Seven States. [8]

Richard Bland (1710–1776)

Blanchard returned to New Hampshire, where, under the new state constitution enacted in 1784, he was elected as the first judge of probate for the state. From 1784 to 1788, he served, but did not see action, as a member of the New Hampshire state militia, rising to the rank of brigadier general. Jonathan Blanchard, on 16 July 1788, died suddenly at Dunstable, New Hampshire, at the age of 49. [9] He was laid to rest in the Old South Burying Ground, located in Dunstable, which is now a part of the city of Nashua, New Hampshire.

[1] See Stearns, Ezra S., “Early Generations of the Founders of Old Dunstable: Thirty Families” (Boston: Published by George E. Littlefield, 1911), 3. [2] Walker, Joseph Burbeen, “New Hampshire’s Five Provincial

The delegate from Virginia, Richard Bland, was one of the oldest members of the Continental Congress. When he entered that body, in 1774, he was 64 years old. Bland had a lengthy career in Virginia politics, serving as a member of that state’s House of Burgesses. He was born on 6 May 1710, the son of Richard Bland and his second wife, Elizabeth (née Randolph) Bland, possibly at Jordan’s Point,

Richard Bland (1710–1776)97 located in Prince George County, Virginia, where his father, a wealthy planter, owned a large plantation and estate. Robert C. Daetweiler, a biographer of Bland, wrote of the family: Among the handful of gentry families that made up the leadership elite of colonial Virginia were the Blands of the uppertidewater area of the James River. The thousand-acre plantation of Richard Bland [the father of Richard Bland] lay some sixtyfive miles up the James from Chesapeake Bay at Jordan’s Point in Prince George County . . . Richard Bland’s grandfather, Theodorick, was born in London in 1629, and he had been a successful merchant in England before migrating to Virginia in 1654. Theodorick Bland was very successful in Virginia and he established the family on a firm social and economic footing that insured it a bright future in the affairs of the province. He bought the plantation lands at Westover and Berkeley on the north bank of the James River across from Jordan’s Point, and became a successful planter. [1]

another direction, be led again by the correctness of his reasoning to the same place, and again back about, and try other processes to reconcile right and wrong, but finally left his reader and himself bewildered between the steady index of the compass in their hand, and the phantasm to which it seemed to point. Still there was more sound matter in his pamphlet than in the celebrated Farmer’s letters which were really but an ignis fatuus, misleading us from true principles. [2] In 1730, Bland married Anne Poythress, and together they had twelve children—six sons and six daughters—before she died in 1758. The following year, Bland married Marha Massie, a widow, but she died just eight months after they married. Finally, Bland married Elizabeth Blair Bolling, and they remained together until her death in 1775.

In 1720, when their son was 10 years old, both Richard Bland and his wife died, orphaning their only child. Now the heir to a large estate in colonial Virginia, the young Richard Bland was raised by his mother’s relatives and educated by tutors. He completed his education at the College of William & Mary in Virginia, although he did not graduate. He did study the law, being admitted to the Virginia colonial bar in 1746. From this point until his death, Bland became one of the most important constitutional theorists and writers in the colonies and then in the United States, especially in the areas of law and liberty. Thomas Jefferson incorporated some of Bland’s ideas into his own writings, namely those for the Declaration of Independence and other important legal documents. In 1815, long after Bland’s death, Jefferson continued to laud this man, writing to Thomas Leiper:

For many years, Bland was a country lawyer, practicing his profession and, at the same time, managing his family estate as well as other properties that he purchased. In 1742, he was elected to a seat in the Virginia House of Burgesses, where he served for 33 years until 1775. During this period, he penned a series of works that are rarely seen or read today but, at the time, were widely distributed and considered classics. The first, “A Letter to the Clergy of Virginia” (1760), was in support of the action of the Virginia General Assembly over a clash with the Bishop of London. [3] But it was his second work that perhaps made his name in the area of the defense of the colonies in resisting harsh taxation from England. This work, “An Inquiry into the Rights of the British Colonies,” was an open letter to British authorities denouncing the harsh economic measures imposed by London on the colonies, beginning with the Sugar Act (1764) and the Stamp Act (1765). In this work, more of a pamphlet than a book-sized manuscript, Bland penned:

Your characters are inimitably and justly drawn. I am not certain if more might not be said of Colonel Richard Bland. He was the most learned and logical man of those who took prominent lead in public affairs, profound in constitutional lore, a most ungraceful speaker . . . He would set out on sound principles, pursue them logically till he found them leading to the recipice [sic] which he had to leap, start back alarmed, then resume his ground, go over it in

The Question is whether the Colonies are represented in the British Parliament or not? You affirm it to be an indubitable Fact that they are represented, and from thence you infer a Right in the Parliament to impose Taxes of every Kind upon them. You do not insist upon the Power, but upon the Right of Parliament to impose Taxes upon the Colonies. This is certainly a very proper Distinction, as Right and Power have very different Meanings, and convey

98

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

very different Ideas; For had you told us that the Parliament of Great Britain have Power, by the Fleets and Armies of the Kingdom, to impose Taxes and to raise Contributions upon the Colonies, I should not have presumed to dispute the Point with you; but as you insist upon the Right only, I must beg Leave to differ from you in Opinion, and shall give my Reasons for it. [4]

August 1775, Bland declined the honor, and did not return to Philadelphia. Continental Congress historian Edmund Cody Burnett adds, “There is no record in the Journals of Bland’s attendance after May 11, 1775, but he probably left Congress with [Virginia delegate] Peyton Randolph [on] May 23, as he also was a member of the house of burgesses.” [5] Although there is no correspondence from or to Bland, we do have a small portion of the diary of Massachusetts delegate John Adams, who wrote upon his arrival in Philadelphia:

Bland continued to serve in the Virginia House of Burgesses during this period. When the tensions in the colonies with England started to come to a boiling point, leading many colonists to call for opposition to the harsh economic measures, or outright revolution, Bland was named in 1773 to the Virginia Committee for Correspondence, colonial groups that secretly corresponded with other like-minded persons in other colonies to coordinate actions to be taken against the measures. Bland had become, over a period of years, a leader in Virginia colonial affairs. This had begun in 1753, when he denounced a tax installed by the Royal Lieutenant Governor, Robert Dinwiddie, which taxed land patents, an issue that Bland felt personally. Several other actions, including London’s abrogation of a law allowing for the payment of tobacco debts in a crop failure to be paid with paper money, caused Bland to write the pamphlet, “The Colonel Dismounted,” in which he believed that internal colonial laws should never be interfered with by the British government or crown. A parley of colonists was called to be held in Philadelphia, the economic and political center of the colonies, starting on 5 October 1774, to discuss what could be done by all of the colonies to British refusals to allow for representation in the Parliament, even though taxes were paid by the colonies to the Crown. To this meeting, Virginia elected Richard Bland as one of its initial representatives— so much was he respected and considered a leader among men. Elected on 5 August 1774, Bland attended the initial session of what has come to be known as the First Continental Congress, with Bland remaining in Philadelphia until 22 October, four days before the meeting broke up. He was subsequently reelected on 20 March 1775 and 11 August 1775, attending additional session from 10 to 23 May 1775. Upon the third election, on 11

Friday. Dined at Mr. Thomas Mifflin’s, with Mr. [Thomas] Lynch [of South Carolina], Mr. [Henry] Middletown [of South Carolina], and the two Rutledges [Edward and John, both of South Carolina] with their ladies. The two Rutledges are good lawyers. Governor [Stephen] Hopkins [of Rhode Island] and Governor [Samuel] Ward [also of Rhode Island] were in company. Mr. Lynch gave us a sentiment: “The brave Dantzickers, who declare they will be free in the face of the greatest monarch in Europe.” We were very sociable and happy. After coffee, we went to the tavern, where we were introduced to Peyton Randolph, Esquire, Speaker of Virginia, Colonel [Benjamin] Harrison, Richard Henry Lee, Esquire, and Colonel Bland. Randolph is a large, well looking man; Lee is a tall, spare man; Bland is a learned, bookish man. These gentlemen from Virginia appear to be the most spirited and consistent of any. Harrison said he would have come on foot rather than not come. Bland said he would have gone, upon this occasion, if it had been to Jericho. [6] By the time that Bland finished his tenure in the Continental Congress, his health was in decline. Despite this, he continued to work. When he was accused by a clergyman, Samuel Sheild, of traitorous activities designed to harm the colonial cause, Bland struck back with a harsh rebuke in a Virginia newspaper. With the opening salvo of shots fired between American militia and British troops at Lexington and Concord, the royal government in Virginia dissolved, and Bland was named to an 11-man group, the Committee of Safety, which stepped in, in an ad interim basis, to run the state’s affairs and government. A convention of delegates to the Virginia Convention, held from December 1775 to May 1776, saw Bland serve as a delegate.

Theodorick Bland (1742–1790)99 Bland had just arrived in Williamsburg, Virginia, on 26 October 1776, when he collapsed in the street. Taken to the house of a friend, John Tazewell, Bland died later that night at the age of 66. Bland’s body was returned home, and was buried on the Jordan Point Plantation, on the Jordan Point Manor, in Prince George County, Virginia. Laid to rest with his father as well as other relatives, his grave, recently refurbished and given a new stone, simply reads, “In Memory, Richard Bland, ­1710–1776. Sperate, Fortes, Et Virite.” A plaque near the grave hails him “as [a] political pamphleteer, constitutional historian, scholar, attorney and public servant [who] championed public rights and represented Virginia in the First and Second Continental Congresses and in all five of Virginia’s Revolutionary Conventions.” The Dictionary of Virginia Biography wrote of Bland, “[He] was a Virginia planter and statesmen whose prolific writings on the colonial right to self-governance helped shape Virginia political opinion in the years leading up to the American Revolution.” [7] The Richard Bland College of the College of William and Mary is named in his honor.

[1] Daetweiler, Robert Chester, “Richard Bland: Conservator of Self-Government in Eighteenth-Century Virginia” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Washington, 1968), 8–9. [2] Thomas Jefferson to Thomas Leiper, 12 June 1815, in H.A. Washington, ed., “Writings of Thomas Jefferson, Being his Autobiography, Correspondence, Reports, Messages, Addresses, and Other Writings, Official and Private, Published by Order of the Joint Committee of Congress on Library, from Original Manuscripts, Deposited in the Department of State” (Washington, DC: Taylor & Maury; nine volumes, 1853–54), VI:485. “Ignis fatuus,” in the letter from Jefferson, is a Latin term, defined as “a light that sometimes appears in the night over marshy ground and is often attributable to the combustion of gas from decomposed organic matter.” Literally, it means “foolish fire.” [3] Bland, Richard. A Letter to the Clergy of Virginia, in Which the Conduct of the General-Assembly is Vindicated, Against the Reflexions Contained in a Letter to the Lords of Trade and Plantations, from the Lord-Bishop of London. By Richard Bland, Esq.; One of the Representatives in Assembly for the County of PrinceGeorge” (Williamsburg, VA: Printed by William Hunter, 1760). [4] Bland, Richard, “An Inquiry into the Rights of the British Colonies: Intended as an Answer to The Regulations Lately Made Concerning the Colonies, and the Taxes Imposed upon Them Considered: In a Letter Addressed to the Author of That Pamphlet” (Williamsburg, VA: Printed by Alexander Purdie, & Co., 1766), 4–5. [5] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921–36), I:lxiv.

[6] Entry for 2 September 1774 in Charles Francis Adams, “The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States: With a Life of the Author, Note and Illustrations” (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown; two volumes, 1850), II:362. [7] “Richard Bland (1710–1776),” courtesy of the “Dictionary of Virginia Biography,” online at http://www.encyclopediavirginia. org/bland_richard_1710–1776.

Theodorick Bland (1742–1790)

A member of the prestigious Bland family of Virginia—which counted among its members Richard Bland (1710–1776)—Theodorick Bland served as a delegate to the Continental Congress (1780–83) and to the First Congress (1789– 91) under the US Constitution. When he died suddenly in 1790, he became the first sitting member of the US Congress to die in office. Bland was born on 21 March 1742 at Cawsons, his family’s estate on the Appomattox River, near Petersburg, Prince George County, Virginia [1], the son of Theodorick Bland, better known as Theodorick Bland, Sr., and his wife Frances (née Bolling) Bland. The elder Bland was a younger brother of the aforementioned Richard Bland, a landowner in Virginia who served in the Continental Congress. In 1840, Theodorick Bland’s papers, manuscripts, and memoir were published in two volumes. In the memoir, Bland wrote, “Theodorick Bland, Sr., the father, appears to have been a plain practical man, with but slender

100

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

advantages of education, of an ample fortune and respectable character. In the year 1758 he was appointed, by Governor [Francis] Fauquier, lieutenant of the county of Prince George. He was clerk of the court of the same county, which he likewise several times represented in the [H]ouse of [B]urgesses. Having survived his first wife, he afterwards married a widowed lady, named Yates. Frances Bolling, the mother, was descended from a second marriage of Robert Bolling, who came over from England, to Virginia, in 1660. His first wife was Jane Rolfe—the granddaughter of Pocahontas.” [2]

of the Pennsylvania line, and was absent on that business until about” 15 January 1781. [3] Several pieces of correspondence from the period of his service exist, most notably to a fellow Virginian, Governor Thomas Jefferson. In one example, on 5 October 1780, Bland wrote to the governor:

Theodorick Bland was sent aboard at an early age, and received his education at the Wakefield School in Yorkshire, in England, and studied medicine at a hospital in Liverpool starting in 1759. Two years later, Bland attended the University of Edinburgh, Scotland, and in 1763 graduated from that institution with a medical degree. In 1764, Bland returned to the colony of Virginia and opened a medical practice in Prince George County, serving as a physician for the local area until poor health caused him to retire in 1771. With the start of the fighting war between the colonies and Great Britain, Bland, in retirement from his medical practice, was given a role in the Virginia militia with the rank of captain. On 4 December 1776, he was made the leader of all members of the cavalry in Virginia proper, and assigned as an aide-de-camp to General George Washington, the head of the Continental Army. Under Bland’s command, Virginia troops performed two vital roles: security for the army, and acting as scouts and collectors of goods, such as food, to keep the army fed. Bland remained in this role until he sent his resignation to Washington, and it was accepted by the Continental Congress on 10 December 1779. Bland was elected by the Virginia House of Burgesses on 21 June to a seat in the Continental Congress “until the first Monday in November next in the place of Cyrus Griffin[,] who hath resigned.” According to historian Edmund Cody Burnett, Bland attended sessions from 30 August 1780 to 28 February 1781. Burnett adds that on 5 January 1781 Bland was added, together with delegate Samuel John Atlee, “to the committee appointed . . . on the mutiny

Some overtures having been made to congress, through Mr. [John] Jay, our commissioner at the court of Madrid, for building frigates in America for and on account of his catholic majesty; and the proposals having been referred to the admiralty to confer with the navy boards of the eastern and middle districts, and obtain from them estimates of what would be the cost of a frigate of forty guns; and there being no navy board in Virginia, it was moved in congress by the delegates from that state, that the admiralty should also lay before congress estimates of the cost, etc., of building such frigates in Virginia, in which it would be proper to specify the terms and the time it would take to complete one or more such frigates. We have thought it proper to inform you thereof, that proper persons may be employed to make out such estimates for government, in order that they may be given in to the admiralty, to report upon to congress, as we are not willing that such lucrative and desirable contracts, the execution of which in the end must be attended with so many advantages, should be lost to our state, and engrossed by others, already so far advanced before us in the establishment of a marine. This estimate, transmitted as early as possible, will put it in the power of the delegates from Virginia to press its being transmitted to our commissioner at Madrid, with the estimate from the other states. And the subject itself, together with a speedy compliance, we have no doubt will strike you in the same important light in which it has us. [4] Fellow Virginia delegate Joseph Jones wrote to Bland on 2 January 1781: The subject of our claim to the free navigation of the river Mississippi is, in my opinion, a very important one to America, and ought not to be relinquished upon any consideration but absolute necessity, which alone can justify the sacrificing the clear and evident convenience and interest of a part of the states, for the advantage of the whole. The navigation of the Mississippi is of the first consequence to all the southern states, Virginia inclusive, and will be more so to those new states congress may hereafter carve

Theodorick Bland (1742–1790)101 out of the lands proposed to be ceded; these are to be resigned for an assurance of independence and subsidy; while Spain continues to aid France, she as effectually aids us, as she would do, were we allied with her. If she is really in the condition with respect to her finances that she represents, what hope have we of obtaining a subsidy that will be regularly paid during the war and it is during that period our wants require her assistance. [5] In a missive to Richard Henry Lee of Virginia, Bland penned about legislation being considered in the Continental Congress, “Congress have come to a resolution to demand of the States, power to lay Duties not exceeding 5 P Ct. on all foreign Imports, to raise a fund for a loan for carrying on the war, the necessity of which is apparent, and, that it be general is not less so. tis for this reason Congress desire to have the power vested in them to avoid procrastination and partial impositions.” [6] Finally, in a letter from Bland to Jefferson, dated 9 February 1781, Bland wrote to Governor Jefferson: The Delegates some time ago transmitted to Your Excellency officially an acct. of their application to the Minister of France to interpose his interest with Monsr. de Ternay to induce him to detach a frigate of the Fr: Squadron at Rhode Island, to convey the Arms belonging to our State which came in the Comite, thither in safety. Since which my Personal application, singly, has been unremitted to prevail by the same Channel, to have a line of Battle Ships and one or two frigates sent into our Bay, but I have redoubled these applications and enforced them with the strongest Arguments I could adduce ever since the Sailing of Arnold from New York, having been always apprehensive that his design was on our Country. I am now happy to inform your Excellency, that in Consequence of our Joint application the Arms are on boa[r]id a frigate intended to be sent as above mentioned; and enclosing you a Copy of a letter from the Count De Rochambeau which was this day received by Congress, through Genl. Washington; besides which the Minister of France has communicated to me, and Charged me with Secrecy to every Soul, but your Excellency, with whom he wishes it to remain inviolate untill [sic] executed, that Mr. Des Touches the Present Commr. in Chief of the French Fleet, has determined to put to Sea (in

consequence of the disaster that has happend [sic] to the British Fleet, which gives him a Superiority) and either Give Battle to, or Block up the British fleet in Gardner’s Bay in either of which cases he is determined to send one or two Ships of the line and two frigates into our Bay. an Express being about to set off tomorrow I thought it necessary to give your Excellency this Intelligence, that every preparation might be made by land, as well as that Pilots might be orderd with the Utmost secrecy and dispatch to attend at the Capes for their arrival, should fortune favor us in this Critical and interesting affair as we expect. Your Excellency will be not less aware of the importance of being prepared on land to co-operate with these vessels shd. They arrive, than of sending on board proper pilots and Conductors, with every necessary intelligence of the Situation, state and strength of the Enemy by land and Sea as also the most convenient stations and Harbors for the Ships of our Ally in Case of necessity. [7] Following his Continental Congress service, Bland returned to Virginia, where, in 1785, Virginia Governor Patrick Henry appointed him as a lieutenant of the Prince George County militia. The following year, Bland was elected to the state House of Delegates, here he served until 1788. In the latter year, Bland served as a delegate to the state constitutional ratifying convention in Virginia in 1788; according to his official congressional biography, he “was one of the minority which opposed its ratification.” [8] Under this new Constitution, federal elections for a new US House of Representatives and US Senate were held in November 1788. Bland was elected to a seat in the House of Representatives, and entered the First Congress (1789–91), held not in Philadelphia but in New York, where the first US President, George Washington, had been inaugurated. Bland was in New York on 1 June 1790 when he suddenly died. He was initially laid to rest in the Trinity Church burial yard, in what is now Lower Manhattan. The New York Journal, one of the larger newspapers in that city at that time, highlighted Bland’s passing with a quarter-page obituary that was ringed with a black border to mark a period of mourning for the deceased. The paper stated, “On Tuesday morning inst. died, at his lodgings in Broad Street, the Hon. THEODORICK Bland,

102

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

one of the Representatives in the Congress of the United States from the state of Virginia, in the 49th year of his age; & on Wednesday afternoon his last remains were respectfully entombed in the Trinity Church yard. The hon. the Congress of the United States, the Society of the Cincinnati, and many respectable citizens attended this last and solemn act: The Supporters of the pall were: Hon. Richard H. Lee, John Waler, Isaac Coles, Samuel Griffin, Richard B. Lee, James Madison, Josiah Parker, and Thomas Tucker, Esqrs.” [9] The Gazette of the United States editorialized with a poem on Bland’s passing:

Timothy Bloodworth (1736–1814)

“Oh! Skill’d alike in Councils to preside, Oh in the Field the martial band to guide, Long shall Virginia mourn the fatal blow, That laid her Warrior and her Statesman low! Long call to mind, while gratitude inpires, The Man, who, warm’d by freedom’s sacred fires, The tranquil joys forsook of social lite, To wield the sword in scenes of sanguine strife!” [10] In 1828, Bland’s remains were exhumed, and removed to the Congressional Cemetery in Washington, D.C., where they remain to this day.

[1] Bland official congressional biography, online at http:// bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=B000546. [2] “Memoir of Theodorick Bland, Jr.,” in Bland, Theodorick (Charles Campbell, ed.), “The Bland Papers: Being a Selection from the Manuscripts of Colonel Theodorick Bland, Jr. of Prince George County, Virginia. To Which are Prefixed an Introduction, and a Memoir of Colonel Bland” (Petersburg, VA: Printed by Edmund & Julian C. Ruffin; two volumes, 1840–43), I:xiv-xv. [3] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921–36), V:lxiv. [4] Bland to Thomas Jefferson, 5 October [?] 1780, in ibid., VII:406. [5] Joseph Jones to Theodorick Bland, 2 January 1781, in ibid., VII:511. [6] Bland to Richard Henry Lee, 6 February 1781, in ibid., VII:562. [7] Bland to Jefferson, 9 February 1781, in ibid., VII:566–67. The following people are mentioned in this letter: Jean-Baptiste Donetien de Vimeur, Committee de Rochambeau (1725–1807), a French general, and Charles René Dominique Sochet, the Chevalier Destouches (1727–1794), an Admiral in the French navy. [8] Bland official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=B000546. [9] See The New-York Journal, & Patriotic Register [New York City], 4 June 1790, 3. [10] The Salem Gazette [Salem, Massachusetts], 15 June 1790, 4.

Timothy Bloodworth was a noted North Carolina patriot who served his state and nation in the North Carolina state House of Commons (1778–79), as the treasurer for Wilmington District (1781–82), and as the state commissioner of confiscated property (1783), which dealt with lands and other properties seized from Loyalists who had sided with England during the American Revolution. Most importantly, however, Bloodworth served as a delegate to the Continental Congress (1786), and, later, after the ratification of the US Constitution, in the US Senate (1795–1801). He was born in Hanover County, North Carolina. His father, also named Timothy Bloodworth (c. 1686–1749), from Virginia to North Carolina before his son’s birth. The name of Timothy Bloodworth’s mother appears to be unknown, although one genealogical site alleges that she was Margaret (née Evans) Bloodworth. [1] Timothy Bloodworth did not receive a formal education, but instead learned various trades by taking, from the time he was a youth, a number of jobs in all fields; most biographies mention that he was foremost either a farmer or a teacher, although it is likely that he held other jobs. He eventually purchased land, perhaps up to or over 4,000–5,000 acres in rural North Carolina, and he owned several slaves. He built a home near what is now the village of

Timothy Bloodworth (1736–1814)103 Burgaw, in Pender County, North Carolina. He married Priscilla Jones (1740–1804); together the couple had at least seven children, five daughters and two sons. [2] Bloodworth would probably have remained a gentleman farmer and landowner had the American Revolution not occurred. Instead, in 1775, the year after the shooting between colonists and British troops broke out in Massachusetts, Bloodworth worked to organize the New Hanover County and Wilmington Committees of Safety, and, with the institution of state government over colonial government, Bloodworth was named in 1777 as a justice of the New Hanover county court. He ultimately used his personal fortune to assist in the manufacture of guns and other weapons for the colonial cause. In 1778, Bloodworth was elected to a seat in what was then the state House of Commons, the lower house of the state legislature. He was subsequently elected to a second term in 1779. In both terms, what stands out regarding his work in that body was his advocacy of harsh treatment of Loyalists, those colonists who ultimately sided with Great Britain and, when the war broke out, either left America for England or remained in the colonies and experienced harassment. Eventually, these people lost their lands, estates, bank accounts, and possessions. It is perhaps because of the stand he took against Loyalists that, after serving for two years as the treasurer of the Wilmington District (1781–82), Bloodworth was named as the state commissioner of confiscated property in 1783, overseeing the confiscation and reallocation of Loyalist property in North Carolina. He remained in this position until 1786. On 3 September 1785, Bloodworth was elected to a seat in the Continental Congress “for one year to commence on the first Monday in November next.” He was ultimately re-elected on 9 December 1785, and attended sessions from 3 May to 5 October 1786. Historian Edmund Cody Burnett writes that Bloodworth’s certificate of election “says ‘at their session in November last,’ but as the Journals [of the Continental Congress] for that session are missing the exact date of the election has not been ascertained. Bloodworth did not attend in 1787 or 1788, as he resigned Aug[ust] 3, 1787.” [3]

Upon arriving to take his seat in the Continental Congress, Bloodworth wrote to North Carolina Governor Richard Caswell, on 3 May 1786: After a passage of eight days from Wilmington, I arrived here yesterday half after twelve and finding Mr. [James] White [of North Carolina] here we both presented our Credentials and took our seats this day. Received your instructions with the resolve of the Council and am sorry to inform you that the treaty was received and entered on the Journals before we came here. Under these circumstances I judge it will be prudent to let the matter rest until Mr. [William] Blount [of North Carolina] takes his seat whose assistance will be of infinite advantage in the undertaking, and the delay will not be attended with any ill convenience. It is not in my power to give you any satisfactory account of the business before Congress as time has not furnished an opportunity for my own Information. I shall embrace the first opportunity to furnish you with proper Intelligence and shall Esteem it an honor to be favored with your advice on every Subject of importance. [4] On 16 August 1786, Bloodworth wrote to Governor Caswell: The subject of Acquiring more powers to the Confederation, is in the Order of the day; when finished they will be forwarded to you. We have at this time twelve States on the Floor of Congress, but I expect they will withdraw as soon as this Grand Subject is fully decided. I am exceedingly anxious to hear of Col. Blount & Family coming forward; necessity will press me to return as soon as conveniency will admit; the delegates of North Carolina are in a disagreeable situation for want of suitable provision. Mr. White has not received anything from the State; my Naval Stores yet remain unsold. I am very desirous to be relieved in time, and hope to provide better for the next Tower as we are assured of the Friendly disposition of the Foreign Courts, except the Barbary powers with whom we cannot Negotiate for want of Money; this Treaty will cost at least one million, what Measures will be pursued on this Occasion is yet unknown, the subject is at present under commitment. Congress has fixed the alloy of Coin, the standard is eleven parts fine gold or silver, and one part alloy; the Dollar is made the Money Unit by which the Decimal Ratio is fixed in the following manner, viz: Mills, the lowest Money of Account, 1000 equal to the Money Unit or

104

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Dollar; Cents, the highest Copper piece, 100 equal to a Dollar; Dimes, the lowest Silver Coin, 10 equal to a dollar; Dollar, the Money Unit. [5]

prior to this unhappy dispute the additional powers to the Confederation was reported by the Grand Committee, which now appear out of view, and some Gentlemen insist the Measure will be useless if the present plan is carried into execution, as it will introduce a necessity for a different Government; if seven States can carry on a treaty, or in other words will persist in the Measure; it follows of course, that the Confederated Compact is no more than a rope of Sand, and if a more efficient Government is not obtained dissolution of the Union must take place. We have also had under Consideration a Colonial Government for the Western Country which remains unfinished; the particulars if I mistake not were mentioned in a former letter. I am sorry to hear our paper money has depreciated. The Currency of New York is yet equal to Silver; how long it will continue in that State is uncertain. The Jersey Currency is also good within the limits of the State, but in this city they make a discount of 15 per Cent. for that Currency. Rhode Island yet remains in the utmost Confusion about their paper Money; the Mercantile Interest will not suffer it to pass, notwithstanding the heavy penalties inflicted by the Acts. [7]

Much of Bloodworth’s correspondence, like these examples above, deals with the day-today events that occurred in the Continental Congress. For instance, in another missive, again to Caswell—most of Bloodworth’s correspondence is to Caswell—and dated 24 August 1786, Bloodworth discusses the workings of the secretary of foreign affairs, the office under the Articles of Confederation that handled the foreign relation of the infant nation: Congress has been for some time in a Committee of the whole on the Subject of Instructions to the Secretary of Foreign Affairs, in his Negotiation with a Foreign Minister; the particulars are confined to the Cabinet. The Committee divided yesterday on the Question & seven States appeared for the proposed Instruction and five against it. Next Monday the Subject will come under Consideration in Congress, how it will end remains uncertain; it has been debated with some warmth in the Committee and every argument advanced, pro. & con.; however, all reasoning falls prostrate before Interest, nor is Justice and propriety free from the attack when supported by Federal Compact, the United force of which I fear will be insufficient to Confine in proper limits, this great ruler of human Actions. [6] Finally, in a letter to Caswell on 4 September 1786, Bloodworth related to a difference of opinion among “Eastern” and “Southern” delegates: The Public Business makes slow advances owing principally to an unhappy division between the Eastern and Southern delegates on a treaty with Spain; the particulars are confined to the Cabinet. I am exceedingly anxious to have your opinion on the Subject and shall endeavor to obtain leave for that purpose. The opposition is likely to become serious, both appear firm and immovable, and Seven States seem determined to carry on the business whilst the five Southern States oppose with a Uniform exertion. How the matter will terminate is quite uncertain; two States have left Congress—Rhode Island and New Hampshire. All other Business seems to be out of view at present;

After his service in the Continental Congress was over, Bloodworth returned home, where he was elected to a seat in the North Carolina state Senate, serving from 1788 to 1789. In the summer of 1787, delegates to a convention held in Philadelphia drafted a massive overhaul of, not just reforms to, the outmoded Articles of Confederation. This document was the US Constitution, and was sent to the states for ratification. Every state had to ratify it— one objection and the document would fail passage. Bloodworth, as a member of the North Carolina state Senate, was able to debate and vote on the ratification, and he ultimately opposed the document and its ratification. The Wilmington Centinel of North Carolina reported in its paper of 20 August 1788 that “[t]he report of the Committee of the whole Convention, according to order, was taken up and read in the same words as on yesterday, when it was moved by Mr. T. Pearson, and seconded by Mr. [Nathaniel] Macon, that the Convention do concur therewith, which was objected to by Mr. A. Maclaine.” A vote of the ratification of the Constitution was then taken, with Bloodworth voting against the

Timothy Bloodworth (1736–1814)105 document’s passage, [8] becoming one of the body’s most vociferous opponents. Historian Cecilia Kenyon wrote in 1955: One clause which was believed to lay down a constitutional road to legislative tyranny was Article I, Section 4: “The times, places, and manner of holding elections for senators and representatives, shall be prescribed in each state by the legislature thereof; but the Congress may, at any time, by law, make or alter such regulations, except as to the places of choosing senators.” Here was the death clause of republican government. “This clause may destroy representation entirely,” said Timothy Bloodworth of North Carolina. If Congress had power to alter the times of elections, Congress might extend its tenure of office from two years to four, six, eight, ten, twenty, “or even for their natural lives.” Bloodworth and his colleagues feared the worst. In Massachusetts, where debate over this clause occupied a day and a half, the primary fear was that Congress, by altering the places of election, might rig them so as to interfere with a full and free expression of the people’s choice. [9] In a letter to General John Lamb, written with Thomas Person and dated 1 July 1788, Bloodworth wrote: The importance of the subject on which you address us needs no apology but confers an obligation on those patrons of liberty whose attention to the public welfare merit our most candid acknowledgments. It affords us infinite satisfaction to discover your sentiments on the proposed system of Government, as they perfectly coincide with our idea on that subject. Alto additional powers to the federated system, meet our fullest approbation, yet we cannot consent to the adoption of a Constitution, whose revenues lead to aristocratic tyranny, or monarchial despotism, and opens the door wide as fancy can paint, for the introduction of dissipation, bribery and corruption to the exclusion of public virtue, whose luxuriant growth is only discoverable in the fertile soil of Republicanism, the only Asylum for the Genius of Liberty, and where alone she can dwell in safety.

US House of Representatives and US Senate. Bloodworth was elected to a seat in the First Congress (1789–91), serving from 6 Apr 1790, when he was able to arrive in New York City, and 3 March 1791, the final day of the Congress. An anti-Federalist, he opposed the administration of President George Washington. Rep. William Loughton Smith of South Carolina later wrote: Yesterday the Senate sent us down the funding & assumption Bill with a message that they disagreed to our Amendments: before we took it up, [Rep. John] Vining [of Delaware] moved to take up the motion respecting the Suspension of the residence Bill, in order to try Massachusetts & So. Carolina & to induce us to vote against it least we should disgust our new friends: our situation was an awkward one & we had no other recourse but in prevailing on Bloodworth to withdraw his motion for the Suspension for a day or two: we then took up the funding bill—it depended on us to see the as sumption pass into a law in the course of a few minutes by receding from our amendments or by a pertinacious adherence risk the loss of the Bill & set every thing afloat & involve the whole government in confusion & faction: notwithstanding the step to be taken appeared so obvious, some of our friends still persisted? our enemies rejoiced. [11]

Despite these reservations, as noted above, Bloodworth ultimately voted for ratification. [10]

Returning to North Carolina, Bloodworth was elected to the North Carolina state House of Representatives, serving from 1793 to 1794. In early 1795, the state legislature elected him to a seat in the US Senate, where he served from 4 March 1795 to 3 March 1801. He refused a second term, but did accept an appointment from President Thomas Jefferson to serve as the Collector of the Port of Wilmington. We do not know the exact date that Bloodworth resigned as Collector of the Port of Wilmington, but a clue comes from the Raleigh Register of North Carolina, which reported on 16 April 1807, “We have the pleasure to announce the appointment, by the President of the U. States, of Robert Cochran, Esq., of Fayetteville, to the office of Collector of the port of Wilmington, in the place of Timothy Bloodworth, Esq.[,], resigned.” [12]

The new US Constitution, ratified by all of the states, initiated national elections for a

Timothy Bloodworth died in Wilmington on 24 August 1814 at the age of approximately 77

106

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

or 78 years old. The National Intelligencer of Washington, D.C. reported, “Died. On the 24th ult. at his plantation below S. Washington, N.C., TIMOTHY BLOODWORTH, Esq. aged 78 years. He had filled many respectable stations of that state. Before and after the adoption of the Constitution he was a Member of the Confederation and of the Congress of the United States. He was then elected to the Senate, and as subsequently appointed by Mr. Jefferson a Collector for Wilmington. He has been more than 50 years a Member of the State Legislature of North-Carolina.” [13] A highway marker near Burgaw, in Pender County, North Carolina, reads, “Timothy Bloodworth. US Senator, 1795–1801; member, US House, in First Congress, 1790–91. Opposed ratification of US Constitution, 1788, 1789. Lived Near Here.”

William Blount (1749–1800)

[1] For instance, see Bloodworth’s biographies in “The Encyclopedia of North Carolina” (St. Clair Shores, MI: Somerset Publishers, Inc.; two volumes, 1999), II:29, [2] Most biographies of Bloodworth state that he and his wife had two children, both daughters. However, a family genealogy forum run by possible members of Bloodworth’s descendants reports that he had seven children, and names them. See http://dadherb. com/getperson.php?personID=I2039&tree=mybunch, for this information. [3] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921–36), VIII:xcii. [4] Bloodworth to Governor Richard Caswell, 3 May 1786, in Walter Clark, ed., “The State Records of North Carolina. Published Under the Supervision of the Trustees of the Public Libraries, By Order of the General Assembly” (Goldsboro, NC: Nash Brothers, Book and Job Printers; 26 volumes, 1886–1907), XVIII:601. [5] Bloodworth to Caswell, 16 August 1786, in ibid., XVIII:718–19. [6] Bloodworth to Caswell, 24 August 1786, in ibid., XVIII:720–21. [7] Bloodworth to Caswell, 4 September 1786, in ibid., XVIII:724–25. [8] See “Saturday, August 2,” The Wilmington Centinel, and General Advertiser [North Carolina], 20 August 1788, 2. [9] Kenyon, Cecelia M., “Men of Little Faith: The Anti-Federalists on the Nature of Representative Government,” The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, XII:1 (January 1955), 15–16. [10] Bloodworth and Thomas Person to General John Lamb, 1 July 1788, in “Letters of Timothy Bloodworth and Thomas Person to John Lamb” in “Historical Papers Published by the Trinity College Historical Society” (Durham, NC: The Trinity College Historical Society, 1919), 77–78. [11] Rogers, George C., Jr., “The Letters of William Loughton Smith to Edward Rutledge: June 8, 1789 to April 28, 1791,” The South Carolina Historical Magazine, LXIX:2 (April 1968), 128. [12] “Raleigh,” Raleigh Register, and North-Carolina State Gazette [North Carolina], 16 April 1807, 3. [13] “Died,” Daily Intelligencer [Washington, DC], 6 September 1814, 2. For a further obituary, see The Star [Raleigh, North Carolina], 2 September 1814, 3.

Many historians associate of William Blount with his impeachment and removal from the US Senate—the first use of the tool of impeachment in the United States under the US Constitution. He served in the Continental Congress, in 1782, 1783, 1786, and 1787, and signed the US Constitution in 1787. A longtime North Carolina politician who also served as the Paymaster of North Carolina troops in the first years of the American Revolution, Blount also served as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention (1787), as the governor of the Territory South of the Ohio River (1790), and Superintendent of Indian Affairs (1790–96). His service in the US Senate (1796–97) ended in his impeachment and removal from office, three years before his death at 51. Blount was born at his family’s estate at Rosefield, near Windsor, in Bertie County, North Carolina, on 26 March 1749, the eldest son and one of 11 known children of Jacob Blount, a landowner and planter, and Barbara (née Gray) Blount. Among William’s siblings are Thomas Blount (1758–1812), who served in the US House of Representatives (1793– 99, 1805–09, 1811–12), and a half-brother,

William Blount (1749–1800)107 Willie Blount (1768–1835), who served as the governor of Tennessee (1809–15). General Marcus Wright, Blount’s main biographer, wrote in 1884, “Colonel Jacob Blount, the son of Thomas Blount and his wife, Elizabeth Reading, was born in 1726, in Bertie County, North Carolina. He was married in 1748 to Barbara, daughter of John Gray, a Scottish gentleman who, with his wife, Ann Bryan, came over in 1734, in the suite of Gabriel Johnston, the Royal Governor of the Province, and settled in Bertie County. Jacob Blount, by his marriage with Barbara Gray, had eight children, of whom William, afterwards governor, was the oldest. By a subsequent marriage with Hannah Baker, daughter of Edward Salten, he had five other children, one of whom, Willie, was governor of Tennessee from 1809 to 1815.” According to Wright, before his death, Jacob Blount fought alongside his son William at the battle of Alamance, in North Carolina, on 16 May 1771. [1] William Blount received very little education: according to his official congressional biography, he “pursued preparatory studies in New Bern, North Carolina.” [2] In 1778, he married Mary Grainger, a daughter of Caleb Grainger; together, the couple had eight children. Jacob Blount, father of William Blount, built a family estate, “Blount Hall,” north of Grifton, North Carolina, in 1756. Three of his sons—William, Thomas, and John Gray Blount—established the merchant firm of John Gray & Thomas Blount, Merchants, in the early 1780s, an enterprise that took advantage of the need for increased commerce by the new American nation with countries other than England. The family used their increasing wealth to purchase large tracts of land in the unsettled and uninhabited areas west of the-then current United States, located now in what are the states of Tennessee and Alabama. In about 1770, William Blount became intimately involved with what became known as The Regulator War in North Carolina. By the late 1760s, a number of colonists, across all of the colonies, were disgusted with the level of taxation, both from colonial governments as well as local governments. To this end, in North Carolina, a group of tax protestors known as The Regulators picked

up arms to fight the powers enforcing the tax system, and the colonial militia in North Carolina fought them in a series of clashes in 1771, most notably at Alamance, as noted previously, in May 1771. Blount and his father fought for the colonial militia together. The conflict ended with the capture and execution of Regulator leaders and the ultimate end of the movement. In about 1776, when the colonists turned against their English masters and the American Revolution began, Blount entered the service of the North Carolina militia and for a short period served as the paymaster of troops in what was called the North Carolina line. In 1780, Blount was elected to a seat in the North Carolina House of Commons, the lower house of the new state legislature, and ultimately served until 1784, rising to serve as Speaker of that body in 1784. While serving in the House of Commons, Blount was elected to a seat in the Continental Congress on 13 May 1782 “for and during One Year after [this] date hereof.” According to historian Edmund Cody Burnett, Blount served in the sessions of 22 July 1782 to about 14 November 1782, and then from about 2 December 1782 to 31 December 1782. [3] Unfortunately, there does not appear to be any correspondence of or to Blount during his this initial service in the Continental Congress. However, delegate Hugh Williamson, in a letter to North Carolina Governor Alexander Martin, wrote, “On the 18th of August Mr. Blount and myself had the honor to enclose you the Copy of an address that we had presented on the 14th to the Minister of France together with his answer. Some days ago the Delegates received from the Minister of France an official Communication of which the enclosed is a Copy. This you will be so good as to communicate to the General Assembly. We flatter ourselves that the attention which the Court of France has been pleased to pay to the address will justify the opinion we had formed with respect to the propriety of such a measure.” [4] Blount was reelected to that same body multiple times: in 1783, in 1786, and again in 1787. In 1830, the United States signed an agreement, known as The Hopewell Treaty, with the Cherokee Indian tribe of North Carolina. In accordance with the signing of the treaty, the

108

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

US Congress published a report, containing letters and other documents from the previous history between the government and the tribe in question. One of these is a letter from Blount to North Carolina Governor Caswell, dated 11 November 1785:

not many Years just be separate and distinct Governments perfectly independent of each other.” When North Carolina debated the ratification of the Constitution in 1789, Blount was an active supporter of the document’s passage.

On the ninth instant the Continental Commissioners left Galphinton, without holding a treaty with the Creek Indians, after having waited there seventeen days for the kings, head men, and warriors, of that nation to make their appearance; during which time, only the kings, &c. of two tribes appeared: each attended with about twenty Indians of their respective towns. Although no treaty was entered into, the Commissioners of Congress, soon after their arrival at Galphinton, showed to the agents on the part of the States of North Carolina and Georgia the draft of the treaty they meant to propose to the Indians; against which, the agenis [sic] on the part of the State of Georgia entered a formal protest, because, in their opinion, the proposed treaty tended to deprive their State of a part of her soil and sovereignty. To this protest the Commissioners of Congress gave a written answer, from which the following is an extract: “We find, moreover, that the several Indian nations have uniformly, both before and since the Revolution, been treated with as free and independent people, and the sole proprietors of the soil, until any part of it is fairly and willingly purchased from, or relinquished by, them; that the protection and guardianship of these their rights, which were universally allowed to have been in the King of Great Britain, are now devolved upon, and vested in, the Congress of the United States, which they have exercised before as well as since our Independence, and very early divided the execution of this trust into three districts—the Northern, Middle, and Southern.” [5]

The following year, 1790, President George Washington decided to reward his fellow Continental Congress delegate by naming Blount as the territorial governor of the Territory South of the Ohio River. This was in line with Blount’s feeling that the ultimate future of the United States lie in its lands, and those lands yet to be conquered, in what is now the central and western United States. However, Blount was only in this office for less than a year when, in 1790, President Washington appointed Blount as the Superintendent of Indian Affairs, where he served until 1796.

In 1787, a meeting was set in Philadelphia where a complete overhaul of the Articles of Confederation were discussed. Blount was named as a delegate from North Carolina to this convention. Although the official journals of that convention do not show any speeches or debates that Blount participated in, nevertheless he signed the document on behalf of North Carolina. In a letter to Hugh Williamson, Blount wrote, “I must confess not withstanding all I heard in favour of this System I am not in sentiment with my Colagues [sic] for as I have before said I will think we shall ultimately end

By this time, Blount had decided to leave his native North Carolina for the state of Tennessee. In 1796, Blount served as the chairman of a convention held in Tennessee to draft the new state’s first Constitution. With the admission of Tennessee as a state in American Union, it was allowed to send two new US senators to the US Senate, then sitting in New York City. Along with William Cocke, Blount became one of the first two US senators from Tennessee. But Blount’s career in the US Senate was short-lived. Less than a year into his term in that august body, the US House of Representatives Committee on the Judiciary voted for articles of impeachment against Blount, charging him with “high crimes and misdemeanors before the Senate of the United States,” alleging that Blount, to enrich himself, had used Native American tribes in the Port of New Orleans to aid the British to capture the city from the Spanish. [6] As part of the allegations against him, the House managers in the impeachment trial of Blount introduced a letter, to one “Carey,” written from “Colonel King’s Iron-works,” and dated 22 April 1797, in which Blount wrote, “I wished to have from you before I returned to Philadelphia; but I am obliged to return to the session of Congress, which commences on the 15th of May. Among other things that I wished not have seen you about, was the business Captain Chesholm mentioned to the British Minister last winter in Philadelphia. I believe, but am not quite sure,

William Blount (1749–1800)109 that the plan then talked of will be attempted this fall, and if it is attempted, it will be in a much larger way than then talked of; and if the Indians act their part, I have no doubt but it will succeed.” [7] The particulars of the case and the extended impeachment trial—the first in the nation under the US Constitution of a federal official—were the subject of much interest, debate, and speculation in the nation’s newspapers and magazines of the period. Finally, on 8 July 1797, the Senate announced that “William Blount, Esq., one of the Senators of the United States, having been guilty of a high misdemeanor, entirely inconsistent with his public trust and duty as a Senator, be and he hereby is expelled from the Senate of the United States.” [8] However, Blount had resigned before he had been convicted and expelled, so historians, and senators at the time, debated whether a man no longer in the US Senate could be convicted of a crime and expelled from that body. Contemporary accounts in newspapers at the time show that even after Blount resigned from the Senate, the Congress continued to work on the impeachment inquiry and, ultimately, a trial in the US Senate. [9] For Blount, the issue was moot. His supporters in Tennessee greeted him warmly upon his return, believing that he had been railroaded and scapegoated by the unpopular administration of President John Adams. He was quickly elected to a seat in the Tennessee state Senate, and bestowed the speakership of that body, although Blount’s official congressional biography states that it was the presidency of that body. [10] It was an odd turn of events for a man so vilified in the pages of the journals of the Congress and on the floor of the infant US Senate, then located in New York City. While in Knoxville to attend sessions of the state Senate, Blount became ill and suddenly died on 21 March 1800. The Centinel of Liberty, a newspaper printed in Georgetown in what is now Washington, D.C., reported, “DIED, at Knoxville, on Friday the 25th ult. at half past 5 o’clock in the afternoon, of a violent billious fever (with which he was attacked very suddenly on the evening of the 15th) WILLIAM BLOUNT, Esq. formerly Governor of the State of Tennessee, aged 56 years.” [11] Blount was buried in the First Presbyterian Church Cemetery in Knoxville, Tennessee. A stone over Blount’s

grave merely reads, “William Blount. Died 21st March, 1800, aged 53 Years.” As we know, his age was actually 51. There is no remarks on the stone, or a plaque, that says that this man signed the US Constitution, or sat as a delegate to the Continental Congress, or aided his country in any way in its infancy. Blount’s nephew, William Grainger Blount (1784–1827), served in the US House of Representatives as a Representativeat-Large from Tennessee (1815–19). William Blount, is remembered today more for his impeachment, than for his service in the Conti­nental Congress, or his signing of the US Constitu­ tion. Historian Buckner Melton wrote in 1999: For these two centuries, historians have ignored the story of how Congress handled this episode. The tale of the Blount Conspiracy, the strange plot that prompted the impeachment, is notorious in the annals of American frontier history, though it has never ranked in importance with such national political developments as Jay’s Treaty, the XYZ affair, and the Alien and Sedition Acts. But the impeachment itself has languished, a prisoner of the archives and the manuscript rooms, despite the ready availability of many of its key sources. When frontier historians mention it they usually do so as an aside, for their concern is with the conspiracy and the West, that mysterious land lying beyond the Smoky Mountains, when political and constitutional historians address it, they are perfunctory in their treatment. [12]

[1] Wright, General Marcus Joseph, “Some Account of the Life and Services of William Blount, An Officer of the Revolutionary Army, Member of the Continental Congress, and of the Constitutional Convention of the United States, Also Governor of the Territory South of the Ohio River and Senator in Congress U.S. 1783–1797. Together With a Full Account of His Impeachment and Trial in Congress and His Expulsion from the US Senate” (Washington, DC: E.J. Gray, Publisher, 1884), 8. [2] Blount official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=B000570. [3] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921–36), VI:xlix. [4] Hugh Williamson to Alexander Martin, 25 January 1783, in ibid., VII:22–23. [5] Blount to Caswell, 11 November 1785, in “Protest of North Carolina against the Hopewell Treaty with the Cherokee, &c. March 29, 1830” House Report 108, 21st Congress, 1st Session (1830), 3. [6] For contemporary reporting on the impeachment resolutions, see “Of the Conspiracy,” The Philadelphia Gazette [Pennsylvania], 14 July 1797, 3.

110

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

[7] “Proceedings on the Impeachment of William Blount, A Senator of the United States From the State of Tennessee for High Crimes and Misdemeanors” (Philadelphia: Printed by Joseph Gales, 1799) 4. [8] Wharton, Francis, “State Trials of the United States, Being the Administrations of Washington and Adams, With References, Historical and Professional, and Preliminary Notes on the Politics of the Times” (Philadelphia: Carey and Hart, 1849), 202; or, for the congressional notes on the impeachment, refer to “Extracts from the Journal of the United States Senate in all Cases of Impeachment Presented by the House of Representatives, 1798–1904” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1912), 5–16. [9] For instance, see “United States v. William Blount, Upon Impeachment of the House of Representatives of High Crimes and Misdemeanors. In the Senate of the Unis, December 24, 1798,” The Rutland Herald [Vermont], 14 January 1799, 1–2. For a history of the case, see Terri Diane Halperin, “Dangerous to Liberty: The United States Senate, 1789–1821” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Virginia, 2000), 146–67. [10] Refer to Blount’s official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay. pl?index=B000570. [11] “Died,” The Centinel of Liberty, or George-Town and Washington Advertiser [Washington, DC], 15 April 1800, 3. [12] Melton, Buckner F., “The First Impeachment: The Constitution’s Framers and the Case of Senator William Blount” (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 1999), viii.

He was born in New Lots (now Brooklyn), New York, on 29 February 1724, the son of William Boerum and his wife Rachel (née Blom) Boerum. The family name was originally Van Boerum—William Boerum, father of Simon, was born in Flatbush, in what is now Brooklyn, New York, in 1683; his father, Jacob Willemse Van Boerum, was born in Holland, the Netherlands, in 1642; he came to New York and died there in 1684. [1] One biographer of Simon Boerum, Franklin Burdge, self-published a handwritten “account of the Boerum Family by Franklin Burdge of New York” in 1876. In this work, Burdge wrote, “William (Van) Boerum, a farmer of New Lots, Long Island, was the father of Simon Boerum, who was born February 29th, 1724 and baptized in the Flatbush Church on March 8th, apparently, according to custom, during public worship. His mother, Rachel, probably died when he was yet a child.” [2] Nothing appears to be known today of Rachel Blom Boerum, except that she was definitely born in New York in September 1681, had six children including Simon Boerum, and, in fact died in 1766 when she was 84, which came nine years before her son Simon died. [3]

Simon Boerum (1724–1775)

According to one congressional biography, Simon Boerum attended the Dutch school in Flatbush; after which he graduated from that institution and became “engaged in agricultural pursuits and milling.” [4] In 1750, at the age of 26, Boerum was appointed as the county clerk of Kings County (Brooklyn) by the Royal Governor George Clinton (c. 1686–1761). [5] At about this same time, Boerum was named as the clerk of the New York Board of Supervisors, a position he held until his death.

New York delegate Simon Boerum served in the Continental Congress from 1774 to 1775 and held several colonial offices prior to the American Revolution, including as a member of the New York colonial Assembly (1761–75), until his death at age 51.

Entering the political arena, in 1761 Boerum was elected to a seat in the New York colonial Assembly, here he sat for the remaining 14 years of his life, until 1775. In that latter year, on 20 April 1775, he served as a deputy to the Provincial Convention held in New York City to form a new colonywide congress that would pass economic and other measures in contravention to the British government. [6] Boerum married Maria Schenck; together the couple had one child, a son named John Boerum (1759–1826). Maria Boerum died in 1771, four years before her husband.

The Boston Massacre (1770)111 In 1774, Boerum was elected to a seat as a delegate to the First Continental Congress, held in Philadelphia. Historian Edmund Cody Burnett, in a history of the entire Continental Congress, could not find an exact date in 1774 when Boerum was formally elected to that body. He was subsequently reelected to the Continental Congress on 22 April 1775, and, through both tenures, served from 1 to 26 October 1774, and from about 10 May to an unknown date in June 1775. Burnett explained, “Boerum’s election’ in 1774 was by and for Kings County. The date of his election has not been discovered, but concerning the manner in which it is said to have been effected.” [7] The New Hampshire Gazette of 20 January 1775 reported, “Simon Boerum, Esq; appeared in congress [sic] as deputy from King’s county in the colony of New-York and produced the credentials of his election which being read & approved, he took his seat as a delegate for that colony.” [8] In one of his first acts, Boerum signed a letter, endorsed by all of the New York delegates to the First Continental Congress to the New York Provincial Congress, dated 3 June 1775, which said in part, “We have received your several letters, and communicated such of your papers to the Congress as were intended for their inspection. Your plan for raising money we are much pleased with, though we have some doubt of its being adopted; however, as the reasons on which it is founded appear to us to be conclusive, we shall use our endeavour to carry it through. Till the success is known, you will, we dare say, see a propriety in keeping the whole secret. We observe with pleasure the attention of our Colony to Indian affairs, as they are really of the highest importance. Should you conceive the interposition of the Congress necessary, you will let us know the mode in which you think it will be most effectual.” [9] Simon Boerum was in Brooklyn on 11 July 1775 when he suddenly died at the age of 51. In August 1775, The Town and Country Magazine announced the passing of “Simon Boerum, Esq. of Long-Island, New-York, one of the representatives in the General assembly for King’s-county, and one of the delegates to the continental congress.” [10] Boerum’s remains were interred initially in the Old First Reformed Church Cemetery in Brooklyn, but they were exhumed and reinterred in the Green-Wood

Cemetery in Brooklyn. The stone over his grave is written in Dutch.

[1] Genealogical information on Simon Boerum, his parents, and grandfather comes from the Boerum family tree, online at http://records.ancestry.com/Simon_Boerum_records. ashx?pid=303016. [2] “The Life of a Patriot Whom Death Deprived of his Chance of Signing the Immortal Declaration of American Independence, Simon Boerum of Brooklyn, N.Y.: Written (for the First Time) for the Committee on the Declaration of Independence Hall, Philadelphia” in Franklin Burdge, “Account of the Boerum Family of New York” (New York: Privately Published, 1876), 1. [3] Information on Rachel Boerum, like that of her husband and husband’s family, comes from the Boerum family tree, online at http://records.ancestry.com/Rachel_Blom_records. ashx?pid=308358. [4] Boerum official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=B000591. [5] This Governor Clinton is not to be confused with George Clinton (1739–1812), who served as the first governor of New York under statehood, and who later served as Vice president of the United States (1805–12). [6] Boerum is listed as a deputy to the convention from King’ County; see Peter Force, “American Archives: Consisting of a Collection of Authentick Records, State Papers, Debates, and Letters and Other Notices of Publick Affairs, the Whole Forming a Documentary History of the Origin and Progress of the North America Colonies; of the Causes and Accomplishment of the American Revolution; and of the Constitution of Government for the United States, to the Final Ratification Thereof. In Six Series” (Washington, DC: Published by M. St. Clair Clarke and Peter Force; nine volumes, II:352. [7] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921–36), I:lii. [8] “Continental Congress continu’d,” The New-Hampshire Gazette, and Historical Chronicle, Containing the Freshest Advices, Foreign and Domestic, 20 January 1775, 2. [9] The New York Delegates to the New York Provincial Congress, 3 June 1775, in Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921–36), I:110. [10] “Domestic Intelligence,” The Town and Country Magazine, or, Universal Repository of Knowledge, Instruction, and Entertainment, VII (August 1775), 448. See also The Annual Register or a View of the History, Politics, a Literature, For the Year 1775 (London: Printed for J. Dodsley, in Pall-Mall, 1776), 212.

The Boston Massacre (1770) The American Revolution was born, in part, out of the murders of five men by British soldiers in Boston in 1770. Although these killings happened before there was a movement to break away from England, or even before there was a Continental Congress, they sparked such

112

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

outrage that five years later a revolution began that ended with the birth of a new nation.

affected with this Circumstance: Divers [sic] Stories were propagated among the Soldiery, that serv’d to agitate their Spirits; particularly on the Sabbath, that one Chambers, a Sergeant, represented as a sober Man, had been missing the preceeding Day, and must therefore have been murdered by the Townsmen.” [1]

On 29 June 1767, the British Parliament enacted the Townshend Acts, better known as the Townshend Revenue Acts, a series of laws enacted in 1767 that raised taxes in the colonies on such items as paint, glass, paper, and even tea. The laws also established a Board of Customs Commissioners in the colonies to oversee the collection of the taxes, with the board’s office in Boston. The members of this commission soon reported that they were being threatened while they were doing their collections duty, and in February 1768 they sent word back to London, requesting armed troops to give them some security. In October 1768, eight months later, the first British troops began to arrive in Boston. They patrolled the city, aiding in tax collections. Two events arose from these patrols: merchants and civilians became more and more angry, and their anger was directed towards the troops and towards England. This gave rise to a movement to boycott all British goods sold in the city’s shops, in favor of goods from other colonies or from other countries. Stores run by British owners, who sided with the troops, were attacked and vandalized. When one crowd accosted tax collector Ebenezer Richardson on 1 February 1770, he fired his sidearm into the group, killing a child, 11 year old Christopher Seider. Tensions were now at a fever pitch. Any little spark could ignite a conflagration. And ignite it did. As more British troops flowed into Boston, tensions continued to rise. It reached a point during the first week in March 1770, when Patrick Walker, a soldier in the Massachusetts militia, asked for some work from John Gray on his rope-walk, defined as “a long alley or covered pathway where strands of material, such as hemp fiber, are laid and twisted into rope.” Gray made a rude comment to Walker. The Boston-Gazette, and Country Journal reported on the incident and what followed, “What passed at Mr. Gray’s Rope-walk, has already been given the Public, & may be said to have led the Way to the late Catastrophe . . . That the Rope-walk Lads when attacked by superior Numbers should defend themselves with so much Spirit and Success in the Club-way, was too mortifying, and perhaps it may hereafter appear, that even some of their Officers were unhappily

The events of 2 March were just the preceding to an event which, more than two centuries later, remain bathed in the haze of historical obscurity. On the night of 5 March 1770, a group of protestors accosted the British soldiers standing guard outside of King Street. As the newspaper The Massachusetts Gazette Extraordinary reported on 8 March 1770, “Monday Evening the 5th of March, Several Soldiers of the 29th Regiment were abusive in the Street, with their Cutlasses, striking a Number of Persons: About 9 o’clock some young Lads going thro’ a narrow Alley that leads from Cornhill to Brattle-Street, met three Soldiers, two of them with drawn Cutlasses, and one with a Pair of Tongs, who stop’d the Lads, and made a stroke at them, which they returned; having Sticks in their Hands; one of the Lads was wounded in the Arm; presently 10 or 12 Soldiers came from the Barracks with their Cutlasses drawn, but not being able to get thro’ the Alley, they went down towards the Square, and came up to Cornhill, when a Scuffle ensued, some seeing the naked Swords flourishing ran and set the Bells a ringing.” [2] More than seven decades after the fact, Peleg Chandler, a crime historian, wrote in 1844: On the evening of the fifth of March, 1770, a party of soldiers, of his Britannic majesty’s twenty-ninth regiment of foot, fired upon a collection of citizens of Boston, and caused the death of five individuals. The causes of this occurrence, denominated in the language of that day the “Boston massacre,” are to be found in the difficulties then existing between Great Britain and the American colonies, and which were every day increasing in consequence. Quartering soldiers upon the colonies was never a popular measure in America. The citizens of Boston, in particular, resented it from the first; and the most sagacious among them predicted the consequences, which must inevitably result from this mistaken policy on the part of ministers. As early as May, 1769, a committee of the general court remonstrated to the governor, that

The Boston Massacre (1770)113 an armament by sea and land, investing Boston, and a military guard with cannon pointed at the door of the state house, were inconsistent with that dignity and freedom with which they had a right to deliberate, consult, and determine. In June of the same year, the house passed resolves, by which they declared, among other things, that “the establishment of a standing army in the colony, in time of peace, was an invasion of natural rights; that a standing army was not known as a part of the British constitution; and that sending an armed force into the colony under pretence [sic] of assisting the civil authority was highly dangerous to the people, unprecedented and unconstitutional.” [3] There is much controversy over what happened next: Did the soldiers open fire for no reason? Did the civilians provoke them, believing that they would never fire into a crowd of unarmed civilians? Or, as some speculate, did the troops get fired on themselves, and only returned fire in self-defense? We will never know which one is correct; all we do know is that the British soldiers aimed their guns at the crowd. Shots then rang out—and five men fell to the ground, dead at the hands of the guns of British troops. These men were Crispus Attucks, James Caldwell, Samuel Gray, Samuel Maverick, and Patrick Carr; two others were wounded. Crispus Attucks, considered by history to have been a black man, was definitely not a slave or an escaped slave but was certainly free. In an article written in 1872, “Who was Crispus Attucks?” the following was stated about this man who is perhaps the “best known” of the five who died that day: “Who was Crispus Attucks? By the testimony of the witnesses given at the trial in November 1770, he is called the ‘mulatto.’ I believe grave doubts can be thrown on this assumption, and that the weight of careful examined testimony will prove that he was a Massachusetts Indian, and that the first life lost in our great revolutionary struggle, was that of one of the ancient possessors of the soil of the race which produced a Philip of Mount Hope, and other great minds and capable leaders.” [4] At the same time, a notice appeared in the Boston Gazette on 20 November 1750, which seems to demonstrate that Attucks was in fact a slave—and he was an escaped slave. The advertisement read, “Ran away from his Master William Browne of Framingham on the 30th of

Sept. last, a Molatto [sic] Fellow, about 27 years of Age, named Crispus, well set, 6 Feet 2 Inches high, short curl’d Hair, Knees nearer together than common . . .” Was this Crispus Attucks? Does this advertisement relate to the same man who is hailed in American history as being a martyr for freedom? The possibility drips with irony. [5] Of the others, the four other men who died that night, very little is known. For instance, Samuel Gray was, according to the Massachusetts Historical Society, “a rope-maker” who was “one of the hardiest brawlers in Boston.” James Caldwell was “a mate from the brig Hawk,” who was just 17 years old when he was killed. Samuel Maverick was, like Caldwell, only 17; although he initially survived the shootings, he succumbed to his wounds the following morning. Patrick Carr was “a leather worker;” having emigrated from Ireland, he also initially survived the shooting, but died two weeks later. [6] Historian Frederic Kidder wrote in 1870 of how these five men came to this point and history: “Crispus Attucks, an intrepid mulatto, who was a leader in the affray at Murray’s Barracks, was killed as he stood leaning with his breast resting on a stout cordwood stick; Samuel Gray, one of the rope makers, was shot as he stood with his hands in his bosom, and just as he had said, ‘My lads they will not fire.’ Patrick Carr left his house on hearing the alarm bell, and was mortally wounded as he was crossing the street; James Caldwell, in like manner, summoned from his home, was killed as he was standing in the middle of the street. Samuel Maverick, a lad of seventeen, ran out of the house at the alarm of fire, and was shot as he was crossing the street; six others were wounded.” [7] The shootings shook up the city of Boston, and, ultimately, the entire expanse of the American colonies. A line had been crossed; never again would there be the same relationship between the colonists and Mother England. Thomas Hutchinson wrote on 5 March, “All the bells in town are now tolling to show that the persons who have the direction of the Town differ from the Law in their construction of the Return this day twelve Months.” As we can examine historical works, written long after the events occurred, we need more to scrutinize the

114

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

contemporary accounts. For instance, another newspaper in Boston, The Boston Evening Post, stated:

honor of the regiment, there was a combination among them to take vengeance on the town, indiscriminately. Of such a combination there is no satisfactory proof; and in consequence thereof, there was, on the evening of the 5th, a great number of abuses committed by the soldiers on the inhabitants, in various parts of the town. [9]

Last Thursday, agreeably to a general request of the inhabitants, and by the consent of Parents and others, were followed to their Graves in succession, the bodies of Messrs. Samuel Gray, Samuel Maverick, James Caldwell, and Crispus Attucks, the unhappy Victims who Jellicoe in the bloody massacre of the Monay [sic] evening proceeding! On this occasion most of the Shops in Town were shut, all the Bells were ordered to toll a Solemn Peal, as were also those in the neighboring Towns of Charlestown & Roxbury. The Procession began to move between the hours of 4 and 5 in the afternoon; two of the unfortunate Sufferers, viz. James Caldwell and Crispus Attucks, who were strangers, borne from Faneuil Hall, attended by a numerous train of Persons of all ranks: an the other two, viz. Mr. Samuel Gray from the house of Mr. Benjamin Gray (his brother), on the North side [of] the Exchange, to Mr. Samuel Maverick from the house of his distressed Mother Mrs. Mary Maverick, in UnionStreet, each followed by their respective Relations & Friends. [8] All five men were buried in the Granary Burial Yard in Boston. Justice was demanded for the five victims of the massacre. The leader of the British troops, Captain Thomas Preston, had ordered his men to fire directly into the crowd after he had felt that the civilians would harm the troops. A grand jury was impaneled to look into the potential of criminal charges being pressed against Preston and his men. As noted in The Boston Weekly Magazine of 11 May 1839, “the following concise statement respecting the massacre is from a letter of the council, (signed by [the Rev.] S[amuel] Danforth, senior member of the board) to an agent of the province in England”: The soldiers in general, and particularly of the 29th regiment, have behaved with great insolence, and have committed many abuses upon the inhabitants of the town; for which it were to be wished, their punishment had been adequate to their deserts. But the affair, which was more immediately introductory to the said massacre, was a quarrel between some soldiers of the 29th regiment, and certain rope-makers at the ropewalk of one Mr. Gray. In the contest, the soldiers were worsted; and this reflecting, as they thought, on the

With tensions at a fever point, citizens of Boston met at the city’s now-famed Faneuil Hall on 22 March 1770. A letter was drafted by members of a council formed at the parley, headed by James Bowdoin, Dr. Joseph Warren, and Samuel Pemberton, among others, “to make Representation of the late horrid Massacre in Boston by the Soldiery, be desired to transmit, by the Packet [mail] to Doctor Lucas, a patriotic Member of the House of Commons in Ireland, a printed copy of such Representation.” The letter laid out the history of the massacre, then stated, “After that execrable Deed, perpetrated by Soldiers of the 29th Regiment, the Town thought it highly expedient, that a full and just Representation of it should be made to Persons of Character as soon as may be, in order to frustrate the Designs of certain Men, who, as they have heretofore been plotting the Ruin of our Constitution and Liberties, by their Letters, Memorials, an Representations, are now said to have procured Depositions in a private Manner, relative to the said Massacre, to bring an Odium upon the Town, as the Aggressors in that Affair.” The writers of this letter do not specify who the “aggressors” are, however. [10] Finally, Private Matthew Killroy, of the 29th Regiment of Foot, was indicted and charged with the murder specifically of Samuel Maverick, along with seven other British troops. Captain Preston was also indicted for ordering the shootings, which resulted in five deaths. Despite the overwhelming evidence against Preston and his men, several leading Boston attorneys came to their defense. Among these, John Adams and Josiah Quincy, Jr., served as counsel and co-counsel for Preston’s trial, which was held from 24–30 October 1770, just seven months after the killings. Historian John Philip Reid explained: The task of leading for the defense was assumed by two whigs, John Adams and Josiah Quincy, Jr., brother of the crown prosecutor, Samuel Quincy. Considering

The Boston Massacre (1770)115 that Edmund Trowbridge was now on the superior court and James Otis was unstable, they were probably the best men available. But their politics caused some imperial officials to ask whether they would be reluctant to raise all the defenses available. “Lawyers from other provinces,” [Lieutenant Colonel William Dalrymple explained to Gage, “would probably do much better for their Client, not being residents here they might exert their abilities without apprehension of future injuries; but where are any to be had.” Even Hutchinson who knew and respected the integrity of both men had doubts about retaining them. “Adams & Quincy being too hot lawyers in favour of all popular irregularities,” he noted, “had there been others of different principles & equal powers who would have engaged with zeal it certainly would have been more advisable to have employed them & have silenced these . . .” [11] Adams used his legal knowledge of English law to argue that Preston did not order the shootings, and that the troops did not fire until their lives were in danger. A civilian jury acquitted Preston of all charges, as were six of his men; two of the troops, Killroy and Private Hugh Montgomery, were convicted of manslaughter on 5 December 1770. Although both men faced potential death by hanging, instead they were both branded with a letter “m” on their thumbs, marking them as murderers for the rest of their lives. An article in The Boston Weekly Magazine in 1839 gave an overview of the situation borne out of the Boston massacre: “The massacre in Boston, 5th March, 1770, by the British mercenary troops, and the destruction of tea in December, 1773, produced great excitement at the time, and are among the important events which took place previous to open hostilities between England and the North American colonies in 1775, and inquiries are now frequently made, as to the particulars of these transactions.” [12] The Boston Massacre was a defining moment in the relationship between the colonies and England; never again would there be the same level of trust and cooperation that there had been, even at a diminishing level, prior to that shooting. Just four years later, a shooting war would break out between the two sides, and, to address the continuing concerns of the colonies, raised in part by the events of 5 March 1770, representatives of the colonies would meet in

Philadelphia in what has become known as the First Continental Congress. The men murdered in Boston were com­ memorated and remembered throughout the colonies; books, papers, pamphlets, posters, and paintings were released to herald their sacrifice even if few details of their lives were known. One printer released a poem accompanying the “Paul Revere” print of the murders. The poem read: Unhappy Boston I see thy Sons deplore, Thy hallow’d walks besmear’d with guiltless Gore: While faithless PRESTON, and his savage Bands, With murd’rous Rancour stretch their bloody Hands; Like fierce Barbarians grinning o’er their Prey, Approve the Carnage and enjoy the Day. If scalding Drops, from Rage, from Anguish wrung, If speechless Sorrows, lab’ring for a Tongue, Or if a weeping World can aught appease, The plaintive Ghosts of Victims such as these; The Patriot’s copious Tear for each are shed, A glorious Tribute which embalms the dead. [13] Two years after the shooting had ended, Dr. Joseph Warren delivered at oration regarding the massacre to commemorate the tragedy. In the oration, Warren said, “When we turn over the historic page, and trace the rise and fall of states and empires; the mighty revolutions which have so often varied the face of the world strike our minds with solemn surprize [sic], and we are naturally led to endeavor to search out the causes of such astonishing changes.” Then, turning to the issue of the massacre itself, he stated, “But propitious heaven forbad the bloody carnage, and saved the threatened victims of our too keen resentment, not by their discipline, not by their regular array—no, it was royal George’s livery that proved their shield—it was that which turned the pointed engines of destruction from their breasts. The thoughts of vengeance were soon buried in our inbred affection to Great-Britain, and calm reason dictated a method of removing the troops more mild than an immediate recourse to the sword. With united efforts, you urged the immediate departure of the troops from the town—you urged it, with a resolution which ensured success—you obtained your wishes, and the removal of the troops was effected, without one drop of their blood being shed by the inhabitants!” [14]

116

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

The bullets that were fired at those individuals on that day in March 1770, while not a war, directly initiating nevertheless were the opening volley in a conflict that eventually led to the establishment of the Continental Congress and the birth of the United States of America.

The Boston Port Bill (1774)

[1] “Boston. The Town of Boston afford a recent and melancholy Demonstration,” The Boston-Gazette, and Country Journal [Massachusetts], 12 March 1770, 1. [2] “Boston, March 8, 1770, The Massachusetts Gazette: and The Boston Weekly News-Letter, 8 March 1770, 1. [3] “The Boston Massacre” in Peleg W. Chandler, “American Criminal Trials” (Boston: Timothy H. Carter and Company; two volumes, 1844), I:303–04. [4] “Who was Crispus Attucks?,” The American Historical Record, I:12 (December 1872), 531. [5] Advertisement in the Boston Gazette, or Weekly Journal, 20 November 1750, in “Crispus Attucks,” New England Historical and Genealogical Register, XIII:4 (October 1859), 300. [6] Some information on the victims of the Boston Massacre, courtesy of the Massachusetts Historical Society, online at http:// www.bostonmassacre.net/players/index.htm. [7] Kidder, Frederic, “History of the Boston Massacre, March 5, 1770; Consisting of the Narrative of the Town, the Trial of the Soldiers: and a Historical Introduction, Containing Unpublished Documents of John Adams, and Explanatory Notes” (Albany, NY: Joel Munsell, 1870), 6. [8] The Boston Evening Post [Massachusetts], 12 March 1770, 4. [9] “The Boston Massacre, 1770,” The Boston Weekly Magazine. Devoted to Moral and Entertaining Literature, Science, and the Fine Arts: Containing Original and Selected Tales, Moral and Humorous Essays, Sketches of Society, Elegant Extracts, Poetry, Criticism, and Selections from Works of History and Adventure: Embellished with Music, I:36 (11 May 1839), 281–82. [10] “A Letter from the Town of Boston, to C. Lucas, Esq; One of the Representatives of the City of Dublin in Parliament: Inclosing a Short Narrative of the Massacre Perpetrated There, In the Evening of the Fifth day of March, 1770, by Soldiers of the XXIXth Regiment, Quartered in the Town: with some Observations on the State of Things Prior to that Catastrophe” (Boston: Printed by Order of the Town of Boston, and Dublin: Reprinted by Tho. Ewing, 1770?), 3–4. [11] Reid, John Philip, “A Lawyer Acquitted: John Adams and the Boston Massacre Trials,” The American Journal of Legal History, XVIII:3 (July 1974), 195. [12] “The Boston Massacre, 1770,” The Boston Weekly Magazine, I:36 (11 May 1839), 281. [13] “The Fruits of Arbitrary Power; or the BLOODY MASSACRE, Perpetrated in King-street, Boston, by a Party of the XXIXth Regt. In which Mess. Sam. Gray, Sam. Maverick, James Caldwell, Crispus Attucks, Patrick Carr, were killed. Six others were wounded, two of them [Christopher Monk and John Clark] mortally” (Boston: Printed for and Sold by W. Bingley, in NewgateStreet, 1770). [14] Warren, Dr. Joseph, “An Oration Delivered March 5th, 1772. At The Request of the Inhabitants of the Town of Boston, to Commemorate the Bloody Tragedy of the FIFTH of March, 1770. By Dr. Joseph Warren” (Boston: Printed by Edes and Gill, by Order of the Town of Boston, 1772), 1, 13–14.

In 1904, historians Richard Townley Haines Halsey and Philip Dawe wrote of this piece of legislation, “The Act of Parliament which peremptorily ordered the Harbour of Boston to be closed to commence on June first, 1774, and known in history as The Boston Port Bill, aroused such a storm of indignation in America that the thirteen Colonies rallied to the support of Boston and became united in their opposition to the plans made by the British Ministry for the subservience of local government on this continent.” [1] Also known as the Boston Port Act, or the Act of 1774, this legislation was one of the four named “Intolerable Acts” enacted by Parliament, bills that ultimately led to anger, resentment, and, in the end, a break with England that same year that led to the American Revolution, the meeting of the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia, and the declaration of independence from Great Britain. The Boston Tea Party, undertaken in 1773 by unknown colonials protesting the cost of British tea, led the British Parliament to enact a series of actions, also known as “The Coercive Acts,” which were intended to both punish the colonists for the action while at the same time making them more dependent on British goods. The Boston Port Bill was the first of these actions. This was followed by the Massachusetts Government Act, which overturned the colonial charter of that entity from 1691 and forced a military government, under General Thomas Gage, to run the colony. The third action was the Administration of Justice Act, which offered blanket protection to all British officials in the colonies charged with offensive crimes and allowing them to go home to England for any punishment. The fourth, the Quebec Act, gave all trade and governmental jurisdiction for the areas between the Ohio and Mississippi Rivers to the province of Quebec after it had been taken from any colonial control. The Boston Port Bill had a dual purpose: to punish the Massachusetts colony by closing the port of Boston until the tea which had been

The Boston Port Bill (1774)117 destroyed had been paid for, and to force the colony to become more dependent on British supplies, as the bill allowed exceptions for military to import goods such as weaponry and ammunition, and for fuel and food only for civilians. The British believed that by further punishing the residents of Massachusetts, there would be a lesser chance that a repeat of the Boston Tea Party would occur. Lord North, the British Prime Minister who had fully backed the law in Parliament, believed that other ports in the colonies, such as New York, would be happy to now get the increased business that Boston would be losing. Debates over the Boston Port Bill in Parliament were lengthy, and only a review of British newspapers of the time can accurately reflect their true picture. The General Evening Post of London reported: The H. of C. on Wednesday resolved itself into a Committee on the Boston port-bill. Sir Charles W___ rth having taken the Chair, the debate opened in the following manner: Mr. F____r said, his wish as to make an alteration in the bill, by exacting a fine previous to blockading the port. He argued that the port of Boston was of infinite consequence and the greatest utility imaginable to Great Britain—that the bill under consideration was without a precedent, as the instances of Edinburgh and Glasgow, which had been adduced, were not by any means cases in point; that blocking up the port was a punishment infinitely too severe for the first offence; that the Bostonians, upon the first resistance, will refuse to remit the money they owe you; that nothing but confederacies would spring up among them; that he was strongly of opinion, that this bill could not be carried into execution without a military force; that if a final number of men were sent over the Boston militia would immediately cut them to pieces; that if you send over a larger number, 6 or 7000, the Americans will debauch them; and by there mean [sic] we should only hurt ourselves. [2] The following month, more debate was reported in the London Magazine: “As the Boston Port Bill is of vast importance to the mercantile part of the nation, and indeed to the Whole British

empire, we hope the public will be pleased to have the whole Proceedins [sic] and Debates of a Political Society upon it, brought into one point of view—And that our numerous readers will rather commend than censure us, or inserting them in the present Magazine.” [3] In the debates, Edmund Burke, a member of the House of Commons for Bristol, was perhaps the loudest opponent—not just of the Boston Port Bill, but of the overall strategy in dealing with the colonies utilizing such harsh economic measures. The same magazine that reported on the Boston Port Bill also said of Burke: “[I]n a speech of near an hour and a half, [Burke] set forth the absurdity of the proceedings concerning America heretofore, asking, were we to expect any good from the same persons who adopted those measures? He said, we wanted a change of governors both at home and abroad; and was extremely severe on the noble lord (North) and administration, and arraigned the whole of their conduct. He said, before they presented their address, promising to redress evils, it would be more parliamentary to enquire whether those abuses existed; as to recriminating, it was very proper, as we might then see and learn from experience what good might be produced.” [4] The bill’s passage in Parliament, Burke’s objections aside, was never in doubt. The Morning Chronicle of London reported on 4 April 1774, “The following in the much-talked-of BOSTON PORT BILL, which on Thursday last received the Royal Assent, and after the First of June becomes a law: ‘An Act to discontinue, in such manner and for such time as are herein mentioned, the landing and discharging, lading or shipping, of goods, wares, and merchandise, at the ton, and within the harbour of Boston, in the province of Massachusett’s Bay, in North America.’” [5] The action was met with little short of outrage in all of the colonies, but most notably in Massachusetts. A letter from William Cooper, the town clerk of Boston from 1761 to 1809, is most illustrative of the attitude of that colony following passage of the Boston Port Bill:

118

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

GENTLEMEN:

of the action in their pages. For instance, in the British journal Hiberian Magazine in October 1774, it was reported an “[a]ccount of the Proceedings of the American Colonists, since the Passing [of] the Boston Port Bill.” The report which followed stated:

We have just received the Copy of an Act of the British Parliament passed [in] the present ses [sic] whereby the Town of Boston is treated in a manner the most Ignominious & Unjust. The Parliament have taken upon them from the representation of our Govenor [sic] & other persons inimical to & deeply prejudiced against the Inhabitants, to try, condem [sic], an[d] by an Act to punish them unheard which would have been in violation of natural Justice, even if thy had an acknowledged Jurisdiction. They have order’d our Po[r]t to be intirely [sic] shut up, leaving us barely so much of the means of subsistence as to keep us from Perishing with Cold & Hunger, and it is said that a Fleet of British Ships of War is to shut up our Harbour, untill [sic] we shall make restitution to the East India Company for the loss of their Tea which was destroyed therein the Winter past, obedience paid to the Laws and Authority of Great Britain and the revenue is duly collected. This Act fill the Inhabitants with Indignation. The more thinking part of those who have heretofore been in favour of the Measures of the British Government, look upon it as not to have been expected even from a barbarous State.” [6] Josiah Quincy, Jr., who four years earlier had defended the soldiers who had opened fire on civilians in Boston, an event known as The Boston Massacre, wrote a scathing denunciation of the law. His work, “Observation on the Act of Parliament, Commonly called the Boston Port-Bill; with Thoughts on Civil Society and Standing Armies,” was one of the harshest anti-British tracts written in the colonies up to that time. The British magazine The Critical Review called the book “a verbose and violent declamation against the conduct of the British legislature, concluded with an address to the Americans, in such an intemperate style of exasperated patriotism, as might almost render Mr. Quincy’s friends apprehensive lest he exceed the bounds of law.” [7] England, or at least a segment of the nation, quickly realized that the impact that the Boston Port Bill should have had in fact had boomeranged against the British system of administration in the colonies. Reports in newspapers and magazines in London and elsewhere heralded meetings and denunciations

In consequence of the Resolution of the inhabitants of Charles-Town, the capital of South Carolina, to a call a general meeting in order to obtin [sic] the sense of the freeholders of the whole province, on the present alarming state of American affairs, the largest body of respectable inhabitants assembled at the Exchange of that town, on the 6th of July, that had ever been brough [sic] together on any formal occasion and, after chusing [sic] the Hon. Col. Powell (who had presided at all the former general meetings) for their chairman, and the same secretary as had hitherto served, proceeded to consider the steps necessary to be pursued, in union with the inhabitants of the sister colonies, to avert the dangers impending over American liberties in general by the late hostile act of parliament against Boston, and other arbitrary measures of the British ministry. On this and other important matters they continued in solemn deliberation for three days, on the day of meeting, they read and approved the Resolution, of other colonies, and formed Resolution; not unfamiliar to those who had been transmitted to them by the committees of the several colonies, with which they corresponded. [8] Inside the colonies, and without the knowledge of the British authorities, some men who would eventually become leaders in the revolutionary movement were quietly agitating to raise the flag of revolution against London. Charles Thomson, who later served as the secretary of the Continental Congress, prepared a history years later on the opening days of the Revolution; when Joseph Reed provided a statement to him which he found to be in error, he wrote to William Henry Drayton, a delegate to the Continental Congress from South Carolina, and gave some account of the actions of Drayton, as well as others following the passage of the Boston Port Bill: [I]n the spring of 1774, as soon as news of the Boston port bill, &c. arrived, [Drayton’s] friend, who had taken an action part in the measures for

Elias Boudinot (1740–1821)119 sending back the tea, immediately communicated to him the intelligence, and gave him his opinion that now was the time to step forward. The measures proper to be pursued on this occasion were secretly concerted between them. And to prepare the minds of the people, D[rayton] undertook to address the public in a series of letters. The next day the letter arrived from Boston, and it was judged proper to call a meeting of the principal inhabitants, to communicate to them the contents of the letter, and gain their concurrence in the measures that were necessary to be taken. As the quakers [sic], who are principled against war, saw the storm gathering, and, therefore, wished to keep aloof from danger, were industriously deployed to prevent anythings [sic] from being done which might involve Pennsylvania farther in the dispute, and as it was apparent that for this purpose their whole force would be collected at the ensuing meeting, it was necessary to devie [sic] means to counteract their designs as to carry the measures proposed, and yet prevent a disunion, and thus if possible bring Pennsylvania with its whole force undivided to made common cause with Boston. [9]

[5] “From the London Gazette. Whitehall, April 2,” The Morning Chronicle, and London Advertiser, 4 April 1774, 4. [6] Tuckerman, Frederick, “Letter Relating to the Boston Port Bill,” The New-England Historical and Genealogical Register, XLV (July 1891), 198. [7] See the review in The Critical Review, or, Annals of Literature, XXXVIII (July 1774), 77. For the actual work, see Josiah Quincy, “Observations on the Act of Parliament Commonly called the Boston Port-Bill; with Thoughts on Civil Society and Standing Armies. By Josiah Quincy, Jun’r.” (Boston: New England: Printed for and Sold by Edes and Gill, in QueenStreet, 1774). [8] “Account of the Proceedings of the American Colonists, since the Passing [of] the Boston Port Bill,” Hibernian Magazine, or, Compendium of Entertaining Knowledge [London] (October 1774), 607–08. [9] “Early Days of the Revolution in Philadelphia. Charles Thomson’s Account of the Opposition to the Boston Port Bill,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, II:4 (1878), 412–13.

Elias Boudinot (1740–1821)

The passage of the Boston Port Bill, coming just four years after the Boston Massacre, and the continuation of a line of harsh economic measures enacted by the British Parliament to try to corral the colonies into submission, was the final straw for those in what would become the United States. People who had waved off fully backing the breaking off from England now joined the patriot cause—perhaps not so much out of loyalty to that cause, but more in disgust at the arrogance of the reign of King George III and his Prime Minister, Lord North, and their policies. The shooting war against England soon began: a war that was to establish a Continental Congress, a Continental Army, and, ultimately, the United States of America.

[1] Halsey, Richard Townley Haines; and Richard Dawe, “The Boston Port Bill as Pictured by a Contemporary London Cartoonist” (New York: The Grolier Club, 1904), xiv-xix. [2] “SUBSTANCE of the DEBATES on the BOSTON PORTBILL,” The General Evening Post [London], 26–29 March 1774, 2. [3] “For the London Magazine. Debates of a Political Society,” London Magazine, or, Gentleman’s Monthly Intelligencer, XLIII (April 1774), 165. [4] Speech of Burke, 7 March 1774, in ibid., 166.

Remembered for his service in the Continental Congress (1778, 1781, 1782 and 1783, including as president in 1782 and 1783), as a member of Congress (1789–95), and for his work in education, Elias Boudinot served his nation for more than half a century. When he died in 1821, he was one of the longest-living members of the Continental Congress.

120

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Elias Boudinot was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on 2 May 1740, the son of Elias Boudinot III, a postmaster in Philadelphia, and his wife Elizabeth (née Williams) Boudinot. The family was of French Huguenot background. In a speech by the Reverend W. Wallace Atterbury on Elias Boudinot delivered before the Huguenot Society on 15 February 1894, he touched on Boudinot’s French ancestors. Speaking of the first Elias Boudinot, a French Huguenot who came to the colonies about 1687, the Reverend noted, “His name was Elie Boudinot. He came from Aunis, the smallest of the thirty-three provinces into which the kingdom of France was at that time divided, and which has been called the birthplace of American Huguenots . . . Here the family of the Boudinots had flourished for several generations, and the name frequently occurs in the old registers of the Reformed Church of Marans, preserved in the archives of the church at La Rochelle, to which parish it now belongs.” [1]

as a member of the Provincial Congress of New Jersey. Despite this service, Boudinot seems to have still believed that reconciliation with England, even when the shooting war began, was possible, especially, when, at a meeting in New Brunswick in April 1776, he voted against having the meeting call for New Jersey to proclaim its independence, raised by Dr. John Witherspoon, although Boudinot eventually believed that the Continental Congress, then sitting in Philadelphia (and, considering and drafting a declaration of independence), should take up that matter. Boudinot later wrote, “There appeared a general Approbation of the Measure, and I strongly suspected an universal Acquiescence of both Committees & Audience in approving the doctor’s scheme . . . I never felt myself in a more mortifying Situation . . . Two of the Committee had delayed the Question by speaking in favor of it, but no one had spoken in Opposition, till I arose and in a Speech of about half an Hour or better, stated my peculiar Situation and endeavored to show the Fallacy of the Doctor’s Arguments.” [2]

Elias Boudinot, the subject of this biography, received a “classical education,” that is, studies in literature, music, English, and other studies relating to matters of the time. Following this education, he studied the law in the office of Richard Stockton (1730–1781), a noted New Jersey attorney, who was his brother-in-law. Boudinot himself was admitted to the New Jersey bar in 1760, and began a law practice in that the city of Elizabethtown in that colony. Here, he also invested in commercial enterprises and real estate, and soon became wealthy. On 21 April 1762, he married Hannah Stockton (1736–1808), the younger sister of his law mentor, Richard Stockton. The couple would have nine children, of whom four— three daughters and a son—would survive to adulthood. The name of Elias Boudinot does not appear in any of the works revolving around the protests against the harsh economic measures enacted by the English Parliament during the decade of the 1760s—in fact, Boudinot appears to have been not involved in the politics of the time at all. By 1774, however, he appears to have sided with those forces who opposed these measures, for in that year he became a member of the Essex County Committee of Correspondence as well as chairman of that county’s Committee of Safety; he also served

With the signing of the Declaration of Independence in July 1776, reconciliation with England was now impossible, and Boudinot sided wholly with the patriot cause. In 1776, he served for a short time as the aide-decamp to William Livingston in the New Jersey state militia. Impressed by his service, George Washington, the general who headed up the Continental Army, named Boudinot on 15 May 1777 as the Commissary-General of Prisoners, with the rank of colonel, responsible for handling the matters of American soldiers captured and imprisoned by the British. Boudinot accepted the post, but only with deep reservations, particularly about leaving his family behind in New Jersey. He wrote, “To leave the centre of my earthly Happiness, the objects of every affectionate connection, all the sweets of domestic felicity and Peace which was enjoyed in a higher degree by very few of the happiest Sons of Mortality, added to the loss of the many religious advantages I am blessed with and which increased and heightened every other favour . . . [T]o leave these, only real blessings of life, for the boisterous noisy fatiguing unnatural

Elias Boudinot (1740–1821)121 and disrelishing state of War and slaughter, without enjoyment. Satisfaction, Ease, requires some Philosophy to think on with Pleasure, or suffer with Patience.” [3] As with much of his entire life, Boudinot kept an extensive journal of his time as Commissary-General. Arriving in New York City on 3 February 1778, he wrote, “Arrived at sundown & sent a Sergeant to Gen. Robinson [actually, General James Robertson], who sent him back with a demand of my Commission an business . . .” Five days later, he visited with prisoners of war, and wrote, “with Mr. Loring to Long Island & visited our Prisoners. They received me with great Joy. Found them very comfortably situated. Col. Atleel & Magaw informed me of their request to Gen. Howe for the release of the sick Prisoners, but that it was first asked by Mr. Loring, but that they thought it the best thing that could possibly be done, and now wish that some generous compensation could be given to settle the matter.” [4] Historian Betsy Knight wrote in 1991: On February 10, 1778, [Boudinot] had received from [British General Lord] Howe a proposal to negotiate exchanges on a one-for-one basis by category—officer for officer, soldier for soldier, citizen for citizen—and Washington had agreed to this plan in general and in principle. Congress, for its part, perhaps prompted by the October acquisition of so many prisoners, was playing quite a different game. In December 1777 it had adopted a resolution prescribing outrageous terms for a general exchange. Foremost was a precondition that, because the British required payment for the upkeep of their prisoners (subsistence), all accounts for prisoners in American hands were to be settled (liquidated) in kind or in gold or silver at an exorbitant rate of exchange, although Congress planned to use paper money to liquidate the accounts of Americans in British hands. [5] The Continental Congress made Boudinot’s work much, much harder: it enacted laws that tied his hands and forced him to treat British soldiers captured by the Americans with harshness, something that he realized would result in similar treatment of Americans. One such resolution, of 30 December 1777, required that those British captured be “gaoled [jailed] and returned to

their states [sic] for prosecution,” which even General Washington felt was folly. Boudinot was then called before an oversight meeting of the Continental Congress in Philadelphia on 8 March 1778, in which he was challenged on his work exchanging prisoners. Boudinot wrote of the hearing: The Committee of Congress soon discovered their Sentiments ag[ainslt an Exchange and urged it as the Opinion of Congress that the settling this Cartel should be merely ostensible for the Purpose of satisfying the Army & throwing the Blame on the British, but true Policy required us to avoid an Exchange of Prisoners just at the Opening of the Campaign—We absolutely refused to undertake the Business on these Principles . . . If we went we were determined to make the best Cartel we could for the Liberation of our Prisoners—That we would not be made Instruments in so dishonorable a measure—General Washington also resented it and said his troops looked up to him as their Protector and that he would not suffer an opportunity to be lost of liberating every Soldier who was then in captivity let the Consequence be what it might. [6] On 2 March 1778, Boudinot filed his report on what he had seen and accomplished during his short time as Commissary-General. In the missive, he explained: Having been detained in New York on the business, committed to me by your Excellency, much longer than could have been expected, [I] think it my Duty to take the earliest opportunity of Communicating a Report of my Proceedings and the Reasons of my Conduct. On my arrival in Jersey I wrote to Sir Henry Clinton for permission to pass to New York, for the purpose of visiting our Prisoners etc. as per paper No. 9 and received an answer through Mr. Loring which is in No. 1o. When [I] arrived at the City, was received with great Politeness and Civility, and put under no other restraint than being informed, that they trusted to my prudence for a proper behaviour. My business here being to inquire and find out the real State of our unfortunate Bretheren, and not to negotiate any general Principles, I thought it prudent in the first Place, to make it a point to know the Tempers and Characters of the particular Persons I had to do with, and then endeavour

122

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

to improve it to the advantage of our miserable Prisoners. [7]

Thus I furnished 300 officers with a handsome suit of Cloaths each, and 1100 Men with a plain suit, Found them Blanketts, Shirts etc. and added to their provisions found by the British a full half ration of Bread and Beef p[e]r. day for upwards of 15 Months. Part of this I supplied by sending wheat and flour to New York, and selling them for hard money, under leave from Genl Robertson. Some time in the beginning of the year 1778, Congress recd from Genl Burgoyne nearly 40,000 Dollars in hard money. In the beginning of 1778 I was chosen a Member of Congress, but continued in the Army till June, when Genl. Washington knowing that I was near thirty Thousand Dollars in advance for the Prisoners, urged me to go and take my Seat in Congress, where I might get some of the hard money recd from Genl[.] Burgoyne before it was all expended, for if it was once gone, I should be totally ruined. I accordingly left the Army and joined Congress on their return from York Town in Pennsylvania, after the British had evacuated the City of Philadelphia. [10]

While Boudinot was serving as CommissaryGeneral, on 20 November 1777 he was elected by the New Jersey legislature to a seat in the same Continental Congress he would fight with so vociferously over prisoner issues. Ultimately, he did not take his seat in that body until 7 July 1778, nine months after being elected. Historian Edmund Cody Burnett explains that Boudinot did attend sessions from 6 July to about 15 July 1778, and from about 30 July to about 20 August 1778. [8] Arriving in Philadelphia, Boudinot wrote to his wife, “Thro’ the goodness of God I arrived here, after a very disagreeable, tedious Ride, on Sunday Morning. Yesterday took my seat in Congress & am unexpectedly lodged at Mrs Thomas Franklin’s [house] a very agreeable Family & one of the most pleasant Houses in the City.” [9] In his reminiscences, written (perhaps) on or about 31 July 1778, Boudinot explained: When I found every application to obtain hard money from Congress for the Cloathing of our Prisoners in vain, I waited on Genl Washington, and proposed my resignation, as my Character was at stake, having (on the promise of the Secret Committee to yield me every necessary aid) pledged myself to the officers in Confinement that they should be regularly supplied with every necessary, but they now suffered more than ever. In much distress and with Tears in his Eyes, he assured me that if he was deserted by the Gentn of the Country, he should despair. He could not do everything . . . He was Gen. Quarter Master and Commissary. Every thing fell on him and he was unequal to the task. He gave me the most positive Engagement that if I would contrive any mode for their Support and Comfort he would confirm it as far as was in his Power-On this I told him, I knew of but one way and that was to borrow Money on my own private Security. He assured me that in Case I did, and was not reimbursed by Congress, he would go an equal share with me in the loss. I then formed the plan of obliging Genl. Burgoyne to pay hard money for the support of the british Prisoners whom we supplied with daily rations, and in the meantime proceeded to borrow money or take Goods in New York on my own Credit.

Boudinot left the Continental Congress in 1779, but was ultimately reelected to it in 1781, serving through 1784, and he sat on some of that body’s most important debates, most notably those over the Articles of Confederation and the peace treaty with Britain, signed in 1783. On 4 November 1782, he received perhaps the greatest honor of that Continental Congress when he was elected president of the body, especially considering his difficulties with the members in the past over prisoner issues. Despite the honor, under the Articles of Confederation the “presidency” of the Continental Congress was a figurehead, an honorary office only with few powers and even fewer perks. In June 1783, when Secretary for Foreign Affairs Robert R. Livingston resigned his office, Boudinot acted in an ad interim capacity, actually signing the peace treaty with Great Britain on 15 April 1783. During his tenure as president, Boudinot had to “lead” Congress in moving from Philadelphia to Princeton in June 1783. Returning to New Jersey, Boudinot resumed his law practice; however, with the passage and ultimate ratification of the US Constitution, which established a plan of national elections for a new US House of Representatives and US Senate, Boudinot was elected to a seat in the

Elias Boudinot (1740–1821)123 House, serving from the First Congress (1789– 91) through the Third Congress (1793–95). In 1795, after he had left Congress, President George Washington, now the leader of the nation, named Boudinot to succeed David Rittenhouse as the Director of the United States Mint, located in Philadelphia. Boudinot served in this position until his resignation in July 1805. In the final decades of his life, spent in retirement at his home in Burlington, New Jersey, Boudinot devoted his time to matters from education to bible studies and religion. In his work “The Age of Revelation, or, The Age of Reason Shew to be an Age of Infidelity” (1801), Boudinot explained, “‘Hear O heavens! and give ear O earth! for the Lord hath spoken: I have nourished and brought up children, and they have rebelled against me,’ was the pathetic and affecting language of the elegant and truly evangelical prophet Isaiah, when addressing a highly favoured, though obstinate and sinful nation—‘a people loaded with iniquity—a seed of evil doers—children who were corrupted.’” [11] A philanthropist, Boudinot gave away much of his fortune to various causes, including to the opposition to slavery and aiding freed blacks in courts, to Native Americans and their plight, which led to an 1816 work, “A Star in the West,” in which Boudinot argued that the Natives were the true Jews from the Bible. A trustee of Princeton College (now Princeton University), he endowed the school in 1805 with a collection of furniture. In 1816, he was elected as the first president of the American Bible Society, and served as well as the head of the American Board of Commissioners for Foreign Missions, all of which he donated land in the American west to be sold for their benefit. One of his legacies, a donation to a school in Connecticut, led one Native American youth to take his name, and lived as Elias Boudinot (c. 1803–1839), becoming the leader of the Cherokee Nation. Elias Boudinot died in Burlington, New Jersey, on 24 October 1821 at the age of 81. The Daily National Intelligencer of Washington, D.C., said of him, “[I]f his public services and his private worth claim the tribute of general esteem and affectionate remembrance, the

closing scene of his life is no less calculated to console his friends under the heavy loss they have sustained, than it is to edify and support the departing christian. In the full possession of his mental faculties, and in the assured persuasion of his approaching dissolution, his faith was firm, his patience unexhausted, and his hopes were bright.” [12] Boudinot was laid to rest in St. Mary’s Episcopal Church Cemetery in Burlington. Elias Boudinot’s descendant, Helen Boudinot Stryker, wrote of her ancestor in 1879, less than a century after his death, “Elias Boudinot was the trusted friend and counsellor of Washington, and was on terms of intimate intercourse with Hamilton and many other illustrious men who bore conspicuous part in the annals of our country during the eventful period of the Revolution, and the laying the foundations of the Republic. He was a person of great dignity, and at the same time of eminent courtesy of manner. He was exact in his habits of thought and expression, cool in judgment, prompt and decided in action. He was sought and trusted as a friend and counsellor by the poor as well as the rich. He was an earnest and consistent Christian, a man of prayer, a diligent student of the Bible.”  [13]

[1] Atterbury, The Rev. W. Wallace, “Elias Boudinot: Reminiscences of the American Revolution” (New York [?]: Privately published, 1894), 1–2. [2] Boudinot, J. J., ed., “The Life, Public Services, Addresses and Letters of Elias Boudinot, LL.D., President of the Continental Congress” (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company; two volumes, 1896), I:15–16. [3] Ibid., I:55. [4] Jordan, Helen, ed., “Colonel Elias Boudinot in New York City, February, 1778,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, XXIV:4 (1900), 450, 463. [5] Knight, Betsy, “Prisoner Exchange and Parole in the American Revolution,” The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series (XLVIII:2 (April 1991), 203–04. [6] Boudinot, Elias, “Journal of Events in the Revolution, by Elias Boudinot” in “Journal or Historical Recollections of American Events During the Revolutionary War, by Elias Boudinot. President of the Continental Congress, Commissary General of Prisoners in the Army of America during the Revolutionary War, Director of the Mint, etc. Copied from His Own Original Manuscript” (Philadelphia: Frederick Bourquin, 1894), 43–44. [7] Boudinot’s report is in David L. Sterling, ed., “American Prisoners of War in New York: A Report by Elias Boudinot,” The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, XIII:3 (July 1956),

124

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

379–80. For notes written by Boudinot during his meeting with the British regarding prisoner issues, see “Colonel Elias Boudinot’s Notes of Two Conferences Held by the American and British Commissioners to Settle a General Cartel for the Exchange of Prisoners of War, 1778,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, XXIV:3 (1900), 291–305. [8] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921–36), III:lv. [9] Boudinot to Mrs. Boudinot, 7 July 1778, in Boudinot, J. J., ed., “The Life, Public Services, Addresses and Letters of Elias Boudinot, LL.D., President of the Continental Congress” (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company; two volumes, 1896), I:151–52. [10] “Boudinot’s Reminiscences,” in Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921–36), III:356–57. [11] Boudinot, Elias, “The Age of Revelation. Or, The Age of Reason, Shewn to be an Age of Infidelity” (Philadelphia: Published by Asbury Dickins, Opposite Christ-Church, 1801), 1. [12] “From The Philadelphia Daily Advertiser,” Daily National Intelligencer [Washington, DC], 2 November 1821, 3. [13] Stryker, Helen Boudinot, “Elias Boudinot,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, III:2 (1879), 191.

to gain a classical education, through studies of literature and languages, afterward being tutored by John Lovell (1710–1778), the head of the Boston Latin School, whose own son, James Lovell (1737–1814), later served as a delegate to the Continental Congress (1777–82). Bowdoin entered Harvard College (now Harvard University) in 1742, and earned his first degree in 1745, ultimately being awarded a Master’s degree from the same institution in 1748.

James Bowdoin (1726–1790) Colonial merchant and politician, who served in Massachusetts colonial and state government, rising to serve as governor of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts (1785–87), James Bowdoin was elected as a delegate to the Continental Congress, but he ultimately declined the honor. He is best remembered for ending the violent revolt in Massachusetts known as Shays’ Rebellion. The youngest child of James Bowdoin, Sr., a merchant and land speculator and owner, and his second wife, Hannah (née Portage) Bowdoin, the younger Bowdoin was born in Boston, Massachusetts, on 7 August 1726. Like Elias Boudinot, another revolutionary politician who took his seat in the Continental Congress, Bowdoin was of Huguenot background. The elder Bowdoin was born in Boston in 1676; his father, Pierre Boudoin or Bourden, had been born in La Rochelle, in Poitou-Charentes, France, in 1640, and had emigrated to the New World. Of Huguenot background, Pierre Boudoin could trace his family back several generations, to René Beaudoin, from St. Brice de Courcival, in Normandy, France. [1] James Bowdoin was able to utilize his father’s vast wealth and resources

From his time at Harvard, Bowdoin met and married Elizabeth Erving, the sister of one of his roommates. Owing to his wealth, gained by his father’s death in 1747, Bowdoin was able to spend lavishly on homes, parties, and guests whom he entertained with his wife. He became close friends with Benjamin Franklin, and the two men established a correspondence that lasted for many years. He conducted scientific experiments, which he detailed in some length in “A Paraphrase Part on the Economy of Human Life” (1759). A lover of the arts, Bowdoin was later instrumental in the founding of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences in 1780, and he served as that institution’s first president. In 1753, Bowdoin entered the political arena in Massachusetts, winning election to a seat in the general court of Boston. Four years later, he was elected to the Council of Massachusetts. An opponent to the policies of the Royal Governor, Francis Bernard, Bowdoin was removed from the council in 1769. Bowdoin was more of a conservative politician, and he also clashed with the orator and writer John Hancock in a political fight that would, ultimately be Bowdoin’s undoing. Opposition to Hancock, however, would come later: By 1770, following the Boston Massacre, Bowdoin found himself firmly in the camp desirous of a break from British control over the colonies. He penned a “Short Narrative of the Horrid Massacre in Boston” in 1770 as part of the propaganda effort to highlight the tragedy of the shootings. That same year, Bowdoin was elected to a seat in the Massachusetts colonial House of Representatives. Historian Gordon Kershaw wrote that Bowdoin was “re-elected to the council in 1772.” [2] Robert C. Winthrop, who later served as the Speaker of the US House of

James Bowdoin (1726–1790)125 Representatives, added a biography of Bowdoin to his roster of speeches and addresses that he published in 1852. He explained: Of the first-rate part which Body played, during his long service in the Council, we have the fullest testimony from the most unquestionable sources. Governor [Thomas] Hutchinson, who was himself a principal actor in the scenes which he describes, and who will not be suspected of any undue partiality to Bowdoin, furnishes unequivocal testimony as to his course: “In most of the addresses, votes, and other proceedings in Council, of importance, for several years past the Lieutenant Governor, (Hutchinson himself) had been employed as the chairman of the committees. Mr. Bowdoin succeeded him, and obtained a greater influence over the Council than his predecessor ever had; and being united in principle with the leading men in the House [of Representatives], measures were concerted between him and them, and from this time the Council, in matters which concerned the controversy between the Parliament and the Colonies, in scarcely any instance disagreed with the House.” [3] In 1774, after the various colonies called for a meeting of delegates to be held in Philadelphia and which became the First Continental Congress, Bowdoin was named as a delegate to the parley. He never attended, however. The Boston Gazette reported on 15 August 1774: Wednesday Morning the Hon. Thomas Cushing, Esq; Mr. Samuel Adams, John Adams and Robert Treat Paine, Common House of Assembly, for this Province, to attend the General Congress to be holden [sic] at Philadelphia, some Time next Month, set out from hence, attended by a Number of Gentlemen, who accompanied them to Watertown, where they were met by many others, who provided an elegant Entertainment for them; after Dinner they proceeded on their Journey, intending to reach Southborough that Evening. Some days before the departure of the Committee for the Congress, Mr. Bowdoin sent them a Letter acquainting them, That he had had Hopes of proceeding with them to the Congress, but Mrs. Bowdoin’s ill State of Health, occasioned by a long continued Slow Fever, necessitated him to lay aside all Thoughts of it. [4] According to historian Edmund Cody Burnett, Bowdoin ultimately declined the honor of serving in that body. [5]

Bowdoin remained involved closely in Massachusetts politics. In 1784, he became the president of the Massachusetts Bank, later becoming the First National Bank of Boston. Later that same year, he was elected governor of Massachusetts. [6] During his two one-year terms, which lasted until 1787, Bowdoin became infamous for his crushing of the farmer’s revolt in Massachusetts known as Shays’ Rebellion. Once confronted with the potential of violence from farmers who refused to pay taxes to the state government, or who were protesting other economic matters, Bowdoin knew that he had to put down the revolt or allow it to grow and take control of the state at a time when it was recovering from the American Revolution, which had just ended. The mobs of farmers, led by Captain Daniel Shays, closed courthouses and set up barricades in several towns. Bowdoin ordered the state militia of some 4,000+ troops under the command of General Benjamin Lincoln to put down the revolt and take control of the courthouses. A battle against some 1,400 farmers, led by Shays, took place at the US arsenal at Springfield. General William Shepard held off the farmers until Lincoln could reinforce his men, and the revolt was crushed on 4 February 1786. The previous day, unknown to Bowdoin, he addressed the state House and Senate, and told them that military action was necessary. “A rebellion exists within this Commonwealth . . . [i]t is to be expected that Vigour, Decision & Energy, under the direction & blessing of Heaven, will soon terminate this unnatural, unprovoked rebellion, prevent the effusion of blood, and the fatal consequences to be dreaded from a civil war, and it is the determination of this Court, to establish a criterion, for discriminating between good citizens & others, that each may be regarded according to their characters & deserts.” [7] Despite having the support of both houses of the state legislation, the Continental Congress, and even Samuel Adams, who spoke up in favor of the governor’s actions, the policy was denounced by the voters of Massachusetts, as well as by John Hancock, who had served as a delegate to the Continental Congress from Massachusetts. In 1786, Hancock entered the race against Bowdoin

126

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

when he ran for a third term as governor. The issue of Shays’ Rebellion was the chief one, and Bowdoin polled less than 20% of the vote. Despite the overwhelming defeat, in 1788 Bowdoin served as a delegate to Massachusetts constitutional convention that voted to ratify the US Constitution on 6 February 1788.

[2] Kershaw, Gordon E., “Bowdoin, James” in John A. Garraty and Mark C. Carnes, gen. eds., “American National Biography” (New York: Oxford University Press; 24 volumes, 1999), III:274. [3] Winthrop, Robert C., “Life of James Bowdoin” in “Addresses and Speeches on Various Occasions” (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company, 1852), 102. [4] “Boston, August 15,” The Boston Gazette, and Country Journal [Massachusetts], 15 August 1774, 2. [5] See Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921–36), I:xlviii. [6] Richards, Leonard, “Shays’s Rebellion: The American Revolution’s Final Battle” (Philadelphia : University of Pennsylvania Press, 2002), 85. [7] Manuel, Frank E.; and Fritzie P. Manuel, “James Bowdoin and the Patriot Philosophers” (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 2004), 226. [8] “Biographical Sketches of the Life and Character of the Hon. James Bowdoin, Esq. L.L.D. F.R.S.,” The Universal Asylum and Columbian Magazine, VI:2 (February 1791), 73–76. See also “Biography. James Bowdoin,” The Nightingale; or, A Mélange de Literature, V:2 (19 May 1796), 51–52.

Bowdoin suffered from what was called “consumption,” now known as tuberculosis. He died in Boston on 6 November 1790 from what one source called a “putrid fever and dysentery” at the age of 64. Despite political differences and the way he was removed from office, he was given a massive state funeral, which led his body to the famed Granary burial yard in Boston, the burial site of many famous persons, including all of the victims of the Boston Massacre. A simple stone plaque on his grave reads, “Hon. James Bowdoin First of that Name Built this Tomb Before 1744—Probably Much Earlier— In it Were Are Perhaps Pierre Baudoin the Huguenot without Doubt Gov. James Bowdoin of Revolutionary Memory and Numerous Other Members of the Bowdoin Family.”

Carter Braxton (1737–1797)

One magazine, eulogizing Bowdoin upon his passing, said of this man, “It would be [an] injustice to this good man not to declare that he was deeply convinced of the truth and excellence of christianity [sic], and that it had a constant effect upon his private and public life. Elevated as was his situation, he scrupled not to profess it in the most public manner. He was an exemplary member of the church in BrattleStreet, Boston, for more than thirty years, and to the poor of this church he bequeathed, by his last will, one hundred pounds.” [8] In 1794, four years after his father’s death, Bowdoin’s son James gave a gift of ₤1000, and donated 1000 acres of his father’s landholdings to the Commonwealth of Massachusetts; with this money, the government of Massachusetts established, now in the state of Maine, Bowdoin College, located in Brunswick, Maine. See also: Shays’ Rebellion

[1] Genealogical information on Bowdoin and his family can be found at several websites, most notably at http://www.geni.com/ people/James-Bowdoin/6000000005386000632.

As one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, Carter Braxton was a giant in Virginia politics prior to, during, and after the American Revolution. The scion of a wealthy Virginia family, Braxton was born on his family’s estate, Newington

Carter Braxton (1737–1797)127 Plantation, in King and Queen County, Virginia, the youngest of two sons of George Braxton, Jr., and his wife Mary (née Carter) Braxton. The line of ancestry goes back to George Braxton I, or the grandfather of Carter Braxton, who was born in Virginia in 1677 and died there in 1748. [1] George Braxton, the father of Carter, as well as the father of Mary Braxton, Robert “King” Carter, were both wealthy landowners in what as known as the “Northern Neck” of Virginia. Mary Braxton died when her son was born, and George Braxton died when he was 13. Raised by family members, Carter Braxton and his elder brother George were tutored privately, then entered the College of William and Mary, his father’s alma mater, graduating in 1756. That same year, he married Judith Robinson, the daughter of a powerful political family in Virginia’s Middlesex County. A year later, she died in childbirth while giving birth to their second daughter, and in 1757 Braxton married Elizabeth Corbin, the daughter of an official in the Royal Virginia government. The couple had 16 children, ten of whom survived to adulthood. Historian Robert T. Conrad wrote in 1846, “Soon after the death of his wife, Mr. Braxton embarked for England, where he remained for several years, and returned to his native land in the autumn of 1760. It is believed that his principal object in making this visit was the improvement of his mind and manners, by an intercourse with the best and most polished society in the metropolis of the British empire.” [2] Upon his return to Virginia, Braxton took up the role of “gentleman farmer,” running his family estate and investing in land and mercantile pursuits. Despite having just returned from England, in 1769 Braxton turned against the “Mother Country” and joined the radicals in Virginia who demanded that only Virginia could tax its citizens, and not Britain. When the royal governor dissolved the House of Burgesses in 1774, Braxton became a member of the Committee of Safety in Virginia, and, in a convention to call for a Continental Congress, represented his county. In 1770, however, he entered the political arena when he was elected to a seat in the Virginia House of Burgesses, where he would

remain until 1785. The Reverend Charles Goodrich wrote in 1844 that in that body “[he] particularly distinguished himself at the time that Patrick Henry brought forward his celebrated resolutions on the stamp act [sic]. From this date, until 1776, the political career of Mr. Braxton corresponded, in general, [to] that of the other delegates from Virginia.” [3] On 22 October 1775, Peyton Randolph, a delegate from Virginia to the Continental Congress, and the president of that body, died while in Philadelphia, and a successor for his seat became necessary. On 15 December 1775, the Virginia legislature elected Braxton to the vacancy. Historian Edmund Cody Burnett explained, “There is no mention of Braxton in the Journals between Mar[ch] 1 and Apr[il] 12, [1776], or between June 15 and July 9 [1776]. His signature to the resolution of secrecy of Nov. 9, 1775, is among those which were probably appended in April, 1776.” [4] Two pieces of correspondence from Braxton at this time are quite fascinating: both are to Landon Carter (1710–1778), Braxton’s uncle (his mother’s brother), and a prominent Virginia politician who had also served in the House of Burgesses. The first, written from Philadelphia and dated 14 April 1776, states: Independency and total seperation from Great Britain are the interesting Subjects of all ranks of men and often agitate our Body. It is in truth a delusive Bait which men inconsiderately catch at, without knowing the hook to which it is affixed. It is an Object to be wished for by every American, when it can be obtained with Safety and Honor. That this is not the moment I will prove by Arguments that to me are decisive, and which exist with certainty. Your refined notion of our publick Honor being engaged to await the terms offered by Commissioners operates strongly with me and many others and makes the first reason I would offer. My next is that America is in too defenceless a State for the declaration, having no Alliance with a naval Power nor as yet any Fleet of consequence of her own to protect that trade which is so essential to the prosecution of the War, without which I know we cannot go on much longer. It is said by the Advocates for Seperation that France will undoubtedly assist us after we have asserted the State, and therefore they urge us to make the experiment. Would such a blind precipitate measure as this be justified by Prudence,

128

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

first to throw off our connexion with G. Britain and then give ourselves up to the Arms of France? Would not the Court so famous for Intrigues and Deception avail herself of our situation and from it exact much severer terms than if we were to treat with her (G.B.) before hand and settle the terms of any future Alliance. Surely she would, but the truth of the matter is, there are some who are afraid [sic] to await the Arrival of Commissioners, lest the dispute should be accomodated much agt [sic] their Will even upon the Admission of our own terms. [5]

On 2 July 1776, Carter Braxton signed the Declaration of Independence, making him one of the 56 signers of that document.

The second letter, again to Landon Carter, again from Philadelphia but dated 17 May 1776, concerns the debates involving the Declaration of Independence: However he [Mr. Glasscock] has waited to convey you a very important declaration and recommendation from the Congress, which you will say falls little short of Independence. It was not so understood by Congress but I find those out of doors on both sides the question construe it in that manner. The assumption of Governt. was necessary and to that resolution little objection was made, but when the Preamble was reported much heat and debate did ensue for two or three Days. At length, I think by 6 to 4, it was determined to be accepted and accordingly published. Maryland withdrew after having desired in vain a Copy of the proceedings and their dissent; and gave us to understand they should not return nor deem our farther Resolutions obligatory, until [sic] they had transmitted an Acct. of their Proceedings to their Convention and had their Instructions how to act or conduct themselves upon this alarming occasion. This Event is waited for with Impatience and while it is in agitation the assembly of this Province will meet and it is not impossible but they may join in this extraordinary proceeding. What then will be the consequence God only knows. It was seen and known that these and other colonies could not consistent with their Instructions come into this measure and all knew that they would be recalled if Commissioners did not soon arive [sic] or if when arrived their terms were not free and honourable. In this case America with one united Voice would have joined hand in hand to repell the haughty Invaders and to have rejected with disdain their future superiority. But the wise Men of the East and some from the South thought it a reprehensible delay which might give a turn to their favourite plan and defeat those pursuits they had so nearly compleated and the plan for which they had so wisely and so long laid down in their own minds. [6]

Historian Caroline Robbins explained, “few Signers may not have pursued independence thereafter with enthusiasm: Doctor Benjamin Rush . . . remarked in his notes on associates in his autobiography that Carter Braxton retained too much prejudice toward things English, perhaps forgetting that the rich planter later supported the Virginia Bill for religious liberty, brought in by Thomas Jefferson.” [7] The American Revolution took a tremendous toll, both physically and financially, on Braxton. His estate and lands were ruined by war, and he gave upwards of ₤10,000 to aid the fight in Virginia. He also spent heavily to finance shipping to bring goods into the state to go around the British boycott. All of this led to Braxton winding up in severe debt by the end of the war, conditions which sapped his health. He never recovered, although he did serve on the Virginia Council of State from 1786 to 1791, and again from 1794 until his death. In 1786, he had to sell off what was left of his family estate to pay bills, and move into a small rented abode in Richmond with his wife. He died there, at age 61, on 10 October 1797. The Alexandria Advertiser reported on 28 December 1797 that the General Assembly voted the previous week to elect two members, both to fill vacancies caused by Braxton’s death and by the resignation of a Mr. Dawson. [8] Braxton’s body was buried on his family’s remaining estate, “Chericoke,” in King William County, Virginia. Dr. Benjamin Rush, an intimate, later wrote of him, “He was not deficient in political information, but was suspected of being less detached than he should be from British prejudices. He was an agreeable and sensible speaker, and in private life an accomplished gentleman.” [9] 

[1] One website with some interesting data on the family can be found at http://www.geni.com/people/Col-George-Braxton/6000 000006588432885?through=6000000006588387537. [2] Conrad, Robert T., ed., “Sanderson’s Biography of the Signers to the Declaration of Independence” (Philadelphia: Thomas, Cowperthwait & Co., 1846), 644. [3] Goodrich, The Rev. Charles, “Lives of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence” (Hartford, CT: R.G.H. Huntington, 1842), 419.

John Brown (1757–1837)129 [4] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921–36), I:lxiv. [5] Braxton to Landon Carter, 14 April 1776, in ibid., I:420. [6] Braxton to Landon Carter, 17 May 1776, in ibid., I:453. [7] Robbins, Caroline, “Decision in ‘76”: Reflections on the 56 Signers,” Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Third Series, LXXXIX (1977), 74. [8] “Richmond, December 22,” Alexandria Advertiser [Virginia], 28 December 1797, 3. [9] Rush, Dr. Benjamin (Louis Alexander Riddle, ed.), “A ­Memorial, Containing Travels Through Life or Sundry Incidents in the Life of Dr. Benjamin Rush. Written by Himself. Also Extracts from His Commonplace Book, as well as A Short History of the Rush Family in Pennsylvania” (Philadelphia: Privately Published, 1905), 115.

John Brown (1757–1837)

John Brown is part of a political dynasty that saw members of Congress and the Senate up until the end of the 19th century, including a vice president of the United States. Brown served in the Continental Congress (1787–88), and, under the US Constitution, in the US House of Representatives in the First and Second Congresses (1789–92), and, when Kentucky was admitted to the Union, as that state’s US senator (1792–1805). The son of the Reverend John Brown (c. 1728– 1803), a Presbyterian minister, and his wife

Margaret (née Preston) Brown, John Brown was born on 12 September 1757 in Staunton, Virginia. The Reverend Brown was born in Ireland and migrated to the colonies; his wife, also born in Ireland, settled in what is now eastern Kentucky, then a part of Virginia, and the two married in 1754. [1] Their son John, sometimes confused with the famed abolitionist John Brown, was one of the couple’s 10 children. Historian Stuart Sprague, one of two of Brown’s modern biographers, wrote in 1972, “Little is known of John Brown’ youth. An obituary written by the senator’s son is almost the only source. According to this somewhat sentimental account, Brown was ‘not brought up in the lap of luxury, but in the vigorous nurture of the western border, accustomed to labor in the field, to hunt in the forest, and to excell in mainly excercises. As a necessary consequence of such early habits,’ John Brown ‘grew up fine physical developments, and with a fearless and adventurous cast of character.’” [2] John Brown benefitted from his family’s lengthy political connections, most notably through William Preston, Margaret Brown’s brother, who served in a number of governmental posts in what was then western Virginia. The Reverend Brown ran an education institution, the Liberty Hall Academy, and John Brown received his initial education at this school. The school eventually was turned into a college, and in the 19th century became Washington and Lee University. He finished his education at Princeton College (now Princeton University), where his father had attended. Brown never finished his studies: the outbreak of the American Revolution disrupted them. Seeing the Continental Army, commanded by General George Washington, move through New Jersey in retreat, Brown volunteered as a private, although he never saw action. When his enlistment was completed and the war ended, Brown returned to school, but instead transferred to the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia. He finished his studies there, and was tutored in the law by none other than Thomas Jefferson. When he left William and Mary in 1783, he returned home to western Virginia, now eastern Kentucky to practice the law. With the end of the war and land claims in great dispute, Brown’s legal talents were in great demand, and he soon became wealthy from the practice.

130

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

A year after returning home, however, Brown entered the political arena, when he was elected as a representative of Kentucky to the Virginia state Senate. An outspoken orator, on 23 October 1787 the Virginia legislature elected him as a delegate to the Continental Congress, “from the first Monday in November next ensuing the date of his appointment.” According to historian Edmund Cody Burnett, Brown attended sessions of the body on 20 November 1787, then from 21 January to about 9 July 1788, and then from about 4 August to about 12 August 1788. [3]

Brown expressed concerns about the role of Kentucky and its possible statehood in a missive to his mentor Thomas Jefferson, on 10 August 1788:

Much of the correspondence from the Continental Congress that Brown wrote dealt with the Constitutional Convention held in Philadelphia, which drafted a new constitution for the nation, and the movement to ratify it in the states. For instance, Brown wrote to fellow Virginian James Madison on 9 April 1788, “Nine States have not appeared in the floor of Congress since you left N. York which has prevented any further Consideration of the Kentucky Address. No Report has been made as yet upon the remonstrance of Virginia relative to Illinois Accounts—indeed scarce any thing has been done. For ten days past we have not made a Congress being reduced to six States. We have had the pleasure to be inform’d of your Election for the ensuing Convention from the returns which I have seen my hopes are somewhat revived, should the Back Country be in favor success I think is certain.” [4] In a follow-up letter on 12 May 1788, Brown retorted that nothing had changed in a month: We have done very little in Congress since you left us. Nine States have not appeared since that time and for a month previous to tuesday last we could not even muster Seven. Nine are again shortly expected upon the floor, as soon as this is the case I shall endeavour to obtain the Determination of Congress upon the Kentucky application. I flatter myself that it will be in favor tho’ still have great reason to fear the effects of Eastern Jealousy. My Anxiety upon this Subject daily increases, should not a determination be had before the expiration of the Act of Seperation, or should Congress refuse to grant this request. In either case I fear the consequences may he unfavorable to the Union especially as that District entertains such prejudices against the new Constitution which I hope and believe will be adopted. [5]

I am well convinced of the Justness of your remarks respecting the importance of strengthening and maintaining the connection between the District of Kentucky and the Maritime States: During my residence in that Country it was my constant care to cultivate that Idea But I am sorry to inform you that from the present completion of affairs there is reason to apprehend that the Connection will not be of long duration. Congress have rejected their application to be admitted into the Union as an Independent State notwithstanding it was acknowledged to be reasonable, thinking it inexpedient in the present State of the Confederacy and that the admission of a New State might affect the Ballance of power unless Vermont could be brought forward at the same time? This will be considered by the people of that Country as a great disappointment in as much as they have been more than three years in bringing forward this application and as they are now refered [sic] to the new Government, to be admitted under which in a Constitutional mode must necessarily be attended with considerable delay Their vast increase in population (amounting to at least one hundred thousand Souls in that District alone) added to the great dangers and difficulty attending a communication with the Seat of Government renders their connection with Virginia so burdensom that there is every reason to expect that immediately on hearing that Congress have refused to receive them they will assume their Independence. [6] Of Brown’s role in the Continental Congress, historian Huntley Dupre wrote in 1943, “In this congress [sic] he labored diligently for separation from Virginia, for statehood in the Union, for effective protection against the Indians, and for some arrangement with Spain for the free navigation of the Mississippi [River]. He was [also] a member of the Virginia Convention to consider the ratification of the Federal Constitution.” [7] Frustrated by Virginia’s inaction on the issues he raised in the Continental Congress regarding Kentucky, most notably the free access to the Mississippi River, Brown took

John Brown (1757–1837)131 matters into his own hands and contacted Don Diego de Gardoqui, the Spanish Ambassador to the United States, and began secret talks to have Kentucky secede from Virginia and the American Union and become an independent nation allied with Spain. The plot was later uncovered and caused Brown much angst, with accusations of treason thrown at him, although no formal charges were ever brought. Historian Patricia Watlington, writing of the entire episode in 1967, concluded, “A hesitant and uncertain politician, John Brown wavered back and forth in his support of the plan for independence and a Spanish alliance for Kentucky. He seems to have been consistent in the opinion that Kentucky would eventually separate from the Union, and he considered an interest in a Spanish alliance inevitable in that event. His affection for the Union was so strong, however, that he did not work for an absolute independence; when he realized that it was not imminent, he moved in the seventh convention that the new state of Kentucky become a part of the Union. Brown seems to have worked actively for a Spanish alliance only during a short period in the summer and fall of 1788.” [8] The Continental Congress ended when the new US Constitution was ratified by all of the states, making way for national elections for a US House of Representatives and US Senate. Under this plan, Brown was elected to a seat in the First Congress (1789–91), as well as the Second Congress (1791–93), serving from 4 March 1789 until 1 June 1792. On that date, he resigned as Kentucky was finally given its “independence” from Virginia and allowed to enter the Union as a state. 17 days later, the new Kentucky legislature elected Brown to one of two seats allowed to each state in the US Senate (the other senator was John Edwards [1748–1837]). During his two terms in the upper house, Brown served as the president pro tempore from 1803 to 1804. He was a close political associate and ally of his mentor, President Thomas Jefferson. Defeated for a third term in 1804, Brown returned to Kentucky and settled in Frankfort. He reopened his law practice, and for a period

served as the director of the Bank of Kentucky. He had married Margaretta Mason in 1799, and together the couple had five children. Brown died in Frankfort on 29 August 1837, two weeks shy of his 80th birthday. He was laid to rest in the Frankfort Cemetery in that city. An obelisk graces his grave, but time and weather have rubbed most of the writing away. Brown left an impressive family legacy. His brother, James Brown (1766–1835) served in the US Senate from Louisiana (1813–17, 1819–23); his grandson, Benjamin Gratz Brown (1826–1885), also served in the Senate from Missouri (1863–65, 1865–67) and was the vice presidential running mate on the Liberal Republican and Democrat tickets in 1872 with newspaper editor Horace Greeley; he was a cousin to John Breckinridge (1760–1806), who also served in the US Senate from Kentucky (1801–05) and was the attorney general (1805– 06) in the administration of Thomas Jefferson, as well as to Breckinridge’s brother, James Breckinridge (1763–1833), who served in the US House of Representatives from Virginia (1809– 17), and to Breckinridge’s grandson, John Cabell Breckinridge (1821–1875), who served in the US House of Representatives (1851–55), and served as vice president of the United States (1857–61) in the administration of James Buchanan, and served as a brigadier general in the Confederate Army during the Civil War.

[1] A number of genealogical websites contain information on the Brown family back to William Brown about 1625 in Ireland; for instance, see http://www.geni.com/people/John-Brown-U-SSenator/6000000004086366959. [2] Sprague, Stuart Seely, “Senator John Brown of Kentucky, 1757–1837: A Political Biography” (Ph.D. dissertation, New York University, 1972), 15–16. [3] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921–36), VIII:xcvli. [4] Brown to James Madison, 9 April 1788, in ibid., VIII:715. [5] Brown to James Madison, 12 May 1788, in ibid., VIII:733. [6] Brown to Thomas Jefferson, 10 August 1788, in ibid., VIII:775–76. [7] Dupre, Huntley, ed. “Three Letters of George Nicholas to John Brown,” Register of the Kentucky State Historical Society, XLI (January 1943), 2. [8] Watlington, Patricia, “John Brown and the Spanish Conspiracy,” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, LXXV:1 (January 1967), 68.

132

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Nathan Brownson (1742–1796)

Historian James F. Cook later wrote of this man who would become governor of Georgia “A friend who was well acqainted a Dr. Brownson and his wife related that Mrs. Brownson, though a good and faithful wife, was not always prompt in responding to the requests of her husband. On occasion Dr. Brownson playfully said to her: ‘Have a care; if you do not acquiesce in my wish, when I am dead I will come back and plague you.’ Years later, after Brownson’s death, his widow, when brushing from her nose some vexatious fly or annoying insect, was heard to exclaim, ‘Go away, I tell you, Doctor Brownson, and stop bothering me.”[3]

A Connecticut-born graduate from Yale College, Nathan Brownson moved to Georgia, where he was a physician and a farmer before rising to governor. His service includes time in the Georgia state legislature; most importantly, however, was his service in the Continental Congress (1776–78). He was born in Woodbury, near Hartford, Connecticut on 14 May 1742, the son of Timothy Brownson and his wife Abigail (née Jenner) Brownson. Nathan Brownson’s great-grandfather, Richard Brunson, was from Earl’s Colne, Essex, England, born in 1615. At some point after 1635, his sons John and Richard left England for the colonies, and settled in Connecticut; their father joined them there, and when he died in September 1687, he was laid to rest in Farmington, Connecticut. [1] According to his official congressional biography, Brownson did not receive any formal precollegiate education; perhaps he was taught by private tutors, or attended a local school that did not retain its records. [2] Brownson attended Yale College (now Yale University) and graduated in 1761 with a medical degree. Returning to Connecticut, he opened a medical practice in Woodbury. He married Elizabeth Lewis in 1769; with her death, he remarried in 1774 to Elizabeth Dunham (also spelled Donnom) Martin, a widow, and, with her death, to Elizabeth McLean, also a widow, in 1776. Brownson had two children from his three marriages, all from his third wife.

In 1774, Brownson, after a correspondence with a friend, Dr. James Dunwoody (perhaps Dunwody [4]) of St. John’s Parish, Georgia, decided to take up the doctor’s invitation and travel to Georgia. Finding the area to his liking, Brownson and his wife bought a 500-acre plantation and estate near the town of Riceboro, which soon became a center of rice growing. Near the town of Midway, in Liberty County, Brownson would soon become identified with that area, living, and, eventually, dying and being buried there. Quickly becoming part of the Riceboro community, Brownson was elected by the inhabitants of St. John’s Parish to the Second Georgia Provincial Congress assembled in the city of Savannah on 4 July 1775, which discussed the war with Great Britain. Another transplanted Connecticut doctor, Lyman Hall, who was also now in Georgia, also served as a delegate to that same provincial congress. As a result of their work in Savannah, both men were elected by the new Georgia state legislature to seats in the Continental Congress, sitting in Philadelphia. Brownson was elected on 9 October 1776 “for the year ensuing” and again on 7 June 1777, attending sessions from about 4 January 1777 to 1 May 1777, and again from 23 August to 9 October 1777. According to Continental Congress historian Edmund Cody Burnett: The first positive record of Brownson’s presence in Congress is of a committee appointment Jan[uary] 3, 1777; but it is probable that it was he who brought the Georgia—credentials presented in Congress Dec. 2o, 1776. The Journals record that the delegates from Georgia (without naming them) presented the credentials of their reappointment, and nowhere

Nathan Brownson (1742–1796)133 mention the first attendance of Brownson. In addition to the evidences of the Journals it is to be noted that Brownson signed the resolution of secrecy. He obtained [a] leave of absence May 1 . . . [h]is name next appears in the Journals (in the yeas and nays) Aug. 23, and that was probably the day when he resumed his seat; for he was evidently absent Aug. 11, and he is not recorded as voting Aug. 14 or 22. From that time until Oct. 9 he appears to have been in constant attendance. [5] Despite his service for the state of Georgia, Burnett does not have any correspondence from Brownson during this period. Returning to Georgia, in 1781 Brownson, a member of the Georgia state Assembly, was elected Speaker of that body, which then elected him as the governor of Georgia on 17 August 1781, succeeding Stephen Heard, who had been serving as the president of the state’s Executive Council. More of a physician than a politician, nevertheless the Connecticut native stepped up to aid the citizens of his adopted state. He told the Assembly, in his speech accepting the honor of the office, “The favourable Sentiments, you are Pleased to express of my Character, inspires me with a desire of meriting such Approbation; deeply imprest [sic] with a sense of the importance of the Trust, and my want of Abilities unaided by your Councils and exertions; I should have declined so Arduous a Task, but relying on your advice, and Assistance, I shall make every exertion to carry into effect such measures as you shall devise. Effectually to secure this State, against the Machinations of Public and Private Enemies, and to establish the Peace and Tranquility of this once flourishing Country on a Permanent foundation.” [6] Brownson’s term as governor only lasted from 17 August 1781 until 3 January 1782. Of that short period, historian Charles C. Jones, Jr., wrote in 1891: The political skies were then brightening. Augusta had been rescued from the possession of the enemy, and renewed efforts were being made for the recovery of other portions of the State. Eight days after his induction into office, Governor Brownson, with the intention of strengthening the manhood of Georgia, issued a proclamation requiring all persons who considered themselves citizens of the commonwealth to return to their homes within specified periods, under penalty of

being subjected to the payment of a treble tax to be levied upon all lands owned by them within the limits of the State. Many wanderers were thus recalled, who, having forsaken their plantations in Georgia, had sought refuge in the Carolinas and in Virginia. The salary then allowed the governor was at the rate of £500 per annum. [7] John Martin succeeded Brownson as governor on 3 January 1782. On 6 June 1782, Brownson was appointed as the deputy purveyor for the Southern Hospitals for the Continental Army. Six years later, in 1788, he was again elected to the Georgia state House of Representatives, again rising to serve as Speaker of that body. He was also named as a delegate to the state convention that ratified the new Constitution drafted in Philadelphia that year. The following year, when a state convention was called to draft a new state constitution, Brownson was named as a delegate to that meeting as well. That document established a new state Senate, and Brownson was elected to a seat in that body, serving from 1790 to 1791, rising to become president of the body. Brownson died on his plantation in Liberty County, Georgia, on 6 November 1796 at the age of 54. The Federal Gazette of Baltimore, Maryland, among other newspapers, announced Brownson’s death, then noted that his “various talents as a statesman, philosopher and physician, have placed him in the list of distinguished characters. His expiring moments were marked with that peculiar firmness of mind which attended him through life, and his last words, delivered in whispers, were more sublimely eloquently, that all the studied declmation [sic] of the pulpit. ‘The scene (said he) is now closing, the business of life is nearly over; I have like the rest of my fellow creatures been guilty of foibles; but I trust to the mercy of my God to pardon them, and to his justice, and to reward my good deeds.’ By his family, by his friends, who knew him, his death will be long lamented.” [8] Brownson was buried in the Old Midway Burial Ground (now the Midway Cemetery) in Midway, in Liberty County, Georgia.

[1] Genealogical information from several sources, most notably online at http://www.geni.com/people/Nathan-Brownson/

134

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

6000000000682072603. See also Hiram Carleton, comp., “Genealogical and Family History of the State of Vermont: A Record of the Achievements of Her People in the Making of a Commonwealth and the Founding of a Nation. Compiled under the Editorial Supervision of Hon. Hiram Carleton” (New York: The Lewis Publishing Company; two volumes, 1903), I:121. [2] Brownson official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay. pl?index=B000965. [3] Cook, James F., “The Governors of Georgia, 1754–2004” (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 2005), 43. [4] Historian Caroline Price Wilson confirmed that the name is indeed Dunwody. See “1773: Dr. James Dunwody’s Account to Nathan Brownson,” in Caroline Price Wilson, comp., “Annals of Georgia: Important Early Records of the State” (New York: The Grafton Press; three volumes, 1928), I:60. [5] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921–36), II:xliii. [6] Speech of Brownson to the General Assembly, 17 August 1781, in “The Revolutionary Records of the State of Georgia. Journal of the House of Assembly, From August 17, 1781, to February 26, 1784. Compiled and Published Under Authority of The Legislature, by Allen D. Chandler” (Atlanta: The Franklin-Turner Company; three volumes, 1908), III:14. [7] Jones, Charles C., Jr., “Biographical Sketches of the Delegates from Georgia to the Continental Congress” (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1891), 11–12. [8] “Savannah, Nov. 11,” Federal Gazette & Baltimore Daily Advertiser [Maryland], 6 December 1796, 2. There is also a short obituary in The Minerva, & Mercantile Evening Advertiser [New York], 11 November 1796, 3.

He was born in Prince William’s Parish, South Carolina; his gravestone notes that he was the son of “Stephen Bull, Esq., of the Deputies of the Lords Proprietors of the Colony [of South Carolina].” According to his official congressional biography, he served as a justice of the peace for Greenville County, South Carolina, and, in 1772, was elected to the Provincial House of Commons for the colony, and as deputy secretary for the Province in 1772. [1] Bull also served in other colonial and state offices, including as a delegate to the First South Carolina Provincial Congress (1775) and Second South Carolina Provincial Congress (1776), as a member of the state’s First General Assembly (1776), and as a member of the South Carolina state House of Representatives (1778–81, 1784).

John Bull (c. 1740–1802)

Returning to South Carolina, Bull later served in the state Senate in 1798. He died in Charleston, South Carolina, on 18 August 1802, aged either 61 or 62. Although his official congressional biography states that his date of death is unknown, an article in the City Gazette of Charleston states, “Died, yesterday, in this city, John Bull, of St. Luke’s parish, formerly a delegate from this state in the old congress, many years a member of the legislature of this state and deputy secretary of the province from time prior to the revolution.” [3] Bull was buried in the Prince William’s Parish Churchyard in Beaufort County, South Carolina, next to his wife, Mary.

John Bull served as a delegate to the Continental Congress (1784).

Bull was elected as a delegate to the Continental Congress on 9 March 1784, according to historian Edmund Cody Burnett, “to serve in place of William Moultrie, [who was] elected Lieutenant Governor [of South Carolina].” [2] Bull attended sessions of the Continental Congress from 29 November to 24 December 1784. There is no correspondence from or to him regarding legislative matters.

[1] Bull official congressional biography, online at http:// bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=B001047. [2] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921–36), VII:lxxv. [3] “Charleston, Thursday, August 19, 1802,” City Gazette and Daily Advertiser [Charleston, South Carolina], 19 August 1802, 3.

Archibald Stobo Bulloch (c.1730–1777)135

Archibald Stobo Bulloch (c.1730–1777)

now Purysburg, South Carolina. Bulloch opened a law practice, and in 1757, he was commissioned as a lieutenant in the South Carolina militia, prior to the move to Georgia. In October 1764, he married Mary de Veaux, and the couple had four children, three sons and a daughter.

A colonial governor of Georgia (1776–77), Bulloch also served as a delegate to the Continental Congress (1775).

In 1768, Bulloch entered the political arena when he was elected as a delegate from Savannah to the Georgia Commons House of Assembly, the lower house of Georgia’s colonial assembly; here, he allied himself with the political faction led by Noble Wimberly Jones (c. 1723–1805), an English-born leader of the Whig faction who himself later served in the Continental Congress. Bulloch also had ties to Jones through Jones’ sister, Mary, who eventually married Bulloch’s father in 1779. Jones and Bulloch and their allies, which included John Houston and George Walton, clashed repeatedly with the Royal Governor, Sir James Wright, who frequently dissolved the Commons over their debates over the harsh British economic measures, which included the Sugar Act (1764) and the Stamp Act (1765). All four men signed a petition calling for a meeting in July 1774 to protest the measures at Tondee’s Tavern in Savannah, but the parley was poorly attended.

He was born in Charles Town (now Charleston), South Carolina, the son of James Bulloch, a planter and minister, and his wife Jean (née Stobo) Bulloch. Historians Walter E. Wilson and Gary L. McKay wrote that the family can be traced back to “James Bulloch. Born in 1701, he emigrated from Scotland to Charleston around 1728, where he met and married Jean Stobo, daughter of Reverend Archibald Stobo.” [1] A history and list of Scottish emigrants to America reports that James Bulloch, the grandfather of Archibald Bulloch, lived from 1701 to 1780, emigrating to Charleston, South Carolina, before 1730, then moving on to Savannah, Georgia. He was a clergyman and planter. [2] The benefits of a wealthy family allowed Archibald Bulloch to receive an excellent education, including prepatory studies, as well as the study of the law. He was admitted to the bar before 1758—some sources report the date as 1755—when his family moved from South Carolina to Georgia, and it is that latter state that they became identified with. The Bullochs purchased a large estate and plantation on the Savannah River from what is

By January 1775, however, opposition to the economic measures had grown to such a rate that the Commons agreed to debate heeded calls to elect delegates to the Continental Congress, meeting in Philadelphia. It was not until 7 July 1775 that Bulloch, Jones, Houston, and John Joachim Zubly were all elected to that meeting. Bulloch was subsequently elected to another term on 2 February 1776. He ultimately attended sessions of the body from 5 September to about 26 November 1775, and, although reelected to a second term for 1776, he did not attend any meetings of the Continental Congress that year, and did not return to the Congress. Historian Edmund Cody Burnett wrote that “According to Christopher Marshall’s Diary, Aug. 12, the Georgia delegates (Bulloch, Houstoun, and Zubly) arrived in Philadelphia Aug. 11. The last record of Bulloch in the Journals is his appointment on a committee Nov. 7, but he signed the resolution of secrecy Nov. 9, 1775.” [3] Bulloch obviously made a favorable impression on his fellow delegates; when it

136

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

was learned that he could not attend sessions of the Continental Congress after leaving in November 1775, Massachusetts delegate John Adams wrote to him, “Two days ago I received your favor of May 1st. I was greatly disappointed, Sir, in the information you gave me, that you should be prevented from revisiting Philadelphia. I had flattered myself with hopes of your joining us soon, and not only affording us the additional strength of your abilities and fortitude, but enjoying the satisfaction of seeing a temper and conduct here somewhat more agreeable to your wishes than those which prevailed when you were here before. But I have since been informed that your countrymen have done themselves the justice to place you at the head of their affairs, a station in which you may perhaps render more essential service to them and to America than you could here.” [4]

of Independence by special messenger from John Hancock, president of the Continental Congress; it arrived one month and four days after making the trip from Philadelphia to Savannah. On its receipt, Governor Bulloch carried the provincial council together and read it to that body amid intense feeling. Three times that day, the document was read to the people. A salute was fired, a public dinner held, a toast drank to the United States of America, after which George III was solemnly burned in effigy. Governor Bulloch wrote all of the official papers connected with these events.” [6]

At the same time that he was serving as a delegate to the Continental Congress, Bulloch was also involved in matters back in Georgia. The newspaper The Craftsman of London, England, reported on 30 September 1775, “On the 4th day of this month, the Provincial Congress of Georgia met at Savannah. One hundred and five Members had been elected, of whom three declined taking their seats. Archibald Bulloch, Esq; being unanimously elected President, and George Walton, Esq; Secretary, the Congress adjourned to the Meeting-house of the Rev. Dr. Zubly, where he preached a sermon upon the alarming state of American-affairs, for which he received the thanks of the Congress.” The delegates to the meeting then drafted a letter to the Royal Governor, Sir James Wright, and signed by Bulloch, asking for a day of fasting and prayer due to the state of “American-affairs.” [5] Unable to return to the Continental Congress, especially to sign the Declaration of Independence, instead Bulloch was named on 1 May 1776 as the president and commander-in-chief of Georgia, following the flight from arrest of Governor Wright. The Provincial Congress framed an interim state constitution, which remained in effect until a new constitution could be instituted on 5 February 1777. Historian Caryn Hannan wrote, “On August 10, 1776, Governor Bulloch had the honor of receiving a copy of the Declaration

In what would be one of his last acts as governor, Bulloch ordered that delegates be named to a convention to draft a new state constitution. That new constitution was eventually drafted, and established a plan for new elections in the state. On 22 February 1777, Bulloch died suddenly in Savannah. He was buried in the Colonial Park Cemetery in Savannah. A sign next to his grave reads, “Foremost among Georgia’s revolutionary patriots stood Archibald Bulloch whose remains rest in this vault. An early and staunch advocate of American rights, Bulloch was among the patriots who issued the call in 1774 for the first province-wide meeting of the friends of Liberty in Georgia.” Historian Charles Jones, Jr. wrote in 1891, “Of all the patriots who encountered peril and made strenuous exertion to deliver Georgia from kingly dominion and pave the way for her admission into the sisterhood of the confederated American colonies, no one was more earnest, self-sacrificing, valiant, or influential than the honorable Archibald Bulloch. Of irreproachable character, firm in his convictions, brave of heart, bold in action, wise in counsel, jealous of individual and political rights, and thoroughly identified with the best interests of Savannah and of the province of which it was both the capital and commercial metropolis, at an early stage of the revolutionary proceedings he became an acknowledged leader of the rebels, and was by then rapidly advanced to the highest posts of danger and of honor.” [7]

[1] Wilson, Walter E.; and Gary L. McKay, “James D. Bulloch: Secret Agent and Mastermind of the Confederate Navy” (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, Inc., 2012), 7.

Thomas Burke (c. 1744–1783)137 [2] Whyte, Donald, “A Dictionary of Scottish Emigrants to the USA” (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc., 1972), 42. [3] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921–36), I:xliv. [4] John Adams to Archibald Bulloch, 1 July 1776, in ibid., I:520–21. [5] “From the South Carolina Gazette,” The Craftsman, or Say’s Weekly Journal [London, England], 30 September 1775, 2. [6] “Bulloch, Archibald” in Caryn Hannan, “Georgia Biographical Dictionary” (St. Clair Shores, MI: Somerset Publishers, Inc.; three volumes, 1999), I:120–21. [7] Jones, Charles C., Jr., “Biographical Sketches of the Delegates from Georgia to the Continental Congress” (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1891), 14.

Thomas Burke (c. 1744–1783)

One of North Carolina’s delegates to the Continental Congress, Thomas Burke was born in Galway, Ireland, the son of Ulick Burke, an Irish born Protestant, and his wife Leticia (née Ould) Burke. Writing in “The Dictionary of National Biography,” a compendium of biographies of persons born in the United Kingdom, historian William Powell wrote, “Ulick Burke [was] a man of some education

and of an Anglo-Irish protestant family that had lived in Ireland since the time of Henry II, when they were granted land in the province of Connaught, Connacht, and Letitia Ould, a sister of Sir Fielding Ould, a physician. Sir Fielding, with whom Burke enjoyed a close relationship, was master of the Dublin Lying-in Hospital and author of a treatise on midwifery, and was knighted in 1760 by the lord lieutenant of Ireland.” [1] Historian Samuel A. Ashe adds, “The particular branch of the ancient and numerous family to which he belonged was known as the Burkes of Tyaquin, and Governor Burke, after his removal to America, mentioned that his father’s estate of that name had descended lineally in the Burke family from the time of Henry II.” [2] According to Powell, when Burke was a youth in Ireland, he lost the sight in his left eye for some unknown reason; he also suffered from smallpox, which left significant scarring on his face. He received some training in medicine, although how much is unknown. At some point, because of the extreme poverty of his family and the inability to continue to fund his medical studies, Burke made the painful decision to leave his family and to travel to the American colonies to find work. He was only about 15 years of age when he sailed, alone, to find a new life, never looking back at the old one. He settled in what is now Virginia, and completed his medical studies, opening a practice of medicine in that colony. However, finding that he could not earn a living from this practice, he gave it up, and entered the study of the law. At the same time, he began to write a number of articles for the newspaper the Virginia Gazette in which he wrote of political matters in the colony. He finished his legal studies in Norfolk, Virginia, and was admitted to the colonial bar. However, most sources on his life referred to him not as an attorney, but as “Dr. Burke.” While in Norfolk, he met and, in March 1770, married Mary Freeman, a teacher. The couple would remain together, through long distances apart, until Burke’s death. In 1772, Burke and his family—which now included a daughter, Polly, his only child—moved to Hillsborough, North Carolina, the colony and state that he would be identified with. He

138

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

purchased a large estate there and built a home he called “Tyaquin.” He opened a law practice and began working. It was there, in North Carolina, that he fully entered the political arena: In 1775, he was elected to the first of four provincial congresses held at New Bern, Hillsborough, and Halifax, which continued until 1776. It was at the Fourth Provincial Congress that Burke made his name. He was named to a committee that included Cornelius Harnett, Allen Jones, Abner Nash, John Kinchen, Thomas Person, and Thomas Jones, which was established to come up with a message to England regarding the potential independence of the colonies. The document they drafted, the “Halifax Resolves,” was created, as the committee stated to take “into consideration the usurpations and violences attempted and committed by the king and parliament of Britain, against America, and the further measures to be taken for frustrating the same, and for the better defence of this province.” The committee reported that:

referencing Burke, “Burke came to my relief on Saturday the first day of February and your express delivered me your packet about two hours before Burke appeared. Your Express with the fatigue of his Journey and from other causes found himself much indisposed and from this and his apprehension of the Small pox was averse to proceeding to Philadelphia. Fortunately, the next morning two congress expresses set off one for Philadelphia to return the next saturday-the other for Boston to return as soon as might be.” [5] Burke himself wrote to Governor Richard Caswell of North Carolina on 4 February 1777, “I intend hereafter to trouble you with a letter every post, and shall give my sentiments of the different political principles which I shall perceive to actuate the several States, the measures intended to be pursued, the intelligence we receive and the important decisions in Congress. I find a considerable jealously is entertained of the Northern States, I know not how justly. At present I must refer you to Mr. Hooper who is much better qualified to give you satisfaction on all these matters than I am. Our situation here is unsettled, uncomfortable, and incredibly expensive. These circumstances will I doubt not occasion another adjournment of Congress.” [6]

Pursuant to the plan concerted by the British ministry for subjugating America, the king and parliament of Great Britain have usurped a power over the persons and [sic] properties of the people, unlimited and uncontrolled, and disregarding their humble petitions for peace, liberty and safety, have made diverse legislative acts, denouncing war, famine, and every species of calamity, against the continent in general: That British fleets and armies have been, and still are, daily employed in destroying the people, and committing the most horrid devastions on the country: That governors in different colonies have declared protection to slaves who should embrace their hands in the blood of their masters: That the ships belonging to America declared prizes of war, and many of them have been violently seized and confiscated; in consequence of which, multitudes of the people have been destroyed, or, from easy circumstances, reduced to the most lamentable distress. [3]

At the same time that we have several pieces of Burke’s correspondence, far more importantly we have his handwritten notes of the specific debates in the Continental Congress, on various issues. For instance, on 7 February 1777, he wrote:

Burke was later elected and served as a member of the North Carolina state House of Commons in 1777.

Motion in Congress that the President write to every State excepting Virginia and Masechusett’s [sic] Bay recommending a fuller representation proposed to leave out the Exceptions passed in the Negative Amendment proposed, that when ever any State was unrepresented the President should write requesting a full representation agreed by a Majority. motion to be reconsidered. Amendment proposed that when ever any State was represented by less than three President should write etc. rejected. Question upon the whole as amended, Nos 5 Ayes 4[.] I Divided. . . .

On 20 December 1776, Burke was elected by the North Carolina General Assembly “until such time as the General Assembly shall direct otherwise,” and again on 4 May 1777 with the same stipulation. He attend sessions from 4 February 1777 to 14 October 1777.” [4] Delegate William Hooper of North Carolina wrote to Joseph Hawes on 15 February 1777,

[In this Debate the States fully represented insisted] on the Exceptions that, it might appear they had no need of a Memento. Several other States insisted that no state ought to be permitted to Commit a Vote in the General Council of the States to less than three. That less nor even that Number would supply Committees it was Answered to the first that every State had made her representation as best Suited her Circumstances,

Thomas Burke (c. 1744–1783)139 that many were unable to spare or support one more Numerous, that each was best Judge how many of her citizens She would Trust, and to what length she would Trust them, that there was no need of publicly calling on them for a representation more full because they had already wished the same thing but found it Inconvenient to be Effected that therefore those who had any representation at all [had] done what their circumstances permit[ted] an [missing text] for greater Exertions, to the second that the represent[atives of] the States who had few refused nor [missing text][.] That the weight and Trust were certainly too great for any one person but it was an evil that could not at present be remedied, and therefore it must be born, that requiring three to form a Quorum would Embarass several states and leave such states often without any representation at all, because if any Accident prevented the attendance of one, the Vote was Necessarily lost, and any state would prefer a Vote by one of her Del[eg]ates rather than No Vote at all. [7] While in the Continental Congress, Burke was most instrumental in the drafting of the document that became the Articles of Confederation. At a meeting of the Pennsylvania Historical Society in March 1897, Dr. Herbert Friedenwald spoke of the role of Thomas Burke in the document’s framing. An article in The Southern Historical Society Papers in 1900 discussed Freidenwald’s notes. The papers noted that “Burke took a most active part in framing those articles, and wrote repeated letters to Governor [Richard] Caswell, of his State, detailing the course of events. They are all of one tone, and show a great jealousy of giving to Congress any powers that could possibly be retained by the States. Burke impressed upon Congress all through his career the necessity for guarding against any encroachment upon the power and dignity of the State . . . [a]t one time, when standing out for what he thought were the prerogatives of the State, and desiring that a question under discussion be postponed for a day he threatened to secede unless his views were agreed to.” [8] Burke was most concerned with the Continental Congress’ dictates on the issue of prisoners of war and their exchange for British prisoners. Writing from Philadelphia to General George Washington, 22 March 1779, Burke penned: When I had the pleasure of seeing you in this City I had a little conversation with you on the subject of reenlisting such of the North Carolina Troops and

levies whose term of service might be nearly expired. My Colleague and myself wrote to the State on the same subject and the Assembly thereon resolved that hundred dollars per man should be given to each soldier who should enlist for one year or more in the North Carolina Continental Service. The delegates are authorized to act accordingly, and we are unwilling to take any measures without previously consulting you, lest we should contravene some general orders by you given under the late regulations for recruiting the army. We are inclined to give the State bounty, in addition to the Continental, to all who shall enlist during the war. [9] Burke clashed with many of his fellow delegates, becoming more and more radical against any steps taken that he believed undercut states’ rights. When debate moved in a direction that he opposed, he left the Congress and returned to North Carolina. The Congress, needing a quorum to continue, summoned Burke back, but he refused to attend. The Congress, now needing him, debated holding him in contempt, which could cause his ultimate arrest. But without him, the Congress could not continue. Burke, now a hero in North Carolina, found himself being hailed for his stand. Although he did eventually return to the Continental Congress, his beliefs in its functionality, especially when it came to the Articles of Confederation, caused him to refuse any further elections to the body. However, as Delegate Thomas Rodney of Delaware wrote in his notes of 8 March 1781, “Doctr. Burk [sic], of N. Carolina, tho[ugh] not equal To Many Who have been in Congress, May Justly be Stiled [sic] the ablest And Most useful Member there at present. He has been in Congress five Years, is very Attentive and well Acquainted with business-is Nervous tho[ugh] Not Eloquent in his language, he is Correct and pointed in his debates, possesses the Honest integrity of a republican and is for preserving inviolable the rights of the people Without being lured away by power. Yet he is Some times not fully guarded from Dictatorial language and does not Attend Sufficiently To System, order and Arrangement, in a general view but Confines himself Too Much To particular Objects.” [10] In June 1781, Burke reached the pinnacle of his state when the legislature elected him as governor. This came at a time when British troops and their Loyalist allies were fighting the Continental Army and North Carolina militia in the state. On 12 September 1781, the Loyalist leader David Fanning raided Hillsborough, the site of the state legislature, and captured 200

140

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

patriots, including Governor Burke. He was taken to a British prison in occupied Charlestown (now Charleston), South Carolina, then to Sullivan’s Island off that city’s coast, and finally to James Island near there. Burke’s cell was fired on several times, but he discovered that the prison was poorly secured, and he was able to escape. He made his way back to North Carolina, but he was now a wanted man by the British, and the people of North Carolina were angry that he allowed himself to be captured so easily.

[8] “The Pioneer of Secession: The First Advocate of States Rights in the Continental Congress. Thomas Burke, of North Carolina, of North Carolina, in 1777,” Southern Historical Society. Southern Historical Society Papers, XXVIII (1900), 82. [9] “Thomas Burke, Member of the Continental Congress from North Carolina, and a Catholic, to General Washington about the Re-Enlisting of the Troops of that State, 1779,” The American Catholic Historical Researches, III (July 1900), 109. [10] “Thomas Rodney’s Diary,” 1 March 1781, in Paul H. Smith, ed., “Letters of Delegates to Congress, 1774–1789” (Washington, DC: Library of Congress; 26 volumes, 1976–2000), XVII:37. [11] Langston, Scott Michael, “Negotiating the Boundaries of Power: Governor Thomas Burke as Mediator in Revolutionary North Carolina” (Master’s thesis, The University of Texas at Arlington, 2000), 136.

The North Carolina General Assembly further humiliated him when, instead of reelecting him as governor, instead chose Alexander Martin in his stead. Broken in spirit by how his people had turned against him, and broken by bad health from his imprisonment, Burke returned home to his estate, Tyaquin. His wife left him and took his daughter with her. On 2 December 1783 Burke died at “Tyaquin,” and was buried in the Mars Hill Churchyard near Hillsborough. Today, the graveyard is known as “The Governor Burke Grave Site.” A huge stone over his grave simply says, “Thomas Burke.” Burke County in North Carolina was named in his honor. Historian Scott Langston, in a 2000 dissertation on Burke, wrote, “Thomas Burke faced the daunting challenge of being an effective leader while negotiating the boundaries of power.” [11] This, however, gives only part of the story of the life of this immigrant to America’s shores who lived such a short life but did much to contribute to its foundations, both legal and governmental.

[1] Powell, William S., “Burke, Thomas,” in William S. Powell, ed., “Dictionary of North Carolina Biography” (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press; eight volumes, 1979–96), I:279–81. [2] “Thomas Burke” in Samuel A. Ashe, Stephen B. Weeks, and Charles L. Van Noppen, eds., “Biographical History of North Carolina, From Colonial Times to the Present” (Greensboro, NC: Charles L. Van Noppen, Publisher; eight volumes, 1905–17), II:27. For information on Sir Fielding Ould, see “On the Rise of The Dublin School of Midwifery; with Memoirs of Sir Fielding Ould, and Dr. J.C. Fleury,” The Dublin Quarterly Journal of Medical Science, XXV:1 (1 February 1858), 1–20. [3] “Revolutionary History. From the Raleigh Register,” Niles’ Weekly Register, Fourth Series, III:9 (23 October 1830), 145. [4] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921–36), II:lx. [5] William Hooper to Joseph Hewes, 15 February 1777, in ibid., II:256. [6] Burke to Richard Caswell, 4 February 1777, in ibid., II:235. [7] “Thomas Burke, Abstract of Debates, February 7, 1777,” in ibid., II:238–39.

Dr. William Burnet (1730–1791)

A physician from New Jersey, William Burnet was also a judge in his native state prior to service in the Continental Congress (December 1780-April 1781). The son of Ichabod Burnet, a physician, and his wife, Hannah Burnet, William Burnet was born in Elizabethtown, New Jersey on 2 December 1730. [1] Dr. Ichabod Burnet, born in 1684, was a grandson of Thomas Burnet, Jr., who emigrated from Yorkshire, England, to what is now Long Island in the state of New York. [2] William Burnet attended the College of New Jersey (now Princeton University), graduating in 1749 with an A.B. degree. He then earned an A.M. degree from the name institution in 1752. After this, he studied medicine with Dr. Barent Staats of New York, and then opened his own medical practice in what is now the city of Newark, New Jersey. In 1754 he married Mary Camp (1731–1781);

Dr. William Burnet (1730–1791)141 the couple had eleven children (including Dr. William Burnet), before her death. In 1783, Burnet married Gertrude Gouverneur Rutgers (she was a widow who had been married to the brother of Henry Rutgers, who founded Rutgers University in New Jersey), with whom he had two more sons, including David Burnet (1788–1870), who served as the acting president (1836), vice president (1836–41), and secretary of state of Texas (1846–48). In 1766, Burnet joined other physicians in New Jersey to form that state’s first Medical Society. Burnet served as the president of the Society (1767, 1786) both before and after his service in the American Revolution. By 1775, Burnet had sided with the patriotic cause against the harsh economic measures enacted by the English Parliament against the colonies, including the Sugar Act (1764) and the Stamp Act (1765). In 1775, Burnet served as a member of the Committees of Correspondence for both Newark and Essex Counties. The following year, he was a participant in the arrest of the Royal Governor of New Jersey, William Franklin, the son of future Continental Congress delegate Benjamin Franklin, who eventually fled to Great Britain and never returned to America. In 1775 Burnet was named as the Superintendent of the military hospital in Newark, New Jersey. The following year, on 17 February 1776, he was commissioned as the Surgeon General of the Eastern District of the United States. That same year, in July 1776, as the Declaration of Independence was being signed in Philadelphia, Burnet was appointed as one of three commissioners in New Jersey to issue state bills of credit, and given control for purchasing weaponry and firearms for the state’s militia and troops. He remained a member of the Committees of Safety, and as such he was bestowed with the power to move troops in defense of the state: on one occasion, he sent to New York a small force of some 300 men to aid New York City’s defense from a potential British invasion. He also served, with Samuel Hays and Captain Joseph Hedden, as the de facto mayor of the town of Newark for several years. According to his official congressional biography, he remained as Surgeon General until the end of the conflict in 1783, when he

returned home and “engaged in agricultural pursuits.” [3] A biography of Burnet regarding his work as a doctor in New Jersey stated, “He suffered much in his private property by the depredations of the enemy. His large and valuable library was headed up in casks and carried off by the British or their allies, the refugees. At another time fifty head of cattle were driven off from his farm.” [4] On 24 November 1780, Burnet was elected by the New Jersey legislature to serve as a delegate in the Continental Congress, for the period from 1 December 1780 until 1 December 1781. He immediately went to Philadelphia, and attended sessions from 1 December to about 21 December 1780, then from about 15 February to about 19 February 1781. There does not appear to be an explanation why in April 1781 Burnet resigned his seat and returned to New Jersey; historian Edmund Cody Burnett gives no reason, and contains no correspondence from Burnet in his eight volumes of letters to and from the delegates of the Continental Congress. [5] Although there is no evidence that he ever studied the law, Burnet was named by the state legislature as the presiding judge of the Court of Common Pleas for Essex County in 1776; after his service in the Continental Congress, he served as the first judge of the court of Essex County in 1781. As previously stated, in 1787 he served for a second term as the president of the New Jersey state Medical Society. William Burnet died in Newark, New Jersey, on 7 October 1791, two months shy of his 61st birthday. The General Advertiser of Philadelphia reported on 15 October 1791, “Died in this town the 7th inst. Doctor WILLIAM BURNET, late first Judge of the court of Common Pleas, for the county of Essex in the 61st year of his age. His funeral was on the Sabbath following, when the corpse was carried to the church, where a sermon suited to the occasion, was delivered by the Rev. Doctor Macwhorter, from the words ‘Jesus wept.’” [6] Burnet was laid to rest in the First Presbyterian Churchyard in Newark.

[1] For the 13 December 1730 date, see “Burnet, William” in Howard Kelly and Walter L. Burrage, “American Medical Biographies” (Baltimore, Maryland: The Norman Remington Company, 1920), 172.

142

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

[2] Information on Burnet’s parents, including the lack of any information on Hannah Burnet’s family, is contained on several genealogical websites, most notably http://www.geni.com/people/Dr-William-Burnet/6000000003221122382. For additional information, see Charles H. Whipple, “Genealogy of the WhippleWright, Wager, Ward-Pell, McLean-Burnet Families: Together with Records of Allied Families” (Los Angeles: Press of Commercial Print. House, 1917), 88A-92. [3] Burnet official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=B001118. [4] “William Burnet” in Stephen Wickes, “History of Medicine in New Jersey, and of its Medical Men, from the Settlement of the Province to A.D. 1800” (Newark, NJ: Martin R. Dennis & Co., 1879), 184. [5] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921–36), V:lix. [6] “Newark, Oct. 13,” General Advertiser [Philadelphia], 15 October 1791, 3. Other obituaries, albeit short, appear in The NewYork Journal, & Patriotic Register [New York City], 15 October 1791, 3; as well as the Gazette of the United States [Philadelphia], 15 October 1791, 3.

spent much of his life. He also served in the Continental Congress (1787).

Robert Burton (1747–1825)

Burton was born near Chase City, in Mecklenburg County, Virginia, on 20 October 1747, the son of Hutchins Burton and his wife Tabitha (née Minge or Minje) Burton. The lineage book of the Daughters of the American Revolution merely lists Burton, but does not give any additional information. [1] All that is known of Burton’s father’s family is that his grandfather was named Noel Hunt Burton, born about 1685; Tabitha Burton’s family name is either Minge, in some areas, or Minje, in others. [2] Burton attended private schools. In 1775, Burton left his family in Virginia and moved to Granville County, North Carolina; he eventually purchased a large plantation and estate, which he named “Montpelier” (the same name that James Madison would bestow on his own estate), located in Williamsboro (now Henderson), in Vance County, North Carolina. There, Burton worked as a planter—in short, a farmer. With the start of the American Revolution, he was named as the quartermastergeneral for the Continental Army, with the rank of colonel. In 1783 and 1784, Burton served as a member of the Governor’s Council of North Carolina.

A quartermaster-general during the early years of the American Revolution, Robert Burton was a North Carolina planter who ran a plantation, “Montpelier,” where he

The Maryland Journal reported on 3 February 1786, “His Excellency Richard Caswell, Esq; is again chosen Governor of the State of North-Carolina. Abner Nash, Robert Burton, W[illiam] Blount, Charles Johnson, Timothy Bloodworth, and Nathaniel Macon, Esqr’s, are appointed Delegates to Congress from the State of North-Carolina; their Time of Attendance to commence on the first of November next.” [3] According to historian Edmund Cody Burnett, Burton was elected to the Continental Congress not in February 1786 but on 9 December 1785, “to serve to the first Monday in November next,” and was then reelected on 17 December 1787. He attended sessions from 13 September to 29 October 1787. Burnett writes, “Burton arrived in New York [on] May 15, 1787, but finding Congress without a quorum took his departure [on] May 25 and did not return to Congress until

Pierce Butler (1744–1822)143 September. He was elected Dec. 17, 1787, to fill the place of Timothy Bloodworth, resigned, but he declined.” [4]

Pierce Butler (1744–1822)

In a letter regarding the Continental Congress that Burton wrote to Governor Caswell, dated 22 May 1787, he explained, “On Tuesday the 15th. Instant I arrived here Since which time there has not been a sufficient number of States Represented to do business in Congress at this time very few Members are here and it being very certain that there will not [be] a meeting again until the Convention at Philadelphia rises. I shall return immediately home and as soon as I am Notified that it is likely that Congress will sett [sic] I shall come on we have no news here more than the papers contain, Which I enclose you.” [5] After he declined the second nomination to the Continental Congress, Burton remained in North Carolina, where he served as a member of a state commission to establish a borderline between North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia in 1801. He then retired to his estate, “Montpelier,” where he spent the remainder of his life. He had married Agatha Williams (1775–1831), who was 28 years his junior, and had one child with her, a daughter, Abigail, who died as an infant. Robert Burton died at “Montpelier” on 31 May 1825; he was interred on the estate’s grounds, now known as the Burton Family Cemetery. [6]

Historian Terry Lipscomb wrote of one of South Carolina’s delegates to the Continental Congress, “Pierce Butler was one of the fiftyfive ‘first Characters in the different States’ who assembled in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 to draft the US Constitution. Two years later he was one of the original twenty-two members of the US Senate.” [1] Before Butler served in either capacity, however, he was a delegate to the Continental Congress (1787).

[1] See “Lineage Book. National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution” (Harrisburg, PA: Telegraph Printing Company; 166 volumes, 1896–1921), XXIII:151. [2] Some genealogical information on Burton’s family comes from various websites, most notably http://www.geni.com/people/Col-Robert-Burton/331145828640001129. [3] “Baltimore, Feb. 3,” The Maryland Journal and Baltimore Advertiser, 3 February 1786, 2. [4] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921–36), VIII:xcii. [5] Burton to Governor Richard Caswell, 22 May 1787, in ibid., VIII:599. [6] Burton official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=B001157.

A member of a slaveholding South Carolina family, Butler was born in the village of Ballintemple, in County Carlow, Ireland, on 11 July 1744, the third son and one of ten children of Sir Richard Butler, the Fifth Baronet of Cloughgrenan, and his wife Henrietta (née Percy) Butler. Sir Richard Butler (1699–1771), of a distinguished Irish family that had ties going back to William the Conquerer in 1066, was himself a member of the Irish Parliament. His wife, Lady Henrietta Percy (1720?-1794) was from Garryhunden in Ireland; her father, Anthony Percy, was the mayor of Dublin. As a member of such a family, Sir Richard had to pass on his baronetcy to a son; this went to his eldest, Thomas, who became the sixth Baronet

144

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

in 1771 just prior to his own death. Pierce Butler was third in line for the baronetcy, and since he would probably never get the title, his parent bought for him a commission in the British army when he was just 11 years old. Three years later, before he had reached a majority, he was shipped to Canada, and served on official duty with the Twenty-Second Regiment of Foot (later the Cheshires) in the battle to recapture the fort of Louisburg from the French. [2]

to the election of officers when the following gentlemen were unanimously chosen: Pierce Butler, Esq; President. James Lynah, Esq; Vice-President. Mr. Daniel O’Hara, Treasurer. Mr. Samuel Corbett, Secretary. Messrs. Barth[olemew] Carrol [and] George Archibald, Stewards.” [3] Whatever the true reason, by the start of the 1770s, Butler was a firm member of South Carolina society, and his vast wealth and landholdings gave him increased prestige. When the war with England exploded, his estates and plantations were raided by the English army, and his slaves taken away for their own use. Butler did not let this deter him; he continued to purchase land and slaves, so that by his death he owned some 9,000 acres in South Carolina alone, and up to 1,000 slaves in the state.

In 1762, Butler was moved to the TwentyNinth Regiment of Foot (later the Worcester Regiment) and given the rank of major at age 22. In 1768, he was sent to guard British properties against attacks from Cherokee Indians, first in what is now Louisiana, then in what is now South Carolina. In 1771, he married Mary Middleton, the daughter of wealthy South Carolina landowners. The couple would have eight children, five of whom would live past infancy, In 1773, when his regiment finished its duties, Butler sold his commission, remained in the American colonies, and with his proceeds bought lands in Georgia and, later, South Carolina. He also acquired a large number of slaves, with nearly all of these being sent to work on one of his plantations, “Experiment,” near St. Simons Island in Georgia. The name for the plantation was selected carefully: Butler used its lands to experiment on the growing of a number of high-yield crops, including cotton and rice, that earned him a substantial income. Although he had lands in Georgia, as well as what is now Tennessee, he decided to remain in America and call himself a South Carolinian. The American Revolution sealed his decision; perhaps it was the beauty of the land, or perhaps it was the longstanding anger between Ireland and England. It may be the latter; Butler appeared to be quite proud of his Irish ancestry. For instance, The Maryland Chronicle, or the Universal Advertiser reported on 10 January 1787, “Nov. 20 [1786]. A number of respectable gentlemen, natives of Ireland, met at the city tavern, on Saturday evening last, and agreed to form themselves into a Society, under the title of the FRIENDLY BROTHERS OF IRELAND; after which they proceeded

However, Butler did not play a role in the start of the war as far as working for the patriot cause. Historian Francis Coghlan wrote in 1977, “Butler does not loom large in the standard histories of South Carolina of that period, by Dr. Joseph Johnson, Duncan David Wallace, Edward McCrady, or David Ramsay. The major is even less in evidence in the more general accounts; indeed, one is hard put to find mention of him. Nevertheless, his correspondence with his contemporaries indicates his enthusiastic support for the cause from the beginning, an enthusiasm he initially concealed from the royal governor, Lord William Campbell. According to what may have been a mendacious report, that of a spy reporting to the Council of Safety, 11 July 1775, Butler was one of the three colonists whom his lordship believed he could trust in Charleston.” [4] Even though Butler was not involved militarily in the conflict, evidence shows that he did form the nucleus of a group of persons, including Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Thomas Pinckney, and others who kept the state in contact with others during the war. On 6 March 1787, Butler was elected to a seat in what were the waning days of the Continental Congress. He attended sessions of the body from about 2 to 3 August 1787, then from 22 October to about 13 October 1787. According to historian Edmund Cody Burnett, only one piece of correspondence from Butler, to Weedon Butler, from New York on 1 August 1787, in which he wrote:

Pierce Butler (1744–1822)145 My last letter from Carolina would inform You of my intended visit to Philadelphia. As I declined the honor my fellow Citizens offered me of the Chief Magistracy, I coud not refuse the last Appointment of Acting as One of their Commissioners to the Convention to be held at Philadelphia. No doubt you have heard of the purport of the meeting, to form a stronger Constitution on strict Foederal Principles, for the Governm’t of the whole. I hope We may succeed. Our Country expect much of Us. We have satt [sic] every day since the 25th of May till last Saturday, when We adjourned for one weekhaving placed my Family here, Philadelphia not being so healthy, I embraced the opportunity of visiting them. I go back to Philada. on Sunday; and shall return home the first week in November. [5] During this period of service in the Continental Congress, Butler was also serving as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, held not in New York, where the Continental Congress was in session, but in Philadelphia, from 25 May until the end of July, 1787. The Weekly Monitor of Litchfield, Connecticut, stated on 11 June 1787, “The following is an accurate state of the FEDERAL CONVENTION; as assembled on Tuesday last at the State-house of this city.” The paper then listed “His Excellency George Washington, Esq. President,” and, for the delegates from South Carolina, “The Hon. John Rutledge, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Charles Pinckney, and Pierce Butler, Esquires.” [6] Butler played a leading role in the Constitutional Convention. Historian Sidney Ulmer wrote in 1960: Butler’s participation in the Convention itself was less extensive than that of his three fellow delegates. One measure of this is that he spoke fewer times than any member of his delegation. There were good reasons for his reticence. Of the South Carolina delegates Butler was the poorest equipped to participate in the drafting of a Constitution. He was the only one of the four not trained in the law...On the eve of forming a new government he declared himself “. . . unequal to the magnitude of it.” Butler was convinced, however, of the need for a new government. And although he refused at first to go to Philadelphia on the grounds that “A tranquil Domestick scene suits me much better than the bustle of politicks.” He later consented to serve. This change of heart he explained by saying: “I could not well refuse, however inconvenient to my private affairs,

to go for a short time . . . to get the New Government well under way.” Butler embarked for Philadelphia on May 10 and arrived, along with C.C. Pinckney on May 24. In the Convention he devoted his attention to a number of topics but the only component of the Constitution he ever claimed the “honor of proposing” in the Convention is contained in the article on the executive. This claim takes on added significance in view of modem attempts to reform the electoral college system. [7] An odd report in a South Carolina newspaper in 1788 has Butler in a “house of representatives” (perhaps the Continental Congress?); reporting from the “House of Representatives,” on 14 January 1788, the City Gazette of Charleston said, “The committee appointed to investigate the public accounts, being called on to report— Major Butler informed the house, that as a committee of finance would soon be appointed, to devise proper recourse for paying the expenses of government, and the interest of our debt, it was necessary he should know what procision [sic] to make. For his part he never knew until within those two months what an amazing sum was due to congress, in a way that he never suspected. Congress empowered him to represent this matter to the house, for which purpose he should tomorrow lay some papers on the table for [the] information of members.” [8] Butler never served in the US House of Representatives, so this must be the Continental Congress. The legislature in Charleston, on 14 January 1788, thanked the members of their delegation to the Constitutional Convention. The members of the state Senate resolved “[t]hat the thanks of this house be given to the delegates of this state, to the convention holders last year at the city of Philadelphia, for their great attention to, and faithful discharge of the duties of their appointment.” Butler wrote a letter of thanks to John Lloyd, the President of the South Carolina Senate: “I had the honor to receive your letter last night, conveying to me the thanks of the honorable senate for my conduct as a deputy from this state, at the late en [sic] convention. The strongest incentive in honourable actions, is the hope of meeting with the approbation of our fellow citizens—it is to me the most heart gratifying recompense that could be conferred—

146

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

every good is estimable in preportion [to] the source from whence it is derived.” [9]

and his mind and influence were also devoted to his country’s good. The wealth which fortune had been stowed upon him was used for the purposes of beneficience, and his talents and generosity were universally acknowledged.” [10]

Under the new Constitution that Butler helped to frame and signed, national elections for a bicameral national legislature—a US House of Representatives and a US Senate—were established. Butler asked that he be elected to the US Senate, and he was by the state legislature. He entered the Senate in 1789 and remained until 25 October 1796, when he resigned; however, following the death of Senator John Ewing Colhoun on 26 October 1802, Butler was elected to fill that vacancy, and he served again in the upper body from 4 November 1802 until his resignation on 21 November 1804. He then returned to South Carolina. Pierce Butler spent the remainder of his life tending to his plantations and estates and other landholdings. He was visiting Philadelphia on 15 February 1822 when he died there at the age of 77. Although now a citizen of South Carolina, he was buried in the Christ Churchyard in Philadelphia with his wife and other family members in a large vault in that yard. The City Gazette of South Carolina said of him, “Major Butler was one of the five delegates from South Carolina, who were sent to Philadelphia on the adoption of our present glorious Constitution. This honour was conferred upon him, as a feeble testimony of the gratitude and high opinion of his countrymen for his Revolutionary services. He was several years a Member of Congress

[1] Lipscomb, Terry W., ed., “The Letters of Pierce Butler, 1790–1794: Nation Building and Enterprise in the New American Republic” (Columbia: The University of South Carolina Press, 2007), xv. [2] Bell, Malcolm, Jr., “Major Butler’s Legacy: Five Generations of a Slaveholding Family” (Athens: The University of Georgia Press, 1987), 2. For additional family information, see William David Butler, John Cromwell Butler, and Joseph Marion Butler, comps., “The Butler Family in America” (St. Louis: Shallcross Printing Co., 1909), 14–16. [3] “American Occurrences. Charleston, (S.C.) Nov. 16.,” The Maryland Chronicle, or the Universal Advertiser, 10 January 1787, 2. [4] Coghlan, Francis, “Pierce Butler, 1744–1822, First Senator from South Carolina,” South Carolina Historical Magazine, LXXVIII:2 (April 1977), 104–19. [5] Information on Butler’s dates of service in the Continental Congress in Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921–36), VIII:xcvi; the letter is Butler to Weedon Butler, 1 August 1787, in ibid., VIII:630. [6] Weekly Monitor [Litchfield, Connecticut], 11 June 1787, 3. [7] Ulmer, S. Sidney, “The Role of Pierce Butler in the Constitutional Convention,” The Review of Politics, XXII:3 (July 1960), 362–63. See also James H. Hutson, “Pierce Butler’s Records of the Federal Constitutional Convention,” Quarterly Journal of the Library of Congress, XXXVII (Winter 1980), 64–73. [8] The City Gazette, Or, The Daily Advertiser [Charleston], 15 January 1788, 2. [9] “Charleston, (S.C.), an. 20. House of Senate,” The Pennsylvania Packet, and Daily Advertiser [Philadelphia], 11 February 1788, 3. [10] “Died, at Philadelphia,” City Gazette and Commercial Daily Advertiser [Charleston, South Carolina], 27 February 1822, 2.

C Lambert Cadwalader (1742–1823)

Cadwalader was a dedicated military officer during the American Revolution and served in the Continental Congress (1785, 1786, 1787). Born in Trenton, New Jersey, he was the son of Dr. Thomas Cadwalader, a physician in New Jersey, and his wife Hannah (née Lambert) Cadwalader. Historian William Henry Rawle wrote in 1886, ‘The paternal emigrating ancestor of Lambert Cadwalader was his grandfather, John Cadwalader, who, after his arrival here, joined one of the settlements of his Welsh countrymen near Merion a few miles west of Philadelphia. He is said to have been a man of high character with much literary culture.” He added, “The father of Mrs. Cadwalader was Doctor Edward Jones, an emigrant from Merionethshire [Scotland].” [2] The family can be traced back to Lambert Cadwalader’s greatgrandfather Cadwalader Thomas Hugh (c. 16551682), who lived in the Parish of Penllyn, in the Vale of Glamorgan in southern Wales. [3] Dr. Thomas Cadwalader, the father of Lambert

Cadwalader, was a very important person in his own right. Born in Philadelphia about 1707, he was trained as a physician in England before moving back to the colonies and settling in Pennsylvania. In 1746, he became a Burgess under a royal charter granted by Governor Jonathan Belcher of New Jersey. Four years later he returned to Philadelphia, where he became one of the leading physicians in that city. Also known as “The Councillor,” in the years leading up to the American Revolution he played a key role in Philadelphia politics, serving on the Provincial Council (1755) with such notables as Thomas Mifflin. [4] Lambert Cadwalader, due to his father’s wealth and influence, was able to receive an education that few people of his time could afford; he finished it with a term at the College of Philadelphia, now the University of Pennsylvania. He did not graduate; instead, he went into business with his brother, the merchant John Cadwalader, in Philadelphia. By the early 1770s, both men had become independently wealthy from this business. But by this time, a series of harsh economic measures enacted by Great Britain against the colonies had soured relations to such a point that there was talk of either independence or revolution. Cadwalader was at the center of these discussions: Following the passage of the Stamp Act (1765), he signed a public letter with others protesting the legislation. These protestations led to the act being repealed the following year. Cadwalader wrote to his friend George Morgan, 18 May 1766, “I have now the pleasure of communicating to you the joyful news of the repeal of the stamp act [sic]; news that almost calls back youth to the aged, gives health and vigour to the sick and infirm . . . If ever the Americans should fall into paganism, place dead men amongst their gods and worship them, there is scarce any one that will have a better chance o[f] being enrolled in the number of them than Mr. [William] Pitt [the British Prime Minister].” [5] In 1774, Cadwalader was named as a member of the Philadelphia Committee of Superintendence and Correspondence, an early derivation of the Committees of Correspondence that soon sprang up in every colony. When that group became

148

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

the Pennsylvania Committee of Correspondence, Cadwalader continued to serve on it. A provincial convention, held in Philadelphia in late January 1775, included Cadwalader as a delegate. [6] On 11 November 1775, the Pennsylvania Committee of Safety resolved that “Capt. Shee, Capt. Wilcocks, and Capt. Cadwalader, be authorised to contract for and provide any number of Firelocks and Bayonets, not exceeding 1000 to be made agreeable to a pattern which the Board will deliver to them, and for a price which shall not exceed what is given by the Commissioners and Assessors of the county where they shall make such contract . . .” [7] On 13 March 1777, The Philadelphia Evening Post reported the “[a]rrangement and rank of the Field Officers of the Twelve Pennsylvania regiments in Continental service”; in the Fourth regiment, Cadwalader is listed with the rank of colonel. [8]

for an officer of similar rank, Cadwalader’s military career was effectively over, and he resigned his commission on 29 January 1779.

During the opening salvos of the American Revolution, Cadwalader served as the commander of “The Greens,” part of the Pennsylvania militia; he later rose to become, as noted above, a member of the First, the Third, and then the Fourth, Pennsylvania Regiment. He then became the commander of the Fourth Pennsylvania Line. The battle of Fort Washington (16 November 1776) was, at least for Cadwalader, a turning point: it was here that he was taken captive by the British during the raid led by the British General William Howe. Witnesses later described Cadwalader as acting in “gallant style . . . with and inferior force, [who] maintained his positive” despite overwhelming numbers against him and his troops. The entire contingent of some 3,000 Americans was taken captive. [9] In 1822, Cadwalader wrote to Timothy Pickering (1745-1829), who served in several administrations, most notably as secretary of state (1795-1800) in the Washington and Adams administrations, a letter on that 1776 clash. “It is now more than Forty five years since the Affair of Port Washington,” Cadwalader wrote, “and though it can scarcely be expected I should be able, ate [sic] so long an Interval, to afford you a full Narrative of all the Incidents that occur’d on the Day of the Attack, yet i have it in my Power, in some Measure, to satisfy your Inquiries.” [10] Cadwalader was released by the British rather quickly, after realizing that Cadwalader’s father had treated British prisoners of war held in Philadelphia and returned the favor. Because he had been simply released instead of exchanged

On 29 October 1784, Cadwalader was elected to a seat in the Continental Congress, but he did not attend sessions during that calendar year. [11] He was then reelected on 28 October 1785 “from [the] first Monday in November net until [7 November 1786] unless a new appointment shall sooner take place,” as well as on 7 November 1786, attending sessions from 11 January to 5 April 1785, from 25 July to 13 October 1785, from 12 December 1785 to 6 February 1786, from 7 August to 29 October 1786, from 17 January to 30 March 1787, and from 20 September to 29 October 1787. [12] Although there are several pieces of correspondence from Cadwalader during his time in the Continental Congress, only one is of great importance: a missive to James Madison, dated 20 August 1786, concerns Madison’s plan for a new national government as he would outline the following year at the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia. Cadwalader penned: I have considered the proposed Plan with all the attention I am capable of, and am happy to find, that a Temperament, so favorable to your Views and my own Sentiments, will be adopted by your Delegation; I think, however, that a firm, and efficient Stipulation, should be required of Spain, in which, she should engage that no Merchandize, or Commodities whatsoever, should be permitted to be laden in the Return-Boats, as it would deprive the Atlantic States of the Benefit they derive, from the Sale of Manufactures for the Consumption of the Inhabitants of the western Territory, and for the Indian Trade. It is a moot Point with me, whether it will be more for our advantage to treat in Europe, than America, as the Intelligence to be communicated by Mr. Gardoqui to his Court will be the Groundwork of the Treaty on their Part. It is from this Source they must draw all their Information without it, in my Opinion, they will not venture to conclude a Treaty which they deem of so great Importance to their Possessions on this Continent. [13] The document that emerged from the Constitutional Convention, the US Constitution, mandated national elections in November 1788 for seats not in a single-chambered house, like the Continental Congress, but a bicameral legislature, to be composed of a US House of Representatives and a US Senate. In the election of

Canada and Canadian Relations149 1788, Cadwalader was elected as a Federalist, and he ultimately served in the First Congress (178991) and in the Third Congress (1793-95). In 1793, he married Mary McCall, and the couple had two children. [14] After his congressional service, Cadwalader retired to his estate in New Jersey, “Greenood,” located near Trenton. Cadwalader died there on 13 September 1823 at the age of either 80 or 81. Obituaries for him in national papers were either small or nonexistent; the Vermont Gazette of Bennington was one such example: it merely stated that “He commanded a regiment early in the revolutionary contest.” [15] Cadwalader was buried in the Friends Burying Ground, a Quaker cemetery, in Trenton. People who commented on this man gave him only high praise for the life he led and the services he provided to his nation. One contemporary wrote, “To the good breeding, courtesy and elegance of the gentleman he united the advantages of early education and the acquisition of and enlarged and cultivated understanding, regulated by classical taste and improved habits of general reading. Few were so happily gifted with the power of pleasing and the disposition to be pleased; few have enjoyed in an equal share the friendship, respect, and affection of all around them.” [16]

[1] Nelson, Paul David, “Cadwalader, Lambert,” in John A. Garraty and Mark C. Carnes, gen. eds., “American National Biography” (New York: Oxford University Press; 24 volumes, 1999), IV:170-71. [2] Rawle, William Henry, “Col. Lambert Cadwalader, a Sketch,”Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, X:1 (1886), 1-2. [3] See the Cadwalader family tree, online at http://www.geni. com/people/Lambert-Cadwalader/6000000016127231952. [4] Dulles, Charles Winslow, “Sketch of the Life of Dr. Thomas Cadwalader,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, XXVII:3 (1903), 262-78. [5] Rawle, “Col. Lambert Cadwalader, a Sketch,” 3. [6] See “Proceedings of the Convention for the Province of Pennsylvania, held at Philadelphia, January 23, 1775, and continued by adjournments to the 28th,” The Register of Pennsylvania, IV:9 (29 August 1829), 133-35. [7] “In Committee of Safety,” The Pennsylvania Gazette, Contining the Freshest Advices, Foreign and Domestic [Philadelphia], 15 November 1775, 3. [8] “Philadelphia, March 13,” The Pennsylvania Evening Post [Philadelphia], 13 March 1777, 140. [9] Rawle, op. cit., 11. [10] Cadwalader to Timothy Pickering, [?] May 1822, in The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, XXV:2

(1901), 259-62. The letter is three pages in length, too long to be republished completely here. [11] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VII:lxx. [12] Ibid., VIII:lxxxix. [13] Cadwalader to James Madison, 20 August 1786, in ibid., VIII:446. [14] Cadwalader official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay. pl?index=C000012. [15] “Died,” Vermont Gazette [Bennington], 30 September 1823, 3. [16] Rawle, op. cit., 14.

Canada and Canadian Relations When the First Continental Congress was called, mostly in response to a series of harsh economic measures enacted by the British Parliament, including the Sugar Act (1764) and the Stamp Act (1765), the delegates assembled in Philadelphia with the hope—if not the heartfelt belief—that a call to Canada, and its citizens, could elevate their feelings to the same level as those in the American colonies. They hoped that perhaps Canada, as it existed at that time, would join the colonies—in either a loose confederation, or, even more importantly, as part of an overarching new nation. But “independence” from London was not on the delegates’ minds when they assembled in Philadelphia—ending the economic measures was the real reason. At the forefront of this movement was opposition in the colonies to the Quebec Act, enacted by the British Parliament on 13 January 1774 [1]. In short, this legislation extended the borders of Canada into those of the several colonies, and also forced a British system of government on Quebec, a French-speaking province. Benjamin Franklin, sitting in London, tried to intervene with whomever he could in the British government not to pass the legislation, fearing its effect on the American colonies. A “gentleman” who met with Franklin in London wrote to a friend in Philadelphia: I have been with Doctor Franklin. I find the storm against him has much abated; though I believe he has not in the least remitted his attention to the interests of his much injured country. However quiet in appearance, I am very anxious to hear what reception the latter wanton strokes of Government here have met

150

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

with in America, particularly that detestable Quebec Bill, which is so evidently intended as a bridle on the Northern Colonies. That Act is looked upon in the most unfavourable light here of any of them; as, for want of making proper distinctions, the violent proceedings of the Boston mob are too generally deemed a sufficient justification of the others, and have afforded the Ministry a pretence, which, I am persuaded, they much wished for, of introducing an armed force into America, and such other measures as are undoubtedly aimed at establishing the right of taxation in the legislation here; and if not firmly opposed, will certainly do it through America. [2]

had to be supplied, had to be paid for. Where those resources would come from is another matter; here we are discussing relations with Canada. In 1775, the delegates to the Continental Congress delegated to John Jay, delegate from New York, to draft a letter from the Congress to the Canadian people, calling on them to join with the American people and throw off the yoke of English economic dependence. The letter, printed here in full from the Journals of the Continental Congress, contains the original text with no corrections:

The reaction in the colonies was not much different. The Reverend Samuel Langdon, the president of Harvard College (now Harvard University), penned a note to a sermon he gave on the state of affairs regarding the economic measures enacted by Parliament on the colonies, “When he consider the late Canada Bill [sic], which implies not merely a toleration of the Roman Catholic religion (which would be just and liberal), but a firm establishment of it through that extensive province, now greatly enlarged to serve political purposes, by which means multitudes of people, subjects of Great Britain, which may hereafter settle in that vast country, will be tempted, by all the attachments arising from an establishment, to profess that religion, or be discouraged from any endeavors to propagate reformed principles, have we not great reason to suspect that all the measures respecting the colonies have originated from Popish schemes of men who would gladly restore the race of Stuart, and who look on Popery as a religion most favorable to arbitrary power.” [3] In Pennsylvania, the citizens of Suffolk County enacted a series of resolutions, 6 September 1774, which were the first of a citizenry to speak out on such matters. The resolutions stated that “the late Act of Parliament for establishing the Roman Catholic Religion and the French laws in that extensive country, now called Canada, is dangerous in an extreme degree to the Protestant religion and to the civil rights and liberties of all Americans; and therefore, as men and Protestant Christians, we are indispensably obliged to take all proper measures for our security.” [4]

The Committee, to whom the letter to the inhabitants of Canada, was recommitted, brought in a draught, which was read, and approved, and is as follows:

And eventually Canada became a back matter to others that the delegates were forced to deal with, as a war that soon grew had to be staffed,

The Congress met according to Adjournment.

To the oppressed Inhabitants of Canada. [4] FRIENDS AND COUNTRYMEN, Alarmed by the designs of an arbitrary Ministry, to extirpate the Rights and liberties of all America, a sense of common danger conspired with the dictates of humanity, in urging us to call your attention, by our late address, to this very important object. Since the conclusion of the late war, we have been happy in considering you as fellow-subjects, and from the commencement of the present plan for subjugating the continent, we have viewed you as fellow-sufferers with us. As we were both entitled by the bounty of an indulgent creator to freedom, and being both devoted by the cruel edicts of a despotic administration, to common ruin, we perceived the fate of the protestant and catholic colonies to be strongly linked together, and therefore invited you to join with us in resolving to be free, and in rejecting, with disdain, the fetters of slavery, however artfully polished. We most sincerely condole with you on the arrival of that day, in the course of which, the sun could not shine on a single freeman in all your extensive dominion. Be assured, that your unmerited degradation has engaged the most unfeigned pity of your sister colonies; and we flatter ourselves you will not, by tamely bearing the yoke, suffer that pity to be supplanted by contempt. When hardy attempts are made to deprive men of rights, bestowed by the almighty, when avenues are cut thro’ the most solemn compacts for the admission of despotism, when the plighted faith of government ceases to give security to loyal and dutiful subjects, and when the insidious stratagems and manoeuvres

Canada and Canadian Relations151 of peace become more terrible than the sanguinary operations of war, it is high time for them to assert those rights, and, with honest indignation, oppose the torrent of oppression rushing in upon them. By the introduction of your present form of government, or rather present form of tyranny, you and your wives and your children are made slaves. You have nothing that you can call your own, and all the fruits of your labour and industry may be taken from you, whenever an avaritious governor and a rapacious council may incline to demand them. You are liable by their edicts to be transported into foreign countries to fight Battles in which you have no interest, and to spill your blood in conflicts from which neither honor nor emolument can be derived: Nay, the enjoyment of your very religion, on the present system, depends on a legislature in which you have no share, and over which you have no controul, and your priests are exposed to expulsion, banishment, and ruin, whenever their wealth and possessions furnish sufficient temptation. They cannot be sure that a virtuous prince will always fill the throne, and should a wicked or a careless king concur with a wicked ministry in extracting the treasure and strength of your country, it is impossible to conceive to what variety and to what extremes of wretchedness you may, under the present establishment, be reduced. We are informed you have already been called upon to waste your lives in a contest with us. Should you, by complying in this instance, assent to your new establishment, and a war break out with France, your wealth and your sons may be sent to perish in expeditions against their islands in the West indies. It cannot be presumed that these considerations will have no weight with you, or that you are so lost to all sense of honor. We can never believe that the present race of Canadians are so degenerated as to possess neither the spirit, the gallantry, nor the courage of their ancestors. You certainly will not permit the infamy and disgrace of such pusillanimity to rest on your own heads, and the consequences of it on your children forever. We, for our parts, are determined to live free, or not at all; and are resolved, that posterity shall never reproach us with having brought slaves into the world. Permit us again to repeat that we are your friends, not your enemies, and be not imposed upon by those who may endeavour to create animosities. The taking the fort and military stores at Ticonderoga and Crown-Point, and the armed vessels on the lake, was

dictated by the great law of self-preservation. They were intended to annoy us, and to cut off that friendly intercourse and communication, which has hitherto subsisted between you and us. We hope it has given you no uneasiness, and you may rely on our assurances, that these colonies will pursue no measures whatever, but such as friendship and a regard for our mutual safety and interest may suggest. As our concern for your welfare entitles us to your friendship, we presume you will not, by doing us injury, reduce us to the disagreeable necessity of treating you as enemies. We yet entertain hopes of your uniting with us in the defence of our common liberty, and there is yet reason to believe, that should we join in imploring the attention of our sovereign, to the unmerited and unparalleled oppressions of his American subjects, he will at length be undeceived, and forbid a licentious Ministry any longer to riot in the ruins of the rights of Mankind. [5] Ordered, That the above Letter be signed by the president. Ordered, That Mr.[John] Dickinson, end Mr.[Thomas] Mifflin, be a committee to get the letter translated into the french language, and to have 1,000 copies of it, so translated, printed, in order to be sent to Canada, and dispersed among the Inhabitants there. [6] Canada and its relations—or potential relations— with America had been one of the points made by the delegates since the First Continental Congress met in 1774. In a debate on 8 September 1774, and taken down in his official notes by John Adams, delegate Edmund Pendleton of Virginia said, “Consider how far we have a right to interfere with regard to the Canada constitution. If the majority of the people there should be pleased with the new constitution, would not the people of America and of England have a right to oppose it, and prevent such a constitution being established in our neighborhood?” [7] The issue of Canada continued to plague the Congress: What should be done about this large nation to the north of the colonies, run mostly by England with Quebec under the control of France? John Adams wrote to famed Massachusetts patriot James Warren on 7 June 1775: We have been puzzled to discover what we ought to do with the Canadians and Indians. Several Persons have been before Congress who have lately been in the

152

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Province of Canada, particularly Mr. [John] Brown and Mr. [James] Price [8], who have informed us that the French are not unfriendly to us. And by all that we can learn of the Indians they intend to be neutral. But whether We should march into Canada with an Army Sufficient to break the Power of Governor [Guy] Carlton [spelled “Carleton”], to overawe the Indians, and to protect the French, has been a great Question. It seems to be the general Conclusion that it is best to go, if We can be assured that the Canadians will be pleased with it and join. The Nations of Indians inhabiting the Frontiers of the Colonies are numerous and warlike. They seem disposed to Neutrality. None have as yet taken up the Hatchet against us; and We have not obtained any certain Evidence that either Carlton [sic] or Johnson have directly attempted to persuade them to take up the Hatchet. Some Suspicious Circumstances there are. [9]

Congress succumbed to the pressure and decided to assemble an army at Ticonderoga and send an expedition into Canada.” [11]

Historians John Herd Thompson and Stephen J. Randall wrote, “The concentration of British military power to the north of the thirteen colonies made Nova Scotia and especially Quebec of substantial strategic importance to the fledgling American government, the Continental Congress, meeting in Philadelphia. The revolutionary leadership was profoundly ambiguous about both colonies. Many Nova Scotians had blood ties to New England, and French Canadians had little reason for loyalty to Britain, so that they were regarded as potential revolutionary patriots. In 1775, Thomas Jefferson believed that ‘the delegates of Canada will join us in Congress and complete the American union.’” [10] But it was not to be. Instead, the delegates came to believe that the British were assembling a military force in Canada to invade the northern colonies. Unchecked, this force could overwhelm the weak Continental Army. Historian John Pell wrote in 1934, “The second Continental Congress, which met at Philadelphia in May 1775, was bombarded with letters and messages; from Ethan Allen, Benedict Arnold, Elisha Phelps, John Brown, and many others imploring it to send an expedition to capture Quebec and Montreal and nip retaliation in the bud. In spite of the fact that the gentlemen assembled at Philadelphia took pains to allude to the cannon captured at Ticonderoga as His Majesty’s property, borrowed, as it were, by Ethan Allen and his Green Mountains Boys,

The Second Continental Congress, although merely an extension of the First, met in Philadelphia on 10 May 1775. Debate over the potential of going to war soon absorbed the delegates’ arguments. Finally, on 27 June 1775, as stated in the Journals of the Continental Congress: The Congress then resumed the consideration of the letter from Albany, and after some debate the Congress came to the following resolutions: Resolved, That Major General P[hilip] Schuyler be directed to repair as soon as conveniently he can to the posts of Ticonderoga and Crown point [sic], to examine into the state thereof and of the troops now stationed there, and how they are supplied with provision and necessary stores—into the state also of the sloop and other navigation on the lakes—also to obtain the best intelligence he can of the disposition of the Canadians and Indians of Canada. That he confer with Col. [Benjamin] Hinman and Col. [Benedict] Arnold, on the subject of Col. Arnold’s letter to this Congress, and report, as soon as possible, the state of the whole as near as it can be ascertained, to this Congress. And that he give orders for the necessary preparation of boats and stores for securing to the United Colonies the command of those waters adjacent to Crown point [sic] and Ticonderoga. [12] Placed in overall command of the operation was Schuyler, but the leader of the troops was his second-in-command, General Richard Montgomery, an Irishman who had served in the British army and had married the daughter of Robert Livingston of New York, one of the most influential leaders in that state, who would serve in the Continental Congress himself. At the same time that American troops were moving north to invade Canada, the battle of Bunker Hill, in Massachusetts, was fought on 17 June 1775. The British, in this first major clash with American forces, were bogged down in a way they had never thought possible, and this gave impetus to the American army to go into Canada at the first available opportunity. That opportunity came in September 1775, when

Canada and Canadian Relations153 American forces crossed into Canada. There was nervousness among the British as to what could happen following the passage of the Quebec Act, and the potential of the French Canadians fighting either against the British or with the Americans should such an invasion occur. For instance, Britain solicitor Francis Maseres (17311824) wrote to William Petty, the 2nd Earl of Shelburne (1737-1805) from the Inner Temple, one of the four Inns of Court of British law, on 24 August 1775, “Canadians persist in refusing to act offensively against the other Americans[,] but say they are ready to defend their own Province against any invasions the Americans shall attempt to make into it.” But this was a full-scale invasion, and the British mustered all of their might to defend Canadian territory. In early September 1775, American forces made their first attempt to capture the British garrison at St. Johns, which failed; a second attempt came five days later, on 10 September, and was also unsuccessful. Attempting to again take this land, Schuyler made Montgomery the commander of troops to take Montreal. On 27 September, Ethan Allen, of the Green Mountain Boys, was captured outside of Montreal. On 2 November St. Johns surrendered to the Americans. A day later, American troops under Benedict Arnold reached the St. Lawrence River. Finally, on 5 November, Montgomery and his men reached Montreal, and on 13 November entered the city; on the same day Arnold crossed the St. Lawrence. Montgomery sent word to the citizens of the city: “I come as a friend. My anxiety for the fate of Montreal induces me to request that you will exert yourselves among the Inhabitants to prevail on them to enter into such measures as will prevent the necessity of opening my batteries on the town.” There was both solace and warning in Montgomery’s words. [13] The inevitable backlash from the British should have been expected. On 19 November, British troops under Carleton entered Quebec; the Americans, unable to hold off such superior numbers, were forced to retreat. On 2 December, reinforcements with Montgomery arrived at Ponte-aux-Trembles, and the Americans encircled all of Quebec and laid siege to the province. On 31 December 1775, trying to force their way into Quebec, Montgomery was killed in

action. [14] Arnold, himself seriously wounded, realized that the Americans did not have the forces to both hold the city and fight the British. Additional reinforcements were sent, but they did not arrive until March. In April, recovered, Arnold again left Fort Ticonderoga to return to Montreal. On 9 June, however, unable to continue to hold the city with additional British troops moving his way, Arnold ordered a retreat from Montreal. Moving south, he constructed a fleet of ships at Skenesboro (now Whitehall, New York), and sailed them to Valcour Island, on Lake Champlain, to fight the British. What Arnold did not know was that Carleton, the British commander, had a fleet of ships constructed at St. Johns, and the two fleets were now on a collision course to fight one of the first sea battles of the Revolutionary War, off of Valcour Island. The British decisively defeated the Americans—all of Benedict Arnold’s ships were destroyed—ending any potential for a recovery for the colonies. While the American army held Montreal, the Continental Congress worked on bringing Montreal, and perhaps all of Quebec, into the colonies and on the side of the colonial cause. The Continental Congress established a committee of three “to proceed to Canada there to pursue such instructions as shall be given by Congress.” The members selected were Samuel Chase of Maryland, Charles Carroll of Carrollton, also of Maryland, and Benjamin Franklin. The Continental Congress also resolved “[t]hat Mr. Carroll be requested to prevail on Mr. John Carroll to accompany the Committee to Canada to assist them in such matters as they shall think useful.” John Adams wrote to James Warren on 18 February 1776, “My Dear Sir: We have at last hit upon a Plan which promises fair for success. Dr. [Benjamin] Franklin and Mr. [Samuel] Chase of Maryland and Mr. Charles Carroll of Carrollton are chosen a Committee to go to Canada. I must confess I have a great Confidence in the Abilities and Integrity [and] the Political Principles and good Disposition of this Committee.” [15] Then, on 26 February 1776, the Continental Congress ordered “[t]hat Monsieur Mesplet, Printer, be engaged to go to Canada and there set up his Press and carry on the Printing business: and the Congress engage to defray the expense of transporting him and

154

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

his family and printing utensils to Canada and will moreover pay him the sum of Two hundred Dollars.” [16] The expedition by the committee was fruitless, and soon dissolved into a failure. The Continental Congress attempted to blame it and the entire military adventure—or misadventure—on several factors. The report of the committee concluded that:

For some reason, the “dance” between American, through the machinations of the Continental Congress, and issues relating to Canada, were not finished. In an effort to bring some structure to a “national” government, the Continental Congress enacted in 1777 the Articles of Confederation, which were ratified by the states by 1 March 1781. Strangely, the delegates drafting the Articles put in an article that referred to the potential of Canada, at some future point, joining the United States in a union. The article, XI, read: “Canada, acceding to this confederation, and joining in the measures of the United States, shall be admitted into and entitled to all the advantages of this union; but no other colony shall be admitted into the same, unless such admission be agreed to by nine states.” [19]

the short inlistments [sic] of the continental troops, in Canada, have been one great cause of the miscarriages there, by rendering unstable the number of men engaged in military enterprizes [sic], by making them disorderly and disobedient to their officers, and by precipitating the commanding officers into measures, which their prudence might have postponed, could they have relied on a longer continuance of their troops in service; [t]hat the want of hard money has been one other great source of the miscarriages in Canada, rendering the supplies of necessaries difficult and precarious, the establishment of proper magazines absolutely impracticable, and the pay of the troops of little use to them; [and] [t]hat a still greater and more fatal source of misfortune has been, the prevalence of the small pox [sic] in that army; a great proportion whereof has thereby been usually kept unfit for duty. [17] Historian William Riddell wrote in 1924, “All these had their influence; but the Committee failed to mention a more important cause for which Congress was itself responsible, namely the bitter attack upon the Roman Catholic religion in the Address to the People of Great Britain. No Address to Canadians, no special pleading of Commissioners, no assurance of Commanders, could persuade the clerical leaders in Canada that Congress did not mean what it said in that Address.” [18] As more British troops poured into Canada—for instance, Major John Burgoyne arrived in May 1776 with some 400,000 men—and forced the quicker withdrawal of the American army from Canada. On 18 June 1776, Benedict Arnold became the last American to pull out from Canadian soil. Like the helicopters that lifted off the US Embassy from Saigon in South Vietnam in April 1975, putting an end to American involvement in the Vietnam War, the crossing of Arnold and his fellow officers marked the end of the first invasion by the infant United States, an invasion that was authorized before the Declaration of Independence was even signed.

Even though that open invitation, if one may call it, remained a part of the Articles of Confederation until it was superseded by the US Constitution in 1789, the idea that Canada, or any part of it, would join the American union or send delegates to the Continental Congress, never seemed serious at the time, and anyone looking back in history can understand that any serious thought of such a joining at the time was pure folly. There was also no further attempts to invade Canada—at least not until the War of 1812—while the American states worked to end the fight against Great Britain and bring full sovereignty to the United States. Historian James Hutson, the Librarian of Congress, wrote in 1976, “That the definitive treaty [that ended the Revolutionary War] of 1783 left Canada in Britain’s hands was regarded as particularly [ominous] by American leaders, for, as [Alexander] Hamilton declared in The Federalist No. 6, ‘it has . . . become a sort of axiom in politics, that vicinity, or nearness of situation, constitutes nations natural enemies.’ Neighboring nations, asserted Edmund Randolph, ‘were bound to clash in “bloodshed and slaughter.”’ In 1778 Richard Henry Lee predicted that ‘British possession of Canada, N. Sco. [Nova Scotia] and the Floridas will inevitably produce” a ‘War in 7 years.’” [20] The war that came was the War of 1812, 29 years after the end of the American Revolution. Nevertheless, Canada remained, and remains, an independent nation from the United States. And since that war in the second decade of the

Capitals of the Continental Congress155 19th century, American and Canadian soldiers have fought side-by-side in the First and Second World Wars, in Korea, in Vietnam, and in the Persian Gulf War and the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq in the first years of the 21st century. See also: The Articles of Confederation; The Quebec Act

[1] The act is docketed in “Anno Regni Georgii III, Regis Magnæ Britanniæ, Franciæ, & Hiberniae, Decimo Quarto. At the Parliament Begun and Holden at Westminster, the Tenth day of May, Anno Domini, 1768, in the Eighth year of the Reign of our Sovereign Lord George the Third, by the Grace of God, of Great Britain, France, and Ireland, King, Defender of the Faith, &c., and From Thence Continued, by several prorogations, to the thirteenth day of January, 1774, being the Seventh Session of the Thirteenth Parliament of Great Britain” (London: Printed by Charles Eyre and William Strahan, Printers to the King’s most Excellent Majesty, 1774). [2] “Letter from London to a Gentleman in Philadelphia” in Peter Force, ed., “American Archives: Consisting of a Collection of Authentick Records, State Papers, Debates, and Letters and Other Notices of Publick Affairs, the Whole Forming a Documentary History of the Origin and Progress of the North America Colonies; of the Causes and Accomplishment of the American Revolution; and of the Constitution of Government for the United States, to the Final Ratification Thereof. In Six Series” (Washington, DC: Published by M. St. Clair Clarke and Peter Force; ten volumes, 1837-53), Series 4, I:628. [3] Note of the Reverend Samuel Langdon, in Martin Ignatius Joseph Griffin, “Catholics and the American Revolution” (Philadelphia: Published by the Author, 1911), 386. [4] In the original document, “To the oppressed Inhabitants of Canada” read “To the oppressed Province of Quebec.” [5] The entire letter, without the official congressional language, was first printed in Dunlap’s Pennsylvania Packet, or General Advertiser [Philadelphia], 19 June 1775, 4. [6] Entry of 31 May 1775, in Worthington C. Ford, ed., “Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789. Edited from the Original Records in the Library of Congress by Worthington Chauncey Ford, Chief, Division of Manuscripts” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; 34 volumes, 1904-37), II:68-70. [7] Diary entry of 8 September 1774, in Charles Francis Adams, “The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States: With a Life of the Author, Notes and Illustrations” (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown; two volumes, 1850), II:374. [8] John Brown (1757-1837),who was a delegate to the Continental Congress from Virginia, and later served as a US senator from Virginia under the US Constitution; see his biography under John Brown. Price is identified from several sources. Historian Benson J. Lossing writes of him, “Mr. James Price was a wealthy merchant of Montreal, and from the beginning [of the conflict between Great Britain and the colonies] had been an active friend of the republicans. ‘I must take this opportunity,’ wrote [General Richard] Montgomery to [Philip] Schuyler, ‘of acknowledging Price’s services. He has been a faithful friend to the cause indeed! His advice and assistance upon every occasion I have been much benefitted by; and when I consider that he had been the first mover of those measures which have been attended with so many and great advantages to the united colonies, I can’t help wishing the Congress to give him an ample testimony of their sense

of his generous and spirited exertions in the cause of freedom.’” See Lossing, “The Life and Times of Philip Schuyler” (New York: Sheldon & Company; two volumes, 1873), I:491. [9] John Adams to James Warren, 7 June 1775, in “Warren-Adams Letters: Being Chiefly a Correspondence Among John Adams, Samuel Adams, and James Warren” (Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society; two volumes, 1917-25), I:52-53. [10] Thompson, John Herd; and Stephen J. Randall, “Canada and the United States: Ambivalent Allies” (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 2002), 11. [11] Pell, John, “The Montgomery Expedition,” New York History, XV:2 (April 1934), 184-89. [12] Ford, Worthington Chauncey, ed., “Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789. Edited from the Original Records in the Library of Congress by Worthington Chauncey Ford, Chief, Division of Manuscripts” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; 34 volumes, 1904-37), II:109. [13] See Justin H. Smith, “Our Struggle for the Fourteenth Colony: Canada and the American Revolution” (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons; two volumes, 1907), I:481. [14] See “The Death of General Montgomery, in Storming the City of Quebec. A Tragedy, with an ODE, in Honour of the Pennsylvania Militia, and the Small Band of Regular Continental Troops, who sustained the Campaign, in the Depth of Winter, January, 1777, and Repulsed the British Forces from the Banks of the Delaware. By the Author of a Dramatic Piece, on the Battle of Bunker’s Hill, to Which are Added Elegiac Pieces, Commemorative of Distinguished Characters, by Different Gentlemen” (Norwich, CT: Printed by J. Trumbull, for and Sold by J. Douglass M’Dougall, on the West Side of the Great-Bridge, Providence, 1777). [15] John Adams to James Warren, 18 February 1776, in “Warren-Adams,” op. cit., I:206. [16] Fleury Mesplet (1734? 1735?-1794) was a French painter, born in Lyon, France, who came to the American colonies in 1774 and settled in Philadelphia, but moved to Montreal two years later and established a printing press there, the first of its kind. See R.W. McLachlan, “Fleury Mesplet, the First Printer at Montreal” Proceedings and Transactions of the Royal Society of Canada, 2nd Series, XII (1906), 197-309. [17] See Worthington C. Ford, ed., “Journals of the Continental Congress,” op. cit., V:617. [18] Riddell, William Renwick, “Benjamin Franklin’s Mission to Canada and the Causes of Its Failure,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, XLVIII:2 (1924), 141. [19] See the text of the article in Worthington C. Ford, ed., “Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789,” op. cit., IX:924. See also the text in “Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union Between the States of New Hampshire, Massachusetts Bay, Rhode Island, and Providence Plantations, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia” (Williamsburg, VA: Printed by Alexander Purdue, 1777), 4. [20] Hutson, James H., “Early American Diplomacy A Reappraisal,” The Quarterly Journal of the Library of Congress, XXXIII:3 (July 1976), 192-94.

Capitals of the Continental Congress In 1923, historian Charles Moore wrote in a history of Washington, DC, as the capital of the American nation, “Eight cities in four different States sheltered the Continental Congress and

156

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

its successor, the Congress of the Confederation. Driven from Philadelphia to Princeton by a mob of mutineer soldiers deliberately unrestrained by civic authority, Congress determined to create a capital under its own control.” [1] The Continental Congress, although it spent much of its time in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, nevertheless was moved—for various reasons—to several other cities in the colonies, and met in a total of nine different capitals, including Philadelphia.

time from 4 March 1777 to 18 September 1777. By early September 1777, the British army was once again threatening Philadelphia, so the delegates of the Continental Congress moved a short distance away, this time to the city of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, approximately 73 miles west. The Continental Congress sat there for only one day, 27 September 1777, at Lancaster’s Court House. From the Journals of the Continental Congress, we find that that single day was spent relating to a letter from General Horatio Gates and other American military leaders. [4]

The First Continental Congress met in Philadelphia from 5 September 1774 to 24 October 1774, in Carpenters’ Hall, a two-story Georgian structure in which the bottom floor was used for congressional debate, and the upper floors were used for offices and committee rooms for the Continental Congress. The following year, the Second Continental Congress met not in Carpenters’ Hall, but in the State House in Philadelphia. The Continental Congress met here for several sessions, notably from 10 May 1775 to 12 December 1776, during which the Declaration of Independence was signed. This building is now known as Independence Hall, and is a national landmark, operated by the National Park Service. After Philadelphia, the Continental Congress moved to Henry Fite’s House in Baltimore, where it sat from 20 December 1776 to 27 February 1777. Some sources denote it as the Henry Fite Home, and either is correct. Fite, a German emigrant, had a spacious home at the corner of Market Street (now Baltimore Street) and Liberty Street in that city. Built in 1770, the The Continental Congress voted to move the sessions of the body to Baltimore to escape a British invasion of Pennsylvania. John Clark Ridpath, writing in 1915, wrote of the home belonging not to “Henry Fite” but to “Jacob Fite.” He quoted John Adams in his private diary, writing of the move of the Continental Congress, “The Congress sit in the last house at the west end of Market Street, on the south side of the street; a long chamber with two fireplaces, two large closets, and two doors. The house belongs to a Quaker, who built it for a tavern.” [2] Charles Francis Adams, John Adams’ grandson, wrote in 1850, “Congress remained but a short time in Baltimore.” [3] Moving back to Philadelphia, the Continental Congress moved back to the State House, this

As the Continental Congress was meeting in session in Lancaster, the tide of the war was turning rather badly against the American forces, and the British moved further inland. Alarmed, the parley meeting in Lancaster broke up and moved further away, this time to York, Pennsylvania, 27 miles west of Lancaster, and 102 total miles from Philadelphia. The delegates assembled at the Court House in York, holding sessions there from 30 September 1777 until 27 June 1778. John Hancock, delegate from Massachusetts, wrote to his wife from “York Town” on 1 July 1778, “I write in great haste, being much Engag’d in the Business I came from York Town upon [missing text] have not got lodgings have some thoughts of Taking Mr. Williams’s house, if I should, and I find I must Tarry here, I shall Take the Liberty of Sending for you, but have come to no Determination. The Confederation will soon be ratified, and a new Congress will bring on the Conclusion of my Plan.” [5] Other delegates reacted to both their new surroundings as well as the military situation that put them there: Henry Laurens, delegate from South Carolina, wrote to Rawlins Lowndes, of South Carolina, on 15 July 1778: I had the Honor of addressing Your Excellency the 27th Ulto. Through the hands of Governor [Patrick] Henry via Williamsburg. On that day I left York Town and arrived here the 3oth[;] from various impediments I could not collect a sufficient number of States to form a Congress earlier than the 7th Instant; one was the offensiveness of the air in and around the State House, which the Enemy had made an [sic] Hospital and left it in a condition disgraceful to the Character of civility. Particularly they had opened a large square pit near the House, a receptacle for filth, into which they had also cast dead horses and the bodies of men who by the mercy of death had escaped

Capitals of the Continental Congress157 from their further cruelties. I cannot proceed to a new subject before I add a curse on their savage practices. Congress in consequence of this disappointment have been shuffling from Meeting House to College Hall the last seven days and have not performed half the business which might and ought to have been done, in a more commodious situation. [6] While in York, the delegates drafted the document that would become the Articles of Confederation and voted for its passage. The body also ratified a treaty with France on 6 February 1778, which brought that nation into the war and, eventually, caused the defeat of the British. On 18 June 1778, the delegates in York were informed that the British had been forced to evacuate Philadelphia, and, six days later, with a quorum present, the body voted to return to that city, the city of its ultimate birth. The members slowly made their way back to Philadelphia, for the proposed opening of the Continental Congress on 2 July 1778. The city had been ruined by the British; the delegates found many of the buildings, including Carpenters’ Hall as well as other structures, unfit for use, and they had to settle for a short stay in College Hall until needed repairs could be finished. This caused the receiving of Conrad Alexandre Gérard, the new French minister to the United States, to be delayed until a proper forum could be found. Delegate Josiah Bartlett of New Hampshire wrote to John Langdon of South Carolina from Philadelphia, on 13 July 1778: The Removal of Congress to this City has greatly retarded Business, we have not yet procured proper offices for our several Boards and Committees; hope in a few days we shall be better accommodated and attend with more alacrity to business. The Congress meets in the College Hall, as the State House was left by the enemy in a most filthy & sordid situation, as were many of the public and private Buildings in the City. Some of the genteel Houses were used for Stables and Holes cut in the Parlor floors & their Dung shoveled into the Cellars. The Country Northward of the City for several Miles is one common waste. The Houses burnt, the Fruit Trees & others cut down & carried off, fences carried away, Gardens and Orchards destroyed, Mr. Dickinson & Morris’s fine seats all Demolished. In short, I could hardly find the great Road that used to pass that way. The enemy built a strong abbattee with the Fruit and other trees from

the Delaware to Schuylkill & at about 40 or 50 Rods Distance along the abbattee a Quadrangular Fort for Cannon & a number of redoubts for small arms, the same on the several eminences along the Schuylkill [River] against the City. [7] The Continental Congress met here, in College Hall, from 2 July 1778 until 21 June 1783. Histories of the Continental Congress note that those Philadelphia meeting places were the last under a government with no structure; after that point, the capitals are denoted as having been parleys of “Congress under the Articles of Confederation.” Despite the high language and the change in attitude, the body was, from that day forward, formally known as “The United States in Congress Assembled.” Nevertheless, the Continental Congress continued to meet in the State House until the Continental Congress had to move to Princeton, New Jersey, in June 1783, due not to British troops but to American soldiers, leading a potential mutiny and violence. By early 1783, the war with Great Britain was over, even though a formal peace treaty had yet been signed. The colonies were in a particularly bad economic situation, and many if not most of the troops in the Continental Army had not been paid for their service. Rhode Island was near revolution itself over high taxes; as was Massachusetts, where a farmers’ insurrection, known as Shays’ Rebellion, had closed the state’s courts and threatened to spiral out of control. A group of mutineer American troops marched on Philadelphia, demanding their pay or the arrest—and possibly worse—of the delegates assembled. Historian Varnum Lansing Collins, in a history of the Continental Congress in Princeton, wrote in 1908, “The Mutiny of the Pennsylvania Line in June, 1783, and the resulting session of the Continental Congress at Princeton do not bulk large in a general survey of the American Revolution; and accordingly writers on that portion of American history have given scarcely more than passing mention to the incidents leading to the flight of Congress from Philadelphia, and almost without exception have dismissed the session at Princeton with few words. But . . . it would be difficult to find incidents more significant of the times than those which drove Congress from Philadelphia.” [8] President of the Congress Elias Boudinot called for the meeting to adjourn, and for the members

158

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

to quickly leave the city for another; Princeton, New Jersey, was selected. The members then voted to direct General George Washington, the head of the Continental Army, to move troops towards Philadelphia to quell the mutiny and make arrests. Boudinot wrote to his brother, Elisha, on 23 June 1783:

van Berckel, of the Netherlands, who on that date presented his credentials as the minister plenipotentiary to the United States, the first foreign diplomat assigned to the country. (For some reason, most historians do not count Conrad Alexandre Gerard de Reyenval, the Minister Plenipotentiary from France, who presented his credentials in August 1778, and remained on American soil until replaced the following year by Anne Cesar Chevalier de la Luzerne, who presented his credentials on 4 November 1779 and remained in America until 1784.) [11] James Madison, delegate from Virginia, was embarrassed by the spectacle of delegates to a national congress receiving a foreign diplomat while on the run from a mutiny. He wrote to Edmund Randolph on 13 October 1783, “Mr. Van Berkel [sic] arrived a few days [remainder of text illegible]. Congs are in a charming situation to receive him, being in an obscure village undetermined where they will spend the Winter, and without a Minister of F[oreign] A[ffairs].” [12] In the end, not much was accomplished in Princeton; historian Edmund Cody Burnett wrote in a 1941 history of the Continental Congress, “Notwithstanding the pleasantness and airiness of Princeton, attendance in Congress as exceedingly slack, much of the time no more than six states represented.” [13]

I have only a moment to inform you that there has been a most dangerous Insurrection and meeting among a few Soldiers in the Barracks here about 3 or 400 surrounded Congress and the Supreme Executive Council, and kept us Prisoners in a manner near 3 hours, tho’ they offered no insult personally. To my great mortification, not a citizen came to our assistance. The President and Council have not firmness enough to call out the Militia and allege as a reason that they would not obey them. In short the political manoeuvers here, previous to the important Events of next October entirely unhinge Government. This handful of Mutineers continue still with Arms in their hands and are privately supported, and it is well if we are not all Prisoners in a short time. Congress will not meet here, but have authorized me to change their place of Residence. I mean to adjourn to Princeton if the Inhabitants of Jersey will protect us. I have wrote to the Governor particularly. I wish you could get your Troop of Horse to offer their aid and be ready if necessary to meet us at Princeton on Saturday or Sunday next if required. [9] The delegates moved to Princeton, where they established their sessions in Prospect Hall, later Nassau Hall, on the campus of what is now Princeton University, then Princeton College. Princeton at the time was one of the centers for higher learning, first in the colonies and then in the infant American nation. The Continental Congress sat here from 30 June 1783 until 4 November 1783. Built between 1754 and 1756, Prospect Hall was the center of the college, serving, during the American Revolution as a hospital for wounded soldiers, as a commissary, and even as a prison for captured British soldiers. [10] The delegates met in the spacious college library, near to the front entrance of the building. Not much in the way of legislation happened while the Continental Congress sat in Princeton; one important measure, however, did take place: on 31 October 1783, Peter John

After leaving Princeton, the delegates, almost as if on a calliope, moved not back to Philadelphia, but back to Annapolis, settling in at the State House from 26 November 1783 to 19 August 1784. The Continental Congress then moved to Trenton, the capital of New Jersey, and opened their debates in a building known as the “French Arms Tavern.” Situated at the southwestern corner of King Street (now Warren Street) and Second Street (now State Street), the building had a ground floor, known a the “Long Room,” which measured 43 feet by 20 feet; the delegates were able to go into the tavern’s basement where its bar was contained. Some of the delegates may have slept, if they lacked lodging, in the third floor upstairs. The delegates only met here from 1 November until 24 December 1784; however, on the first day, there were only seven members present, and it was not until 30 November, nearly a full month later, that a quorum could be established.

Capitals of the Continental Congress159 On 23 December 1784, following a lengthy debate, the remaining members of the Continental Congress passed a resolution—one which would change American history. The resolution was one “respecting the erecting [of] buildings for the use of Congress . . . that for this purpose, three commissioners be appointed, with full powers to lay not a district, of not less than two nor exceeding three miles square, on the banks of either side of the Delaware [River], not more than eight miles above or below the lower hills thereof, for a federal town.” [14] This “federal town” would be the impetus for the establishment of what eventually would become Washington, DC. But the establishment of just such a “national capital” was years away, at best—and the Continental Congress needed a home, now. Following the adjournment of Congress for the Christmas holidays on 24 December 1784, the delegates moved to New York City, where they opened their debates in City Hall, now called “Federal Hall,” located at 26 Wall Street near the Stock Exchange. The building is known today for having a large statue of George Washington in front of its edifice. The original structure is long gone; the original was begun in 1699 and completed in 1702. The one that the delegates sat in was the third incarnation of that vaunted building, situated at the corner of Nassau and Wall Streets. Before the Continental Congress sat there for a short period of time, the building, or, perhaps better, the site, was where the trial of printer John Peter Zenger was held in 1735 on charges of seditious libel; Zenger was acquitted of defaming the Royal Governor of New York, setting the precedent for free speech in the colonies, and, later, the United States that would be embodied in the First Amendment of the US Constitution. In 1765, a number of delegates from the colonies assembled in the building to hold what has become known as The Stamp Act Congress, which debated potential reactions to the British government enforcing the Stamp Act, which imposed a series of economic penalties against stamps, paper, and other goods shipped to the colonies from England. Even as the Continental Congress was sitting in Trenton, the officials of the city of New York offered the City Hall building for the use of the group. Historian Stanley Klos wrote, “In January of 1785, the [Continental Congress] conducted

their meetings on the second floor [of City Hall] which was once the room of the NY Supreme Court. A room adjoining the meeting room was still occupied ‘and the noise of the scholars in their recitations was so annoying as to disturb the debates. Complaint being made of this, the school was discontinued.” [15] Perhaps finding the facilities too constricting, the delegates moved to Fraunces Tavern in New York City, located at the southeast corner of Great Dock (now Pearl) Street and Broad Street. The delegates perhaps chose this new location because, upon originally moving to the city, the Department of Foreign Affairs had immediately located its offices not in City Hall but in Fraunces Tavern. Another potential reason was that on 6 May 1776, on their way from Massachusetts to Philadelphia to the First Continental Congress, John Adams and his fellow delegates stopped and dined and rested for the night at the tavern. Owned by tavernkeeper Samuel Fraunces (c.1722-1795), it was originally built in 1719 as a home for the family of merchant Stephan Delancey; Fraunces purchased it and turned it into a tavern and inn. It was a center of meetings long before the Continental Congress met there. Washington also gave his “Farewell Address” to his troops at the Fraunces Tavern when he retired from the Continental Army in 1783. In this final home of the Continental Congress, the most important measure advocated by the delegates was the calling of a convention, to be held in Philadelphia, to reform the Articles of Confederation. The “national government,” if one could call it that, had been rendered powerless by the Articles, and a consensus on what to do for all of the states caused the government to be virtually moribund. Tax and other laws passed by the Continental Congress on the states were ignored, and there was no mechanism to force them to comply. Delegate Rufus King of Massachusetts noted on 30 April 1786 that because many of the states had by now disregarded the Continental Congress as a useless body, in the past six months the Congress could only muster a quorum of nine states only for three total days. Then, New Jersey threatened to withdraw all funds being sent to the Continental Congress. George Washington warned the delegates that if the

160

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Articles were not reformed, that there would be “thirteen sovereignties . . . all tugging at the federal head [and] will soon bring ruin on the whole.” Responding to growing pressure to do something to fix the situation that was spiraling out of control, on 3 May 1786, delegate Charles Pinckney of South Carolina introduced a resolution in the Continental Congress calling for a full revision of the Articles. Delegate James Madison of Virginia wrote, “Mr. C. Pinkney [sic], a member from South-Carolina laid before the house the draught [draft] of a federal Government which he had prepared to be agreed upon between the free and independent States of America. Mr. P.[‘s] plan ordered that the same be referred to the Committee of the [W]hole appointed to consider the State of the American Union.” [16] Judge Robert Yates (1738-1801) added that “[he] had reduced his ideas of a new government to a system, which he read, and confessed that it was grounded on the same principle as of the above resolutions [eventually known as The Virginia Plan].”

Historian Henry Russell Drowne wrote in 1919, “In 1785 Fraunces, now having owned the Tavern for some twenty-three years, sold it for nineteen hundred and fifty pounds to George Powers, a butcher of Brooklyn, and retired to country life in New Jersey.” [17] Today, Fraunces Tavern is a landmark, the oldest remaining structure in New York City. Restored to its former glory, in 1907 a museum opened on the site, still open to tourists and other visitors.

Instead of a “full revision” to the Articles, there was a call for a convention to be held in Annapolis, Maryland, to address trade disputes among the states, but even though all of the states were invited, only five—Delaware, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Virginia—sent delegates. These delegates called for a convention to be held in Philadelphia to completely change the Articles and establish a new federal government with centralized powers. That parley, held in the summer of 1787 even as the delegates to the Continental Congress held court in New York City, eventually drafted the document that would become the US Constitution. The final days of the Continental Congress were held in the winter of 1788. A plan for national elections held in November of that year sent representatives to a new US House of Representatives and US Senate. On 4 March 1789, the Continental Congress was no more, and the US Congress met—ironically—in Fraunces Tavern. George Washington, elected as the first president under the Constitution, took the oath of office that day. New York City served as the nation’s first “capital,” until the mechanisms of government moved to Washington, DC, in 1800.

Meetings of The Continental Congress The First Continental Congress: Philadelphia: Carpenter’s Hall 5 September 1774-24 October 1774 The Second Continental Congress: Philadelphia: State House 10 May 1775-12 December 1776 Baltimore: Henry Fite’s House 20 December 1776-27 February 1777 Philadelphia: State House 4 March 1777-18 September 1777 Lancaster, Pennsylvania: Court House 27 September 1777 York, Pennsylvania: Court House 30 September 1777-27 June 1778 Philadelphia: College Hall & State House 2 July 1778-1 March 1781 The Continental Congress under the Articles of Confederation: Philadelphia: State House 1 March 1781-21 June 1783 Princeton, New Jersey: “Prospect Hall” (later Nassau Hall) 30 June 1783-4 November 1783 Annapolis, Maryland: State House 26 November 1783-19 August 1784 Trenton, New Jersey: French Arms Tavern 1 November 1784-24 December 1784 New York City: City Hall; then, Fraunces Tavern 11 January 1785-Autumn 1788 See also: Annapolis State House; Carpenters’ Hall; Fraunces Tavern; The Henry Fite

William Carmichael (c. 1738–1795)161 House; Lancaster Court House; Nassau Hall, Princeton, New Jersey; New York City, City Hall; Independence Hall

[1] Moore, Charles, “The Transformation of Washington: A Glance the History and Along the Vista of the Future of the Nation’s Capital,” National Geographic Magazine, XLIII:6 (June 1923), 569. [2] Ridpath, John Clark, “The New Complete History of the United States of America” (Chicago: Elliott-Madison Co.; 12 volumes, 1905-07), IV:1712. [3] Adams, Charles Francis, “The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States: With a Life of the Author, Notes and Illustrations” (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown; two volumes, 1850), I:266. [4] Ford, Worthington C., ed., “Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789. Edited from the Original Records in the Library of Congress by Worthington Chauncey Ford, Chief, Division of Manuscripts” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; 34 volumes, 1904-37), VIII:755. [5] John Hancock to Dorothy Hancock, 1 July 1778, in Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), III:319. [6] Henry Laurens to Rawlins Lowndes, 15 July 1778, in ibid., III:332-33. [7] Josiah Bartlett to John Langdon, 13 July 1778, in ibid., III:328-29. [8] Collins, Varnum Lansing, “The Continental Congress at Princeton” (Princeton, NJ: The University Library, 1908), vii. [9] Elias Boudinot to Elisha Boudinot, 23 June 1783, in Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VII:195. [10] “Nassau Hall” in Gary B. Nash, “Landmarks of the ­American Revolution” (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2003), 118. [11] Information on Peter John van Berckel, Conrad Alexandre de Reyneval, and Anne Cesar Chevalier de la Luzerne in Elmer Plischke, “US Department of State: A Reference History” (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1999), 16. [12] James Madison to Edmund Randolph, 13 October 1783, in Gaillard Hunt, ed., “The Writings of James Madison: Comprising His Public Papers and His Private Correspondence, Including Numerous Letters and Documents Now for the First Time Printed” (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons; nine volumes, 1900-10), II:27. [13] Burnett, Edmund Cody, “The Continental Congress” (New York: The Macmillan Co., 1941), 580. [14] Resolution of 23 December 1784, in Worthington C. Ford, ed., “Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789. Edited from the Original Records in the Library of Congress by Worthington Chauncey Ford, Chief, Division of Manuscripts” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; 34 volumes, 1904-37), XXVII:704. [15] Klos, Stanley Yavneh, “America’s Four Republics: The More or Less United States” (Cedar Key, Florida: ROI.us Corporation, 2012), 146-47. [16] Madison notes and Yates’ letter in Marty D. Matthews, “Forgotten Founde: The Life and Times of Charles Pinckney” (Columbia: The University of South Carolina Press, 2004), 41. [17] Drowne, Henry Russell, “A Sketch of Fraunces Tavern, and Thomas Connected with Its History” (New York: Published for Fraunces Tavern, 1919), 18.

William Carmichael (c. 1738–1795)

Although a delegate to the Continental Congress (1778-79), William Carmichael is better known for his role as a diplomat, serving as the assistant to Silas Deane, the secret agent of the Continental Congress in Paris in the early years of the American Revolution. Carmichael later served in other diplomatic capacities, including as the American representative in Berlin and a secretary to the American Commissioners Negotiating Peace in Paris in 1777. One of the few members of the Continental Congress to die abroad, Carmichael is buried in Spain. Carmichael was born at his family’s estate, “Round Top,” in Queen Anne’s County, Maryland. According to his official congressional biography, his date of birth is unknown [1]; at the same time, one biography, in the series the American National Biography, says that “the son of William Carmichael, a Scottish immigrant, and Brooke (maiden name unknown), a niece of the second wife of Richard Bennett, a wealthy landowner.” [2] However, a Carmichael family tree, done by ancestors of this Carmichael family, states that William Carmichael, the father, was born in Edinburgh, Scotland, in

162

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

1692; he married a woman, Elizabeth (no maiden name known), and had six children: three sons and three girls, including William Carmichael, who this tree states was born about 1738. The father then married Ann Brooke, the daughter of Roger Brooke and Elizabeth (née Hutchins) Brooke, about 1750. William Carmichael died in Queen Anne’s County in 1769. Thus, according to this family, his son William Carmichael, was born about 1738, and his mother was Elizabeth Carmichael, not Anne (Brooke) Carmichael, his father’s second wife. [3] All sources agree that the earliest of William Carmichael’s education is unknown; however, he did study the law, and was admitted at some point to the Maryland colonial bar, and he opened up a practice in Centerville, Maryland.

In 1777, Carmichael was named as the assistant to the commissioners negotiating a treaty of amity with France, and headquartered in Paris: The three commissioners, sent by the Continental Congress, were Benjamin Franklin, Arthur Lee, and Silas Deane. However, according to Carmichael’s official congressional biography, he did not serve in this capacity; instead, he returned to the United States. Ralph Izard, of South Carolina, wrote to Henry Laurens from Paris on 22 December 1777, “My friend Mr. Carmichael will probably pay a visit to whatever Town the Congress may be sitting at upon his arrival in America. As I am sure that a mutual satisfaction will be the consequence of your acquaintance I take the liberty of introducing him to you. He has been employed here confidentially on the public service, and nobody can give you a better account of the state of affairs in this part of the World than he can. You may safely confer with him, as he is warmly attached to the cause of his country Mrs Izard desires her Compliments.” [4] Carmichael apparently returned to the United States in May 1778.

Through the wealth left to his family from his father’s second wife, Ann Brooke Carmichael, William Carmichael was able to travel abroad. When the American Revolution broke out, Carmichael was in London. Realizing that this thirtyish young man of Scottish heritage was in the capital of the enemy, the Continental Congress employed him as a secret agent to spy and see what he could find to help the patriot cause. Into the story now comes Silas Deane. Deane, had served in the First Continental Congress as a delegate from Connecticut and ridden to Philadelphia with John Adams of Massachusetts, helped establish the Continental Navy in an attempt to aid both the American side and his own colony by giving work to Connecticut shipbuilders at New London. Deane also served as a member of the secret Committee of Correspondence, which wanted to enlist the assistance of foreign nations, starting with France, to both fight England while at the same time lending needed financial aid and trade to the colonies. With this latter work, Deane was sent to France to get just such help, and William Carmichael, in London, was dispatched to Paris to serve as Deane’s secretary and assistant. Working closely with Deane, as well as the first US Ambassador to France, Benjamin Franklin, Carmichael spoke at length with a young French military officer, the Marquis de Lafayette, and convinced him both to go to America to fight and to use his influence to get France in the war on the side of the colonies.

On 13 November 1778, the Maryland legislature elected Carmichael as a delegate to the Continental Congress, “with no time limit specified,” which was highly unusual, as nearly every other delegate elected to any of the sessions of the Continental Congress were elected either for a year, or for some other specified period of time. He served in that body for a short tenure: only from 19 November to 31 December 1778. Although no correspondence to or from him during this period survives, historian Edmund Cody Burnett does include two interesting documents in his collects of the Letters of the Members of the Continental Congress. According to these two documents, Carmichael did attend a session of the Continental Congress on 28 September 1778, when the members questioned him relating to alleged charges against Silas Deane which Carmichael himself had lodged with the Continental Congress. The Journals of the Continental Congress denote the entering of charges by Carmichael against Deane, dated 18 September 1778: The committee to whom were referred the letters from the Hon. Arthur Lee, Esq. of 6th, 15, and 31 January, 1778, and the letter of 16 January, 1778, from the Hon. Benjamin Franklin and Silas Deane, brought in a report, which was read; Whereupon,

William Carmichael (c. 1738–1795)163 A member in his place informed the house, that he had information that Mr. Carmichael had charged Mr. Deane with misapplication of the public finances, &c. Being called upon to reduce this information to writing, he delivering in a writing, as follows: “R.H. Lee is informed that Mr. Carmichael did some time in the last spring or winter say in Nantes that he knew Mr. Deane had misapplied the public money, and that Mr. Carmichael did in strong terms reprobate Mr. Deane’s conduct both in his public and private character; That Mr. Carmichael said an open rupture had taken place between Mr. Arthur Lee and the gentlemen at Passy; that they had come to a resolution to do business without consulting Mr. Lee on any occasion, and that he (Mr. Carmichael) knows the excuse will be made to Congress that the French ministry have desired it, tho’ he does not doubt that desire has arose from Mr. Deane’s insinuations. That Mr. Carmichael condemned Mr. Deane’s conduct towards Mr. Lee and was pointedly severe in reprobating the system and measures that he had pursued in his public character, and which he said he would fully unfold when he came to America.” [5] Once in front of the members with whom he would serve alongside later that same year, Carmichael was questioned about the allegations he raised. The examination is related here verbatim: Mr. Carmichael having before taking the Oath [to give true answers, to speak the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth, touching such questions as shall be asked,] intimated that as he might be embarrassed by the Novelty of his Situation he wished to have the Questions propounded to him in Writing and that his Answers might be received in Writing that he might answer with that Clearness and Precision which he would wish. Ordered, That Mr. Carmichael be informed that the Questions will be propounded to him by the Chair and that he is to answer viva voce but that if he should find himself embarrassed Time will be given him in the House for Recollection. [6] The examination then continued later that same day, 28 September 1778: Septr. 28, 1778. Mr. Carmichael called in and sworn. Q. At what time did you become acquainted with Mr. Deane[.]

A. In the month of July or Aug. 1776[.] Q. Did Mr. D acquaint you with the nature of his mission to France, and at w’t [what] time[?] A. I was introduced to Mr. D by Mr. [John] Rogers of Maryland who informed him I was zealously attached to the int. of Am., and some time after Mr. Deane acquainted me with the nature of his Mission. Q. How long after being introduced to Mr. D. were you acquainted with the Nature of his Mission? A. I cannot recollect precisely[.] Q. Did you assist Mr. D in his public business[?] A. On knowing the nature of his mission I offered to assist Mr. D in any way in my power while I was in France[.] Q. Did Mr. D accept your offer[.] A. He did. Q. In what respect did you assist Mr. Deane? A. In various respects; I assisted him [in] copying letters and in conversations. Q. During the time you assisted Mr. D, were you acquainted with the rec[eipt] and expenditure of public monies w’ch [which] passed through his hand? A. I knew Mr. D. recd. money and made purchases and contracts on the public account but as I never wished to charge myself or make myself responsible where I co’d have no merit, I did not pay sufficient attention to answer with precision[.] Q. Do you know whether Mr. Deane misapplied the public money, or converted any of it to his own use[.] A. My answer to the former qu. will show that I am not an adequate judge of the application of public money and can’t answer with precision; at the same time wd. [would] entreat that the House wd. not put an interpretation on my silence to the prejudice of any person whatever[.] Q. From the knowledge you had of Mr. Deane’s transactions, do you recollect any instance which you apprehended to be a misapplication of the public money.

164

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

A. I beg to know whether I am to answer from my knowledge or suppositions or opinions in my own mind.

Q. Are you clear there were more vessels than one bought in the Mediter[ranean?]

Ordered That Mr. C. withdraw. [7]

A. There was but one intended to be bought but the person employed bought two as I understood.

The questioning continued on 30 September:

Q. Who compelled the giving up of the vessels[?]

Wednesda[y] The last question proposed. [Directed to William Carmichael.]

A. I understood the State of Genoa had interposed and compelled the purchaser to restore them to the orig[inal] proprietors[.]

Although I think the house by their determination has put me into a very delicate and to me disagreeable situation, as I am desirous of giving the house every information, I am ready to answer the question, provided the question relates to apprehensions that may have arisen on w[ha]t I conceived to be fact at the time. A. I do. Q. What were the instances[?] A. The instance I allude to particularly was the equipping a vessel of war where I apprehended the public money had been appropriated to private uses[.] Q. What vessel was it you allude to[?] A. It was a vessel intended to be equipped in the Mediterranean partly at the expence of the public, and partly of individuals[.] Q. The name of the Capt and of the vessel[?] A. The name of the capt [sic] intended to be employed was Bell. As there were vessels bought which were afterwards obliged to be given up there was no name given any of them that I recollect[.] Q. From w[ha]t circumstances do. you apprehend that there was a misap[plication?] A. From this circumstance that Mr. D. having recd. Money from M. Beaumarchais which I conceived to be public money did appropriate it to private uses, that is in the purchase of those vessels as far as regarded individuals[.] Q. Why did you suppose that to be public Money[?] A. Because M. Beaumarchais, having as I apprehended advanced before to the public to a large amount, I thought it was likewise on the public credit he advanced this sum

Q. What were the names of private persons that were to have been concerned w[it]h the public in those vessels? [8] A. I do not recollect all the private names[.] Q. Do you recollect any[?] A. I understood M. Beaumarchais was to have been concerned[.] Q. Do you recollect any other[?] A. I understood that Mr. Thomas Morris was to have been concerned for others, but who those others were I cannot positively say[.] Q. Was Mr. Deane to have been concerned in his private capacity[?] A. I do not know that he was[.] Q. Did you understand or were you informed that Mr. D. was to have been concerned in his private capacity[?] A. I did not receive such information as to induce me to believe he was concerned[.] Q. If you did not believe that Mr. D. was concerned in his private capacity in those vessels what did you mean when you said that you apprehended the public money was applied to private purposes in that instance[?] A. I meant that I thought Mr. D. had applied the public money to supply the deficiencies of the money that others were to have advanced but did not towards the purpose of fitting out these vessels[.] Q. On what grounds did you think that Mr. D. meant to supply those deficiencies[?] A. From conversations with diverse persons and other occurrences at that period[.]

William Carmichael (c. 1738–1795)165 The question being read, On what grounds etc., and the answer thereto, Mr. C. gave this explanation[:] The idea I meant to convey to the house was this—I apprehended Mr. Deane had applied the money which I conceived to be public to a private use. I judge that I had my information of Mr. Dean’s rect. [receipt] of the money from Mr. Beaumarcha[i]s, Mr. Deane himself and others. But that this information was merely of the fact that lie received it, not whether it was public or private money which he had received and so applied. Q. What persons[?] A. I apprehend Mr. D. and Mr. Beaumarchais were two of the persons that informed me at that time[.] Q. Were the other Commissioners or either of them acquainted with this transaction[?] A. I apprehend Dr. Franklin was acquainted with the fitting out these vessels. I cannot charge my memory whether Mr. A. Lee was then at Paris or not[.] Q. Are you sure that Mr. D. and Mr. B. were two of the persons with whom you had the conversations you before mentioned. The house having agreed that I should answer from my apprehensions I have answered so, not that I am certain as to the fact. I know from conversations with Mr. B. that he advanced sums of Money. I knew from Mr. D. that he had rcd. sums and from these and other circumstances I apprehended there was to be a misapplication of public money, but I am not certain. A. I apprehend from the nature of the transaction it must have been these persons but I cannot be sure[.] Q. Had you reason to believe from conversations with other persons or other occurrences that Mr. Deane applied public money to supply the deficienc[iles of those who were to have advanced but did not towards the purpose of fitting out those vessels in the Mediterranean[?] A. I cannot at present absolutely recollect, but probably there might have been other occurrences at the time which I do not now recollect that induced me to apprehend an application of the money to supply of those deficiencies[.]

Q. Do you know whether the particular sum you allude to was charged by Mr. Beaumarchais to the united States[?] A. Since my arrival in this country I have understood from Mr. de Francy the agent of Mr. Beaumarchais that this particular sum was lent by Mr. B. to Mr. Deane on his private account Mr. Francy is in this country and he can give more full information 6 Q. By Mr. Adams. Whether from conversation with other persons or from other occurrences, he had reason to believe Mr. Deane had advanced or was to have advanced moneys to make up these deficiencies? A. I cannot at present absolutely charge my recollection with what I had reason to believe at that time-probably there might have been other occurrences which may have induced me to apprehend a misapplication of the money upon that occasion. Q. By Mr. Duer. Do you know that the particular sum you allude to was charged by M. Beaumarchais to the United States? A. Since my arrival in this country, by conversation with the agent of M. Beaumarchais, I have reason to believe the particular sum was charged by M. Beaumarchais to Mr. Deane’s private account. M. Francis is now in the country and can answer the question. Q. Did you know or believe that Mr. D. applied the public money to the paym[en]t of such parts of those vessels as were to have been the property of the public. A. I do not know, I believe that Mr. D. wd. have applied the public money to that purpose but cannot say that he did Ordered to withdraw To have notice at what hour to attend on friday after noon. [9] Following his service in the Continental Congress, Carmichael left the United States, and it is quite possible that he never returned, because there is no record of him visiting America again. In September 1779 he was sent to Spain, to serve as the secretary of the American legation there. On 27 January 1780, The Pennsylvania Packet reported that “at a meeting of the American Philosophical Society, the 21st inst. the following

166

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Gentlemen were chosen Members, viz.,” and then listed “The Honorable William Carmichael, Esq; Secretary of the Embassy to the Court of Madrid.” [10]

crewmates although they depended on some of them for their own support.” [12]

The Department of Foreign Affairs of the Continental Congress, the forerunner under the Articles of Confederation of the Department of State under the US Constitution, named Carmichael as the Chargé d’Affaires to Madrid, Spain, and he served from 20 April 1782 until May 1794. Those dates, which come from Carmichael’s official congressional biography, may be wrong: for instance, The Salem Gazette of Massachusetts reported on 12 December 1783 from Madrid, that “Mr. William Carmichael, Charge des Affairs [sic] from the United States of America has been presented to the King and Royal Family by the Count de Florida.— This is the first public proof of our Court’s acknowledging the independency of the United States.” [11] Historian Christine Sears captures the feeling of the period, as well as the work that Carmichael had to do while in Madrid, dealing specifically with the problems arising from the attacks on American ships and crew by the Barbary pirates in what is now Algeria in northern Africa. Sears wrote, “Officers, particularly captains, were earmarked for papaluna status from the start. Captains were rarely sent to a bagnio; instead, European consuls, notified when new captures were brought in, arranged housing for them. In 1785, for example, William Carmichael, the American chargé d’affaires in Madrid, authorized the Spanish consul, Miguel de Expilly, to rent a small house for just-captured American captains and mates in Algiers.” She added, “William Carmichael . . . rescued the captains from this demeaning domestic service. He rented a small house for the American captains and mates where they lived ‘very comfortably for some time’ because of the ‘supplies furnished them by Mr. Carmichael’ and ‘their friends in the palace,’ that is, fellow slaves. Carmichael funneled money from the United States to the men, but they needed additional support from men like mariner [James L.] Cathcart who held status in the Algerian slaves system. Thus shielded from the bagnios, they did little to assist their former

With the ratification of the US Constitution, the US Department of State was established. According to that government department, Carmichael was appointed by President John Adams as the second Chargé d’Affaires to Spain, as opposed to the Chargé d’Affaires to Madrid under the Articles of Confederation, to replace John Jay on 20 April 1790, with his term of office ended when he presented his certificate of recall on 5 September 1794. According to Carmichael’s State Department biography, “No report has been found concerning Carmichael’s presentation of credentials as Chargé d’Affaires en titre; he had already been received as Chargé d’Affaires ad interim, Feb 20, 1783.” [13] The confirmation of this comes from several sources: for instance, The Providence Gazette of Rhode Island reported on 4 February 1792, “William Carmichael and William Shorts, Esquires, are appoint Commissioners, on the Part of the United States, for negotiating a Treaty of Convention relative to the Navigation of the Mississippi, with such Commissioners as are or may be authorized thereto by his Catholic Majesty.” [14] Tensions between the United States and what is now Algeria and the Barbary pirates rose to such a fever pitch by September 1793 that Carmichael was in the middle of the situation. A series of pieces of correspondence, appearing in the nation’s newspapers in December 1793, between Capt. John Lamb (c. 1740-1804), a ship’s captain whose ships plied the merchant trade off the coast of Spain (he would die there in 1804 in a shipwreck), and Carmichael, over the actions by the Dey of Algiers, were published. Lamb wrote to Carmichael from Cadiz, Spain, “A report prevails, that America is on the eve of a war with Spain: This report has so far affected the American interest here, as to stop a number of American ships taking in their freights, high ships are partly loade. As we have no representation here, we beg of you to give us, every post, the best information on the subject, so that we may govern ourselves accordingly.” Carmichael quickly replied from Madrid on 13 September, “I received your letter of the 6th, in course of the only one I received,

William Carmichael (c. 1738–1795)167 except that of Mr. Jacquin [15], on this head. I can venture to assure you, and the entire of the American gentlemen you mention, that there is no danger, for the present. The belligerent power will take all vessels bound to and from France, as they had already done, before the Convention between Spain and Great-Britain. What may be done in America I know not; but here we have never had the least idea of hostility insinuated. In the mean time prudence must dictate to those interested, the measures most proper to avoid the sudden and impenetrable calamities of modern policy, which fall on the innocent as well as the guilty. You can ask no favour of me; to serve you and the rest of my countrymen is my duty.” Lamb communicated several days later, on 20 September, with additional concerns. “This afternoon was brought into this port, two American ships as prizes to a Spanish frigate, taken ten days out, from Bordeaux, said to have French property on board. The people are detained on board the frigate, have been all stripped and plundered— no person suffered to go on board, or to write to them, on board their ships. I have been induced to undertake their business, and make their situation known to you. Please write to me officially, on the subject.” There is no published reply from Carmichael, but Lamb wrote a follow-up letter, dated 20 September: “I wrote you last post concerning the two ships brought into this port—I was in hopes to give you a more particular account of them: But it is impossible to have any admittance. I have been on board the Commodore, with the most reputable merchants of this place, begging leave to all on the Captain of the two vessels, but was refused. The orders from the CaptainGeneral is, that no boat shall approach the ships, nor letters sent on board; so that it is impossible to find their real situation; but the ships are large an valuable—and are, the ship Greenway, of Boston, Capt. Amos Oardman; and ___ . Capt. Nathaniel Jones, of Portland, landed with French manufactured goods.” [16] William Carmichael died suddenly in Madrid on 9 February 1795. He was buried in a burial plot across from a Roman Catholic Church in Madrid. The Philadelphia Gazette reported in their edition of 1 May 1795, “In our paper of yesterday, we, with great affliction, announced

to our fellow citizens, the death of William Carmichael, Esq; the representative of the United States at the court [sic] of Spain. The following just tribute of respect to the memory of this much-lamented patrior [sic], will no doubt prove acceptable to our readers.” The tribute continued, “In his public character, he did honor to his country, and in his private conduct, was a polite gentleman, and an exception to mankind in general . . . The thanks he had several times received from Congress, for the faithful discharge of his duty, will justify the former assertion—whilst gratitude will oblige every American citizen, who ha visited Madrid, to confer the latter.” [17]

[1] Carmichael official congressional biography, online at http:// bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=C000161. [2] Crompton, Samuel Willard, “William Carmichael” in John A. Garraty and Mark C. Carnes, gen. eds., “American National Biography” (New York: Oxford University Press; 24 volumes, 1999), IV:407. [3] See “The Carmichael Family,” online at http://homepages. rootsweb.ancestry.com/~marshall/esmd86.htm. Of course, such info must be handled with much caution, but this one has specific facts regarding people who are known to be involved in William Carmichael’s life. [4] Ralph Izard to Henry Laurens, 22 December 1777, in “IzardLaurens Correspondence, From [the] South Carolina Historical Society Collection,” The South Carolina Historical and Genealogical Magazine, XXII:2 (April 1921), 52. [5] “Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789. Edited from the Original Records in the Library of Congress by Worthington Chauncey Ford, Chief, Division of Manuscripts” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; 34 volumes, 1904-37), XII:927-28. [6] According to Burnett, “These two introductory paragraphs, which are on a separate sheet, appear to be in the writing of Gouverneur Morris, except the three words ‘in the House,’ which were inserted by Henry Laurens. At the top of the sheet, in pencil, is a variant of the second paragraph, which reads as follows: ‘That Mr. Carmichael be informed that the Questions to be answered will be propounded to him by the House and that he answer viva voce but if on any Question he should find himself embarrassed he will Have [full[y] erased] Time allowed him for Recollection.’” [7] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), III:428-30. [8] According to Burnett, “[t]hese three words were substituted for ‘in the purchase of,’ erased.” [9] See ibid., III:433-35. [10] “Philadelphia, January 27,” The Pennsylvania Packet, or General Advertiser [Philadelphia], 27 January 1780, 3. [11] “Madrid, September 1,” The Salem Gazette [Salem, Massachusetts], 12 December 1783, 2. [12] Sears, Christine E., “A Different Kind of Slavery: American Captives in Barbary, 1776-1830” (Ph.D. dissertation,, University

168

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

of Delaware, 2007), 111, 118. See also Syed Z. Abedin, “In Defense of Freedom: America’s First Foreign War: A New Look at USBarbary Relations, 1776-1816” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Pennsylvania, 1974). [13] “William Carmichael,” courtesy of the US Department of State, Office of the Historian, online at http://history.state.gov/ departmenthistory/people/chiefsofmission/spain. [14] The Providence Gazette an Country Journal [Rhode Island], 4 February 1792, 3. [15] Carmichael is referring to Charles Jacquin, a merchant of whom little is known. [16] Lamb to Carmichael, 6 September 1793; Carmichael to Lamb, 13 September 1793; and Lamb to Carmichael, 20 September 1793, from Connecticut Journal [New Haven], 5 December 1793, 2. [17] The Philadelphia Gazette & Universal Daily Advertiser [Pennsylvania], 18 May 1795, 2. For another, albeit smaller, obituary on Carmichael, see Federal Intelligencer, and Baltimore Daily Gazette [Maryland], 4 May 1795, 3.

of eight, of fine silver. A portion of this ground on its eastern side was subsequently sold, leaving at present an entrance to the Hall on Chestnut street [sic], by what is known as Carpenters’ Court. The funds of the Company not being sufficient to erect the building, the necessary amount was raised by loan, principally among the members, and among it most valued relic, is still preserved, in a glass case, the original paper of subscription. [1]

Carpenters’ Hall The almost nondescript building that is honored as the place where American democracy began, is small and off the beaten path in Philadelphia. When the delegates to a colonial-wide meeting were looking for a place in that city to hold the parley known as the First Continental Congress in 1774, it was established not in the Pennsylvania State House, but in Carpenters’ Hall on Chestnut Street. Even before the American Revolution, Philadelphia was the economic and social “capital” of the American colonies, if any city could bear that vaunted title. In 1724, a Carpenter’s Company was established in the city, “for the purpose of obtaining instruction in the science of architecture and assisting such of their members as should by accident be in need of support, or the widows or minor children of members.” Although over the next few years several other companies of carpenters were also established, this one was the chief company in the city. According to an 1858 history written by and for the company: In the year 1763 the attention of the Company seems to have been first attracted to the construction of a hall, and a committee was appointed to select a suitable site for the purpose. It was not, however, until February 3, 1768, that the ground upon which the Hall now stands, was procured. The original lot, 66 feet on Chestnut street [sic] by 255 feet in depth, was purchased at an annual ground rent of 176 Spanish milled pieces

Historian Roger Moss explained, “Carpenters’ Hall is an outstanding example of Middle Georgian architecture, although its modest scale and location at the end of a long alley mean that it can inadvertently be overlooked by tourists setting out to visit Independence Hall and the Liberty Bell . . .  it is no surprise that Robert Smith (1722-1777) was selected to design Carpenters’ Hall. He clearly was recognized as the first among equals, especially as a designer. For that reason, later historians have long held that he may have been one of the first master builders to make the transition from builder to architect.” [2] A bell placed in the bell tower weighed, when first cast, 2,080 pounds. An archaeological history of the city of Philadelphia, penned in 1992, said, “The hall that the Carpenters’ Company erected, and which they still own and maintain, is of red brick, Georgian in style, and topped with a handsome cupola. Roughly 50 feet square, it indents 10 feet at each corner so that it has the shape of a cross. Fronting toward Chestnut Street with doors both north and south, it is open to the light on all sides. In this, Carpenters’ Hall is reminiscent of [Benjamin] Franklin’s house, long vanished from across the street.” [3] Reactions from the delegates to the choice of Carpenters’ Hall was rather positive. For instance, delegate Silas Deane from Connecticut wrote to his wife (the letter is dated 1-3 September 1774), “The City have offered Us the Carpenters Hall, so called, to Meet in, & Mr. Galloway offers the State House, & insists on Our meeting there, which he says, he has a right To offer, as Speaker of that House. The last is evidently the best place, but as he offers, the other party oppose. This will be determined on Monday when I shall add the intermediate Occurrences & forward my Letter. I spend the remainder of the Day out of Town . . .” [4]

Carpenters’ Hall169 In another instance, delegate John Adams wrote in his diary on 5 September 1774, “At Ten, The Delegates all met at the City [also known as Smith’s] Tavern, and walked to the Carpenters Hall, where they took a View of the Room, and of the Chamber where is an excellent Library. There is also a long Entry, where Gentlemen may walk, and a convenient Chamber opposite to the Library. The General Cry was, that this was a good Room, and the Question was put, whether We were satisfyed with this Room, and it passed in the Affirmative. A very few were for the Negative and they were chiefly from Pensylvania and New York.” [5] One of those “negative” delegates was from Pennsylvania: Delegate Joseph Galloway expressed his unhappiness on the use of the hall to his former law student, now Governor of New Jersey, William Franklin, the son of Benjamin Franklin: “The Congress this Day met at Carpenter’s Hall, notwithstanding the Offer of the Assembly-Room[,] a much more proper Place.” [6] The misconception about Carpenters’ Hall is that it was utilized for the sessions of the Continental Congress only; this is a true mistake of history. The small offices of the Foreign Department (later the Department of State) and Treasury were conducted here as well. Historian Gaillard Hunt, who penned the foremost work on the history of the Department of State up until 1914 when his book was published, stated, “The first meeting place of the Congress, where the plan for the conduct of our foreign affairs was first taken into consideration, was Carpenters’ Hall . . . [t]he lower floor, consisting of one large room, was occupied by the Congress, and the rooms in the second story by committees . . . As soon as the Department of Foreign Affairs was organized under [Robert R.] Livingston, it took possession of a small house in Philadelphia, owned by Peter S. Du Ponceau, No. 13 South Sixth Street, on the eastern side [of the city].” [7] For additional information on the formation and handling of foreign affairs until the formation of the US Department of State, see Foreign Affairs, the Department of. Several times until the end of the war, the members of the Continental Congress had to move their deliberations to

other cities; for instance, in September 1777 the British invaded Pennsylvania and, after winning the battle of Brandywine (11 September 1777), occupied Philadelphia until June 1778. Following the battle of Germantown (4 October 1777), the British were victorious, but they split their troops up to fight the French, who were now lending aid to the American cause, and ultimately the occupation of the city ended. In fact, during the battle, which took place only seven miles from Philadelphia, Carpenters’ Hall was utilized as a hospital for the treatment of wounded American soldiers. [8] Following the end of the last sessions of the Continental Congress in Philadelphia (it moved to New York City in January 1785), the building was used for additional purposes over the years; until the end of the war, at various times it served, as noted above, as a hospital, and even arms and ammunition were stored in its basement. In 1790 Secretary of War Henry Knox used it as a temporary office, and a year later the hall was turned into the offices of the First Bank of the United States. In 1856, the Carpenters’ Company, which still retains possession of the structure, renovated it, being careful to preserve the room as it had been at the time of the Continental Congress. Today, along with Independence Hall, where the Declaration of Independence was signed, it is part of the Independence National Historical Park, run by the National Park Service. A citizen of Virginia, writing to a friend in 1829 upon his first visit to the Hall, wrote: I write this from the celebrated Carpenters’ Hall, a structure that will ever be deemed sacred while rational liberty is cherished on earth. It stands in a court at the end of an alley leading south from Chestnut, between Third and Fourth streets. It is of brick, three stories high, surmounted with a low steeple, and presents externally rather a sombre aspect. The lower room, in which the first Congress of the United States (perhaps I should say colonies) met, comprehend the whole area of the building— which, however, is not very spacious. Above are the committee rooms, now occupied by a very polite schoolmaster, who kindly gave me permission to inspect them. Yes! These sublime apartments, which first resounded with the indignant murmur of our

170

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

immortal ancestors, sitting in secret consultation upon the wrongs of their countrymen, now ring with the din of urchins conning over their tasks; and the hallowed hall below, in which the august assembly to which they belonged daily convened, is now devoted to the use of an auctioneer! [9]

Edward Carrington (c. 1748–1810)

Historian Richard K. Betts, writing in 1888, stated, “It has been long asked, why did these most important conferences hold their sessions in Carpenters’ Hall? Why did the Congress meet there instead of the State House? It was well understood in 1774 [that] the Governor [John Penn] feared the effect of the patriotic movements upon his interests in the Province, and his influence and authority were exercised in opposition to them.” [10]

[1] “Reminiscences of Carpenter’s Hall, in the City of Philadelphia, and Extracts from the Ancient Minutes of the Proceeding of The Carpenter’s Company of the City and County of Philadelphia. Published by Direction of the Company” (Philadelphia: Crissy & Markley, Printers, 1858), 4-5 [2] Moss, Roger W., “Historic Landmarks of Philadelphia” (Philadelphia: The University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008), 42. [3] Cotter, John L.; Daniel G. Roberts, and Michael Parrington, “The Buried Past: An Archaeological History of Philadelphia” (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1992), 97. [4] Silas Deane to Elizabeth Deane, 1-3 September 1774, in Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), I:4-5. [5] Diary entry of 5 September 1774, in Charles Francis Adams, “The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States: With a Life of the Author, Notes and Illustrations” (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown; two volumes, 1850), II:365. [6] Joseph Galloway to Governor William Franklin, 5 September 1774, in Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), I:9. [7] Hunt, Gaillard, “The Department of State of the United States: Its History and Functions” (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1914), 427. [8] For information on the occupation of Philadelphia, see Willard O. Mishoff, “Business in Philadelphia during the British Occupation, 1777-1778,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, LXI:2 (April 1937), 165-81. [9] “Carpenters’ Hall and Congress” in John F. Watson, “Annual of Philadelphia and Pennsylvania, in the Olden Time; Being a Collection of Memoirs, Anecdotes, and Incidents of the City and Its Inhabitants, and of the Earliest Settlements of the Inland Part of Pennsylvania, from the Days of the Founders, Intended to Preserve the Recollections of Olden Time, and to Exhibit Society in its Changes of Manners and Customs, and the City and Country in Their Local Changes and Improvements. Embellished with Engravings, by T.H. Mumford” (Philadelphia: Printed and Published for the Author; two volumes, 1844), I:419. [10] Betts, Richard K., “Carpenters’ Hall, and Its Historic Memories” (Philadelphia: Published by the Company, 1888), 9.

A delegate from Virginia to the Continental Congress (1786-88), Edward Carrington was more a military officer than a politician, with service in the Revolutionary Army, as the QuartermasterGeneral under General Nathanael Greene, and as marshal of Virginia, the last office appointed by President George Washington. He was born at his family’s estate, “Boston Hill,” in Goochland County, Virginia, on 11 February 1748 or 1749 (the exact year is in dispute), the son and one of eleven children of George Carrington, Sr., and his wife Anne (née Mayo) Carrington. The best work on the family, and Edward Carrington, is “Colonel Carrington of Cumberland” (1942) by historian Garland Evans Hopkins. According to Hopkins, the elder Carrington was not from England, but had been born in Barbados, in the Caribbean, in 1711, of Irish emigrants to that island; in about 1727 he came to the colonies and settled in Virginia. A surveyor by trade, he worked on the boundary line between Virginia and North Carolina. He soon became one of early Virginia’s most impeach political figures, with service in the colonial House of Burgesses, in the General Assembly, then on the Committee of Safety and in several state conventions.

Edward Carrington (c. 1748–1810)171 George Carrington was descended from “highstanding middle-class Irishmen:” his paternal grandfather, Paul Carrington, left Ireland in the late 17th century and eventually landed in Barbados. When his son George made the move to Virginia, he went with two brothers, William and Joseph Mayo, and then married Anne Mayo, the daughter of William. Hopkins adds, “Anne Mayo Carrington and Colonel George Carrington had eleven children, five of whom contributed importantly in the founding of the new state and two of whom should be classed among the founder of the nation. Paul [the eldest son], about whom much has been printed, and Edward who has received so little recognition for his many accomplishments, are worthy of positions among the first rank of early notables.” [1]

him worthy [of] the Notice of all true Lovers of their Country. [2]

Edward Carrington studied the law, and opened a practice, probably near to his home or to his family’s home. His work, however, was managing his own plantation as well as his family estate. Possibly because his family was so deeply involved in Virginia politics, perhaps it was inevitable that he got involved as well. His brother Paul Carrington had moved to Charlotte (later Charlottesville), and had become a leader there, while his father George, Sr. also was a leading political figure in the Virginia colony, and was a friend of Thomas Jefferson and Patrick Henry, both fiery orators. In 1775, Carrington became a member of the Committee of Safety for Cumberland County, Virginia, a group whose membership also included his father George Carrington, Sr., as well as his two brothers, Joseph and George Carrington, Jr. On 5 February 1776, the committee reported that:

Historian Hopkins wrote, “While a member of the committee, he was appointed with William Fleming, [the] Rev. John Hyde Saunders and Carter Henry Harrison to draw up instructions empowering the delegates to the Convention to take proper steps toward protection (Feb. 18, 1775). The same commission was asked to draft an address of approval to the Virginia members of Congress for the work they had done.” [3] Carrington had been installed as a member of the Virginia militia, commissioned as a captain, then advanced to the rank of lieutenant colonel of artillery on 30 November 1776, although, for the remainder of his life he was known as “Captain Carrington.” Named as the quartermaster-general on the staff of General Nathanael Greene, Carrington saw action when he commanded the artillery at the Battle of Hobkirk’s Hill in South Carolina, 25 April 1781. The British under Lieutenant General Charles Cornwallis, Lord Cornwallis, had won a victory against the troops of General Greene at Guilford Courthouse, in North Carolina, in March 1781, but it was a costly victory, and Cornwallis moved his troops south to give them a rest. Greene and his troops followed them, and they clashed at Hobkirk’s Hill in what is now South Carolina. The British, fighting to a draw at best, realized that they had spread their troops too thinly, and had to withdraw to Charleston and Savannah. The battle of Eutaw Springs (8 September 1781), again led by Greene, was the last major engagement of the American Revolution in what is now the American South.

Mr. Edward Carrington[,] signifying to this Committee a Desire to travel from his County to different Place in the Colony, and probably to the most distant Parts of the United Colonies of America; we cannot forbear, injustice to that Gentleman’s Character, to recommend him to the World as a Valuable Member of Civil Society, and a warm Friend to the interests and Liberty of America. Ever since the Commencement of the present unhappy Dispute between Great Britain and these Colonies, Mr. Carrington has proved himself ready to step forth in the Comon [sic] Defense—did step forth among the first from this County as a Lieutenant of the Volunteer Company raised among us—has acted his Part well in different Departments, and we think

Carrington’s role as quartermaster-general during these major clashes cannot be understate—after all, it is the role of the person holding the office to provide arms, ammunition, food, clothes, and other matériel to the troops. In a letter to Thomas Jefferson prior to Guilford Courthouse, Carrington wrote, “Major [Richard] Claiborn[e] writes me that he is fearful the Waggon Act [sic] will, in most instances, fall through, owing to the negligence of the Executive hands in the Counties. My prospects for supporting the army so much depended on the efficcacy [sic] of this Act, that I have much to apprehend from a disappointment in it. If the

172

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Army is respectable in Numbers and tolerably supplied I think we may be well assured that the Military operations shall continue on the south side of Dan; otherwise the Bowles of Virginia will probably feel the destructive consequences of the immediate presence of two Contending armies.” [4]

16,000 American and French troops took on a weary and beleaguered British force led by Lord Cornwallis, who had marched into Virginia after losing the ability to control to any extent the Carolinas; here, to hold off the Continental Army, he besieged the cities of Yorktown and Gloucester, on differing sides of the York River. The allies fighting the British were supported by a French fleet led by Admiral François Joseph Paul de Grasse. Unable to stave off the enemy, Cornwallis searched for a relief expedition led by Sir Henry Clinton, but his ships could not land without being fired upon, and the British, unable to be resupplied, quickly ran out of ammunition and food. On 19 October 1781, realizing that defeat was inevitable, Cornwallis surrendered the entire British army, ending the American Revolution.

It was prior to this point that Carrington got into a major feud with Governor Patrick Henry. For some reason, never divulged, Carrington came to have an intense hatred of one of his fellow officers from Hobkirk’s Hill, General Charles Harrison. Born into a similarly politically active family, Harrison, whose brother Benjamin would serve in the Continental Congress (and Benjamin’s son, William Henry Harrison, would be elected the ninth president of the United States, and William’s grandson, Benjamin, would be elected the 23rd president), probably simply irritated Carrington, who was known to have a short temper, the wrong way. Carrington found out that Governor Henry was to appoint some of Harrison’s men as officers in the Artillery. Carrington penned a lengthy letter to the governor, asking that the move be canceled. Henry was offended by the letter—he was close to the Harrison family and to Charles Harrison specifically—but he did not want to earn the enmity of Carrington, an influential state leader in his own right. Henry asked his Council for advice, and he was asked to send the controversy to the Continental Congress. That body’s Board of War—in effect an early “Department of War” under the old Articles of Confederation—heard the evidence behind the letter, and on 19 August 1777 concluded “[t]hat the behavior of Lieutenant Colonel Carrington towards Governor Henry, as set forth in the governor’s letter of the 8th instant to the delegates of Virginia, is highly indecent and reprehensible, and that unless the said Lieutenant-Colonel Carrington in the space of five days after being notified of this resolution make such concessions to the Governor as he and the Council of the said State shall approve of, Colonel Carrington being dismissed from the service of the United States.” [5] Apparently Carrington made the apology, because he kept his rank and position in the military. Carrington also saw action at Yorktown (28 September-19 October 1781), under General George Washington, by now a close friend of Virginian Carrington. A combined army of some

Following the end of the conflict, little can be found about Carrington; one small piece of research from The South-Carolina Gazette of 6 May 1785, reports that “the Commissioners appointed agreeable to the Act of Assembly, passed last Session, directing the sale of certain Public Lands, known by the name of GOSPORT, hereby give notice, that the same will be disposed of at Public Sale, to the highest bidders, in lots not exceeding one quarter of an acre each, on the premises, on the third Thursday in June next.” The paper then names the three commissioners: William Ronald, Benjamin Temple, and Edward Carrington. [6] Although the war—at least the fighting—was over (a treaty would not be signed until 1783), the Continental Congress remained in business. On 29 November 1785, the newspaper The Maryland Journal of Baltimore reported from Alexandria that on 24 November “[t] he Honourable Richard Henry Lee, William Grayson, James Monroe, Edward Carrington, and Henry Lee, jun. Esquires, are chosen to represent this Commonwealth in the Congress of the United States for the ensuing year.” [7] Historian Edmund Cody Burnett, in his work documenting the Continental Congress, states that the election was held on 15 November 1785, “from the time of his appointment until the first Monday of November [1786].” He adds that Carrington was subsequently reelected on 7 November 1786 and on 23 October 1787. He attended sessions from 3 March to 3 November 1786, from 20 November to 4 December 1786, from 26 March to 29 October 1787, from 6-10

Edward Carrington (c. 1748–1810)173 November 1787, and from about 6 May to 10 October 1788. According to Burnett, Carrington resigned from the Continental Congress on 20 October 1788 after being elected to a seat in the Virginia House of Delegates. [8] Carrington’s correspondence from his time in the Continental Congress, incredibly, is voluminous: it is impossible to publish all of the letters he penned regarding diverse matters at the forefront of the nation’s consciousness at this time. Let it be said that Carrington definitely kept himself abreast of these subjects, which included that of the violent revolt of farmers in Massachusetts known as Shays’ Rebellion. Regarding that insurrection, Carrington wrote to Virginia Governor Edmund Randolph on 8 December 1786: [H]ow far the contagion of the Eastern disorders will spread, it may not be so proper to conjecture from the present quiet state of the other parts of the Empire, as from the experience of human Nature, and the constitutions of our Governments . . . I It is said that a british influence is operating in this mischievous affair: in the progress of the thing this has happened, but it certainly originated in the genuine baseness of the people. It is an undoubted truth that communications are held by Lord Dorchester with both the Vermonteers, and the insurgents of Massachusetts, and that a direct offer has been made to the latter, of the protection and Government of Great Britain, which theyat present decline to accept, but hold in Petto [9], as a last resort in case future events may place them in desperate circumstances, they also declare that it is not their intention to touch the Continental Magazine, which is situated at Springfield, in the midst of their country, unless driven to it to save their lives: they will, however, think the time arrived for this Step, upon the happening of any conflict; nor is there a prospect of an adequate protection from any quarter. here is felt the imbecility, the futility, the nothingness of the federal powers; the U. S. have no troops, nor dare they call into action, what is called the only safe guard of a free government, the Militia of the State, it being composed of the very objects of the force; neither can reliance be placed upon that of the neighbouring States; N. Hampshire has already shewn her kindred to the revolters; Connecticut is not free from the infection; and, the Legislative Acts of Rhode Island, have discovered that an opposition to baseness, can be expected from no order of people there. [10] Carrington wrote to fellow Virginian James Monroe on 27 December 1786:

My going to Virginia this winter is indispensible—it is probable from the state in which events has placed the delegation, that I shall not have an opportunity of going after the session commences without leaving the State unrepresented upon these considerations I have determined to seize the present moment and shall set out early in the next week in the mean time I think it proper to give you Notice of the circumstance, that you not rely upon my being present. I shall leave Colo. [William] Grayson [of Virginia] here, who will be well enough to form with yourself a representation, but he is far from being recovered, my absence will not exceed six or eight weeks. We have as yet no Congress nor do I see a near prospect of one, but it will be well for you to get on the floor as early as you can. [I]nclosed is a paper containing a letter from Mr. Calonne Comptroller General of the Finances of France to Mr. Jefferson which is truly interesting to the U. S. [11] Finally, in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, another fellow Virginian, Carrington penned on 24 April 1787, “You have doubtless been informed of the measure of a general Convention which was proposed by Virginia in the fall session, for revising and, thoroughly, amending the Confederation. Some of the States hesitated upon the adoption of the measure, as being unauthorised by Congress, and, of course, improper. to remove every possible difficulty, Congress came to a resolution ‘in February, recommending its adoption.” [12] With the new Constitution, drafted in 1787 and ratified by the states the following year, a new and stronger federal government was established, with a bicameral national legislature, including a House of Representatives and a Senate. As well, a president of the United States, lodged in the Executive Branch of the three-tiered governmental system, was also created. In the national elections in 1788, General Washington was elected as the nation’s first president under the US Constitution. After taking office in 1789, Washington appointed Carrington as the marshal for the state of Virginia. Carrington was just 41 years old when he was named to this position, the first person to hold it. Because of his service, Carrington is now immortalized in the US Marshals Museum in Fort Smith, Arkansas. The US Marshal Service wrote of Carrington, “Carrington served as Marshal for just over two years, after which Washington appointed him supervisor of distilled spirits for the state of Virginia. He held this office until 1794, when

174

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

the press of his private affairs compelled his retirement from public office.” [13]

was a Founding Father by proxy; he was recognized, honored, and vilified as much in his time. He was also one of the relatively small group of dedicated Americans whose extraordinary zeal in the reconciliation of local and particular interests with the national, helped to bring about the ratification of the Constitution. And it was this group who—through the continuation of these efforts while showing the example of conscientious, responsible conduct in federal office at the local level— helped to insure the success of the new government. [17]

Carrington remained close to Washington after the latter left the presidency in 1797. When tensions with France nearly led to a war between the former allies in 1798, Washington and Carrington corresponded over the issues involved in the conflict and what could be done to solve the problems short of military action. In 1799, Washington advised President John Adams to appoint Carrington as the commander of the Army, in case hostilities did indeed break out, but they were resolved before such steps could be taken. With Washington’s death in December 1799, Carrington lost one of his best friends. Carrington’s official congressional biography does not mention any of this, or the offices he held under Washington save as a Marshal; the biography does state that years later Carrington served as the “foreman of the jury during the trial of Aaron Burr for treason in 1807.” [14] Edward Carrington died in Richmond, Virginia, on 28 October 1810 at the age of 62. The Enquirer of Richmond stated that he was “a man of sterling merit—All men mourn for his loss.” [15] The Washington, DC, newspaper The Spirit of Seventy-Six merely added that they considered Carrington “one of the worthies of the revolution.” [16] Carrington was buried in Saint Johns Episcopal Churchyard in Richmond, Virginia. His grave is located along the southwestern outside wall of the church. It is covered by a structure which resembles a table top. On the top of this “table” is a plaque, which lauds Carrington and his many services on behalf of his state and his country. One of Edward Carrington’s leading biographers, Charles Konigsberg, wrote in 1966: Edward Carrington was a true “child of the Revolution” who in the course of the military struggle for “liberty and independence” acquired a continental loyalty that led him to see the preservation of the warborn union of states by means of a strong republican government as the instrument by which the sacrifices of that conflict could be made safe and its ideals served . . . Edward Carrington was thus among the first American nationalists, one who in every phase of his career and in every major activity in which he engaged pressed home the nationalist imperative. Carrington

[1] Hopkins, Garland Evans, “Colonel Carrington of Cumberland” (Winchester, VA: Privately Published, 1942), 5. [2] “Proceedings of [the] Committee of Safety of Cumberland County, Virginia, 5 February 1776,” in H.R. McIlwaine, ed., “Proceedings of the Committees of Safety of Cumberland and Isle of Wight Counties, Virginia, 1775-1776. Printed as Part of the Report of the Virginia State Library for the Year Ending September 30, 1918” (Richmond, VA: Davis Bottom, Superintendent of Public Printing, 1919), 29-30. [3] Hopkins, op. cit., 8. [4] Lt. Col. Ed: Carrington to Gov: Jefferson, 31 March 1781, in William P. Palmer, M.D., arranger and ed., et al., “Calendar of Virginia State Papers and Other Manuscripts, 1652-1781, Preserved in the Capitol at Richmond” (Richmond, VA: R.F. Walker, Superintendent of Public Printing; eleven volumes, 1875-93), I:611-12. [5] Resolution of 19 August 1777, in Worthington C. Ford, ed., “Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789. Edited from the Original Records in the Library of Congress by Worthington Chauncey Ford, Chief, Division of Manuscripts” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; 34 volumes, 1904-37), VIII:655-56. [6] “Virginia. Richmond, April 4, 1785,” South Carolina State Gazette and Daily Advertiser [Charleston], 6 May 1785, 2. [7] “Alexandria, November 24,” The Maryland Journal and Baltimore Advertiser, 29 November 1785, 2. [8] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VIII:xcvii. [9] “In petto”: from the Italian, literally, “in the breast,” it meant to hold a conversation in private or “close to the breast.” [10] Carrington to Edmund Randolph, 8 December 1786, in ibid., VIII:516-17. [11] Carrington to James Monroe, 27 December 1786, in ibid., VIII:525-26. [12] Carrington to Thomas Jefferson, 24 April 1787, in ibid., VIII:592. [13] “The First Marshal of Virginia: Edward Carrington,” courtesy of the US Marshals Service, online at http://www.usmarshals. gov/history/firstmarshals/carrington.htm. See also the US Marshals Museum in Fort Smith, Arkansas, online at http://www.usmarshalsmuseum.com/edward_carrington. [14] Refer to Carrington’s official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay. pl?index=C000183. [15] “Died on Sunday evening last,” The Enquirer [Richmond, Virginia], 30 October 1810, 3. [16] “Richmond, Oct. 30. Died,” The Spirit of Seventy-Six [Washington, DC], 2 November 1810, 3. [17] Konigsberg, Charles, “Edward Carrington, 1748-1810” ‘Child of the Revolution’: A Study of the Public man in Young America” (Ph.D. dissertation, Princeton University, 1966), 474-75.

Charles Carroll “Barrister” (1723–1783)

Charles Carroll “Barrister” (1723–1783)

Two men named Charles Carroll served in the Continental Congress: one was Charles Carroll of Carrollton (1737-1832); the other was Charles Carroll the Barrister. A wealthy and influential attorney in Maryland, this specific Charles Carroll was a merchant and shipbuilder who had a long history of public service. Both men served from Maryland. This Charles Carroll was born on 22 March 1723 in Annapolis, Maryland, the eldest of three children—there was a younger brother, John Henry Carroll, who died at age 22, and a sister, Mary Clare Carroll—of Dr. Charles Carroll, a physician, and his wife Dorothy (née Blake) Carroll. A genealogical table done in 2010 and 2011 for the Carroll home at Mount Clare discovered that Dr. Charles Carroll (1691-1755) was the son of Charles Carroll of Clonlisk (c. 1665-?). [1] A group of historians who cataloged the early Irish immigrants to the colonies in 2003 wrote, “For centuries, Dr. Charles Carroll’s family was centered around mid-Leinster, in the adjacent baronies of Clonisk and Ballybritt in what was shired in 1557 as the King’s County (now Offaly). Clonisk and Ballybritt foed the ancient heart of Ely O’Carroll, nearly four

175 hundred thousand acres of Gaelic-held land wedged between the territories of two powerful Norman families, the FitzGeralds of Kildare to the north and east, and the Butlers of Ormond to the south in Tipperary.” [2] Dr. Charles Carroll, born in Ireland, emigrated to the colony of Maryland about 1715, and became both a local physician and owned an iron smelting plant. [3] Charles Carroll, his son, was given a fine education owing to his family’s wealth; he went to an English school at Bairro Alto, in Lisbon, Portugal, afterwards going to the prestigious British school Eton. He was admitted to Clare College, Cambridge, England, in either January 1741 or January 1742. He trained as a lawyer at London’s Inner Temple, one of the four Inns of Court of the English legal system, starting in 1751, although once he returned to Maryland in 1755 he did not use his legal skills; instead, he got involved in his father’s iron smelting business. To distinguish himself from his cousin Charles Carroll (1737-1832), he called himself Charles Carroll the Barrister, the English term for lawyer. Carroll explained this in a letter when ordering from a merchant (they sold Spanish Madeira wine) so they would send the goods to the “correct” Charles Carroll: “There are so many of the name in this town that some particular distinction is necessary to prevent mistakes[;] please therefore direct to me[,] Councellor or Barrister at Law and when you write to Mr. Anderson [the London resident who would pay for the shipment] be pleased to mention me with that addition.” [4] That same year, 1755, Carroll was elected to a seat in the Maryland lower house of assembly, to fill a vacancy caused by the death of his father, Dr. Charles Carroll. On 23 June 1763, Carroll married his cousin, Margaret Tilghman (17421817), the daughter of Maryland politician Matthew Tilghman, who would himself serve in the Continental Congress (1774-76); the couple had two children, twins, who both died in infancy. Because he had no heirs, Carroll, upon his death, left his estate to his sister’s children, James and Nicholas Maccubbin, on the condition that they change their name to Carroll, which they did. As a member of the lower house of assembly, representing Anne Arundel County, Carroll spent the years of turmoil and the ultimate trail to war,

176

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

which began in 1774 working behind-the-scenes for the patriots. He remained in what had been his father’s seat in the Lower House of Assembly until 1761; during that time, and afterwards, he spent much of his time occupied with several businesses, including land that he rented and sold, as well as flour mills in Baltimore County and, lastly, the Baltimore Ironworks Company. Carroll was elected to the Maryland Council of Safety in August 1775; he also served as a delegate to the nine separate Constitutional Conventions held in Maryland between 1774 and 1776, all with the aim of establishing a state away from British control. His service to the people of his state came, he wrote “because the opinions of his constituents concerning the establishment of a state government were ‘incompatible with good government and the public peace and happiness.’” [5]

to interfere in our Provincial concerns, and to which we are not accountable; that the readiness with which this Province, on a late occasion, ordered some companies of their Minute Men down to the EasternShore Counties of Virginia for their protection, and the readiness and disposition the Council of Safety have on every occasion demonstrated to co-operate with their Colony in every measure proposed by them, will evince to the world their regard for the safety and welfare of that Colony, and clear the Convention from the unjust imputation of having promoted Governour [Sir Robert] Eden’s passage, to assist in the destruction of the Colony of Virginia, under pretence of his returning to England. I have not the letter, or what they call the address, to Governour Eden, here; but by what I recollect of it, I think they may be told that the Council cannot conceive the letter or address to Governour Eden can support or justify him in assuming any publick character, or enable him to promote any measure that may tend to disunite the Colonies, or be productive of the danger apprehended to the common cause of America. [6]

A letter from Carroll to William Hayward, 12 June 1776, reads: I received last night Mr. Tilghman’s letter of Sunday last, enclosing the resolves of the Virginia Convention; and I assure you I would most willingly ride down to Annapolis, to be with you a day or two, were I in a condition to do it or to be of much service, but I am so unhinged and relaxed by my attendance and confinement, that I am plagued with almost constant little fevers; and though I keep about, I am apprehensive such a ride would lay me up, and it is with difficulty I now hold my pen to write to you. I will, however, with as much precision as I can, give you my sentiments. If you are fully convinced of the propriety of the present Council of Safety entering into a vindication of the conduct of the Convention and the proceedings of the former Council, by letter to the Committee of Safety of Virginia, against assertions thrown out by the Convention of that Colony in their resolves, I think you have the matter and the grounds for the conduct of the Council of Safety fully set forth in our letters to the Congress, and our several letters to our Deputies on the intercepted letters, and our proceedings with the Governour. And I think the more concise and pointed such letter is the better. They may be told that the Council of Safety proceeded in a matter to which they were competent, on testimony that they (the Convention of Virginia) could not be privy to; that they were happy in having their conduct approved of by the Convention of the Province; and that you would not condescend to enter into a discussion of their conduct with any publick body that has not authority

According to his official congressional biography, on 3 November 1776 Carroll framed the “Declaration of Rights” which were adopted by a constitutional convention held in Annapolis. [7] That work, one of the first to put an established “bill of right” in a state constitution long before the US Constitution was even considered, is a landmark of its kind. Too long to print here, nevertheless the introductory paragraph is most apropos to quote: The [P]arliament of Great Britain, by a declaratory act, having assumed a right to make laws to bind the Colonies in all cases whatsoever, and, in pursuance of such claim, endeavoured, by force of arms, to subjugate the United Colonies to an unconditional submission to their will and power, and having at length constrained them to declare themselves independent States, and to assume government under the authority of the people; Therefore we, the Delegates of Maryland, in free and full Convention assembled, taking into our most serious consideration the best means of establishing a good Constitution in this State, for the sure foundation and more permanent security thereof, declare, That all government of right originates from the people, is founded in compact only, and instituted solely for the good of the whole. [8] For his work regarding the Declaration of Rights, a week after they were framed, the Maryland General Assembly elected Carroll to the

Charles Carroll “Barrister” (1723–1783) 177 Continental Congress, to replace, ironically, his cousin, Charles Carroll of Carrollton. He attended sessions of that body from about 7 December 1776 to about 19 January 1777. Historian Edmund Cody Burnett related that nothing is shown of Carroll in the Journals of the Continental Congress: “The Journals nowhere, either in 1776 or 1777, mention Charles Carroll (Barrister), except in quoting the Maryland credentials of Nov. 10, 1776 (and that item is indexed under Charles Carroll of Carrollton). That he was in Congress as early as Dec. 7, 1776, is shown by his letter of that date . . . and it is possible that he was one of the two delegates recorded in the Journals as attending Nov. 19. In view, however, of Chase’s statement Nov. 21 [stating that the arrival of delegate William Paca helped to create a quorum], this does not seem probable.” [9] In “Carroll” letters from the Continental Congress period, Burnett deftly separated the men into “Charles Carroll” and “Charles Carroll of Carrollton.” Thus, we can here quote a letter of this Charles Carroll to the president of the Maryland Council of Safety, Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer, from Philadelphia, dated 7 December 1776: We now tho in My opinion far from being entirely Secure begin to be a Little More Composed . . . The Inactivity of the People Here was so Great and their Disinclination to stir to oppose the Enemy so apparent that we were forced to offer Clothing to some of our flying Camp Troops Here that will amount to about four Pounds per Man to Induce them to Return and Join the Army for one Month only and to Engage that our Province will be at the Expence should the Congress refuse it, wch. Surely they will not. How many We may Get to return I Know not as from What they Have sufferd they Do not seem to Have much appetite for the Service. We Have at Present 12 states represented in Congress but many of them by one Person only so that we are Thin in Number. if the situation of Mr Stones family are such that He Can Leave it We should Have much Pleasure in Seeing him and I must request you Will write to Mr. [Thomas] Johnson [delegate to the Continental Congress, 1774-76] to Join us. [10] Maryland delegate to the Continental Congress Benjamin Rumsey wrote to Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer on 19 December, “Engaged in the Commission and the Business thereof in which we met with great Difficulties and Interruption.

I never attended Congress till this Day Week and should not then as the Business remained unfinished had I not heard Mr. [Matthew] Tilghman and Mr. Carroll had gone Home and left the Province unrepresented.” [11] Carroll appears to have just walked out of the Continental Congress and returned home. Upon getting back to Maryland, he was elected to the Maryland state Senate, representing the Western Shore, where he served from 1777 until his death. From his inherited wealth, as well as the monies he acquired over the years, when he died Carroll was an exceptionally rich man, owning some 15,000 acres of land across four Maryland counties. At the same time, he also owned hundreds of slaves who worked those lands. The “jewel” in his crown of properties was his own estate, “Mount Clare,” located near Baltimore on the Patapsco River. [12] For much of his life, as illustrated in his numerous letters, Carroll suffered from “fevers” which, could be one reason he left the Continental Congress. In 1777, because of this illness, he was forced to decline an appointment as a judge on the General Court of Maryland. Charles Carroll died at his estate on 23 March 1783, one day after his 60th birthday, and his heirs were granted all of his land and wealth through his will. Carroll was buried in his family vault in St. Anne’s Church in Annapolis, with his father, grandmother Anne Carroll (?-1766), and his brother John Henry Carroll.

[1] The genealogical table can be found in a pdf file online at http://www.mountclare.org/history/FamilyGenealogyRecord.pdf. [2] Miller, Kerby A.; Arnold Schrier, Bruce D. Boling, and David N. Doyle, eds., “Irish Immigrants in the Land of Canaan: Letters and Memoirs from Colonial and Revolutionary America, 16751815” (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2003), 452-53. [3] See also Carroll, Douglas, “Families of Dr. Charles Carroll (1691-1735) and Cornet Thomas Dewey (160?-1648)” (Brooklandville, MD: Published for the Author, 1965?), 1-10. [4] Holt, W. Stull, “Charles Carroll, Barrister: The Man,” Maryland Historical Magazine, XXXI:2 (June 1936), 112. [5] Papenfuse, Edward C. , ed. et al. “A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789” (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, three volumes, 1979), I:196 [6] Charles Carroll to William Hayward, 12 June 1776, in Peter Force, ed., “American Archives: Consisting of a Collection of Authentick Records, State Papers, Debates, and Letters and Other Notices of Publick Affairs, the Whole Forming a Documentary History of the Origin and Progress of the North America Colonies; of the Causes and Accomplishment of the American Revolution; and of

178

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

the Constitution of Government for the United States, to the Final Ratification Thereof. In Six Series” (Washington, DC: Published by M. St. Clair Clarke and Peter Force; ten volumes, 1837-53), Series 4, VI:821-22. [7] Carroll official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=C000184. [8] “Constitution of Maryland, 1776” in Francis Newton Thorpe, ed., “The Federal and State Constitutions Colonial Charters, and Other Organic Laws of the States, Territories, and Colonies Now or Heretofore Forming the United States of America. Compiled and Edited Under the Act of Congress of June 30, 1906, by Francis Newton Thorpe” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; seven volumes, 1909), III:1686. [9] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), II:xlv-xlvi. [10] Carroll to Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer, 7 December 1776, in ibid., II:172. [11] Benjamin Rumsey to Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer, 19 December 1776, in ibid., II:179. [12] Trostel, Michael F., “Mount Clare, Being an Account of the Seat Built by Charles Carroll, Barrister, Upon His Lands at Patapsco” (Baltimore: The National Society of the Colonial Dames of America in the State of Maryland, 1981).

served in the Continental Congress. A planter and wealthy landowner, Charles Carroll had a profound impact on his colony and state.

Charles Frémont Carroll III “of Carrollton” (1737–1832)

The last signer of the Declaration of Independence to die—he passed away 56 years after its signing—Charles Carroll of Carrollton took his name to distinguish himself from his cousin, Charles Carroll the Barrister, who also

The son of Charles Carroll and his commonlaw wife, Elizabeth Brooke, Charles Frémont Carroll III, better known as Charles Carroll of Carrollton, was born in Annapolis, Maryland, on 19 September 1737. His parents, who did not marry until 1757, when he was 20, lived together as husband and wife for many years. Historian Kate Mason Rowland’s two-volume biography of him was first published in 1898. Of the family and the extensive research done into its history, she wrote, “The Carrolls of Carrollton and the Doughoregan Manor, Maryland, trace their descent to the old Irish princely family of the Carrolls of Ely O’Carroll, King’s County, Ireland, Fiam or Florence, King of Ely, who died in 1205, was the ancestor in the fourteenth degree of Charles Carroll, Attorney-General of Maryland in 1688, the first of his line in the province.” [1] Charles Carroll (1702-1782), also known as Charles Carroll of Annapolis, was a wealthy landowner in the Maryland colony; his father, Charles Carroll (1660-1720), referred to by some biographies and histories as “the Settler,” served as the Colonial attorney general (1688) for Maryland; he came over to Maryland in 1688, having been educated at the University of Douai in France, and at the Inner Temple, one of the four Inns of Court, in London. Having been named as attorney general in the royal government, he took one side over another in a dispute and was imprisoned for a time for “high misdemeanours.” His Roman Catholicism may have been one factor in this jailing, although he was released and later had a family. When he was 10 years old, Charles Carroll was sent to live with his cousin, John Carroll, also a youth, and together they studied at a Jesuit school at Bohemia Manor in Cecil County, Maryland. In 1749, the two boys went to Europe, where they both attended the prestigious Collège de Saint Omer in Flanders, now in Belgium; they then went to the French Jesuit school in Rheims, to the Louis-le-Grand in Paris, and, finally, to Bourges, where Charles Carroll studied the law. With his law degree in hand, he crossed the English Channel to live in London for several years, studying the common law. In 1764, after

Charles Frémont Carroll III “of Carrollton” (1737–1832) 179 nearly 16 years abroad, the 27-year-old Carroll returned home because of his mother’s death, as the owner of his father’s extensive plantation and land holdings. It could be argued with some reality that Charles Carroll was one of the wealthiest men in the colonies, if not in Maryland. [2] When Charles Carroll arrived home, he found that his extensive family was in service to the colony; to distinguish himself, especially from his cousin Charles Carroll the Barrister, he took the official name of “Charles Carroll of Carrollton.” He would be referred to by that name for the remainder of his life. He took this name because of the 10,000 acre estate he was given by his father, named “Carrollton,” located on the banks of the Frederick River in Maryland. For some reason, Carroll never lived there, instead spending much of his life at other homes. In 1768, Carroll married his cousin, Mary “Molly” Darnall, and together the couple moved to a plantation near Annapolis. Ironically, it was at this time that Carroll wrote in a letter a line that would be the complete opposite of the direction his life would soon take: “I am resolved never to give myself ye [sic] least concern about politicks, but to follow ye sensible advice given by Candid [sic] to improve my own estate to ye utmost, and to remain content with ye profits a grateful soil and laborious industry will supply.” Events, however, beyond Carroll’s control, would force his hand and he would become deeply emeshed in colonial and other political matters. [3] Despite this vow, by 1773 Carroll had taken sides in the fight against the British economic measures forced on the colonies. Charles Carroll wrote to his father on 7 September 1774, “In a civil war there is and ought to be, no neutrality— indeed were I permitted to remain neutral I would disdain the offer—I will either endeavour to defend the liberties of my country or die with the __; this I am convinced is the sentiment of every true and generous American.” [4] Writing in The Maryland Gazette in a series of articles, which he signed “First Citizen,” Carroll argued for the colonial cause, he was openly debated by Daniel Dulaney, a colonial official and Loyalist, whose articles were signed “Antilon.” In 1775, Carroll was a delegate to

the revolutionary convention of Maryland; as well, he served on the Annapolis Committee of Correspondence and the Council of Safety. In early 1776, following a disastrous military adventure in Canada, the Continental Congress named Carroll, along with Samuel Chase and Benjamin Franklin to a commission to go to Canada to try to gain Canadian support to join the American union. Carroll asked that his cousin, the Reverend John Carroll, also serve on the commission. The commission was doomed to failure, as Canada did not want to join America against the British, but his limited service on the commission gave Carroll incredible prestige, both in Maryland and among his fellow colonists. On 4 July 1776, Charles Carroll of Carrollton was elected as a delegate from Maryland to the Continental Congress. This may puzzle some historians, especially at first glance; after all, didn’t Carroll sign the Declaration of Independence on 2 July 1776? How could he if he was not elected until two days later, and did not arrive until 17 July? Perhaps Carroll, like other delegates, signed the Declaration later than the others. This is more than possible; after all, some signed it as late as August 1776. Carroll was not happy with his being sent to the Continental Congress. He wrote to his father, “Contrary to my expectation, I am appointed a Deputy to Congress, and much against my inclination.” [5] Carroll was ultimately reelected to the Continental Congress on 15 February 1777, serving in sessions from 17 July 1776 to about 10 August 1776, from 5 May to about 21 July 1777, and from 27 September to about 16 October 1777. Historian Edmund Cody Burnett wrote: Carroll came to Philadelphia July 17 and doubtless attended the same day. The only other evidences in the Journals of his attendance during 1776 are two committee appointments July 18. He signed a delegation letter with [Samuel] Chase July 27, and letters from the Maryland council August 2 and 9, the latter in particular, lead to the inference that Carroll was then in Congress. That he was one of those who left Congress about August 1o to attend the Maryland convention seems also evident. He took his seat in the Maryland convention August 17, where he continued until its adjournment, Nov. 11.

180

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

In Rowland’s, ‘Life of Carroll,’ it is said that Carroll was doubtless in attendance when Congress met at Baltimore, but as he was not re-elected November 10 he was not again entitled to a seat in Congress until after the election of February 15, 1777. The credentials were presented February 18, and there is no evidence that Carroll took his seat between that date and the removal [of the Continental Congress] from Baltimore, February 27. Besides, he was during this period (until April 20) in the Maryland assembly He appears to have taken his seat in Congress May 5. The Journals show his attendance from May 7 to July 15, or thereabouts, and it is presumed that he left upon the arrival of Chase, July 21. He had, at all events, departed before August 12. September 7 he wrote that he would go to Congress if Mr. [William] Smith should leave, but September 14, writing from General Smallwood’s headquarters, he indicated that he might return home. September 22 he was however on his way to attend Congress, and September 27 he was in attendance at Lancaster. The Journals show his attendance until October 16, but he had taken his departure before October 22; he is not recorded among the yeas and nays October 23). [6]

to relish the introduction of foreign mercenaries; I own it ought to be avoided, if possible. [7]

In a letter to Benjamin Franklin, with whom he served on the Canada commission, he wrote of the delegates’ desire to establish a blueprint for a national government—one which would soon become the Articles of Confederation. He explained: We have not yet confederated, but almost every member of Congress is anxious for a Confederacy, being sensible, that a Confederacy formed on a rational plan will certainly add much weight and consequence to the united States collectively and give great Security to each individually, and a credit also to our paper money: but I despair of such a confederacy, as ought, and would take place, if little and partial interests could be laid aside: very few, and immaterial, alterations will be made in the report of the Committee of the whole house; this is only my opinion, for we have made but very little progress in the house in that important affair; immediate and more pressing exigencies having from time to time postponed the consideration of it to this day, when, I am informed, it is to be again resumed. If this war should be of any considerable duration, we shall want men to recruit our armies: could we engage 5 or 6 thousand men, Germans, Swiss, or the irish Brigade? I have mentioned this matter to several members of Congress, but they did not seem

Carroll seems to have impressed his colleagues— or, may it be said, at least one of them. In a letter to James Warren of Massachusetts, John Adams summed up all of the delegates he was sitting with. He wrote of Charles Carroll: Carroll’s Name and Character are equally unknown to you. I was introduced to him about Eighteen Months ago in this City and was much pleased with his Conversation. He has a Fortune as I am well informed which is computed to be worth Two hundred Thousand Pounds Sterling. He is a Native of Maryland, and his Father is still living. He had a liberal Education in France and is well acquainted with the french Nation. He speaks their Language as easily as ours; and what is perhaps of more Consequence than all the rest, he was educated in the Roman Catholic Religion and still continues to worship his Maker according to the Rites of that Church. In the Cause of American Liberty his Zeal Fortitude and Perseverance have been so conspicuous that he is said to be marked out for peculiar Vengeance by the Friends of Administration; But he continues to hazard his all, his immense Fortune, the largest in America, and his Life. This Gentleman’s Character, if I foresee aright, will hereafter make a greater Figure in America. His abilities are very good, his Knowledge and Learning extensive. I have seen Writings of his which would convince you of this. You may perhaps hear before long more about them. [8] During his service in the Continental Congress, Carroll also served on the Board of War, the forerunner of the Department of War, which eventually became what is now known as the US Department of Defense. Carroll was elected a second time to the Continental Congress in 1780, but he declined the honor. After leaving the Continental Congress, he served in the Maryland state Senate from 1777 to 1800, where he helped to draft Maryland’s first state constitution; in 1776, he had aided in drafting the state’s Declaration of Rights, which was adopted in November 1776. On 22 October 1777, Carroll wrote to Richard Peters, the secretary to the Board of War: Yesterday we recd the glorious news of the taking Burgoyne & his whole army prisoners of war—I sincerely congratulate you on this important event,

Charles Frémont Carroll III “of Carrollton” (1737–1832) 181 I hope it will be followed by the defeat of Howe at least by a disgraceful & precipitate retreat from the city of Pha [Philadelphia] & State of Pensylvania. I write this letter to request the favor of you to obtain from the board of war two weavers from among the British prisoners; I would prefer british workmen on account not language & superior skill to Hessians, but rather than not get weavers I must take Hessians or else my poor slaves must go naked this winter— Mr. [Samuel] Atlee can inform you whether there are such workmen among the prisoners at Lancaster or Lebanon, for altho’ the most of them have been removed, it is most probable some of them have remained behind—I must entreat you, Sir, to exert yourself in rendering me this essential piece of service. My father would pay them ₤3 a month apiece; they will be well fed & will live in a wholesome country & so remote that they will not be able easily to make their escape, if they should attempt it. I hope General Washington will soon give us a fresh supply of prisoners, and from these perhaps you will be able to select the weavers, if not from those already in our possession. The weavers we want are such as have been used to weaving coarse linens & woollens. [9] In 1783, Carroll was elected as president of the state Senate. The end of the war in 1783 led to celebrations in the former British colonies; at Carroll’s home, luminaries from throughout the new United States visited him and celebrated the end of the decade-long conflict. The Maryland Gazette reported that “[An] elegant and plentiful dinner provided for the celebration of Peace on Carroll’s Green; . . . sheep, calves, and whole ox were roasted, liquor in proportion . . . A convenient, extensive building was erected sufficient for the accommodations of many hundreds. Patriotic toasts were drunk, each attended with thirteen cannon. After dinner at night, the State house, a superb building, was beautifully and magnificently illuminated and an elegant entertainment given to the ladies at the ballroom . . .” [10] It became evident that the Articles of Confederation, which held the former colonies together, was a weak document that hurt America’s chances of growth in the postwar world. Thus, calls for a convention were sent out, where reforms were to be discussed.

The Maryland General Assembly named five of its leading citizens to the Constitutional Convention—Charles Carroll, Robert Hanson Harrison, Thomas Sim Lee, James McHenry, and Thomas Stone—but only McHenry accepted. Daniel Carroll, a cousin to Charles Carroll, was named, and he did attend. During the meeting, he wrote to Charles Carroll, asking him for his ideas of a plan to not just reform the Articles of Confederation, but to come up with and entirely new plan. Historian Philip Crowl wrote in 1941: Carroll’s plan for revising the Articles of Confederation clearly reflects the growing alarm felt by most members of the upper class during the ‘critical period’ at the democratic excesses exhibited in many of the state governments since the Revolution. He was personally a man of great wealth and had conscientiously devoted himself, in his career in Maryland politics, to preserving the rights of property against popular infringement. He had been a member of the committee which framed the state’s ultraconservative constitution in 1777 and had served for eleven years in Maryland’s aristocratic senate, where, with his fellow senators, he had for two years past blocked the efforts of the lower house of the state legislature to enact paper money laws. Hence, in addressing himself to the problem of revising the federal government, he was greatly interested in securing property rights against the threat of democratic influences and popular radicalism. [11] Under the new US Constitution, which was drafted in Philadelphia in 1787 and eventually ratified by the states, each state had the right to send two US senators to sit in the upper body of the national legislature. The Maryland state Senate then elected Carroll, sitting in that body, and John Henry (1750-1798). Strangely, Carroll chose to remain a state senator even as he was sitting as a US senator. He held the latter seat from 4 March 1789 until he resigned on 30 November 1792, after the Maryland legislature enacted a law prohibiting someone from holding dual offices such as this; Carroll desired to remain in the Maryland state Senate until he retired in 1801. Over the next three decades, Carroll became a “venerable leading statesman,” as most newspapers referred to him. He was honored with each passing year, as he grew older and

182

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

the nation grew further from the signing of the Declaration of Independence. In 1826, when John Adams and Thomas Jefferson died, Carroll became the lone surviving signer, and each July 4th thereafter he was hailed for his services to his nation. In August 1826, it was announced that “This venerable Patriot (Mr. Carroll) yesterday submitted to the operation of having his bust taken in plaster; the operation occupied about two hours—he stated that it was not at all unpleasant. It was performed by the same artist who was so much talked of in Mr. Jefferson’s case.” [12]

the world with its fame and beauty.” [15] Carroll was laid to rest, with much fanfare, in the chapel of the Doughoregan Manor, near Ellicott City, in Howard County, Maryland.

Charles Carroll died in Baltimore, Maryland, on 14 November 1832, at age 95, having lived 56 years after he signed the Declaration of Independence. Newspapers around America hailed this unique man for his service and, more importantly, his longevity. The City Gazette of Charleston, South Carolina, said of him, “The last venerable relict of that choice band of patriots, who, in the ‘days that tried men’s souls,’ pledged ‘their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor’ to the cause of American Independence, has at last sunk into the grave, full of years and full of honor.” [13] The American Advocate of Maine said, “The Last of the Signers is Dead! The venerable Patriarch of the Revolution, CHARLES CARROLL, of Carrollton, is no more. He expired on Wednesday, last week in Baltimore, in the ninety-sixth year of his age . . . The only remaining line which connected this generation with the past, with that illustrious race of statesmen, philanthropists, and patriots, the founders of American Independence, and the benefactors of the world, now and or all time hereafter—is broken.” [14] Finally, the Farmer’s Cabinet of New Hampshire stated, “This demise, though one which has been retarded vastly beyond the period at which it might have been looked for, is well calculated to awaken in every bosom the most serious reflection— Representing, as this illustrious individual has represented, for some years past, those august men who, in the darkest hours of our history, stood forth and consecrated ‘their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honors’ in defense of their country; the eyes of the whole world have been fixed upon him as the last remaining pillar of a stupendous edifice, which has filled

In reference to a previous query of when Carroll signed the Declaration of Independence, the mystery was solved in 1826. Reflecting upon the lives of the deceased John Adams and Thomas Jefferson, a reporter asked Carroll this very question. He wrote, “Observing in the papers that there is a difference of opinion as to the time the Declaration of Independence was signed by Charles Carroll, of Carrollton, I this morning asked him his recollection on the subject; he stated, to the best of his recollection, [that] he was not a member of Congress at the time of his mission to Canada, but upon his return was elected a member of that body—that upon the first day [17 July 1776] of his taking his seat he signed the Declaration, having long before made up his mind, that it was the only proper course for the people of this country to adopt.” [16]

[1] Rowland, Kate Mason, “The Life of Charles Carroll of Carrollton, 1737-1832, With His Correspondence and Public Papers” (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons; two volumes, 1898), I:1-2. [2] McDermott, Scott, “Charles Carroll: Faithful Revolutionary” (New York: Scepter Publishers, Inc., 2002), 34-36. [3] Field, Thomas Meagher, comp., “Unpublished Letters of Charles Carroll of Carrollton, and of His Father, Charles Carroll of Doughoregan” (New York: The United States Catholic Historical Society, 1902), 87. [4] Charles Carroll to --- Carroll, 7 September 1774, in The Carroll Family Papers, III:69. [5] Carroll Papers, op. cit., IV:64. [6] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), II:xlvi. [7] Carroll to Benjamin Franklin, 12 August 1777, in ibid., II:450-51. [8] John Adams to James Warren, 18 February 1776, in ibid., I:354. [9] Carroll to Richard Peters, 22 October 1777, in “Two Letters of Charles Carroll of Carrollton,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, XXVIII:2 (1904), 216-17. [10] The Maryland Gazette, 24 April 1783, quoted from “The Society for the Descendants of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence,” online at http://www.dsdi1776.com/signers-bystate/charles-carroll-of-carrollton/. [11] Crowl, Philip A., ed. “Charles Carroll’s Plan of Government,” American Historical Review, XLIV;3 (April 1941), 589. [12] Salem Gazette [Massachusetts], 4 August 1826, 2. [13] “Charles Carroll, of Carrollton,” City Gazette & Commercial Daily Advertiser [Charleston, South Carolina], 21 November 1832, 2.

Daniel Carroll (1730–1796)183 [14] “Death of Charles Carroll,” American Advocate [Hallowell, Maine], 23 November 1832, 2. [15] “National Bereavement,” Farmer’s Cabinet [Amherst, New Hampshire], 2 November 1832, 2. [16] “Charles Carroll of Carrollton,” Salem Gazette [Massachusetts], 4 August 1826, 2.

Daniel Carroll (1730–1796)

like him had few civil rights, including voting and holding office. Regular schools were also off-limits to Catholics, and those families who could afford it sent their children to the Jesuit-run Bohemia Manor Academy in Cecil County, Maryland, followed by a period of study overseas at the prestigious Collège de Saint Omer in Flanders, now in Belgium. [1] Daniel Carroll joined his brother John and their cousin Charles Carroll, later known as Charles Carroll of Carrollton, in this educational journey. In 1748, after six years overseas, Daniel Carroll returned to the American colonies. Four years later he married his first cousin, Eleanor, the daughter of his father’s brother Daniel Carroll of Duddington; the couple would have two children, a daughter and a son. His father’s death left him an inheritance of land and the family merchant’s business; in addition, Carroll purchased large numbers of acres of land in Maryland, which he later sold at a large profit. One source noted that when he died, Carroll owned some 7,800 acres in Prince George’s, Montgomery, and Frederick counties, in addition to more than 30 slaves. [2] On 24 May 1764, Daniel Carroll’s brother, John, later the Archbishop of Baltimore, wrote to Daniel:

The third of the three members of the Carroll family to serve in the Continental Congress, Daniel Carroll attended that body long after his two cousins, Charles Carroll “The Barrister” and Charles Carroll of Carrollton; Daniel Carroll sat from 1781 to 1783. Like his cousin, Charles Carroll of Carrollton, who signed the Declaration of Independence, Daniel Carroll was deeply involved in the formation of the nation, helping to draft the US Constitution in the summer of 1787. The son of Daniel Carroll, Sr., also known as Daniel Carroll I, a plantation owner, and his wife, Eleanor (née Darnell), Carroll, Daniel Carroll was born at his family estate in Upper Marlboro, Maryland, on 22 July 1730. The Carroll’s family history can be found in the entries for Charles Carroll of Carrollton and Charles Carroll “The Barrister.” Daniel Carroll grew up in an atmosphere where Catholics

Upon notice that out Cousin, Charles Carroll is upon the point of setting out from London, I cannot fail profitting by this opportunity, though upon a supposition that he would have sailed last month I inclosed a letter to you dated the end of March[,] which I hope he has forwarded me as I directed him to do so. You will easily conceive I am under a good deal of uneasiness when I tell you that I have not htd [sic] from Maryland for above this twelve month[,] and I should be at a loss to know whether my friends there, were alive or dead if my Uncle’s letter had not mentioned them. I am sorry that the return of peace which I hoped would greatly facilitate our correspondence has not hitherto afforded me that advantage. My uncle is advised by his daughters that you design to [go to] Europe this year and to see us in Flanders. If this prove true I shall derive abundant compensation from the pleasure of your conversation. [3] For some reason—perhaps the ban on Catholics holding public office—Carroll did not enter politics until 1776, when a new state constitution, to replace the royal charter that had governed the colony since its establishment, was ratified

184

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

and put into order. This constitution allowed Catholics to both hold office as well as vote. Although few sources on his life take note of the fact, in 1777 Carroll was elected to the Executive Council, an advisory group formed to aid the governor, elected under the new state constitution, formulate policy. The Executive Council controlled how money was spent, how the military moved, how the state functioned. In the vacuum of power that formed after the collapse of royal rule, such a body was a necessity. In 1781, after four years on the Council, Carroll was elected to the first of five one-year terms to the Maryland state Senate. On 3 February 1781, the lower General Assembly elected him to a seat in the Continental Congress; he was subsequently reelected on 28 November 1781 and 10 December 1782, attending sessions from 12 to 28 February 1781, 1 March 1781 to about 9 May 1782, and 28 August to 31 December 1782. [4]

of immediately, Jersey having likewise proclam’d the rate to be 15o. As many individuals in our State, not withstanding this money is not current by Law, may be injured for want of Notice, I was induc’d to give you this information to be made publick if you think proper. The Exa. [sic] before this measure was abt. If the old mony passes for any thing after this Bustle [is] over it is probable it will be considerably more than double the Exce. just mentiond. A few days will determine. I write this in a hurry and conclude. [6]

In volumes V and VI of the collection of “Letters of the Member of the Continental Congress” are numerous pieces of correspondence from Carroll to Thomas Sim Lee, the governor of Maryland. In a letter to Lee, 24 April 1781, Carroll wrote, “The Board of War having spared to the Special Council for the Eastern shore and to the Virginia Delegates a number of the Rampart pieces [sic], I cou’d not obtain an order for more than 500, they have likewise given me an order for 2 four pound Brass Field pieces compleat. If 4 lbs Ball should be wanting it will be proper to mention the number you wou’d have. It not being safe to send the arms by water I presume you will order waggons [sic] up or some to be procured here.” [5] In another letter to Lee, 5 May 1781, Carroll discussed the terrible shape of the “Continental dollar,” the official currency of the United Colonies: I enclose the paper of this day principally that you may see the Step the Executive of this State has taken with respect to the rate of Exa. [sic] of the Old Continental money, which has occasioned considerable uneasiness of this City, insomuch that the President and his Council have thought proper to publish their motives and reasons in a handbill, which I cannot obtain to Send by this Opportunity. There is reason to believe, that in consequence of the means adopted by the Executive, Old Continental money to a considerable amount has been forwarded to the Southward to be dispos’d

He followed this up on 8 May to Lee, again writing of the currency situation: I wrote you a few lines last saturday informing you that large Sums of the old Continental money were sent to the Southward to be got rid of immediately in consequence of the Step taken by the Executive of this State. The enclosed paper contains a publication of the President and Council explaining their motives. The confusion still subsists in this city, I believe little or nothing can be bought here at present for the old money at any rate. I believe I lately enclosd to you a return of some cloathing which had been forwarded to Gen. [Nathanael] Greens [sic] army. I have now the pleasure of informing you that two Vessels are arrived to the Eastward with Cloathing [sic] from Cadiz. A great part of this Supply will probably be applied to yr. Troops under Genl. Washington. Before this arrival several articles were ordered as underneath . . . [7] As a delegate, Carroll signed the Articles of Confederation on 1 March 1781. [8] In the Journal of the Continental Congress for 4 November 1782, Carroll is listed as a delegate from Maryland, second only to John Hanson, who at that time was serving as the “President of the United States in Congress Assembled.” [9] After his tenure in the Continental Congress was completed, Carroll returned to the Maryland state Senate, where he served as the president of that body in 1783 and 1786. On 19 April 1785, Carroll declined an appointment as a commissioner to Make a Treaty of Peace with the Southern Indians. In a letter to the Continental Congress declining the honor, Carroll wrote, “Your favor of the 24th Ulto, inclosing an act of the United States in Congress Assembled of the 15 of the same month, for negotiating a treaty of peace with the Southern Indians, & a Commission, empowering me, with four other Gentlemen therein named, to transact that business, came to hand last

Daniel Carroll (1730–1796)185 week. If the state of my health wou’d permit, it wou’d afford me great pleasure to obey the commands of Congress. I must request you, Sir, to communicate to that Honble [sic] Body, the greatfull [sic] sense I entertain, of the confidence they have been pleas’d to repose in me, & to inform them, that I find it necessary to decline enterin on the execution of the Commission, with which I have been honor’d.” [10] That same year, however, Carroll accepted a position as a member of a commission for the Potomac Canal Company, a concern that wanted to utilize the Potomac River in what is now Virginia for navigation and trade. It was through this service that Carroll became interested in establishing a “national capital” on the banks of the Potomac. In report prepared for the US House of Representatives, established under the US Constitution, regarding the possibility of a “national capital city” (1791), it was noted that “[a]nd whereas Notley Young, Danniel [sic] Carroll, of Duddington, and many others, proprietors of the greater part of the land herein mentiond to have been laid out in a city, came into an agreement, and have conveyed their lands in trust to Thomas Beall, son of George, and John Mackall, Gantt, whereby they have subjected their lands to be laid out as a city, given up part to the United States, and subjected other part[s] to be sold to raise money as a donation to be employed according to the act of congress for the establishing the temporary and permanent seat of the government of the United States, under and upon the term and conditions contained in each of the said deeds.” [11] Prior to this, Carroll was selected by Maryland as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, held in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787, to reform and overhaul the weak and ineffective Articles of Confederation that Carroll himself had signed just six years earlier. William Pierce, a delegate to this convention, wrote in his diary, “Mr. Carrol [sic] is a Man of large fortune and influence in his State. He possesses plain good sense, and is in the full confidence of his Countrymen.” [12] In September 1787, Carroll signed the document on behalf of the state of Maryland. He supported the document’s ratification, writing a series of articles in Maryland newspapers

under the pseudonym “A Friend of the Constitution.” However, despite being named to the ratification convention, he did not vote in the state’s ratification ceremony. The new Constitution mandated national elections for a US House of Representatives and a US Senate; in November 1788, Carroll was elected to a seat in the First Congress (1789-91). Refusing a second term, on 22 January 1791 Carroll was appointed by President George Washington as a commissioner to locate a seat for a national capital; Carroll’s report, mentioned earlier, was part of the effort to locate it on the banks of the Potomac River. He remained on the commission until his resignation on 25 July 1795. For the remainder of his life, Carroll was involved in land speculation and agricultural pursuits. He built a farm near what is now Washington, DC. Carroll died on 7 May 1796, to months shy of his 66th birthday. He was buried in the Saint John the Evangelist Catholic Church in Forest Glen, in Montgomery County, Maryland. A plaque placed on his gravestone reads, “In Memory of Daniel Carroll II. Member Continental Congress, Signers Articles of Confederation and Constitution. July 22, 1730-May 6, 1796.”

[1] Geiger, Mary Virginia, “Daniel Carroll II, One Man and his Descendants, 1730-1978” (Baltimore: Privately Printed, 1979), 1-20. [2] Geiger, Virginia, “Daniel Carroll,” in John A. Garraty and Mark C. Carnes, gen. eds., “American National Biography” (New York: Oxford University Press; 24 volumes, 1999), IV:457-58. [3] “Extract From a Letter from John Carroll, Afterwards Archbishop of Baltimore[,] to his Brother Daniel Carroll of Upper Marlboro, 1764” in American Catholic Historical Researches, XIII:1 (January 1896), 26-27. [4] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), V:xvi, VI:xlv. [5] Carroll to Thomas Sim Lee, 24 April 1781, in ibid., VI:66. [6] Carroll to Thomas Sim Lee, 5 May 1781, in ibid., VI:77-78. [7] Carroll to Thomas Sim Lee, 8 May 1781, in ibid., VI:81. [8] For this specific date, see Carroll’s official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay. pl?index=C000187. [9] “Journal of the United States in Congress Assembled, Containing the Proceedings from the First Monday in November 1782, to the First Monday in November 1783. Volume VIII. Published by Order of Congress” (Philadelphia: Printed by David C. Claypoole, 1783), VIII:3. [10] “Declination of Daniel Carroll to Act as a Commissioner to Make a Treaty of Peace with the Southern Indians, 1785,” The American Catholic Historical Researches, New Series, I:3 (July 1905), 280.

186

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

[11] “Acts Concerning the Territory of Columbia, and the City of Washington. Published by Order of the House of Representatives” (New York: Published by the US House of Representatives, 1791), 3. [12] Farrand, Max, ed., “The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787” (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; two volumes, 1911), III:93.

Historian William S. Powell, one of Caswell’s biographers, wrote in 1979, “He attended the local parish school, where he was taught by William Cawthorn and Joseph Hooper, priests of St John’s Anglican Church. His father became ill in 1743, and young Richard and his older brother, William, took over the operation of the family farm and mercantile establishment to care for their parents and nine siblings. The decline of Joppa as a seaport led the family to follow many of their neighbours to North Carolina. The two brothers left first to prepare for the others. They reached New Bern, the capital of North Carolina, in 1745, bearing a letter of recommendation from the governor of Maryland to Governor Gabriel Johnston of North Carolina.” [3] There, Caswell was named as the assistant to James McIlwean, the Surveyor General for the colony of North Carolina. (Some sources give his name as James Mackilwean.) Working for this office, Richard Caswell spent two years working on his boss’ 850-acre estate, “Tower Hill,” on the Neuse River near what is now the city of Kinston, North Carolina. In 1747, his apprenticeship completed at age 18, Caswell took what money he had earned and purchased some land where his family could live on when they relocated from Maryland. The resulting plantation, first named “The Hill,” was eventually renamed “Newington-on-the-Hill” by Caswell in 1776. Although much of what home Caswell constructed is now gone, some later buildings and gardens, in a state of disrepair, do remain on the original site.

Richard Caswell (1729–1789)

A surveyor who was a native of Maryland, Richard Caswell rose to serve as a delegate to the Continental Congress from North Carolina (1774) and as governor (1776-80, 1785-87), during the American Revolution. He also served in the North Carolina state Senate (1788). Born at his family’s plantation at Mulberry Point, near the Chesapeake Bay near Joppa, Maryland [1], on 3 August 1729, he was the son of Richard Caswell, Jr., a merchant and estate owner, and his wife Christian (née Dallam) Caswell. The family has been traced back to his grandfather, Richard Slaney Caswell, Sr., born between 1620 and 1680, the place being unknown. Christian Dallam Caswell, the daughter of Richard and Elizabeth Dallam, was born between 1659 and 1719. She had four children with her husband, all sons, including Richard. Her half sister, Elizabeth Paca, was the mother of William Paca (17401799), who served in the First and Second Continental Congresses (1774-79), as the governor of Maryland (1782-85) and signed the Declaration of Independence in 1776. [2]

In 1746, Caswell was admitted to the colonial militia, an officer of the Troop of Horse. As well as working as a surveyor, Caswell also served as a clerk for the courts in Orange and Johnston counties; his father and brother were named deputy clerks, in essence working for him. He also served in a number of appointed offices in the area, including as a sheriff and chief administrative officer of the county. He studied the law and was admitted to the colonial bar in 1759. In 1754, he was elected to a seat in the North Carolina General Assembly, which he held until 1775. He married: first, in 1752, to Mary Mackilwean, the daughter of his former boss, but she died after just five years of marriage at the age of 24 while giving birth;

Richard Caswell (1729–1789)187 he then married in 1758 to Sarah Heritage (possibly also spelled Herritage), who survived him. He had two children, two daughters, both who died as infants, and a son, from his first marriage, including William Caswell, who served as a member of the North Carolina state legislature; from his second wife, Caswell had 11 additional children, eight of whom lived to adulthood. In the colonial, and then state, legislature, Caswell had a front row seat to the events that blossomed into the American Revolution and eventual independence for the American colonies. In 1770 he rose to become Speaker of the General Assembly, serving in that position until 1771; in such an office of importance, he pushed through legislation that tried to combat the harsh economic measures enacted by the British Parliament on the colonies, including the Sugar Act (1764) and the Stamp Act (1765), among others. At this same time, however, North Carolina had to deal with an even more serious problem: the rise of the Regulator Movement. Historian Richard N. Simmons wrote: It is perhaps easier to state what the North Carolina Regulators were not rather than analyze the movement in an entirely satisfactory way. First, they were not representative of the whole back country. In most counties few joined the movement, and the inhabitants provided men to suppress it. Nor were they deeply aware of their grievances as sectional ones, brought about because of their political ineffectiveness in the North Carolina assembly. Political underrepresentation was not mentioned in their protests; they were not proto-revolutionaries or even western Whigs angered by the denial of political rights and liberties. The rank and file seem to have been poor Scotch-Irish settlers protesting, in some cases with reason and in some cases mistakenly, that the costs of government fell too heavily of them and that they were the victims not only of poverty but of extortion. Many were rough and violent, disliking all government. [4] When the Regulators marched on New Bern, the colonial capital, and threatened the colonial government in 1771, the Royal Governor, William Tryon, ordered the arrest of the movement’s leader, which probably made a bad situation even worse. At this time Caswell, a member

of the General Assembly, was named as the foreman of the grand jury investigating the movement. Twice, despite direct orders from Tryon to indict, Caswell refused. However, as the leader of the militia in the colony, he did follow the orders of Tryon to march on the Regulators, an offensive that culminated in the battle of Alamance (16 May 1771), where the militia won a decisive victory, ending the Regulator movement in North Carolina. The fight against the economic war waged by England led to attempts by Tryon to dissolve the General Assembly, which its members resisted. A boycott urged by the assembly, of British-made goods, to protest the measures, led to Tryon’s forced movement of the assembly; they reassembled and renamed themselves a “Provincial Convention”—and Caswell, as Speaker of the Assembly, was one of the most powerful leaders of this movement. During this period, he also served as District Treasurer, from 1773 to 1776, and as Comptroller of the State, from 1782 to 1785. The formation of a Continental Congress in Philadelphia, to draft a letter of protest from all of the colonies to the British King, George III, led to delegates from North Carolina being selected to attend the important meeting. No one knew what to expect. On 25 August 1774, the North Carolina General Assembly named Joseph Hewes, William Hooper, and Caswell as delegates to the parley. Caswell was subsequently reelected on 5 April 1775 and 2 September 1775, serving in sessions from 17 September to 26 October 1774, and from 10 May to about 28 June 1775. He did not appear for his third election, and on 8 September 1775 he was excused by the Continental Congress from further duty. [5] Historian R.D.W. Connor wrote in 1916: Caswell was one of the first of the Whig leaders to foresee that the contest between England and her colonies would probably result in war; and he was urgent in his appeals to the Provincial Congress to organize, equip and drill troops for the emergency. One of the most interesting documents of that period now extant is a letter which he wrote to his son from Philadelphia whither he had gone to take his seat in the second Continental Congress. In this letter he describes in detail the incidents of his journey, in

188

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

company with Joseph Hewes, from Halifax, which he left April 30, to Philadelphia, where he arrived May 9th; and the incidents upon which he dwells reveal the trend of his thought. At Petersburg, Virginia, he and Hewes received their first news of the battle of Lexington, and from then on at every stage of their journey they met companies of hurrying and excited soldiers. At Hanover Court House he and Hewes met a body of 1,500 Virginians, under the command of Patrick Henry, on their way to Williamsburg to force Governor Dunmore to restore some powder and arms that he had captured. After that, as Caswell wrote, they “were constantly meeting armed men who had been to escort the delegates of Virginia on their way" [sic]; to Philadelphia.” [6]

educated at Cambridge College, classmate with Jos. Trumbull; a lawyer by profession; ingenuous, polite, spirited, and tolerably eloquent. The other two are men of about forty, to appearance; of sedate and settled characters, well affected to the general Cause, but have not spoke as yet publicly.” [8]

Historian Karen N. Barzilay wrote in 2009: All of the delegates to the General Congress of 1774 were born in the colonies. Only the Secretary of the Congress, Charles Thomson, was an immigrant. Some were the sons of English, Irish, or Scottish immigrants: Samuel Chase, James Duane, William Hooper, Patrick Henry, John Sullivan, and all three of the men representing Delaware. Most represented the colony in which they were born, though about a dozen of the delegates were born elsewhere— often in a neighboring colony. The deputations sent by Pennsylvania, Delaware, and New Jersey were more likely to include such men. Although some relocated in childhood, others—such as William Livingston, who had spent most of his life in New York and had moved only recently to New Jersey—were transplants. In addition, the three men representing North Carolina all grew up in other provinces; Richard Caswell was born in Maryland, Joseph Hewes in New Jersey, and William Hooper in Massachusetts. [7] There does not appear to be any correspondence from Caswell during his service in the Continental Congress; however, there are several mentions of him in the letters of others. For instance, delegate Silas Deane wrote to his wife, Elizabeth, from Philadelphia on 23 September 1774, “I told you in my last, that I could not in future be so particular; but as I gave you a sketch of the S. Carolina and Virginia delegates, and the North Carolina being now arrived, I will fill up the space by telling you there are three of them-Mr. Hooper, Mr. Caswell, and Mr. [Hewes]. The first is a Bostonian bred, and

Returning from the Continental Congress back to North Carolina during his second tenure, Caswell apparently carried important documents with him. Fellow North Carolinian Joseph Hewes wrote to Samuel Johnston from Philadelphia, 8 July 1775, “Caswell set off about ten days ago to meet the Assembly which you say is expected on the 12th of this month. [H]e carried most of the Resolves with him and will give you a particular account of our proceedings. [B]efore he left us we wrote a Circular Letter to the Committees of our Province.’ since his departure the Congress received a Copy of a letter from General Gage to Governor Martin forwarded by the Provincial Convention of New York, also a copy of Governor Martin’s Letter to Henry White Esqr[.] of New York delivered to us by the Committee of this City.” [9] When the war against England broke out in April 1775, Caswell became an important figure in the move towards statehood, culminating in the enactment of a new state constitution in December 1776. Back in North Carolina, Caswell was named as a leader of the state militia that fought not British soldiers but Loyalists, who backed the policies of London and the rights of the British army to fight to keep the colonies as part of England. In March 1776, the newspaper The Pennsylvania Packet published an “extract of a letter from Col. Richard Caswell, late a Delegate for the province of North-Carolina in the Continental Congress, and now Commander of a body of troops in that province, to the Hon. Cornelius Harnet, Esq; President of the Provincial Council of North-Carolina, dated from his Camp at Long-Creek, Feb. 29, 1776.” The letter stated: Sir, I have the pleasure to acquaint you that we had an engagement with the Tories, at Widow Moore’s Creek bridge, on the 27th current. Our army was about 1000 strong, consisting of the Newbern [sic]

Richard Caswell (1729–1789)189 battalion of Minute Men, the militia from Craven, Johnston, Dobbs and Wake, and a detachment of the Wilmington battalion of Minute Men, which we found encamped at Moore’s cree [sic] the night before the battle, under the command of Col. [Henry] Lidington. The Tories by common report were 3000 [in number], but Gen. McDonald [actually, Gen. Donald MacDonald], whom we have a prisoner, says there were about 15[00] or 1600; he was unwell that day, and not in the battle. Capt. McCleod [actually Capt. Donald McLeod] who seemed to be the principal commander, with Capt. John Campbell, are among the [unintelligible in the paper]. The number killed and mortally wounded, from the best accounts I was able to collect, was about 30, most of them were shot on their passin [sic] the bridge. Several had fallen into the water, some of whom, I am pretty certain, had not risen yesterday evening, when I left the camp; such prisoners as we have made, at, there were at least 50 of their men missing. [10]

that the state was about to lose this fine public servant. The Freeman’s Journal, a newspaper printed in Philadelphia, reported that on that day “at a meeting of militia officers in Washington county[,] Virginia, the following address was proposed and agreed to be presented on behalf of the whole: To the honor. major-general RICHARD Caswell. Whilst we feelingly regret the necessity of your retiring from your habitation, to avoid the cruelty and ravages of a vindictive foe, the implacable enemy to freedom, it is with peculiar satisfaction, that we welcome one of the first citizens, and first patriots of America, to make the country of the mountain-men an asylum. America has made various and gallant efforts against the common enemy, she has fought[,] she had suffered and bled, and although not always victorious, and her resources lessened, yet her spirit remains, and she must finally gain her liberties.” [12]

The Norwich Packet of Connecticut added a report, from Newbern (New Bern), dated 8 March 1776, in which they stated, “Last night arrived in town from the camp, Colonel RICHARD Caswell. The signal services he had rendered [to] his country by the total defeat of the Scotch army under the command of General McDonald, induced the committee of the town of Newbern to present him with an address, which was this day done by the Chairman of the committee, attended by the principal gentlemen of the town.” [11] The battle at Moore’s Creek (also known as Moore’s Creek Bridge, or Moores Creek Bridge) was a turning point in the battle against North Carolina Loyalists, and many historians give credit to Caswell for his service at the clash.

When Caswell vacated the governor’s office, the American Revolution was still being fought, although it was in its final throes. Commissioned into the brigade of North Carolina troops, Caswell led them into battle, most specifically at the Battle of Camden, New Jersey, 16 August 1780. Returning again to his adopted state, Caswell served the people of North Carolina as Comptroller General in 1782, the same year he was elected to a seat in the North Carolina state Senate, a seat he held until 1784. In a mark of continuing respect for this man, in 1785 he was again elected governor, this time by a vote of the people; in this tenure, under a newer state constitution, his term was limited to only two years, and he left office in 1787. On 11 May 1786, The New-York Journal reported “a proclamation” issued by Caswell as governor. The statement read:

In December 1776, as noted, North Carolina voted to ratify a new state constitution, and the General Assembly elected Caswell as the first governor of the state under that new governmental blueprint. Caswell himself had served as a delegate to the state constitutional convention, and his selection as governor came as no surprise, considering his lengthy service to the colony and to the state. He ultimately served until 1781, and left office quite popular. On 2 June 1781, Caswell’s departure from the governorship led to loud demonstrations

Whereas it hath been represented to me, that from the great drought of the last summer and fall, the crops of wheat and indian corn have fallen far short of those in fruitful years, an accident of which, grain of all kinds has risen to great and unusual prices: And it has aldo [sic] been represented to me, that there are a great number of vessels, trading in the different ports of this state for provisions, and many of those vessels are from British ports, from

190

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

which the vessels of the United States are totally excluded, and even treated as enemies when in distress; and, contrary to the dictates of humanity, have been refused comon [sic] refreshments . . . I have therefore thought [it] proper by and with the advise [sic] of the council of state, to issue this my proclamation, hereby prohibiting the exportation of wheat, indian corn, flour and indian meal out of this state by land and water, and by any person or persons without, within thirty days from the date hereof, except such quantity as may be necessary for the provisions of the crew of any ship or vessel going on a voyage. [13]

the untutored savage, the mere rehearsal of a Warrior’s achievements?” [15]

In 1787, Caswell was named as a delegate to the state convention tasked to either ratify or vote against the new US Constitution, drafted in Philadelphia that year, but for some reason Caswell did not attend. At the time that he was serving in the state Senate and as governor, Caswell began to suffer from severe headaches and repeated dizziness. On 8 November 1789, while sitting as the presiding officer of the North Carolina state Senate, Caswell suffered a fatal stroke that left him unable to speak. He died two days later, at the age of 60. The New-York Journal reported, “On Tuesday the 16th ultimo died, at Fayetteville, North-Carolina, the most worshipful and honor. RICHARD CASWELL, Esq, speaker of the senate, and grand-master of the masons [sic] of that state; a gentleman who has uniformly distinguished himself as a firm friend to the liberties of his county. He was a member of the first Congress, in 1775; and has repeatedly been elected Governor of that state. He was many years a member of the legislature, and ever ranked amongst the first of patriot and best of men. His remains were with all of the honors due to so distinguished a character, and the general assembly [sic] of that state have determined to go into mourning [for] one month.” [14] A funeral oration was delivered in his honor at Christ Church in New Bern by FrançoisXavier Martin, who stated in the address, “Shall our griefs terminate in sterile tears? Shall this Discourse, sacred to the Memory of the Most Worshipful and Honorable Major General Richard Caswell, Grand-Master of the Masons of North-Carolina, be, like the son of

Caswell was laid to rest in the Caswell Memorial Cemetery in Kinston, in Lenoir County, North Carolina. Although the grave was marked, there was lingering doubt, for many years, that Caswell was indeed buried there. In 2008, archaeologists found in what they believe was his grave the remnants of a coffin and a piece of leather, possibly from a shoe he wore, or another piece of clothing that one researcher thought might be part of a Masonic apron, laid on his body after death. Caswell has been officially designated as a Patriot by the Daughters of the American Revolution. [16]

[1] Caswell’s official congressional biography states that he was born “in Harford (now Baltimore) County, Md.” This is an error. See Caswell’s official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay. pl?index=C000246. [2] Information on the Caswell, Dallam, and Paca families are all courtesy of the Caswell family tree, online at http://www.geni.com/people/Richard-Caswell-III-ProvGov/6000000000964266330. [3] Powell, William S., “Caswell, Richard” in William S. Powell, ed., “Dictionary of North Carolina Biography” (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press; four volumes, 1979-96), I:343-44. [4] Simmons, Richard C., “The American Colonies: From Settlement to Independence” (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 1976), 326. [5] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), I:lviii. [6] Connor, Robert Digges Wimberly, “Revolutionary Leaders of North Carolina” (Greensboro, North Carolina: Published for the North Carolina State Normal & Industrial College, 1916), 83-84. [7] Barzilay, Karen Northrop, “Fifty Gentlemen Total Strangers: A Portrait of the First Continental Congress” (Ph.D. dissertation, The College of William and Mary, 2009), 31. [8] Silas Deane to Elizabeth Deane, 23 September 1774, in Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress,” I:45. [9] Joseph Hewes to Samuel Johnston, 8 July 1775, in ibid., I:160. [10] “Extract of a letter from Col. Richard Caswell,” Dunlap’s Pennsylvania Packet, Or, General Advertiser [Philadelphia], 25 March 1776, 3. [11] “Newbern [sic] (North-Carolina)[,] March 8,” The Norwich Packet and The Weekly Advertiser [Connecticut], 15-22 April 1776, 4. [12] “Abingdon, June 2,” The Freeman’s Journal: Or NorthAmerican Intelligencer [Philadelphia], 17 July 1781, 3. [13] “By His Excellency RICHARD CASWELL, Esquire, Governor, Captain-General, and Commander-in-Chief in and over the State of North-Carolina, A Proclamation,” The New-York Journal, Or The Weekly Register [New York City], 11 May 1786, 1.

Jeremiah Townley Chase (1748–1828)191 [14] “Died,” The New-York Journal and Weekly Register, 7 January 1790, 3. [15] “A Funeral Oration, On the Most Worshipful and Hon. Major-General Richard Caswell, Grand-Master of the Masons of North-Carolina,” Gazette of the United States [Philadelphia], 3 February 1790, 340. [16] See Daughters of the American Revolution, “DAR Patriot Index: Millennium Edition” (Baltimore: Gateway Press; three volumes, 2003), I:471.

Jeremiah Townley Chase (1748–1828)

Baltimore, one of the members of the founding family of the Maryland colony. The Reverend Chase also served as a rector of Westminster Parish and the All Hallow’s Parish, both in Anne Arundel County, Maryland. His brother, the Reverend Thomas Chase (1703-1779), was also an English-born religious leader who served as the rector of the St. Paul’s Parish in Anne Arundel County, Maryland. The family can be traced back to the Reverend Chase’s father, Samuel Chase, born in East Mouleley (now East Molesey), Surrey, about 1650. [1] His cousin, from his father’s brother, was Samuel Chase (1741-1811), who signed the Declaration of Independence, served in the Continental Congress as well, and served on the US Supreme Court (1796-1811). Chase married Hester Baldwin on 24 June 1779, and together the couple had five children. [2]

A delegate to the Continental Congress from Maryland (1783, 1784), Jeremiah Townley Chase was a longtime advocate for the patriot cause, serving on Committees of Observation and Correspondence in his native state prior to his congressional service. He spent 35 years as the chief justice of the Court of Appeals of Maryland, which he resigned. Chase was born on 23 May 1748 in St. Paul’s Parish, in Baltimore County, Maryland, the son of Richard Chase, described as a “gentleman,” and his wife Catherine (no maiden name known) Chase. Richard Chase was the son of the Reverend Richard Chase (c. 1691-1742), the chaplain to Charles Calvert, the Fifth Lord

In 1774, Jeremiah Chase served on the Maryland Committee of Observation and Correspondence, which corresponded with others in other colonies to formulate a plan to fight the oppressive economic measures enacted on the colonies by the British Parliament. On 11 February 1775, The Providence Gazette reported that “[i]n a Meeting of the Inhabitants of Baltimore County, qualified to vote for Representatives, at the Court-House, in Baltimore-Town, on Monday the 16th day of January, 1775, Captain CHARLES RIDGELY, Chairman, JEREMIAH TOWNLEY CHASE, Clerk, The proceedings of the late Provincial Convention were read, considered, and unanimously approved. Resolved unanimously, That every member of this meeting will, and every person residing in this county ought, strictly and inviolably to observe and execute the resolutions and recommendations of the late Provincial Convention.” [3] In 1776, Chase served as a delegate to the Maryland Constitutional Convention, which formulated a new state constitution after the colonial government had been overthrown. After his marriage, he moved with his wife from Anne Arundel County to Annapolis, the state capital, where, the following year, he was named as a member of the Governor’s Council, serving until 1784, and then again from 1786 until 1788. The New-York

192

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Packet reported on 18 December 1783, “On Saturday last the General Assembly of this state proceeded to the choice of a Governor for the year ensuing, when his Excellency WILLIAM PACA, Esq: was unanimously re-elected. On Monday last, Jeremiah Townley Chase, Gabriel Duvall, John Hopkins Stone, James Brice, an Benjamin Ogle, Esqrs: were chosen Members of the Honorable Council.” [4] In 1783, Chase served as the mayor of Annapolis.

that the friends of the proposed system have received a total defeat in Anne Arundel county, and that on the close of that poll there was a majority in favour of Jeremiah Townley Chase, Samuel Chase, John F. Mercer, and Benjamin Harrison, esquires, who firmly concur in sentiment with the members for Baltimore and Harford counties. [7]

On 9 December 1783, Chase was elected by the General Assembly to a seat in the Continental Congress, for a “term not specified.” According to historian Edmund Cody Burnett, Chase attended sessions from 15 to 31 December 1783, from 1 January to 8 March 1784, from 17 March to 5 April 1784, from 12 April to 4 June 1784, and from 28 June to 13 August 1784. Burnett added that “Chase was the Maryland member of the Committee of the States.” Chase also served side-by-side with his cousin, Samuel Chase, another delegate from Maryland. [5] And while Burnett does not include any correspondence to or from Chase, and no correspondence appears to exist from this period, Burnett does note that “[i] mmediately upon the acceptance of the Virginia deed of cession, March 1 [1784], a committee consisting of Jefferson, Jeremiah Townley Chase of Maryland, and David Howell of Rhode Island, appointed some time before ‘to prepare a plan for the temporary government of the western territory,’ brought in their report.” [6] In 1788, following the drafting of the new US Constitution in Philadelphia, the document was sent to the states for ratification. The Independent Gazetteer reported on 17 April 1788: The election for four members to represent the county of Harford in the convention, to meet at Annapolis on the 21st inst. to decide on the new constitution, was closed yesterday about five o’clock in the afternoon . . . [T]he same opposition of sentiment existed and was declared between the candidates for Baltimore county, as between those of Harford. The great and decided majority, in each county, in favour of the candidates who declared in opposition to the new constitution, must evince to the world, in the strongest manner, the sense of those two counties. I am also this moment informed by good authority,

Chase served as an anti-Federalist delegate to the convention. Samuel Smith of Maryland, who later served in the US Senate, wrote to Tench Coxe, a delegate to the Continental Congress from Pennsylvania, on 28 April 1788, “Permit me to Congratulate you on the Ratification of the new Constitution by this State—The Convention met on Monday Last & form’d Rules for their Government. On Tuesday[,] Mr. J.T. Chase Made a Motion to discuss the subject paragraph by Paragraph, which was rejected 58 to 4. The Question was Call’d for when the Opposition Beg’d to be heard[,] which was granted[.] Mess[rs]. Chase[,] [William] Paca[of Maryland,] & [John Francis] Mercer [of Maryland] spoke, But were not answer’d. On Saturday afternoon the Question was put & Carried for the Ratification 63 agt [against] 11.” [8] Chase voted against the ratification on the basis that a bill of rights, which he felt were integral for the new government structure to survive, was omitted from the final draft of the Constitution. (It was added later, as the first 10 amendments to the document.) In 1789, Chase was named to the General Court of Maryland, rising to become chief justice of that court ten years later. Historian Carroll T. Bond wrote: More than one effort was needed in 1806 to fill the places of these chief judges. Appointments were first made in this order, thus fixing the order of seniority. Jeremiah Townley Chase, of Anne Arundel County, who had been Chief Judge of the General Court since 1799, was based Chief Judge of the third judicial district, and Chief Judge of the Court of Appeals; and he accepted the appointment. He was a man who had participated to the full in the public affairs of his time; had been one of the first of the young men to take a prominent part in the revolutionary movement in 1775, enlisted as a private in the first military company raised in Maryland, and had been

Samuel Chase (1741–1811)193 a member of the first Committee of Observation in Baltimore where he then lived, had been a member of the Maryland constitutional convention in 1776, when twenty-eight years old, a member of the Continental Congress in 1783, and at the same time Mayor of Annapolis, and a such he had made the welcomin [sic] address to General Washington when Washington came to resigned [sic] his commission. [9] He resigned from this court in 1824, citing declining health. Jeremiah Chase died in Annapolis on 11 May 1828, 12 days shy of his 80th birthday. He was laid to rest in the Chase family plot in Saint Anne’s Cemetery in Annapolis. A stone tablet on his grave reads, “To the Memory of Jeremiah Townley Chase, Late Chief Judge of the State of Maryland, for the Court of Appeals, who was born May 23d 1748 and died May 11th 1828, Closing a Long, Useful and Honor’d Lie by a death full of peace and hope. He had served his Country in the Day of Her Peril And Fill’d and Adorn’d many Stations of High Trust to which She Had Called Him. He had Deserved and Obtained the Esteem of All Who Knew Him, and the Warmest Affections of His Friends Kindred and Family. He was Ready to be Offered the Hand Walked with God and Trusted, and Fond His Grace Sufficient for Him in Life and in Death.”

[1] Refer to the Chase family tree, only to http://www. politicalfamilytree.com/samples%20content/members/signers/ Chase-MD-1.pdf. [2] Warfield, J.D., “The Founders of Anne Arundel and Howard Counties, Maryland: A Genealogical and Biographical Review from Wills, Deeds and Church Record” (Baltimore: Regional Publishing Company, 1967), 189. [3] The Providence Gazette And Country Journal [Rhode Island], 11 February 1775, 4. [4] The New-York Packet, and The American Daily Advertiser [New York City], 18 December 1783, 2. [5] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VII:lxvi. [6] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress,” op. cit., VI:xxxviii.. . . [7] “Extract of a letter from Maryland, dated April 14,” The Independent Gazetteer; Or, The Chronicle of Freedom [Philadelphia], 17 April 1788, 2. [8] Samuel Smith to Tench Coxe, 28 April 1788, in The Coxe Family Papers. [9] Bond, Carroll T., “The Court of Appeals of Maryland: A History” (Baltimore: Barton-Gillet Company, 1928), 99-100.

Samuel Chase (1741–1811)

Today, Samuel Chase is more remembered as being the first federal officer impeached under the auspices of the US Constitution in 1805 than as a member of the Continental Congress. A US Supreme Court justice (1791-1811), he had run afoul of his political enemies through the zealous prosecution of those who were tried under the Alien & Sedition Acts (1797), enacted to combat opposition to the administration of President John Adams. A long-serving officer of elective and other offices in his native Maryland, Chase was a member of a distinguished family of that colony and state. Samuel Chase was the son of Thomas Chase, a rector in the Episcopal Church in Baltimore, and his wife Martha (née Walker) Chase. Samuel Chase’s father, Thomas, was the brother to the Reverend Richard Chase (c.1691-1742), who served as a chaplain to Charles Calvert, the Fifth Lord Baltimore, a member of the founding family of the Maryland colony. Samuel Chase’s grandfather, also named Samuel Chase, was born between 1638 and 1698. Of Matilda Walker Chase’s family, it appears that she was the daughter of Thomas Walker, whose father also named Thomas Walker, lived from 1675 to 1744. [1]

194

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

In 1744, Matilda Chase died, and Thomas Chase moved his family to Baltimore to be closer to the rest of his family. Owing to his father’s social standing and wealth, Samuel Chase was tutored by his father, and it appears that this was his only primary education. In 1759, when he was 18, he undertook the study of the law under John Hall and John Hammand, two Annapolis, Maryland, attorneys. In 1762, Chase married Ann (also spelled Anne) Baldwin, and the following year was admitted to the Maryland colonial bar. (Some sources give this date as 1761, not 1763.) [2] He opened a practice in Baltimore, but did not pursue the law for long. In 1764, a mere two years after being admitted to the bar, Chase entered the political arena, when he was elected to a seat in the Maryland legislature. In this body, he was a vocal opponent of the Stamp Act (1765), a piece of legislation enacted by the British Parliament that imposed severe duties on paper and other products sold in the colonies. When there were riots in Baltimore over the act, Chase joined the local committee of the “Sons of Liberty,” an advocacy group, and subsequently served on the colony’s Committee of Correspondence, which corresponded with other colonies as to what should be done to counter the Stamp Act as well as other harsh economic measures enacted by London on the colonies. When Chase joined one of the street protests against the Stamp Act, the mayor of Annapolis called him a “busy, restless incendiary, a ringleader of mobs, a foul-mouthe and inflaming son of discord and faction, a common disturber of the public tranquillity, and a promoter of the lawless excessed of the multitude.” Chase took these slurs and bathed himself in them, stating in a pamphlet he published in reaction to the criticism, “I admit, gentlemen, that I was one of those who committed to the flames, in effigy, the stamp distributor of that province, and who openly disputed the parliamentary right to tax the colonies, while you skulked in your houses, some of you asserting the parliamentary right, and esteeming the stamp act [as] a beneficial law. Others of you meanly grumbled in your corners, not daring to speak out your sentiments.”

“meeting of the minds” of the leading political luminaries of the colonies in that city should be seen, and can be seen, even now as a step that needed to be taken. The delegates to this meeting were selected by the colonial legislatures of the specific colonies, even though many of them were officially dissolved by the royal governors who ran them, their loyalties to London and not to the people they ruled over. To this end, on 22 June 1774, the Maryland General Assembly elected Chase, Robert Goldsborough, Thomas Johnson, Jr., William Paca, and Matthew Tilghman as delegates to what is known as the First Continental Congress. Chase was subsequently reelected on 8 December, 14 August 1775, and 21 May 1776, ultimately attending sessions from 5 September to 26 October 1774, from 10 May to 21 July 1775, from approximately 11 September to about 9 November 1775, and, finally, from about 6 February to 14 June 1776. [3] Chase definitely returned to Philadelphia after this, as he was a signatory to the Declaration of Independence.

The committees of correspondence of the colonies all decided to meet in a parley to be held in Philadelphia in 1774. At that time, Philadelphia, and not New York City, was the economic and political center, if there was one, of the colonies as a whole. Thus, having such a

While there are several pieces of correspondence to and from Chase during this period, two are reproduced here. In the first, Chase wrote to General Horatio Gates, 13 June 1776, regarding the ongoing American military operations in Canada: I am compelled to leave this city early tomorrow. Mrs. Chase is extremely ill. We have laid before Congress the many and great abuses and mismanagements in Canada, and proposed such remedies as we thought most expedient in our present situation. A General is to be sent there with the powers of a Roman Dictator. Many of the Congress have cast their eyes upon you, and I doubt not, you will be appointed to this great, and important command. I am pleased with the reflection that you will now have an opportunity to render great services to America. Your inclination, and abilities will have room for exertion, and laurels are still to be reaped in Canada. You will have a respectable army and every measure we can suggest is taking to supply them with necessaries. [4] Chase served with Benjamin Franklin and Charles Carroll of Carrollton on a mission to Canada to try to get that nation joined to the American union, but the attempt failed miserably. In the second letter, Massachusetts delegate John Adams wrote to Chase: Mr. Adams ever was and ever will be glad to see Mr. Chase; but Mr. Chase never was nor will be

Samuel Chase (1741–1811)195 more welcome than if he should come next Monday or Tuesday fortnight, with the voice of Maryland in favor of independence and a foreign alliance. I have one bone to pick with your colony; I suspect they levelled one of their instructions at my head. This is a distinction of which you may suppose I am not very ambitious. One of your colleagues moved a resolution that no member of Congress should hold any office under any of the new governments, and produced an instruction to make him feel strong. I seconded the motion, with a trifling amendment, that the resolution should be, that no member of Congress should hold any office, civil or military, in the army or in the militia, under any government, old or new. This struck through the assembly like an electric shock, for every member was a governor, or general, or judge, or some mighty thing or other in the militia, or under the old government or some new one. This was so important a matter that it required consideration, and I have never heard another word about it. [5] Leading up to the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Chase had to return to Maryland, as his initial instructions were to resist any moves towards independence from England, and convince those who sent him to the Continental Congress to change their minds and allow him to sign the document on behalf of the colony. He wrote to John Adams from Annapolis that “I am just this moment from the house to procure an express to follow the post with an unanimous vote of our convention for independence. See the glorious effect of county instructions. The people have fire, if it is not smothered.” Chase was not able to get back to Philadelphia to sign the declaration, however, until 2 August 1776. [6] Sources on Chase’s life state that he served as a delegate to the Continental Congress until 1778; historian Edmund Cody Burnett reports that he served up until 8 October 1778. [7] It was about this time that Chase may have committed some acts which, in light of what later happened to him, could only be considered unethical at best. Historian John Patrick Lambe explained, “Acting on inside information concerning the provisioning of the French fleet, Chase and three others attempted to corner the market on flour in 1778. Writing as ‘Publius,’ Alexander Hamilton issued cutting denunciations of those who sought to profut [sic] from the bloody struggle for independence. In later years the Jeffersonians would also castigate Chase,

but their invective was no stronger than that employed by Hamilton, one of the architects of Federalism: ‘Had you not struck out a new line of prostitution for yourself, you might still have remained unnoticed, and contemptible . . . But you have now forced yourself into view, in a light too singular and conspicuous to be overlooked, and have acquired an undisputed title to be immortalized in infamy.’” [8] The controversy did not appear to negatively affect Chase in Maryland politics. In 1783, he was elected again to the Continental Congress; as reported in The New-York Packet on 18 December 1783, “The Honorable James McHenry, Thomas Stone Samuel Chase, and Edward Lloyd, Esqs, are chosen Delegates to represent this State in Congress for the year ensuing.” [9] That same year, 1783, the Maryland General Assembly sent him to England to get back stock in the Maryland colonial government that was being held by the Bank of England. The bank offered to settle with Chase once he arrived in London, paying him, and the state of Maryland, with a check for approximately $650,000. Despite having served in the Continental Congress and having protested England, Chase spent a year in Great Britain, wining and dining with the cream of British society. His first wife having died, while in London in March 1784 he met Hannah Kitty Giles, the daughter of a local doctor. The two were married, and when Chase returned to America his new wife joined him. In 1786, Chase moved from Annapolis, the new Maryland capital, to Baltimore, the leading city in that state, where a close friend, John Eager Howard, the owner of a large estate as well as being a fellow delegate to the Continental Congress, offered Chase and his family land for his own plantation. The move to Baltimore began for Chase an upward climb in state and then national politics. In 1788, after two years in the city, he was named as a judge of the Baltimore Criminal Court; three years after that, in 1791, he was promoted to a seat as a judge on the General Court of Maryland. Chase’s rise to his next—and last—position (as a US Supreme Court justice) merits some explanation. But for a quirk of history, he would never have gotten the job. Under the US Constitution, a Supreme Court was established as one of three parts of the new federal government—

196

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

the judiciary, in opposition and cooperation with the Executive branch (the president) and the Legislative branch (the Congress). In 1789, George Washington, the first president under the Constitution, was allowed to name all of the justices to the new Court; one of these first appointments was of John Rutledge (1739-1800), a South Carolina-born attorney who had studied at one of the Inns of Court in London prior to the war, and had served as a delegate to the Stamp Act Congress in 1765. Rutledge was approved for the high court by the US Senate; in 1791, after a little more than a year on the Court, Rutledge resigned to become the chief justice of the South Carolina Supreme Court. However, after the resignation of Chief Justice John Jay in 1795, Washington reached out again to Rutledge and named the South Carolinian to the Jay vacancy on 12 August 1795. Issues involving Rutledge as well as the administration itself led the Senate to stall the nomination, and Washington named him as a recess appointment. After four months, Rutledge realized that the US Senate would never confirm him, and he bowed out of further consideration. [10] Legal historian Henry J. Abraham explained, “A signer of the Declaration of Independence and a hero of the Revolution, Chief Justice Samuel Chase of Maryland, 55, was the president’s initial choice to fill the vacancy caused by the Senate’s rejection of John Rutledge as chief justice in December 1795, yet wisely he refrained from designating the acid tongued, outspoken Chase.” [11] In fact, Chase took over the seat not of the chief justice, but of Associate Justice John Blair, who resigned from the Court on 27 January 1796 due to ill health. (Blair would die four years later, on 31 August 1800, at age 68.) In his first few years on the Court, Chase handed down important opinions that set up the underpinning of the judicial landscape of the new nation, including Ware v. Hylton (3 US 199 {1796}), and Calder v. Bull (3 US 386 {1798}).

legislation so violative of the First Amendment to the US Constitution, but that would be a moot exercise: this came at a time when tensions were on the rise not with England, with which the US had fought a war, but France, which now threatened to explode into war. Writing in the introduction to a volume of the “Documentary History of the US Supreme Court,” historian Maeva Marcus wrote:

But it was not a decision of the Court, or even an opinion of Chase, that led to his setting the stone of history firmly in place. In 1798, while Chase sat on the Supreme Court, the US Congress, dominated by the Federalist Party of President John Adams, passed the Alien and Sedition Acts, a series of measures that cracked down on any speech deemed to be harmful to the US government or to the president. In hindsight, it is easy to ask how Congress could push

The anti-alien legislation made it harder for foreigners to become naturalized United States citizens and easier or the government to deport Frenchmen and other aliens deemed to be dangerous. Even more significant was the Sedition Act, which made it a federal crime for anyone intentionally to “defame the United States government in gen., or the Congress or president in particular.” While conducting trials in their individual circuits, the Justices of the US Supreme Court witnessed and presided over trials of those who had run afoul of the Alien & Sedition Acts. And while Justice William Paterson came under harsh scrutiny for his conduct at the trial of Rep. Matthew Lyon of Vermont—Lyon was convicted— Chase earned the enmity of those in opposition to the act. Marcus adds, “But if Paterson was zealous, his colleague Samuel Chase was downright rabid in his application of the statute. His conduct of the 1800 trial of the provocative Scottish-born journalist James Callender, which inevitably produced a guilty verdict, formed one of the main pillars underpinning the 1804 impeachment of Chase. [12] However, we are getting ahead of ourselves here. The acts, passed in 1798, gained such opposition that they were probably most responsible for Adams’ defeat in his reelection campaign in 1800, with former Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson elected as the third president. But Jefferson alone could not undo the Alien & Sedition Acts alone; he had to have Congress do it, although he refused to prosecute any new cases. In 1802, under the new population figures established by the 1800 census, the DemocraticRepublicans, the party of Jefferson, won 102 seats in the US House of Representatives and took firm control of that body; in the US Senate, for the Eighth Congress (1803-05), the Democratic-Republicans controlled 25 seats to the Federalists’ 9. The Jeffersonians now had the ability to impeach Justice Chase in the House and convict him in the Senate and remove him from the bench altogether. The House Judiciary

Samuel Chase (1741–1811)197 Committee, led by the denunciations of Chase by Rep. John Randolph of Virginia, charged that Chase had conducted malfeasance in office through the trials of Callendar as well as others, in addition to other charges. On 26 March 1804, that committee voted in the affirmative on six counts of impeachment, which were sent to the full House floor and quickly approved. This was the first ever impeachment sent to the US Senate under the new US Constitution. The charges addressed the following: 1: Chase’s misconduct in the trial of John Fries, for treason; 2: Chase’s misconduct in the trial of James Thomson Callendar, for libel; 3: Chase’s conduct against one John Taylor, a witness in the trial of Callendar; 4; The conduct of Chase in all of the trials, marked by “manifest injustice, partiality, and intemperance”; 5. That Chase awarded a “capias” [13] against the body of Callendar, in violation of the law; 6: That Chase brought Callendar to trial “in violation of the laws of the United States”; 7: That Chase refused to discharge a grand jury, held at Newcastle, Delaware, in June 1800, even though ordered to; and 8: That Chase disregarded the law in a circuit court in Baltimore, Maryland, in May 1803. [14] Laymen can get a feel of how impeachments are carried out in America, with the country having gone through the impeachment of a president of the United States in 1997. But when Chase was impeached by the US House of Representatives and tried before the US Senate, this was new territory: the first such proceeding under the US Constitution. Historian Alexander Pope Humphrey wrote in 1899, “It was on January second, 1805, that Samuel Chase, then one of the Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, was summoned to attend at the bar of the Senate and answer to the accusation of the House of Representatives. The hall where the trial was conducted perished in the burning of Washington by the British in 1814. The chronicler has been particular in telling us how everything was ordered. The covering of the seats of the Senators was of crimson cloth, and these were arranged on each side of the presiding officer facing the audience as in any other court. Those of the House of Representatives were covered with green cloth, and those of the Managers and Counsel for the defendant, with blue cloth.” [15] Both sides lined up impressive legal figures to argue their case: the House managers, posted with

the goal of presenting the case against Chase to the senators acting as a jury, were the aforementioned Representatives John Randolph of Virginia, Caesar A. Rodney of Delaware, Joseph Hopper Nicholson of Maryland, Peter Early of Georgia, John Boyle of Kentucky, and George Washington Campbell of Tennessee. Chase’s own attorneys, who argued his case to the Senate, were Luther Martin (the attorney general of Maryland), Robert Goodloe Harper, Joseph Hopkinson, Charles Lee (a former US attorney general), and Philip Barton Key, the brother of Francis Scott Key, author of “The Star Spangled Banner.” The trial began on 9 February 1805, and ended on 22 February, when the defense argued the closing statements to the senators, followed by the prosecution. On 1 March 1805, the Senate announced that a decision had been reached; with 34 senators, 23 would be needed for a conviction on any one article. When it came time for the senators to vote on the eight differing articles of impeachment, none had the constitutionally mandated two-thirds, although three did have majorities of support. When all eight articles had been voted on, Vice President Aaron Burr, sitting as the presiding officer of the trial, announced to the gallery: “There not being a constitutional majority on any one article, it becomes my duty to pronounce that Samuel Chase, Esquire, is acquitted of the articles of impeachment exhibited against him by the House of Representatives.” Henry Adams, he of the famed Massachusetts political family, wrote in 1889: The acquittal of Chase proved that impeachment was a scarecrow; but its effect on impeachment as a principle of law was less evident. No point was decided. The theory of Giles, Randolph, and Rodney was still intact, for it was not avowedly applied to the case. The theory of Judge Chase’s counsel . . . was overthrown neither by the argument nor by the judgment . . . but although the acquittal of Chase decided no point of law except his innocence of high crimes or misdemeanors, as charged in the indictment, it proved impeachment to be “an impractical thing” for partisan purposes, and it decided the permanence of those lines of Constitutional development which were a reflection of the common law. Henceforward the legal profession had its own way in expounding the principles and expanding the power of the central government through the Judiciary. [16]

198

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Historians Robert R. Bair and Robin D. Coblentz added, “By far the most important consequences of the trial were a reduction of the fear of the use of impeachment for political ends and a strengthening of Marshall’s position. But there were others. Manners of the judges improved considerably. Federal judges, especially, confined their official opinions and actions to judicial matters; and, although they did not lose sight of political considerations, they no longer subjected the public to lectures from the bench on political and moral issues.” [17]

lawyer and politician who sought quarrels and delighted in them. Indeed, his entire career had been marked by such intemperance of word and action that he seemed ‘to move perpetually with a mob at his heels,’ which sometimes pursued but quite often followed him.” [19]

A review, appearing in the magazine The Monthly Anthology and Boston Review in January 1806, on the publication of the trial transcript of Chase’s impeachment, opinionated: No event of a domestick nature has, since the adoption of the federal constitution, excited in the United States a more universal interest, than the impeachment of Judge Chase. It is not for us to arraign the motives of the triumphant majority in the house of representatives, who voted in favour of that measure. But whether the charges against that citizen were well founded, or whether political intolerance, rather than a regard for the pure administration of equal laws, led to that prosecution, will appear from an examination of the volume before us. We would however confide in the wisdom and integrity of the constituted authorities of our country ; and we wish to believe, that their conduct always results from patriotick principles, far exalted above any views of private interest or party rage. [18] Chase returned to the bench, where he remained until his death in Washington, DC, on 19 June 1811, two months past his 70th birthday. His body was returned to Maryland, and he was laid to rest in Baltimore’s Old St. Paul’s Cemetery, with his father; his second wife, Kitty, lived until 1848, and was buried in the same plot. Chase’s tombstone merely says that he was a Signer of the Declaration of Independence and a “Judge” [sic] on the US Supreme Court. Chase was a series of contradictions: fiery while quiet, patriotic yet willing to use his contacts to make a profit, connected to the law but able to use the law to stifle free speech. He is both liked and despised by personages throughout American history, before and since his death. Frederick Hill wrote in 1907, “It was not in his judicial capacity alone that Samuel Chase had earned his reputation. For years he had been known as a pugnacious

Joseph Story, who was named to the US Supreme Court in 1811, wrote of Chase after meeting the members of the court in 1808, “Of Chase, I have formerly written. On a nearer view, I am satisfied that the elements of his mind are the very first excellence; age and infirmity have in some degree impaired them. His manners are course [sic], and in appearance harsh; but in reality he abounds with good humor. He loves to croak and grumble, and in the very same breath he amuses you extremely by his anecdotes and pleasantry. His first approach is formidable, but all difficulty vanishes when you once understand him. In person, in manners, in unwieldly strength, in severity of reproof, in real tenderness of heart, and above all in intellect, he is the living, I had almost said the exact, image of Samuel Johnson. To use a provincial expression, I like him hugely.” [20]

[1] Chase genealogical information and family tree, online at http://www.geni.com/people/Samuel-Chase-signer-of-theDeclaration-of-Independence/6000000013164515492. [2] For instance, see James Haw, “Chase, Samuel” in Roger K. Newman, ed., “The Yale Biographical Dictionary of American Law” (Stamford, CT: Yale University Press, 2009), 103. Haw has written a major work on Chase, but almost every other biography states the 1763 date, rather than the 1761 date that Haw cites. [3] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), I:xlv. [4] Chase to Horatio Gates, 13 June 1776, in ibid., I:486. [5] John Adams to Chase, 14 June 1776, in ibid., I:490. [6] Chase to Adams, undated, in Robert T. Conrad, ed., “Sanderson’s Biography of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence” (Philadelphia: Thomas, Cowperthwaite & Co., 1846), 493. [7] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress,” op. cit., III:iii. [8] Lambe, John Patrick, “The Impeachment of Samuel Chase” (Master of Arts thesis, Southern Connecticut State College, 1980), 21. [9] “Annapolis, (Maryland), Nov. 27,” The New-York Packet and The American Advertiser, 18 December 1783, 2. [10] Biographical information on John Rutledge, courtesy of The Supreme Court Historical Society, online at http://www. supremecourthistory.org/history-of-the-court/chief-justices/ john-rutledge-1795/. [11] Abraham, Henry J., “Justices, President and Senators: A History of the US Supreme Court Appointments from Washington to Clinton” (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1999), 57. [12] See the introduction, in Maeva Marcus, ed., “The Documentary History the Supreme Court of the United States, 1789- 1800”

Abraham Clark (1726–1794)199 (New York: Columbia University Press; eight volumes, 19852007), VIII:2. [13] A capias is defined as “one of several different kinds of writs, or court orders, all of which require an officer to take the defendant into custody.” [14] “The Answer and Pleas of Samuel Chase, One of the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States, to the ­Articles of Impeachment, Exhibited Against Him in the Senate, by the House of Representatives of the United States, In Support of Their Impeachment Against Him, For High Crimes and Misdemeanors, Supposed To Have Been By Him Committed” (Newburyport, MA: Published by Angier March, 1805), 3-15. [15] Humphrey, Alexander Pope, “The Impeachment of Samuel Chase,” The Virginia Law Register, V:5 (September 1899), 281302. [16] Adams, Henry, “History of the United States” (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons; nine volumes, 1889-91), II:243-44. [17] Bair, Robert R.; and Robin D. Coblentz, “The Trials of Mr. Justice Samuel Chase,” Maryland Law Review, XXVII:4 (1967), 385-86. [18] “Report of the Trial of the Hon. Samuel Chase,” The Monthly Anthology and Boston Review, Containing Sketches and Reports of Philosophy, Religion, History, Arts and Manners, III:1 (January 1806), 32. [19] Hill, Frederick, “Decisive Battles of the Law” (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1907), 6-7. [20] See Charles Warren, “The Supreme Court in United States History” (Boston: Little Brown; three volumes, 1922), I:465.

Abraham Clark (1726–1794)

One of the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence, and delegate to the Continental Congress on three separate occasions (1776-78, 1780-83, and 1786-88) from New Jersey, Abraham Clark was also a surveyor who served in a number of statewide offices in his native New Jersey. He was born on his family’s farm in Elizabethtown (now Elizabeth), New Jersey, on 15 February 1725,

the son and only child of Judge Thomas Clark II and his wife Hannah (née Winans) Clark. The Clark family can be traced back to Thomas Clark(e), born in Bury St. Edmunds, Suffolk, England, between 1527 and 1587. His son, Thomas Clerke Clarke, moved to Holton, in Suffolk, dying there about 1610. His grandson, Richard Clark II, was born in Bradwell, Suffolk, about 1640 an emigrated to the New World, settling first in Southold, on New York’s Long Island, in 1667, and in Elizabethtown, New Jersey, in 1678, dying there in 1697. Hannah Winans Clark’s grandfather, Jan Winans (possibly originally spelled as “Wynantz”), was born in Ma Haarlem, in the Netherlands, and emigrated to the New World to settle in Elizabeth, New Jersey, with his brother, Barnanbus (?), sometime before 1653. [1] According to one of his descendants, Ann Clark Hart, Clark was born on his family’s farm. “The farm,” she wrote, “was located on the Upper, or Eastern Road, about midway between Rahway and Elizabeth. It was there that Abraham Clark spent the early years of his life.” [2] He received what was called at the time a classical education, studying literature, several languages (perhaps Latin or French), and biblical studies. His specialty became mathematics, which he utilized to become a surveyor in his earliest of work. At the same time, he undertook the study of the law, which probably came in the law office of a local attorney. He was admitted to the state bar, and soon took on clients who could not afford such legal services, thereby earning the sobriquet “The Poor Man’ Counsellor.” According to a genealogical magazine article that appeared in 1932, Clark “married at the age of twenty-two years, [to] Sarah, [the] daughter of Isaac and Sarah (Price) Hatfield.” She was born about 1728, and died on 2 June 1804 at age 76, surviving her husband by a decade. She is buried by his side, in the Clark family plot, with Abraham’s father Thomas and his grandfather, also named Thomas Clark. The couple would have ten children, eight of whom survived to adulthood. One of these, Andrew Clark (1759-?) fought in the American Revolution, was captured by the British, and died on board the prison ship Jersey. [3] In 1775, Clark sided with the patriot cause and was named as a member of the New Jersey Provincial Congress, which met from May 1775 to June of 1776 to discuss possible independence from Great Britain; Clark served as secretary of the Congress, appointed on 9 October 1775. With

200

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

a call from the other colonies to continue the meeting in Philadelphia, which had begun in 1774 as the First Continental Congress, the New Jersey General Assembly named Clark, John De Hart, Francis Hopkinson, Richard Stockton, and John Witherspoon as delegates to the Continental Congress. This election came on 22 June 1776, and Clark attended his first session on or about 1 July 1776, just a day before the Declaration of Independence was signed. On 4 July 1776, the date that the Declaration of Independence that Clark signed was made public, Clark wrote from Philadelphia to Elias Dayton, a member of the New Jersey militia (and, later, named as a delegate to the Continental Congress, an honor he declined), “Our Congress has resolved to declare the United Colonies Free and Independent States. A Declaration for the Purpose I expect will this day pass Congress . . . Our Congress is an august Assembly, and can they support the Declaration no on the Anvil, they will be the greatest Assembly on Earth.” Clark had already signed the document when he penned this missive; in the letter, he justified placing his signature on the document, an act which could very well have cost him his life: “We can die but once . . . We are now embarked on a most tempestuous seas . . . It is gone so far that we must now be a free independent State or a conquered Country.” [4] Historian Edmund Cody Burnett writes that “[t]here is a sense of surprise that the passage of the Declaration of Independence on the fourth of July, 1776, was not more largely commemorated by members of Congress in letters bearing that date. In fact, only two such letters have been found; one of them is from Abraham Clark of New Jersey, and the other, which, it is worthy noting, came to the surface barely in time for insertion in these pages, is from Caesar Rodney of Delaware.” [5] Clark concluded the letter above, to Dayton, “I am among a Consistory of Kings as our Enemy says. I assure you Sir, Our Congress is an August Assembly, and can they Support the Declaration now on the Anvil, they will be the greatest Assembly on Earth.” [6]

on a high gallows. We were truly brought to the case of the three lepers; If we continued in the state we were in, it was evident we must perish; if we declared Independence we might be saved—we could but perish. I assure you, Sir, I see, I feel, the danger we are in. I am far from exulting in our imaginary happiness; nothing short of the almighty power of God can save us. It is not in our numbers, our union, our valour, I dare trust. I think an interposing Providence hath been evident in all the events that necessarily led us to what we are—I mean independent States; but for what purpose, whether to make us a great empire or to make our ruin more complete, the issue can only determine. [7]

Some historians state that Clark signed the Declaration of Independence on 2 August 1776. Four days later, Clark once again wrote to Elias Dayton: As to my title, I know not yet whether it will be honourable or dishonourable; the issue of the war must settle it. Perhaps our Congress will be exalted

In a letter to James Caldwell, dated 31 July 1776, Clark wrote that the passage of the Articles of Confederation, a blueprint for a national American government which passed the Continental Congress in 1778, was necessary for the survival of the nation as a whole. He felt, however, that the nation’s administration rested on two specific points in the Articles: ‘One for fixing the Quota of the States towards the Public expense, and the other whether Each State shall have a Single Vote or in proportion to the Sums they raise or the Numb[er] of Inhabitants they contain.’ [8] Clark remained in the Continental Congress until April 1778; he was subsequently re-elected in 1780, remaining until 1783; and then, a third and final tenure, from 1786 to 1788. In 1776 he was elected as a member of the New Jersey General Assembly, and he served a second term in that body from 1783 to 1785. In 1778, he served on the legislative council, a body that advised the state governor on several areas and issues. Under the US Constitution, a plan for national elections was established for a US House of Representatives and a US Senate. In 1790, Clark was elected to a seat in the House, serving in the Second (1791-93) and Third (1793-95) Congresses. He remained in the Third Congress (1793-95) until his death. Abraham Clark died in Rahway, New Jersey, on 15 September 1794, at the age of 68, and he was buried in Rahway Cemetery in that city, next to his father. As noted, his wife survived him by a decade; when she died in 1804, she was laid to rest with her husband. Clark’s simple gravestone merely states, “In memory of Abraham Clark

Matthew Clarkson (c. 1733–1800)201 Esq., who died Septr 15, 1794 in the 69th year of his age.” The New-Jersey Journal, of Elizabethtown, wrote in eulogy of the deceased statesman: In the death of Mr. Clark, his family has sustained an irretrievable loss, and the state is deprives of a useful citizen, who, for forty years past, has been employed in the most honorable and confidential trusts, which he ever discharged with that disinterestedness, ability, and indefatigable industry, that redounded much to his popularity; indeed it may be said of him, that he was a person from his youth, with whom the amor patriæ preponderated every other consideration. It could not be expected that such a character would pass unnoticed by the jaundiced eye of envy and faction, which was really the case with the deceased, but his conduct was so unequivocally upright, that the unvenomed shifts of eventually could never remove him from the confidence of the people, or shale his popularity. [9]

[1] Information on the Clark and Winans family comes from the Clark family tree, online at http://www.geni.com/people/ Abraham-Clark-Signer-of-the-Declaration-of-Independen ce/6000000004648085029. [2] Hart, Ann Clark, comp. and ed., “Abraham Clark: Signer of the Declaration of Independence” (San Francisco: The Pioneer Press, 1923), 4. [3] See Ann Clark Hart, “The Family of Abraham Clark, Signer of the Declaration of Independence,” The Genealogical Magazine of New Jersey, VII:4 (April 1932), 95-96. [4] Hart, “Abraham Clark, Signer of the Declaration of Independence,” 3-4. [5] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), I:xxi. [6] Clark to Elias Dayton, 4 July 1776, in ibid., I:527-28, [7] Clark to Elias Dayton, 6 August 1776, in E.P. Buffett, “Abraham Clark,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, I:4 (1877), 477. [8] Clark to James Caldwell, 31 July 1776, in Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress,” op. cit., II:32-33. [9] “Deaths,” The New-Jersey Journal [Elizabethtown, New Jersey], 17 September 1794, 3.

Matthew Clarkson (c. 1733–1800) More an attorney and judge than a politician, Matthew Clarkson served as a delegate to the Continental Congress from his adopted state of Pennsylvania; he later served as the mayor of Philadelphia during an outbreak of yellow fever in 1793, an illness that eventually cost him his own life. [1]

Clarkson was born in New York City, in April 1733. His grandson, John Hall, penned “The Memoirs of Matthew Clarkson of Philadelphia” in 1890, and this is the only source on Clarkson’s life. Hall, however, states that Clarkson was born not in 1733, but in 1735. A genealogical study of the Clarkson family reports that a Matthew Clarkson was born on 15 April 1733 and died on 5 October 1800. According to this work, his parents were Captain Matthew Clarkson (1699-1739) and Anna (née Bancker) Clarkson who, after her husband’s death, married a Gilbert Tennant. [2] A memoir by Matthew Clarkson’s grandson states, “The family is traced to Bradford, in Yorkshire, and to the year 1544, in the reign of Henry VIII. There were also Clarksons in the county of Nottingham, who had the same coat-of-arms with those of Bradford, and which is still found on the plate and books of the families in New York and Philadelphia.”[3] Clarkson moved from New York City to Philadelphia, where he studied the law. In the years prior to the American Revolution, Clarkson served in a series of judicial positions in Philadelphia, including as a justice of the Court of Common Pleas, and as a judge of the Quarter Sessions of the Peace. In 1771 and 1772, he served as a judge on the Philadelphia Orphans’ Court, deciding custody cases. [4] An announcement in a Philadelphia newspaper in March 1770 reported that “[t]he Members of the Philadelphia Contributionship for Insuring Housing From Loss by Fire, are hereby notified, That their annual Election for the Choice of twelve Directors and a Treasurer, for the ensuing Year, will be held at the Court-House, on Monday, the 9th of April next at 2 o’Clock in the Afternoon.” The advertisement is signed “Matthew Clarkson, Clerk.” [5] Another advertisement, this one from 1773 and regarding the sale of “real estates,” asked those interested to contact “Matthew Clarkson, Notary Public and Conveyancer.” [6] On 19 February 1785, Clarkson was elected as a delegate to the Continental Congress, meeting in Philadelphia. However, according to historian Edmund Cody Burnett and all other sources, for some reason Clarkson chose not to attend the Congress. [7] In 1789, Clarkson was elected as a member of the Philadelphia Board of Aldermen. In October

202

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

1792, a Philadelphia newspaper announced that “[o]n Monday last an election was held at Newark in New-Jersey, for Directors of the National Manufactory for the ensuing year, when the following gentlemen were election, viz. John Bayard, James Watson, Matthew Clarkson, Nicholas Low, James Parker, Benjamin Walker, Archibald Mercer, Elisha Boudinot, Abijah Hammond, Cornelius Ray, Herman Le Roy, James Rickets, and Matthias Williamson.” [8]

the city of New-York—Their sympathy is balm to our wounds. We acknowledge the divine interposition, whereby the hearts of so many around us have been touched with our distress, and have united in our relief.” [10]

Later that same year, Clarkson was elected mayor of the city, an incredible advancement for a nonnative citizen. But Clarkson had picked, if one could use such a word, to become mayor: the following year, the city was struck by a yellow fever epidemic that killed untold numbers of people. As mayor, Clarkson was charged with trying to manage the situation as best as possible. On 27 August 1793, he sent a letter to the people, which was published in all of the city’s newspapers: “Gentlemen: Whilst the present contagiou [sic] Fever shall continue in this City, it will be proper that every Precaution be taken, that can in any Degree prevent its spreading; and as it may conduce to that desiable [sic] End, I desire that you will be particularly attentive to cause all the Streets, Lanes and Alleys, in every Part of the City, to be kept in a constant State of Cleanliness; and to cause the Filth and Dirt to be hauled away, as speedily as it is heaped together. In executing this Duty, you must not confine yourselves to the Times prescribed by the Ordinance, but cause it to be done as much oftener as may be necessary, to keep them effectually clean. The extra Expence [sic] attending this Business will be allowed in [the] Account.” [9] In October 1793, a group met in New York City to raise money to aid Philadelphia; their initial funding was $5,000. Clarkson penned the group a letter, expressing his thanks: “Sir: I am favoured with your letter of the 12th instant, which I have communicated to the committee for the relief of the poor and afflicted of this city. It is with peculiar satisfaction that I execute their request, by making, in their name, on behalf of our suffering fellow-citizens, the most grateful acknowledgments, for the seasonable benevolence of the common [sic] council of

Clarkson’s work on behalf of the city earned him great respect, as noticed in a story in another Philadelphia newspaper, 16 December 1793: “A correspondent recommends Matthew Clarkson Esq. as a suitable person to fill the vacancy in the Senate of this Commonwealth; and observes that as, on the one hand, his abilities and integrity qualify him for so respectable and useful a station, so on the other, gratitude demands a particular tribute of acknowledgments to him for his assiduity and perseverance in relieving the distresses of our fellow citizens during the calamity from which we have just emerged.” [11] Clarkson never received any such nomination or seat, however. Clarkson was taken ill by the yellow fever epidemic. However, he continued to work: an announcement in the Aurora General Advertiser of Philadelphia on 27 May 1796 stated that “[w]e are informed that the [US] Senate have concurred in the nomination by the President of the United States, of Matthew Clarkson, of Pennsylvania, to be Commissioner on the part of the United States, under the article of the Spanish Treaty relative to spoliations.” [12] Clarkson left the mayorship in 1796, but his health suffered in the final years of his life. He died in Philadelphia on 5 October 1800. The Federal Gazette of Baltimore, Maryland, said on his passing, “Died on Friday morning last, Matthew Clarkson, esquire, formerly mayor of the city of Philadelphia; a worthy and much respected citizen.” [13] Clarkson was laid to rest in the Christ Church Burying Ground in Philadelphia; the cemetery is noted as being the burial places for some of the most important of this nation’s earliest political leaders, including James Wilson (1742-1798), George Ross (17301779), Joseph Hewes (1730-1779), and Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790). Clarkson’s gravestone, which has had the original inscription lost due to weather, has a plaque that now states that he was the “Heroic Mayor of Philadelphia (1792-

Joseph Clay (1741–1804)203 1796). During the 1793 Yellow Fever Epidemic. Matthew Clarkson Died of the Fever in 1800.”

[1] See Clarkson’s official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay. pl?index=C000472. [2] For biographies of David Clarkson his wives, and his children, see J. Robert T. Craine, comp., “The Ancestry and Posterity of Matthew Clarkson (1664-1702)” (Privately Published, 1971), 13-14. [3] Hall, John, “Memoirs of Matthew Clarkson of Philadelphia, 1735-1800. By His Great-Grandson John Hall, and of His Brother, Gerardus Clarkson, 1737-1790, by His Great-Grandson, Samuel Clarkson” (Philadelphia: Thomson Printing Company, 1890), 10. [4] See Clarkson’s official congressional biography, op. cit. [5] “The Members of the Philadelphia Contributionship . . . ,” The Pennsylvania Gazette [Philadelphia], 29 March 1770, 4. [6] “An Office For the Sale of Real Estates,” The Pennsylvania Packet [Philadelphia], 20 December 1773, 4. [7] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VIII:xciv. It is unknown at what point Clarkson informed the Congress that he would not attend, and who was elected in his stead. [8] “On Monday last,” Gazette of the United States [Philadelphia], 6 October 1792, 147. [9] “At a Meeting of the Corporation of Philadelphia,” The Providence Gazette [Rhode Island], 14 September 1793, 3. [10] Clarkson to the Common Council of New York City, 17 October 1793, in The Albany Register [New York], 4 November 1793, 3. [11] General Advertiser [Philadelphia], 16 December 1793, 3. [12] “Philadelphia, Friday, May 27,” The Aurora and General Advertiser [Philadelphia], 27 May 1796, 3. [13] “Died,” Federal Gazette & Baltimore Daily Advertiser [Maryland], 8 October 1800, 3.

Joseph Clay (1741–1804) English-born, he came to America while still a teenager and made his fortune as a merchant, including through the sale of slaves. From 1778 to 1780, Joseph Clay served as a delegate to the Continental Congress. He was born in the village of Beverly, in Yorkshire, England, on 16 October 1741, the son of Ralph Clay and his wife Elizabeth (née Habersham) Clay. Both parents were born and died in England, having come from a family that had been in the Yorkshire area for numerous generations. A work containing a family tree of the Clays in England and thereafter states that both Clays were born and died in England. [1] Joseph was the only son of this

marriage. The family, of great means, took the advice of Joseph’s uncle, James Habersham, and in 1760 sent Joseph to the colonies. He never returned. He landed in Savannah, and, although not even 20 years of age, formed, with his first cousin, James Habersham, Jr., the trading partnership of Joseph Clay & Co. in that city. At the same time, Clay expanded his economic pursuits, joining the trading firms of Seth John Cuthbert & Company, as well as that of Clay, Telfair & Company, the latter as a partner of Edward Telfair, who would rise to serve as governor of Georgia (1786, 1790-93). Clay also joined the firm of William Fox & Company of Newport, Rhode Island. Closely associated with Savannah, on 2 January 1763 Clay married Ann Legardère. Expanding his economic pursuits, Clay joined the Habershams in opening plantations where rice was grown for domestic consumption in the colonies—and those who invested here found that the rich marshlands of Georgia were perfect for rice cultivation. Historian Frances Harrold wrote in 1989, “South Carolinians’ investments in Georgia had positive as well as negative aspects. As one early historian observed, the rich swamps of Georgia had attracted the attention of rice planters from South Carolina ‘who had been accustomed to treat their poor neighbours with the utmost contempt.’ Henry Laurens enthusiastically praised his Georgia lands and tried to persuade his old friend James Grant to invest there rather than in Florida. Managing the Georgia lands forced Laurens to cultivate close connections with Lachlan Mclntosh, his near neighbor in Georgia, and Savannah merchants James Habersham and Joseph Clay.” [2] Through these pursuits, Clay soon became a wealthy man. To have enough labor for the plantations, however, Clay had to import hundreds of slaves, and he became one of the largest slaveowners in Georgia. In 1784, writes historian James McMillin, “a Georgia merchant, quite likely Joseph Clay, wrote to a London firm that ‘new Negroes’ from Africa, are & will be for a very considerable time to come, in great demand with us.” [3] In October 1767, Henry Laurens wrote to Clay and Joseph Habersham, “Inclos’d you will

204

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

find two Bills of Loading [possibly lading] for 13 New Negroes, consign’d to me by Messrs. Smith & Baillies of St. Christopher, 10 on their own & 3 on account of Peter Gordon, Esquire of Grenada, which cannot Lawfully be sold in this Province without Payment of a very heavy Duty & therefore I think it most for their Interest to export them, & have taken the Liberty to consign them to you desiring you will dispose of them for the best Prices that your Market will afford for payments that may be depended upon to be made in Gold, Silver or Bills of Exchange upon London on or before 1st January next.” [4] McMillin further writes that “[i]n 1786 Joseph Clay wrote to a West Indies slave dealer inquiring about the possibility of purchasing 100 seasoned slaves in families ‘who formerly worked in this state or South Carolina or East Florida (and consequently [are] used to our climate and manner of living.” [5]

the relief of the suffering poor of Boston. In the rape of six hundred pounds of powder from the king’s magazine in Savannah during the night of the 11th of May, 1775, and in its subsequent distribution among parties intent upon rebellion, Mr. Clay personally participated. [6]

Despite having been born in England, and having nearly his entire family still there, when tensions over harsh economic measures enacted by the British Parliament against the colonies rose, Clay sided with the colonies. Historian Charles J. Jones, in a biography of Clay written in 1891, stated: By the meeting of patriotic citizens assembled at the Liberty Pole at Tondee’s Tavern in Savannah on the 27th of July, 1774, he was chosen a member of the committee then raised and charged with the preparation of resolutions expressive of the rebel sentiments of the community, and of the determination of Georgia, at an early day, to associate herself with her sister American colonies in opposition to the enforcement of the unjustifiable and arbitrary acts of the British Parliament. On the 10th of the following August he appeared with this committee and united in submitting a report which, unanimously adopted, proclaimed in brave language the rights claimed by the protesting provinces, condemned in emphatic terms the policy inaugurated by England, and promised coöperation on the part of Georgia in all constitutional measures devised to obtain a redress of existing grievances and to maintain the inestimable blessings granted by God and guaranteed by a constitution founded upon reason and justice. He was also of the committee then appointed to solicit and forward supplies for

Historian Frank Lambert adds that by 1774, “the new business partners also became recognized as political leaders as well, serving the Whig cause and thus placing them in direct opposition to James Habersham. Both Joseph Clay and Joseph Habersham became leaders in the Sons of Liberty, and as such, made their revolutionary sentiments known in the most demonstrative and public ways.” [7] A report in a Pennsylvania newspaper, 3 April 1775, notes that an “Association,” assembled in Provincial Congress, of Savannah in Georgia, on the 18th of January [1775],” included the names of “several Members” of the aforesaid association, including Joseph Clay. [8] On 22 June 1775, Clay was named as a member of the Georgia Council of Safety and, the following month he served as a delegate to the Georgia Provincial Congress which met in Savannah on 4 July 1775 to plan the transition of Georgia from a colony to that of a state in the American union. During the early shooting in the conflict that grew into the American Revolution, Clay, with the rank of Major, served in the Georgia Line of the Continental Army, although he did not see action in any major clashes. By January 1776, Britain had sent ships off the coast of Georgia to stem any potential seizing of lands belonging to the Crown. Historian Harvey Jackson explained in 1974: The Whigs reacted by ordering the arrest of Wright and his Council. As an additional precaution, everyone who had not signed the Continental Association was to be disarmed. At ten o’clock that night Governor Wright, who had been confined to his house, sent for Dr. Noble Wemberley Jones and Joseph Clay, two leading Whigs. The Governor, who was in contact with the ships at the mouth of the river, pointed out that he was sure the British were under orders to treat as rebellious any colony that had taken up arms, built forts, and seized crown officials and property, and that Georgia fell clearly into that category. Wright informed

Joseph Clay (1741–1804)205 Jones and Clay that the warship Raven was to be stationed at Savannah, but he assured his guests that the other vessels only wanted supplies. If the Whigs agreed not to resist the British efforts to purchase provisions, the Governor offered to go personally to the fleet and persuade its commander not to damage the town. Yet if the Whigs refused, Wright indicated that the British were capable of taking what they wanted by force. [9] On 6 August 1777, the Continental Congress appointed Clay as the deputy postmaster General for the state of Georgia, giving him at the same time the rank of Colonel because he was in a war zone. At the same time, he was apparently intimately involved in assisting the establishment of a postcolonial government in Georgia. Historian Edward Cashin wrote in 1974, “When Joseph Clay wrote to Henry Laurens in October of 1777 he expressed exasperation at the conduct of the radical faction in the Georgia Assembly. Only with the greatest difficulty had he and his friends prevented that body from going to war with the Creek Indians. In Clay’s opinion such a war would have been a disaster. He thought that the war was an excuse for ‘plunder and Offices’ and the chief instigator was ‘the famous Col. [George] Wells.’” [10] On 26 February 1778, Clay was elected to a seat in the Continental Congress “for the ensuing year.” However, according to historian Edmund Cody Burnett, Clay did not attend. [11] In a letter from delegate Henry Laurens to Isaac Moore on 26 January 1778, Laurens penned, “‘[T]is true Mr. Clay was appointed for Georgia and also that it was in consequence of my particular request and recommendation . . . Without meaning to disparage any other Man or to pay so much attention to the benefit of Mr. Clay as to the Safety and Interest of the public I named him as a Citizen in whose custody the public Treasury would be safe.” [12] Instead, Clay remained in Georgia for the remainder of the conflict. With the end of the war in 1781—a treaty formally ending it came two years later—Clay was again in the midst of Georgia politics. In July 1782, he was elected as the Treasurer of the state of Georgia, a post he held for the remainder of that year. It appears that Clay also continued his merchant business; at the same time, he also continued

to defend the sale of slaves for cheap labor. In a letter dated 16 February 1784, Clay wrote, “The Negro business is a great object with us . . . it is to the Trade of this Country, as the Soul to the Body.” [13] Interested in advancing education opportunities in his adopted state, in 1785 Clay served as a trustee for the establishment of a college in the state that today in the University of Georgia. In 1786, he was named as a commissioner, along with several other Georgia notables, to settle the border dispute between Georgia and South Carolina. Governor Edward Telfair, a close associate of Clay’s, with write to William Houstoun and William Few, both former delegates to the Continental Congress, on 18 August 1786, “The Legislature of this State during the late Session appointed General Lachlan Mclntosh, John Houstoun, and Joseph Clay, Esquires, Commissioners to treat with the Commissioners appointed by the State of South Carolina in order to endeavour at an amicable Settlement of dispute with this State and the State of South Carolina respecting boundary, and to this end have required that you co-operate with the agents of the State of South Carolina to adjourn the Federal Court until some time in the Spring to give time for an accommodation if such can be procured.” [14] Following this service, Clay was named as a judge on the US Court for the District of Georgia, serving from 1786 to 1801. Joseph Clay died in Savannah on 15 November 1804, one month past his 63rd birthday. The Albany Register, in one instance, said of the late merchant, “Died, [a]t Savannah, in the 64th year of his age, the Hon. JOSEPH CLAY, Esq. after a lie eminently useful to his relatives his friends, and he country.” [15] He was laid to retire in the Colonial Park Cemetery in Savannah. In 1957, the Georgia Historical Commission erected a plaque near Clay’s grave in Chatham County. It reads: A native of Yorkshire, Joseph Clay (1741-1804) settled at Savannah at the age of nineteen. His uncle, James Habersham, declared that his “Industry” was “highly commendable” and “his Abilities for Trade unquestionable.” Fulfilling his early promise, Clay prospered in Georgia as a merchant and rice planter. He was a staunch supporter of American rights, served on the Council of Safety and in the Provincial

206

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Congress, and took part in the celebrated raid on the Royal powder magazine at Savannah in 1775. During the Revolutionary War Clay rendered efficient and faithful service to the American cause as deputy paymaster general of the Continental Army for the Southern Department. His career in the Revolution was distinguished by “Virtue & fortitude,” said General James Jackson, who also paid high tribute to Clay’s wife Ann (whose remains also lie here) for her beneficent care of the American wounded after the Battle of Camden.

[11] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), III:lii. [12] Henry Laurens to Isaac Moore, 26 January 1778, in ibid., III:51. [13] McMillin, op. cit., 72. See also Elizabeth Donnan, ed., “Documents Illustrative of the History of the Slave Trade in America” (Washington, DC,: The Carnegie Institution of Washington; four volumes, 1930-35), IV:616-25. [14] Edward Telfair to William Houstoun and William Few, 18 August 1786, in “Some Official Letters of Governor Edward Telfair,” The Georgia Historical Quarterly, I:2 (June 1917), 146. [15] “Died,” The Albany Register [New York], 15 January 1805, 2.

In the years following the Revolution Joseph Clay held several positions of importance, including state treasurer and judge of the inferior court. He was one of the first trustees for the state college that later became the University of Georgia. He died Dec. 15, 1804. Joseph Clay’s published letters (1776-1793) constitute a valuable historical source work for the period.

[1] Cumming, Montgomery, “Table of the Descendants of Joseph Clay of Savannah, Ga., 1741 to 1804” (Washington, DC: No Publisher, 1897), 5. [2] Harrold, Frances, “Colonial Siblings: Georgia’s Relationship with South Carolina During the Pre-Revolutionary Period,” The Georgia Historical Quarterly, LXXIII:4 (Winter 1989), 710. [3] James A. McMillin, “The Final Victims: Foreign Slave Trade to North America, 1783-1810” (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 2004), 4. See also Darold D. Wax, “‘New Negroes Are Always in Demand’: The Slave Trade in Eighteenth-Century Georgia,” The Georgia Historical Quarterly, LXVIII:2 (Summer 1984), 193. [4] Henry Laurens to Joseph Clay and Joseph Habersham, 26 October 1767, in George C. Rogers Jr., and David R. Chesnutt, eds., “The Papers of Henry Laurens” (Columbia: Published for the South Carolina Historical Society by the University of South Carolina Press; sixteen volumes, 1968-2003), VIII:377. [5] McMillan, op. cit., 64. See also David Hugh Connolly, Jr., “A Question of Honor: State Character and the Lower South’s Defense of the African Slave Trade in Congress, 1789-1807” (Ph.D. dissertation, Rice University, 2008). [6] Jones, Charles Colcock, Jr., “Biographical Sketches of the Delegates from Georgia to the Continental Congress” (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, 1891), 29-30. [7] Lambert, Frank, “‘Father against Son, and Son against Father:’ The Habershams of Georgia and the American Revolution,” The Georgia Historical Quarterly, LXXXIV:1 (Spring 2000), 18. [8] “Charles-Town (S. Carolina), February 10,” Dunlap’s Pennsylvania Packet, or General Advertiser [Philadelphia], 3 April 1775, 2. See also the report on the meeting in The New-York Journal, or The General Advertiser [New York City], 20 April 1775, 1. [9] Jackson, Harvey H., “The Battle of the Riceboats: Georgia Joins the Revolution,” The Georgia Historical Quarterly, LVIII:2 (Summer 1974), 231. [10] Cashin, Edward J., “‘The Famous Colonel Wells:’ Factionalism In Revolutionary Georgia,” The Georgia Historical Quarterly, LVIII:Supplement (1974), 137.

William Clingan (c. 1721–1790)

One of Pennsylvania’s delegates to the Continental Congress, who signed the Articles of Confederation in 1779, William Clingan was from Wagontown, in West Colen Township, in Chester County, Pennsylvania. There is no record of the Clingan family background, although it seems that Clingan had two brothers, George and Thomas. A family tree, created by the Clingan family, has additional information. [1] Clingan’s education is also unknown; he married, twice: first, to Catherine (no maiden name known), with whom he had one child, a son, before her death in 1785; and Rachel Gilleylen (1756-1843), a widow with six children from her

William Clingan (c. 1721–1790)207 first marriage, who survived him. Clingan served as a justice of the peace for Chester County, from 1757 to 1786, according to his official congressional biography. [2] On 14 September 1777, Clingan was elected to a seat in the Continental Congress; he was subsequently reelected on 20 November 1778. He attended sessions from 1 November to about 28 November 1777, 1 January to about 24 March 1778, about 25 April to about 19 May 1778, from about 16 June to about 27 June 1778, and from about 14 September to about 2 December 1778. [3] Historian Edmund Cody Burnett wrote, “Clingan’s first attendance under the appointment of December 10, 1777, is not recorded in the Journals, but his name appears among the yeas and nays January 2. It is assumed that he was in attendance [on January 1. The record in the Journals [for] November 25 of the attendance of Clingan, [Daniel] Roberdeau, and [James] Searle applies to their attendance under the appointment of November 20. Clingan and Roberdeau had already been in attendance, under a previous appointment.” [4] The Journals of the Continental Congress for 25 November 1778 state that: Mr. Roberdeau, Mr. Clingan, and Mr. Searle, three delegates for Pennsylvania, attended, and produced the credentials of the delegates of that state, which were read, and are as follows: “In General Assembly of Pennsylvania, Friday, November 20, 1778. The order of the day being called for and read, the house proceeded by ballot to the election of delegates in Congress for the following year, when the following gentlemen were chosen, viz. Daniel Roberdeau, William Clingan, Edward Biddle, John Armstrong, William [H]ippen the elder, Samuel Atlee, and James Searle, esqrs. Extract from the minutes, John Morris, Clerk of the General Assembly.” [5] During his time in the Continental Congress, Clingan signed the Articles of Confederation, which did not go into effect until 1781. Returning to Pennsylvania, Clingan once again served in a series of positions in his native state, including as president of the Chester County, Pennsylvania, court system. A report in

The Pennsylvania Packet, dated 28 September 1779, related that in the General Assembly of Pennsylvania, on 15 September, “[t]he Bill, entitled ‘An Act to enable William Clingan, Esq, Peter Hartman, John Kinkead, Thomas Hellop, and William Brooks, Gentlemen, to build a new Court-House and Prison in the county of Chester, and sell the old Court-House and Prison in the borough of Chester,’ was read a second time, and being debated by paragraphs, was ordered to be transcribed for a third reading, and in the mean time printed for public consideration.” [6] A history of Chester County, Pennsylvania, noted for 22 June 1786, “William Clingan was also appointed a Justice of the Peace for the district of West Cain, Sadsbury and West Fallowfield townships, and Justice of the Court of Common Pleas of the county aforesaid, upon a return made agreeable to law.” A further note added “that Mr. Clingan preside in the Court of Common Pleas, the Court of Quarter Sessions, and [the] Orphans’ Court of the said county.” [7] A report from the Pennsylvania General Assembly, dated 19 March 1789, stated that “a petition from William Clingan was read, setting forth, that he was robbed of a certificate, granted to John Bellows, late a soldier in the Pennsylvania line, for the depreciation due on his pay, and by the petitioner purchased for a valuable consideration; and praying a new one may be granted unto him, in lieu of the one of which he hath been so robbed; and on motion, and by special order, the same was read a second time.” There is no record of what became of the matter. [8] William Clingan died on 9 May 1790. He was laid to rest in the Upper Octorara Burial Grounds, now the Upper Octorara Church Cemetery, in Parkesburg, in Chester County, Pennsylvania. The stone on his grave reads, “Here lyeth the Body of WILLIAM CLINGAN, Esq. Who departed this Life, The 9th Day of May 1790. Also CATHERINE, his Wife, Who departed this Life, The 8th Day of Feby 1785.”

[1] Refer to the Clingan family tree, online at http://www.geni. com/people/William-Clingan/1997034. [2] Clingan official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=C000522.

208

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

[3] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), II:lxi. [4] For additional service and dates of attendance, see ibid, III:lviii. [5] “Journals of The American Congress: From 1774 to 1788. In Four Volumes” (Washington, DC: Printed and Published by Way and Gideon; four volumes, 1823), III:134. [6] “General Assembly of Pennsylvania,” The Pennsylvania Packet, or General Advertiser [Philadelphia], 28 September 1779, 2. [7] J. Smith Futhey and Gilbert Cope, “History of Chester County, Pennsylvania, With Genealogical and Biographical Sketches” (Philadelphia: Louis H. Everts, 1881), 366. [8] “Philadelphia, March 19,” The Independent Gazetteer; Or, The Chronicle of Freedom [Philadelphia], 19 March 1789, 3.

in the Continental Army, rising to the rank of general. Charles Clinton (1690-1773) was born in Corbay, in County Longford, Ireland. A genealogical study conducted in 1915 stated, “A descendant in a cadet branch of Edward Clinton (1512-1585), ninth Baron Clinton and first Earl of Lincoln, he belonged to that historic house of Clinton, which was established in England at the Norman conquest, received extensive grants of estates, and, enjoying constantly increasing dignities, with the highest distinction for public services and the fairest pedigree and reputation, came down to his time in an unbroken male succession for six centuries. A man of character, attainments and ability, Charles Clinton was a useful and influential citizen of New York; [he] commanded a regiment in the French and Indian war.” [1] According to the introduction of Clinton’s public papers as governor of New York:

George Clinton (1739–1812)

Few politicians had the power or ability to rise as did George Clinton. He served as a leading commander during the American Revolution, a delegate to Continental Congress, the governor of New York State (1777-95, 1801-04), and as vice president of the United States under Thomas Jefferson. George Clinton was born on 26 July 1739 in the town of Little Britain, in Ulster County, New York, the son and one of two sons of Charles Clinton, a landowner, and his wife, Elizabeth (née Denniston) Clinton. Clinton was the brother of James Clinton, who would serve

George Clinton was descended from a family of soldiers. One of his ancestors, William Clinton was an enthusiastic follower of [King] Charles I, and held a commission in the Royal Army. After the death of that unfortunate monarch, Clinton sought refuge in flight on the [Euron] continent. He remained in France for a while, wandered for a number of years, and finally drifted to Scotland, where he was married. His life being put in jeopardy, he crossed over to the north of Ireland, where he died, leaving an orphan boy, James, then but two years of age. Upon reaching his majority, James Clinton endeavored to recover the patrimonial estate in England but failed, because of the statute of limitation. His son, Charles Clinton, had been born in the county of Longford, Ireland, in 1690. In his fortieth year he organized a colony which consisted of seventy persons, relatives and friends, and chartered the ship “George and Anne” which left Ireland May 20, 1729, its objective point being Philadelphia. [2] The Clintons were part of New York’s landed gentry, with their large landholdings in Ulster County. As such, instead of attending an academy, or a local school, he was privately tutored. However, in 1757, when he was 18, Clinton left home, working as a steward’s mate on the ship the Defiance, which sailed throughout the Caribbean. He finally returned to New York in 1760 after three years at sea, but instead of returning home he enlisted in a company of militia, which was led by his brother, James Clinton. The colonial forces were fighting sideby-side with the English against the French in

George Clinton (1739–1812)209 the French and Indian War. George Clinton saw action in this conflict, participating in the capture of Montreal in September 1760. Finished with his military service, Clinton returned home, where he undertook the study of the law. In those times, one studied the law not in a law school, as is done now, but instead was learned from a local attorney of some note who wished to share his knowledge. Clinton received his legal training this way, tutored by William Smith, Jr., one of New York’s leading legal minds at the time. On 12 September 1764, Clinton was admitted to the New York colonial bar, and opened a practice in the town of Little Britain. In the next several years, Clinton served as a clerk of the Court of Common Pleas, and as district attorney for Ulster County in 1765. He also served as a surveyor of New Windsor, New York. [3] Clinton gave up his legal practice, instead entering the political realm, elected to a seat in the colonial Assembly, representing Ulster County. In the assembly, he became a supporter of the Livingstons, a family of New York politicians that would produce a number of important political leaders, including future Continental Congress delegates Robert R. Livingston, Philip Livingston, Walter Livingston, and William Livingston, as well as Edward Livingston (17641836), who served as secretary of state (183133) in the administration of Andrew Jackson. Despite being of British heritage, Clinton, along with the Livingston faction, were a group of anti-British politicians in the colony at a time when tensions between London and the colonies were growing over a series of harsh economic measures enacted by Parliament, including the Sugar Act (1764) and the Stamp Act (1765). In February 1770, Clinton married Sarah Tappen (some sources list her name as Cornelia, but a Clinton family tree has her listed as Sarah, with her mother being named Cornelia), the daughter of Peter Tappen, a leading citizen of Ulster County; together the couple had six children. When the war between the colonies and England erupted in 1774, Clinton served on the New York Committee of Correspondence. On 22 April 1775, Clinton, along with several others, was elected by the New York Provincial Convention to a seat in the Continental Congress. The Newport Mercury of Rhode Island reported of an “[e]xtract of the proceedings of a Provincial convention, held

at the city of New-York, in the colony of NewYork, on the 20th, 21st, and 22d of April, 1775. ‘Resolved therefore unanimously, That Philip Livingston, James Duane, John Alsop, John Jay, Simon Boerum, William Floyd, William Wisner, Philip Schuyler, George Clinton, Lewis Morris, Francis Lewis, and Robert R. Livingston, jun. Esquires, be Delegates to represent this Colony at the next Continental Congress, to be held at the city of Philadelphia, on the tenth day of May next . . .” [4] Historian Edmund Cody Burnett related that Clinton attended a session of the Continental Congress from 15 May to approximately 30 June 1775, from sometime in July to 2 August 1775, from about 11 April to sometime in April 1776, and from about 24 June 1776 to 4 July 1776. [5] Several pieces of correspondence from Clinton must be discussed here. On 10 June 1775, Clinton wrote to John McKesson, “I wish I coud [sic] tell you when this Congress will break up; but this is a Secret I can by no Means divulge and for the best Reason in the World because I do not know nor dare I even venture to Guess. Did it depend on the Business before us perhaps I might to a Week or two but Business multiplies upon us by Expresses daily from different Quarters. No doubt that whatever Army may be kept up in New York will be a Continental Charge. Nor do I suppose any Troops will [be] introduced into our Province but from Connecticut until [sic] our own are raised.” [6] Clinton followed this missive up to McKesson on 15 June 1775 with this: “Since writing you last I am favoured with yours of the ioth Inst.I am oblidged to you for your News tho as false as Hell, For be assured that whatever Steps may have been taken relative to setting on Foot an Accommodation or whether any No such Message as you mention was ever sent by the Southern Deputies or any of them to our Body nor do I believe such a Thing was ever in Contemplation. And as to the two Grand Republicks you mention I have never heard of nor do I believe such a Thought has ever possessed the Mind of any Man amongst us. These Sir are Tory Reports calculated to frighten the Timid and to Create Distrust of our Proceedings.” [7] In a third letter to McKesson, Clinton quickly penned, “We have just received the Disagreable intelligence from Canada of the Defeat of Part of our Army under Genl.

210

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Thompson and of his being taken etc. which you must have had before it reached us.” [8]

the fortresses on the Highlands, obliged me, to prorogue [sic] the Legislature, and to deny myself the pleasure of seeing our free, and happy constitution, so early organized as I could have wished. This I as the more readily led to do, as well from the busy season of the year, as the confidence, which the people justly reposed in the abilities, and integrity of the gentlemen, in whom the Administration of government was then vested.” [12]

On 8 July 1776, Clinton was ordered to service in the Continental Army, given the rank of brigadier general of militia. In March 1777, Clinton was appointed as a full brigadier general by the Continental Congress. [9] Although he never saw close military action, he was an integral leader in helping to fortify the New York region from a potential British invasion, including the Hudson River region. Clinton also helped to enlist troops to the colonial cause, which came at an important time in the conflict. In a letter from General Horatio Gates, dated 16 November 1776, it was stated, in part, “I take it for granted, that General Putnam and General George Clinton acquainted your Excellency, that the enemy abandoned all their ports and posts upon the North-River, the 28th ult. and retreated to New York; and that Fort-Independence, near King’sBridge, is also evacuated and destroyed.” [10] As quickly as Clinton was named from his Continental Congress seat to his military post, he was then moved from the military position to a political one. Historian DeAlva Stanwood Alexander explained: After the constitutional convention adjourned in May, 1777, the Council of Safety immediately ordered the election of a governor, lieutenant-governor, and members of the Legislature. The selection of a governor by ballot interested the people. Although the freeholders who could vote represented only a small part of the male population, patriots of every class rejoiced in the substitution of a neighbour for a lord across the sea. And all had a decided choice. Of those suggested as fittest as well as most experienced Philip Schuyler, John Morin Scott, John Jay, and George Clinton were favorites . . . The result of the election proved a great surprise and something of a humiliation to the ruling classes. “Gen. Clinton, I am informed, has a majority of [the] votes for the Chair,” Schuyler wrote to Jay, on June 30. “If so he has played his cards better than was expected.” [11] In one of his first speeches as governor, Clinton addressed both houses of the New York State legislature: “The invasion of the State, on the northern and southern frontiers, and the prospect of an attack by General Howe, on

As New York’s first governor, 1777-95, Clinton helped to draft the first state constitution. In his six terms as the state’s chief executive, he shaped it as one of the leading states in the new American union. He served as the president of the convention that ratified the US Constitution in 1788. An advocate of states’ rights over that of the federal government as envisioned in the new constitution, he opposed its ratification; in a series of letters published in newspapers, he argued against it, signing them as “Cato.” Alexander Hamilton, in opposition to Clinton, also penned letters to newspapers arguing against Clinton’s stands, signing his letters “Caesar.” Historian John Kaminski summed up, “George Clinton emerged from the Revolution as the most popular man in New York State. Despite the machinations ‘of some designing men’ and his personal protestations that he had ‘little Reason to wish a continuance in an Office attended with so much Fatigue & Trouble & which has already ruined my Private Fortune,’ Clinton was re-elected governor in 1780 with little opposition. The people, Chancellor [Robert] Livingston wrote to Clinton, were ‘disposed to [do] justice to your merits.’” [13] Historian Ralph Earl Prime, in summarizing his governorship, said in 1903, “In a very large sense it is to him belongs the honor of having conceived the idea of the great inland artificial waterways that have been so much to the commerce of this State, and during his administration as Governor, in 1792, the first legislative act to that end was passed, being the act for subscription and issue of stock for the Western and Northern Inland Navigating Company.” [14] In 1795, Clinton decided not to run for reelection, and he stepped down from that office that same year. Within six years, however, he became dissatisfied with how his successor, fellow

George Clinton (1739–1812)211 Continental Congress delegate John Jay, who had once been his friend and confidante, was handling the office, and in 1801 he decided to challenge Jay. Jay, on his part, realized the popularity of Clinton and he refused the Federalist nomination for another term, instead retiring from the governor’s office. Clinton faced Federalist Stephen Van Renssalaer. In a close race, Clinton won, 54% to 46%, and he took office as New York State’s chief executive for a second tenure. He would only serve a single term. Almost from the start of his administration, party leaders in the Democratic-Republican Party were looking for higher office for Clinton, and they soon found it. In 1800, former Secretary of State and former Vice President Thomas Jefferson had been elected the 3rd president of the United States, but he had a relationship with his Vice President, Aaron Burr, which could only be called “tempestuous.” Thus, word went out to find a replacement for Burr to run with Jefferson in 1804. Clinton fit the bill perfectly. Clinton, however, was happy where he was: he told friends that “he would not give up the certainty of being elected Govr. to the uncertainty of being chosen V.P.” [15] However, despite this usual feeling of such a nomination that would normally kill its prospects, party leaders were not dissuaded. Starting in early 1804, party conventions in the states began to nominate their ticket, and they named Jefferson for president and Clinton for vice president. The New-Hampshire Sentinel reported on 31 March 1804, “The grand Virginia-caucus, at Washington, have at length agreed, who shall be President and Vice-President, the next four years. On Saturday evening the 25th ult. they met, and organized. Mr. Bradley, a Senator of Vermont in the chair, One hundred & eight members were present.—THOMAS JEFFERSON, of Virginia, was declared unanimously chosen, for President. On taking the ballot for Vice-President, 55 made a choice, GEORGE Clinton, of New-York, had 67 votes and was chosen.” [16] In the election held that November, Jefferson and Clinton won, with 162 electoral votes, to Federalist Charles Cotesworth Pinckney and Rufus King, with that ticket winning 14 electoral votes. On 4 March 1805, George Clinton was sworn in as the fourth vice president under the US Constitution. The Albany Register of New York toasted the new

vice president: “George Clinton: His unwearied zeal and patriotism entitle him to the confidence of the people.” [17] In 1808, at the conclusion of Jefferson’s second term, his Secretary of State, James Madison, ran for president; incredibly, he ran with Clinton as his vice president, even though Clinton had run a short and aborted campaign for the presidential nomination of the DemocraticRepublican Party himself. When the ticket was elected in November 1808, Clinton became the first of two men who, in American history, have served as vice president under two separate presidents. (The other, John C. Calhoun, was elected in 1824 with John Quincy Adams and in 1828 with Andrew Jackson.) On 8 March 1809, Clinton was sworn in for his second term as vice president. George Clinton did not see the end of this second term. On 20 April 1812, he died at his home in Washington at the age of 72. According to a report in The Star of Raleigh, North Carolina where his daughter and son-in-law were traveling to when word arrived of Clinton’s passing, “The passengers in the stage yesterday [were] informed that the venerable George Clinton, Vice-President of the United States, died at Washington on Sunday. His complaint was an Erysipelas on Sunday.” [18] On 20 April 1812, the president of the US Senate, William Harris Crawford, DemocraticRepublican of Georgia, went to the floor of the US Senate, to say: “Gentlemen: Upon me devolves the painful duty of announcing to the Senate the death of our venerable fellow-citizen George Clinton, Vice President of the U. States. By this afflictive dispensation of Divine Providence, the Senate is deprived of a President rendered dear to each of its members by the dignity and impartiality with which he has so long presided over their deliberations, and the nation bereave of one of the brightest luminaries of its glorious resolution.” [19] On 22 April 1812, the Senate met. As noted in another paper, “On motion, by Mr. [John] Smith of New York. Resolved unanimously, that from an unfeigned respect to the late George Clinton, Vice President of the United States and President of the Senate, the chair of the president of the Senate is shrouded

212

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

with black during the present session; and as a further testimony of respect for the memory of the deceased, the members of the Senate will go into mourning and wear a black crepe round the left arm for thirty days. And the Senate adjourned.” [20]

in 1812 he ran unsuccessfully for the presidency of the United States, losing to James Madison.

The Daily National Intelligencer reported on the funeral for Clinton: The mortal remains of the late vice-president of the U. States were on Tuesday evening interred at the burial ground near the navy-yard in this city, in the presence of a concourse of people greater than ever has been gathered together in this city on any similar occasion. The shops were shot at an early hour; and a general gloom pervaded all ranks of society. The hearse with its escort reached the capitol [sic] about 4 o’clock, and the procession moved thence in about half an hour afterwards, in the order which was immortal in our last. The scene was awful and impressive. The martial parade, the glistening arms and nodding plumes of the military corps which preceded the hearse—the solemn melody of the martial band, which attuned all hearts to melancholy. [21] A monument over his grave reads, in part: “To the memory of George Clinton . . . . He was a soldier and statesman of the revolution. Eminent in council, and distinguished in war, he filled with unexampled usefulness, purity, and ability, among many other offices, those of governor of his native state, and vice-president of the United States. While he lived, his virtue, wisdom, and valour, were the pride, the ornament, and security of his country; and when he died, he left an illustratious [sic] example of a well-spent life, worthy of all limitation.” The magazine The New-York Mirror ran a fullpage biography of Clinton in 1825, and summed up the life of this man: “There are few men who will occupy as renowned a place in the history of the country as George Clinton; and the progress of time will increase the public veneration, and thicken the laurelsz [sic] that cover his monument.” [22] Clinton was initially buried in the Congressional Cemetery in Washington, D.C.; his body was later disinterred, and reburied in the Old Dutch Churchyard, in Kingston, New York. His nephew, DeWitt Clinton, the son of his brother James, also served as governor of New York (1817-23);

[1] “Clinton” in Tunis Garret Bergen, comp., “Genealogies of the State of New York: A Record of the Achievements of Her People in the Making of a Commonwealth and Founding of a Nation” (New York: Lewis Historical Publishing Company; two volumes, 1915), II:537. [2] “Public Papers of George Clinton, First Governor of New York, 1777-1795—1801-1804. Military—Vol. I. With an Introduction by Hugh Hastings, State Historian” (New York and Albany: Wynkoop Hallenbeck Crawford Co., State Printers; ten volumes, 1899-1914), I:14. [3] Clinton official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=C000527. [4] “Extract of the [P]roceedings,” The Newport Mercury [Rhode Island], 8 May 1775, 3. [5] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), I:liii. [6] Clinton to John McKesson, 10 June 1775, in ibid., I:123. McKesson (1734-1796) was a prominent attorney in New York, and served as the clerk of the Provincial Congress (1775-77) that elected Clinton to the Continental Congress. [7] Clinton to John McKesson, 15 June 1775, in ibid., I:125. [8] Clinton to John McKesson, 25 June 1776, in ibid., I:507. [9] “Hartford, April 22,” The Boston Gazette [Massachusetts], 28 April 1777, 2. [10] “Extract of a letter from General Gates,” The Norwich Packet [Connecticut], 15 January 1777, 2. [11] Alexander, DeAlva Stanwood, “A Political History of the State of New York” (New York: Henry Holt and Company; four volumes, 1906-23), I:21-24. [12] “The Speech of his Excellency Governor Clinton, to the Assembly of the State of New-York, at the opening of the Session, in Kingston, on Wednesday, the 20th Instant, was in the words following, viz.,” The Independent Chronicle, and The Universal Advertiser [New York], 9 October 1777, 1. [13] Kaminski, John P., “George Clinton: Yeoman Politician of the New Republic” (Madison, WI: Madison House, 1993), 59. [14] Prime, Ralph Earl, “George Clinton: Some of His Colonial, Revolutionary, and Post-Revolutionary Service. An Address by Ralph Earl Prime, Delivered Before the Historical Society of Newburgh Bay and the Highlands, March 24, 1903” (Newburgh, NY: Privately Published, 1903), 42. [15] Kaminski, “George Clinton: Yeoman Politician,” 255. [16] “New-York, March 3,” New-Hampshire Sentinel [Keene, New Hampshire], 31 March 1804, 4. [17] “The People of the United States,” The Albany Register [New York], 2 April 1805, 2. [18] The Star [Raleigh, North Carolina], 24 April 1812, 67. Erysipelas is described as “a bacterial skin infection involving the upper dermis that characteristically extends into the superficial cutaneous lymphatics. Erysipelas has been traced back to the Middle Ages, where it was referred to as St. Anthony’s fire, named after the Christian saint to whom those afflicted would appeal for healing.” See Thomas Nunneley, “A Treatise on The Nature, Causes, and Treatment of Erypsipelas” (Philadelphia: Ed. Barrington & Geo. D. Haswell, 1844). [19] “Congress of the United States, in Senate,” Alexandria Daily Gazette, Commercial & Political [Virginia], 22 April 1812, 3. [20] “Congress of the United States,” Poulson’s American Daily Advertiser [Philadelphia], 27 April 1812, 2.

George Clymer (1739–1813)213 [21] “From the National Intelligencer,” The Columbian [New York], 27 April 1812, 3. [22] “American Biography: George Clinton,” New-York Mirror, And Ladies’ Literary Gazette, II:42 (14 May 1825), 334-35.

George Clymer (1739–1813)

A signer of the Declaration of Independence, George Clymer was a noted merchant in Philadelphia. He later served in the Continental Congress, in the Pennsylvania Assembly, in the First Congress (1789-91), and as the president of the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts. Clymer was born in Philadelphia on 16 March 1739, the son—and only surviving child— of Christopher Clymer, a ship’s captain who himself had emigrated from Bristol, England, and Deborah (née Fitzwater) Clymer. A family tree of the Clymer family shows George Clymer’s grandfather as Richard Clymer. [1] A collection of biographies of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, written by the Rev. Charles A. Goodrich and published in 1842, says of Clymer, “His father was descended from a respectable family of Bristol, in England; and after his emigration to America became connected by marriage with a lady in Philadelphia.” [2] A

family history involving the Fitzwater family, published in 1912, states that “the children of George Fitzwater and Mary Hardiman, his wife, were,” and then included Deborah, “[who] married Christopher Clymer.” [3] George Clymer’s father died in 1740, perhaps from drowning; his wife allegedly died six years later, and some sources intimate that she died during childbirth, meaning that it is probable that he remarried, although that cannot be definitely ascertained. However, and whenever, they died, it is a fact that George Clymer was orphaned at a rather young age. He was sent to live with his mother’s sister and her husband, Hannah and William Coleman, the latter a wealthy merchant who was a business and religious leader in the Society of Friends, or Quakers, the religion of Clymer’s mother. (His father had been an Episcopalian.) Through the machinations of William Coleman, Clymer earned a first-grade education, learning the merchant’s trade. When he was in his late 20s, Clymer followed him and became a merchant, working in Coleman’s counting house and in the counting house of one Reese Meredith, where he went to work in 1764. Meredith eventually made Clymer his business partner, making the concern known as Meredith and Clymer. In 1765, Clymer married Meredith’s daughter, Elizabeth; the couple would have nine children, of which five would live to see adulthood. When William Coleman died in 1769, he left a large inheritance, of approximately ₤6000, to Clymer. This, added to his businesses and investments, made the 39-year-old Clymer a wealthy man, and this enabled him to enter the political realm. Starting that same year, he was elected to a seat on Philadelphia’s City Council, also known as the Common Council. In 1772, he was appointed as a justice of the Court of Quarter Sessions, and, three years later, was named as an alderman. George Clymer sided with the patriot cause from its earliest moments, despite his father’s English heritage. In 1765, with the institution of such harsh economic measures enacted by the British Parliament on the colonies, including the Sugar Act (1764) and the Stamp Act (1765), Clymer, as a member of the Philadelphia business community, signed the nonimportation agreement, in which

214

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

American businesses refused to sell British-made goods. This agreement paralyzed British trade and led to the repeal of the Stamp Act on 18 March 1766, after just four months of protests. By 1774, additional actions, including the Boston Port Bill, which fined that city for the Boston Tea Party, had caused even more outrage in the colonies, and Committees of Correspondence were established to coordinate colonial responses to the acts. Clymer, as a member of the Pennsylvania Committee of Correspondence, supported the call of the group for delegates from all of the colonies to meet in Philadelphia, a meeting that eventually became the First Continental Congress. In November 1775, Clymer was appointed as a member of the Pennsylvania Committee of Safety, which took control from the royal government in the colony and established a program of law and order. Clymer, on this committee, oversaw the resupply and fortification of the Fort Island Battery, later renamed Fort Mifflin, outside of Philadelphia on the Delaware River across from New Jersey. As a member of the Committee of Safety, Clymer was named by the Continental Congress, in July 1775, as the Continental Treasurer, to handle finances for the colonial cause. He shared the duties of the position with Michael Hillegas, and Clymer held the position until August 1776. The Connecticut Courant reported, “Michael Hillega Esq; one of the members of the Pennsylvania Assembly, & George Clymer, Esq; of Philadelphia, are appointed Treasurers for the Continental Congress’ money. Paper currency is struck in the amount of three millions of dollars, and part of it is already in circulation. The bills are from one dollar to twenty dollars each.” [4]

resignation of Jonathan Bayard Smith the [Pennsylvania] assembly resolved to go into an election on the ‘morrow for a delegate in his place,’ and also the ‘choice of delegates in the room and stead of such other of the present delegates as they shall think proper.’” [6] At this point, Clymer and James Wilson were named as delegates, ordered to go to the meeting place in Philadelphia to sign the Declaration. The other delegates were likewise elected, and similarly ordered to sign the document on behalf of Pennsylvania, which they did. In a biography of Clymer written in 1846, it was noted that even though Clymer had come late to sign the Declaration, “however [he] affixed his signature to the manifesto, as if in the performance of an act which was about to consummate his dearest wishes, and realize those fond prospects of national prosperity which had ever been transcendent in his thoughts.” [7]

The Pennsylvania Magazine reported in its August 1775 issue, “At an election, held Aug. 16 at the State-House, or chusing [sic] a Committee for the city of Philadelphia and its districts, the following Gentlemen were duly chosen, viz.” The name of George Clymer was listed at the number one spot on the list. [5] On 20 July 1776, Clymer, along with George Ross, Benjamin Rush, George Taylor, and James Wilson, were all elected to the Continental Congress. The date is correct . . . it comes after the Declaration of Independence was signed. When the Declaration was put before the delegates to sign, those representing Penn refused. Historian Edmund Cody Burnett explained, “Upon the

Clymer was further reelected to his seat in the Continental Congress on 22 February 1777 and 14 September 1777, and he attended sessions from about 20 July to 23 July 1776, when he signed the Declaration; further, from about 26 September to 28 September 1776, from about 23 November to 12 December 1776, from about 12 March to 19 May 1777, and, finally, from 9 June to 9 September 1777. Historian Burnett, further discussing Clymer’s role in the Continental Congress, wrote, “Clymer was appointed (with Richard Stockton), September 26 [1776], to visit the northern army at Ticonderoga, and was absent on this mission from September 30 until about November 23 . . . When Congress removed to Baltimore, December 12, Clymer remained behind in Philadelphia and was appointed (December 21) on a committee (with Robert Morris and George Walton) to execute Continental business there. He did not go to Baltimore, but under the new credentials, he took his seat in Congress shortly after the return to Philadelphia, probably [on March 12.” [8] There is no correspondence from or to Clymer; all we have from him is a description in a letter to and from others: on 26 September 1776, delegate William Williams wrote to Joseph Trumbull, “I thik Mr. Clymer is a very good sort of a Man . . .” [9] Historian Robert Gough wrote in 1972: It may be argued that a few of these men were not dedicated revolutionaries; however, a comprehensive

George Clymer (1739–1813)215 methodology as is used here, based on their choice to serve the cause, eliminates the need for subjective designation of “radical” or “conservative” leaders during a time of rapidly shifting political positions. It seems foolish, for example, to classify George Clymer as “conservative” or even a “reactionary” in October for opposing the state Constitution, as some writers have glibly done. These ninety-two men were certainly not the only Revolutionary leaders in Pennsylvania. However, they occupied the formal decision-making positions in the colony during the key months from June to September, 1776, and consequently they have been intentionally designated the “Pennsylvania Revolutionaries of 1776.” [10] Clymer served as a delegate to the Pennsylvania state constitutional convention, which met from July to September 1776 to draw up a new blueprint of governance. Differing with several parts of the constitution as it was written, he voted against it, and joined the fledgling Republican Party—not to be associated with the Republican Party of modern times. This political entity ran candidates for seats to the new General Assembly in an attempt to overturn the new constitution. Although this effort ultimately failed, Clymer was reelected to the Assembly in 1777. At the same time, business continued to be of interest to Clymer—in May 1780, having already worked with Robert Morris, they joined with John Nixon to form the Bank of Pennsylvania. The following year, on 31 December 1781, the Continental Congress established the Bank of North America, and named Clymer and Morris as co-directors. The Articles of Confederation, under which the “federal government” had been acting since it went into operation in 1781, was seen as poorly designed and weak—too weak for a nation intending to grow. In the summer of 1787, delegates chosen by the states went to Philadelphia, where they drafted a new governmental blueprint, soon to be known as the US Constitution. Named with Benjamin Franklin and James Wilson as delegates to the Constitutional Convention, Clymer intended to put in this new document those ideas he had wanted in the Pennsylvania state constitution, but had been unable to get passed. Participating in the debates, Clymer also served on a committee that examined the potential assumption of a new federal government of the individual states’ debts, mostly incurred during the war. Having opposed

a unicameral legislation for Pennsylvania, he pushed strongly for a bicameral, or two house, national legislature, and a US House of Representatives and US Senate were both instituted in the document. With these changes, Clymer was able to support the ratification of the Constitution in Pennsylvania. The new Constitution mandated national elections for the US House of Representatives—those who would sit in the US Senate were to be elected by state legislatures—and, in November 1788, Clymer was one of eight men elected as congressmenat-large to sit in the First Congress (178991). Clymer would serve only this single term, deciding not to run for reelection in 1790. Returning to Pennsylvania, Clymer was named as the head of the Pennsylvania Department of Excise Taxes, collecting taxes that were due. When a rebellion broke out in defiance of a tax on whiskey (known as “The Whiskey Rebellion”), Clymer’s son, Meredith, was sent with a military force to put down the insurrection, but he was killed fighting the rebels. The loss hit Clymer extremely hard, and he quickly resigned. In 1796, in his final months in office, President George Washington coaxed Clymer out of retirement by naming him to a three-man panel, along with Col. Benjamin Hawkins and Col. Andrew Pickens, to negotiate a treaty of peace with the Creek and Cherokee nations inside the state of Georgia. The men worked and finalized a treaty later that year. For the remainder of his life, Clymer was involved in philanthropic pursuits, raising monies for the University of Pennsylvania, and serving as the president of the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts. [11] Finally, he served as the president of the Philadelphia Society for Prompting Agriculture from 1805 to 1813. His last service was as the president of the Philadelphia Bank, from 1803 until his death. Clymer died at the home of his son, Henry Clymer in Morrisville, Pennsylvania, across the Delaware River from Trenton, New Jersey, on 23 January 1813 at age 73. Obituaries marking his passing barely mentioned his service to his country; the New-York Herald, an early version of the much-later popular daily, simply said, “[Died], at Philadelphia, GEORGE CLYMER, Esquire, President of the Bank of Philadelphia. [12] Other obituaries found for Clymer were

216

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

much the same—his signing of the Declaration of Independence went completely unrecognized. Clymer was laid to rest in the Quaker Cemetery in Trenton, New Jersey, despite this not being the place he was born in, lived in, served from, and died in. His gravestone reads, “Geo. Clymer, Signer of the Declaration of Independence. Born in Phil: June 19, 1739 Died at Morrisville Jan. 23rd, 1813.”

[11] Brumbaugh, Thomas B., “Notes and Documents: The Pennsylvania Academy’s Early Days: A Letter of George Clymer to Robert Fulton,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, XCII:3 (July 1968), 384-86. [12] “Died,” New-York Herald, 20 January 1813, 2. [13] Grundfest, Jerry, “George Clymer, Philadelphia Revolutionary, 1739-1813” (Ph.D. dissertation, Columbia University, 1973), 13.

A more recent Clymer biographer, Jerry Grundfest, wrote of the Pennsylvanian, “Intelligent, affable, energetic, and widely experienced in government, he was, with Robert Morris, Thomas FitzSimons, and James Wilson, highly influential in making Pennsylvania’s leading center of Federalism. Though not an orator, he sustained his leadership through minute attention to details and by being an indefatigable workhorse. He was neither a visionary, nor an opportunist, but rather a pragmatist with firmly held convictions who weighed carefully the consequences of his actions. Like his favorite author Jonathan Swift, he possessed a cynical, frequently outraged but seldom completely hopeless outlook on the human condition. He was warm and endearing, as a husband and parent. Above all, he was a builder and doer and his works endure.” [13]

See: The Intolerable Acts

[1] Refer to the Clymer family tree, online at http://www.geni. com/people/George-Clymer/6000000013356001521. [2] Goodrich, The Rev. Charles A., “Lives of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence” (Hartford, CT: R.G.H. Huntington, 1842), 284. [3] Carpenter, Edward, comp., “Samuel Carpenter and His Descendants. Compiled by Edward Carpenter of Philadelphia, and His Son, General Louis Henry Carpenter, USA” (Philadelphia: Printed for Private Circulation by J.B. Lippincott & Company, 1912), 257. A biography of Clymer, related to this family through his mother, follows in this work. [4] The Connecticut Courant, and Harford Weekly Intelligencer, 7 August 1775, 3. [5] “For the City,” The Pennsylvania Magazine: Or, American Monthly Museum, for August 1775, 393. [6] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), II:lxiii: [7] “George Clymer” in Robert T. Conrad, ed., “Sanderson’s Biography of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence” (Philadelphia: Thomas, Cowperthwaite & Co., 1846), 376. [8] Burnett, op. cit., II:lxiii. [9] William Williams to Joseph Trumbull, 26 September 1776, in Burnett, op. cit., II:104. [10] Gough, Robert, “Notes on the Pennsylvania Revolutionaries of 1776,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, XCVI:1 (January 1972), 90-91.

The Coercive Acts (1774)

John Collins (1717–1795)

John Collins served as a delegate from his native Rhode Island (1778-80, 1782-83) and governor of Rhode Island (1786-90), in which he voted to have a convention to ratify the US Constitution. Collins was born in Newport, Rhode Island, on 8 June 1717. He may have studied the law. [1] Collins was more of a businessman and a merchant than a politician. As early as 1744, according to some accounts, he had a business that sold merchandise in Newport, and in that same year he extended his trading route south to the Mississippi River. Collins married Mary Avery, and the couple had one child, a son also named John Collins. According to his official congressional biography, Collins served as a member “of the committee

John Collins (1717–1795)217 sent by the General Assembly in September 1776 to inform General Washington of the condition of the colony and obtain his views upon the best method to adopt for its defense.” [2] This began a long and extended period of service to the people of Rhode Island that only ended with his death a quarter of a century later. But at the time, when war exploded between the colonies and Great Britain, the Rhode Island General Assembly elected Collins to serve as a delegate to the Continental Congress. His first election came on 6 May 1778, with a second election coming on 5 May 1779, and he attended sessions from 20 June to about 23 June 1778, from about 24 July to 29 July 1778, from 3 November to 31 December 1778, and from 1 January to 4 October 1779. There is only one letter in a collection by historian Edmund Cody Burnett, but this refers to black soldiers and “the behama [sic] islands.” [3] Another potential correspondence comes from a work by historian William R. Staples, which discusses the role of Rhode Island in the Continental Congress. Staples wrote: The remaining delegates from Rhode Island still in Philadelphia wrote back to the colony’s leaders, “The correspondence between the Colony and its delegates, which by the death of Mr. [Samuel] Ward, and the great inconvenience which attends Mr. Hopkins in writing, hath for some time past been interrupted, we wish might be resumed. Mr. Hopkins gave the earliest notice, by express, that our brigade was put under the Continental establishment; and John Collins, Esq., informed the Assembly of the determination of Congress respecting the cannon which were landed at Newport by the Commander-in-Chief of the Continental navy. Since that, the Congress have ordered six thousand of the militia to reinforce the army in Canada, and keep up a communication with that province.” [4] Delegate William Ellery wrote to Rhode Island Governor Nicholas Coo on 25 April 1778, “Mr. Collins arrived here last Saturday with emaciated horses, after having passed through a very deep and difficult road. Your letter to the President of Congress and the State accounts are referred to the treasury board, who will soon report thereon to Congress. We should urge this matter on; but it will be impossible for Mr. Collins to proceed with his horses without being recruited, and the longer he stays here, the more money he will probably receive.” [5] Finally, Staples adds a piece of information on Collins’ service in the Continental Congress, “Mr. Collins

was also placed on the committee appointed January 4th, 1779, to apportion the quotas of taxes to be paid by the states, during the year, for redeeming the Continental bills of credit.” [6] Returning to Rhode Island in 1779, Collins entered local state politics. The Massachusetts Magazine, in its May 1789 issue, reported, “The people of Rhode Island have re-elected His Excellency John Collins, Esq; Governour [sic], and the Hon. Daniel Bowen, Esq; Deputy Governour [sic] of that State, for the ensuing year.” [7] An article in the magazine The Universal Asylum in June 1790 related to the closeness of Collins and Benjamin Franklin. The article stated: John Collins was one of Franklin’s most intimate acquaintance. This was a boy who was very fond of reading. With him Franklin often disputed on various subjects. Like most young disputants, they were very warm, and very desirous of consu[l]ting each other. One subject was started, which produced a longer discussion than usual. It was respecting the propriety of educating the female sex, and their abilities for acquiring knowledge. Collins endeavoured to show, that they were naturally unequal to the talk of study, and that a learned education was improper for them. Franklin supported the opposite opinion, with much warmth, though he was occasionally staggered, more by the greater fluency of his adversary, than by the strength of his arguments. [8] The New-Haven Gazette of Connecticut reported on 11 May 1786 from Providence, “At the General Election held at Newport Yesterday, the Gentlemen following were declared to be elected to the Office prefixed to their respective Names, viz, His Excellency JOHN COLLINS, Esq; Governor. The Honorable DANIEL OWEN [sic], Esq; Deputy-Governor.” [9] Following the drafting of the new US Constitution in Philadelphia in 1787 the document was sent to the states, where every one of the 13 in the union had to ratify it to have it go into operation. Each state held conventions to decide whether or not to ratify the Constitution; but before these conventions could be held, each state government had to decide whether or not to even hold such a parley. Rhode Island was split over the ratification of a Constitution without a strongly worded Bill of Rights included. In a vote that agreed to a state convention, Collins, as

218

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

governor, cast the tie-breaking vote to actually hold the meeting. Without Collins’ vote, Rhode Island would not have ratified the Constitution, and it would not have gone into effect. The vote of this one man was pivotal to American history.

[4] Staples, William R. (Reuben Aldridge Guild, ed.), “Rhode Island in the Continental Congress, With the Journal of the Convention That Adopted the Constitution, 1765-1790” (Providence, Rhode Island: Providence Press Company, Printers to the State, 1870), 78. Delegate Samuel Ward, who is referred to in the selection, died in Philadelphia on 26 March 1776. See more on him in the entry Samuel Ward (1725-1776). [5] William Ellery to Nicholas Cooke, 25 April 1778, in ibid., 169-70. [6] Ibid., 229. [7] “The Gazette. Boston,” The Massachusetts Magazine: Or, Monthly Museum of Knowledge and Rational Entertainment [Boston], I:V (May 1789), 327. [8] “History of the Life and Character of Benjamin Franklin, L.L.D. &c. &c. &c.,” The Universal Asylum and Columbian Magazine, for June 1790, 332-33. [9] “Providence, May 4, 1786,” The New-Haven Gazette, and the Connecticut Magazine, I:13 (11 May 1786), 102. Bowen’s name spelled as “Owen” is purely a typographical error, and is not because of missing text, which sometimes happens in publications of this age and condition. [10] “DIED, at his home at Newport,” Gazette of the United States [Philadelphia], 24 March 1795, 3.

The ultimate ratification of the Constitution led to the establishment of a US House of Representatives and US Senate, and election for these national bodies came in November 1788. Collins’ name was entered for a seat in the First Congress (1789-91), and, even though he was elected, he refused the honor and did not serve. In 1788, Collins was widowed when his wife Mary died at the age of 53, and he left the governorship in 1790. John Collins died in Newport on 4 March 1795 at the age of 78. Gazette of the United States, a Philadelphia newspaper, stated, in a short report in its edition of 24 March 1795, “DIED, at his seat at Newport, John Collins, Esq., formerly Governor of the State of Rhode Island, in the 78th year of his age.” [10] Collins was laid to rest in his family’s burial ground in Newport, Rhode Island, on his estate, “Brenton Neck.” The burial ground became run down, so much so that by 1854 two men, including a distant relative, Andrew Collins of Louisiana, restored the graves and stones. A stone erected in 2002 by the Sons of the Revolution, and placed next to his cenotaph, reads, ‘The Hon. John Collins, June 8, 1717-March 8, 1795, was elected to the Continental Congress and Served His Country in that Capacity from 1778-1783. He was Then Elected Rhode Island’s 3rd Governor, Further Serving His State and Country in that Capacity from 1786 to 1790. Gov. Collins Cast the Deciding Vote Calling for an Assembly, Which When Convened Voted for Rhode Island to Enter the Union of States.” Collins’ great-great-grandson, Collins Lawton Balch (1834-1910) was a successful Rhode Island businessman and merchant.

[1] Collins’ family tree goes no further back than himself; see the tree online at http://www.geni.com/people/JohnCollins/6000000013394028201. [2] See Collins’ official congressional biography, online at http:// bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=C000639. [3] For the dates of Collins’ elections and dates of attendance, see Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36),, III:lix, and IV:lxii.

The Committee of Five With the calls for a declaration of independence to be drafted, a committee of five of the leading luminaries among the delegates of the Continental Congress was chosen to draft just such a document. Their task was to explain their desire to break away and sever their ties with England. The movement towards independence started not months earlier, but weeks prior to the Declaration actually being signed. On 10 June 1776, the delegates of the Continental Congress met, and then considered a motion from delegate Richard Henry Lee of Virginia. As noted in the Journals of the Continental Congress, “The Congress took into consideration the report from the Committee of the [W]hole: Whereupon, “Resolved, That the consideration of the first resolution be postponed to Monday the 1st July next, and in the mean while, that no time be lost, in case the congress agree therein, that a committee be appointed to prepare a declaration to the effect of the said first resolution, which is in these words, ‘that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent states: that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown; that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is and ought to be, totally dissolved.’” [1]

The Committee of Five219 The news was reported by the delegates to others outside of Philadelphia, where the Continental Congress was sitting in session. New Hampshire delegates Josiah Bartlett and William Whipple wrote to Meshech Weare, of New Hampshire, “We some time ago signified our wish, to know the sentiments of our Colony respecting Independence. The quesn [sic]— has been agitated in Congress. a resolution pass’d yesterday to chose [sic] a Committee to prepare and bring in a Declaration for that purpose, on the first of July, by which time it is expected that all the Delegates who have not already been instructed will receive ample Powers.” [2] Ironically, this is one of the few pieces of correspondence that even mention that a committee has been established to draft a declaration, or that such a declaration was in the works. The following day, 11 June 1776, delegates John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, Robert R. Livingston, and Roger Sherman were named to this group, a “Committee of Five,” as they have come to be known. Jefferson, in a memoir published after his death, wrote, “Committees were also appointed, at the same time, to prepare a plan of confederation for the colonies, and to state the terms proper to be proposed for foreign alliance.” [3] On either 12 June or 13 June, four members of the committee—Franklin was ill, and he would barely participate in the drafting of the declaration, although it appears that he did edit Jefferson’s work and add suggestions to it—met and decided that Jefferson, the true scholar of the group, would encompass his ideas into the declaration. Jefferson merely wrote of this decision, “The committee for drawing the Declaration of Independence, desired me to do it.” [4] Over the next 17 days, it was mostly Jefferson who worked and reworked various drafts of what he felt the document should look like. As historian David Copeland wrote, “Using concepts he drew from the Virginia Declaration of Rights, Jefferson prepared the Declaration of Independence and gave it to Adams and Franklin to edit.” [5] In fact, Jefferson “took” words, phrases, and intended meanings from a series of documents, both framed by him, and some not. In 1775, for instance, Jefferson had

also drafted, and his friend and Continental Congress delegate John Dickinson had reworded and edited, a document that is known as “The Declaration of the Causes and Necessity for Taking Up Arms,” a sort of “rallying cry” of the colonists for the reasons for fighting a war against Great Britain. As Jefferson had penned, in part, in that document, “[a]nd as it behooves those, who are called to this great decision, to be assured that their cause is approved before supreme reason, so it is of great avail that it’s justice be made known to the world, whose affections will ever take the part with those encountering oppression.” [6] On 28 June 1776, Jefferson presented his initial draft to the other members of the “Committee of Five,” and they, after much discussion, came forward to the Virginian with some 30 revisions they felt needed to be changed or included in the document. Jefferson then not only incorporated these changes, but added new words, mostly echoing his fellow Virginian George Mason, in starting the document: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness . . . ” The Continental Congress had been out of session since the “Committee of Five” had been established; on 1 July they came back into session, and they considered the document and its language. The delegates then voted unanimously to approve the Declaration; New York’s delegates, who were present but could not vote on the document because they did not have permission to take such a step without the New York General Assembly voting them such powers, did not vote until 9 July, and they added their approval. In total, 56 different delegates, over a period of many months, signed the document, mostly notably by the president of the Continental Congress, John Hancock. The “Committee of Five” lasted but three weeks in its total existence, and few historians take note of its being. Nevertheless, these five men, working on a draft document done by one man with revisions and suggestions by the four others—put together one of the most important

220

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

document in human history . . . and they did it in less than a month.

When intelligence of the passage of the Boston Port Bill reached New York, a letter was immediately despatched to the Boston Committee of Correspondence by Isaac Seats, “a creature of much spirit and public virtue,” and that bold, ardent, sincere, and indefatigable champion of the popular cause, Alexander McDougall, recommending the most vigorous measures as the most effectual and assuring them of the sympathy and support of the people of New York. This letter added that a public meeting would be called to give effect to their sentiments. A publication was accordingly issued, calling upon the citizens of New York to meet and consult on the measures proper to be pursued in consequence of the late extraordinary and very alarming advices received from England. The meeting was held on the 16th day of May, 1774. The result of its deliberations was the appointment of a Committee of Fifty, to correspond with the other colonies on all matters of moment. [1]

See also: John Adams; The Declaration of Independence; Thomas Jefferson; Benjamin Franklin; Robert R. Livingston; Roger Sherman

[1] Ford, Worthington C., ed., “Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789. Edited from the Original Records in the Library of Congress by Worthington Chauncey Ford, Chief, Division of Manuscripts” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; 34 volumes, 1904-37), V:428-29. [2] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), I:483. [3] Randolph, Thomas Jefferson, ed., “Memoir, Correspondence, and Miscellanies, From the Papers of Thomas Jefferson” (Charlottesville, VA: Published by F. Carr, and Co.; four volumes, 1829), I:14. [4] Ibid., I:14. [5] Copeland, David A., “Debating the Issues in Colonial Newspapers: Primary Documents on Events of the Period” (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2000), 373. [6] Ford, Paul Leicester, coll. and ed., “The Works of Thomas Jefferson: Federal Edition. Published in Twelve Volumes” (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons; 12 volumes, 1904), II:112.

The Committee of Fifty This association was established on 16 May 1774 by politicians in the colony of New York to protest the Boston Port Bill and other harsh economic measures enacted against Massachusetts by the British Parliament. Out of this committee came a call for a convention of delegates from all of the colonies to meet and discuss what should be done with relation to relations with London—a meeting that would become the First Continental Congress. The “Committee of Fifty” found its birth in the first weeks of 1774, when secret Committees of Correspondence sent notes around to other colonies from New York to see what could be done against the British economic policies. On 20 January 1774, in New York, the first Committee of Correspondence was established with the name of the Committee of Thirteen, although that did not last. One of the major personages behind the establishment of the Committee of Fifty was John Jay. Historian Henry Flanders, writing a biography of Jay, penned in 1875:

The newspaper The Pennsylvania Packett reported from New York, 19 May 1774, “Yesterday evening there was a numerous meeting of the merchants in this city, at the house of Mr. Budin [?]. The inhabitants of Salem have declared, that they will not sell, or let an house or lodgings to any person that may removed [sic] thither, in consequence of the passing of the Boston Port Act, they being determined to show their distressed brethren in the capital city, every possible mark of their sincere sympathy.” A letter was then drafted by the members of the Committee of Fifty, which was read to the group and then sent out for publication: TO THE PUBLIC. An advertisement having appeared in the CoffeeHouse, in consequence of the late extraordinary and very alarming advices received from England, inviting the merchants to meet at the house of Mr. Samuel Francis, on Monday evening last, in order to consult on measures proper to be pursued on the present critical and important occasion. A very respectable and large number of the merchants and other inhabitants did accordingly appear at the time and place appointed, and then and there nominated, for the approbation of the public, a committee of fifty persons, of which, fifteen to be a sufficient number to do business. That therefore no formality may be wanting to constitute a committee duly chosen: the inhabitants

The Committee of Fifty221 of this city and county are requested to attend at the Coffee-House THIS DAY, at one o’clock, to approve of the Committee nominated as aforesaid, or to appoint such other persons as in their discretions and wisdom may seem meet. Tuesday[,] May 17. [2] Columbia University in New York City holds the papers of John Jay, which includes “lists of those in attendance and business contracted.” The documents show that a Committee of Fifty was established on 16 May 1774, with “Jay [as] a member. [James] Duane, Jay and Van Schaack drew up the rules. Jay, [Peter] Van Schaack, Francis Lewis, Alexander McDougall, and Thomas Bache were a committee to write a circular letter to the supervisors of various counties telling them of the committee.” [3] There is much historical controversy over the true name of this committee—some sources call it a “Committee of Fifty,” while others call it a “Committee of Fifty-One.” You have seen one instance above where the term “Committee of Fifty” was utilized; in a New York newspaper report, 23 June 1774, the latter term is used: NEW-YORK, June 23. Mr. Holt, It was with great satisfaction that I some time since read a copy of the letter wrote by our respectable Committee of fifty one [sic], to the Committee of the town of Boston.—The moderation, spirit, and prudence conspicuous throughout the whole of it, reflect honour upon the Committee, and render it highly expedient that the inhabitants of this city and country should be acquainted with its contents. I have long waited for its publication, but finding no probability of its coming out, I think it of such importance, that the public should know what has been so sensibly done for them, that I must request you would give it a place in your next paper. The following is an exact copy page [of] it. I hope no improper considerations will induce you to suppress sentiments which I have a right to publish and in which every citizen with wishes well to the cause of America must feel himself interested. A Citizen, and no Member of the Committee. [4] The differences in the usage of the two terms may be pure semantics, or there might be real substance to two differing names for such an important group.

In a work by Jay’s son, William Jay, published in 1833, it was stated, “The passage of the Boston Port Bill, on the 31st of March, 1774, disclosed to the American people the vindictive feelings of the British ministry, and taught them that a prompt and vigorous resistance to oppression [ ] alone preserve their total freedom. The news of this act excited universal alarm. A meeting of the citizens of New-York as assembled on the 16th of May, to ‘consult on the measures proper to be pursued in consequence of the late extraordinary advices received from England.’ The meeting nominated a committee of fifty ‘to correspond with out sister colony on all matters of moment.’” [5] However, historian Joseph Tiedemann, in a history of New York on the eve of the American Revolution, wrote: A few blocks farther up Dock Street was Hanover Square, where Hugh Gaine printed his New York Mercury and where James Rivington would print his loyalist Rivington’s New York Gazetteer in the 1770s. If the area was not as exclusive as Bowling Green, its residents were nonetheless politically active. Here lived Theophylact Bache, an Anglican drygoods merchant, charter member of the Chamber of Commerce and member of the Committee of FiftyOne, which was formed in May 1774 in reaction to the Coercive Acts. So too did Abram Duryee, a Dutch Reformed dealer in dry goods, paints, and oils, who was also on the Committee of Fifty-One; and Samuel Broome, a Presbyterian cutlery merchant, who served on the Committee of One Hundred, which was created in May 1775 after the battles at Lexington and Concord. [6] Historian John Austin Stevens wrote in The Galaxy magazine in 1876, “The New York delegation to this [Continental] Congress was nominated by the famous Committee of correspondence of Fifty-One, and their nomination [was] later ratified by a unanimous vote of the freeholders of the city. They were Phillip Livingston, John Alsop, Isaac Low, James Duane, and John Jay, three merchants and two lawyers.” [7] The impact of the Committee of Fifty—or, if we wish to call it, the Committee of Fifty-One—was short, but extremely critical to the history of America. The Boston Port Bill had pushed these merchants in New York City into action; their clarion call for a meeting of delegates from all

222

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

of the colonies grew into the First Continental Congress. The American Revolution had already begun.

Samuel Rawson Gardiner, whose four-volume work on the English Civil War is considered, even now, a classic and the finest history of the subject, wrote, “In the new Committee of Safety . . . on which the more fiery spirits of the Presbyterian party were fully represented, there was no drawing back. This committee was now established at Guildhall, and busied in preparing lists of disbanded officers willing to serve the Parliament.” [1] These committees played a key role in aiding the Parliamentary cause, which led to the capture of the King, followed by a trial and his beheading in January 1649. Historian Lotte Glow added in a work on the English Committees of Safety, “We have no record of the minutes of the Committee’s proceedings. Apart from the reference to the Committee made by the Houses [of Parliament] in their journals, the only source of information is a collection of signed warrants issued by the Committee, covering most of its administrative functions. These testify to the variety and extent of its business, especially in the first six months of the war, when there was no other established method of executive government.” [2]

[1] Flanders, Henry, “The Lives and Times of the Chief Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States” (New York: James Cockcroft & Company; two volumes, 1875), I:50-51. [2] “New-York, May 19,” Dunlap’s Pennsylvania Packet, or General Advertiser [Philadelphia], 23 May 1774, 3. [3] See “The Papers of John Jay,” courtesy of Columbia University; this specific document’s URL is http://wwwapp.cc.columbia. edu/ldpd/jay/search?mode=search&action=search&match=all& p=1&aut=&submit=Search&recip=&keywd=&rep=&jayid=&y1=1 774&m1= 05&d1=15&y2=1774&m2=05&d2=20&sort=date&resPerPage=25; while the document can be viewed online. [4] “New-York, June 23” The New-York Journal, Or, the General Advertiser, 23 June 1774, 3. [5] Jay, William, “The Life of John Jay: With Selections From His Correspondence and Miscellaneous Papers. By His Son, William Jay” (New York: Printed and Published by J. & J. Harper; two volumes, 1833), I:24. [6] Tiedemann, Joseph S., “Reluctant Revolutionaries: New York City and the Road to Independence, 1763-1776” (Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1997), 21. [7] Stevens, John Austin, “New York In the Continental Congress,” The Galaxy, XXII:2 (August 1776), 151.

The Committee of Fifty-One See: The Committee of Fifty

The Committee of Safety/Council of Safety With the collapse of royal governments in the colonies, governmental structure was needed to carry out basic orders—for troops, for movements of food and ammunition, and for other orders. In this vacuum of power rose the Committee of Safety, or, in some cases, the Council of Safety. They are both the same—and, will be referred to as Committee of Safety throughout this essay. A “committee of safety” has long roots in history, but it began in British history prior to its usage in the American Revolution. The first such committees were established in April 1642, during the English Civil War, as a forum for the liaison between the English Parliament, sitting in London, and its army of supporters and troops, in the field fighting against the forces of King Charles I. Historian

In the colonies, especially at the very start of the war against England, the Committees of Safety played a vital part in establishing a system of executive structure at a time when only Royal governments were in existence. The Committees of Safety were an emergency “panel” of leading citizens, who passed laws, handed down regulations, enacted statutes, and did other fundamental business prior to the Declaration of Independence in July 1776, and the passage of individual state constitutions, which established permanent executive authority. Historian T. H. Breen explained that in the immediate period between the passage of the series of economic measures by the British Parliament, and the meeting of the First Continental Congress, the potential for violence, caused by a lack of governance, was a real possibility. “During this period our Revolution could have turned into a bloodbath,” he wrote. In other political cultures throughout the world, violence has led to anarchy, and in these situations the very people who called for resistance against arbitrary rule have come to regret that they opened a Pandora’s box in the first place.” This did not happen in the midst of the “birth” of the American nation. Massachusetts patriot Samuel Adams wrote of his fears to James Warren, 21 May 1774, “I beseech you to implore

The Committee of Safety/Council of Safety223 every Friend in Boston by every thing dear and sacred to Men of Sense and Virtue to avoid Blood and Tumult. They will have time enough to dye [sic]. Let them give the other Provinces opportunity to think and resolve. Rash Spirits that would by their Impetuosity involve us in insurmountable difficulties will be left to perish by themselves despised by their Enemies, and almost detested by their Friends. Nothing can ruin us but our violence. Reason teaches this. I have indubitable Intelligence, dreadful, as to the Designs against us; consolotary, if we are but prudent.” [3] In perhaps the first use of nonviolence in America, small groups of level-headed men—let us not forget that women were mostly excluded from positions of leadership in this time, and for decades afterward—rose to the challenge and established panels that took over the functions of governing. Breen added, “Variously called committees of safety, or committees of safety and observation, these groups provided a revolutionary infrastructure. As they assumed power to govern, however, they generally choe to observe rough legal procedures, warning and shaming enemies rather than killing them.” [4] On 18 July 1775, the Continental Congress ordered all of the colonies “[t]hat it be recommended to each colony to appoint a committee of safety, to iaperintend [sic] and direct all matters necessary for the security and defence of their respective colonies, in the recess of their assemblies and conventions. That each colony, at their own expense, make such provision by armed vessels or otherwise, as their respective assemblies, conventions, or committees of safety shall judge expedient and suitable to their circumstances and situations, for the protection of their harbours and navigation on their sea coasts against all unlawful invasions, attacks, and depredations, from cutters and ships of war.” [5] The actions of each colony’s, and then each state’s, Committees of Safety, cannot all be examined—there are just too many old records in too many archives in too many states. However, a reading of some sources gives us a glimpse into the thinking that led to the formation, as well as the operations, of individual Committees of Safety. For instance, a notice of and action by the Committee of

Safety of Deerfield, New Hampshire, on the question of “armed resistance to the Crown” 2 April 1776, gives great insight. The people of that town got together on that date and signed a letter demanding that they refuse to follow any dictates of the British authorities. The declaration reads: To the Selectmen of Deerfield: In order to carry the underwithin Resolves of the honorable continental congress [sic] into execution you are requested to desire all Males, above twentyone years of age—Lunaticks [sic], Idiots, Negroes excepted—to sign the declaration on this paper, and when so done to make return thereof, together, with the name or names of all who shall refuse to sign the same to the General Assembly or Committee of Safety of this Colony. M. Weare, Chairman In Congress, March 14, 1776. Resolved, that it be recommended to those honorable Assemblies, Conventions, and Councils in Committees of Safety of the United Colonies, immediately to cause all persons to be disarmed within their respected Colonies who are notoriousl[y] disaffected to the cause of all Americans, or who have no associated, and refuse to associate and to defend by Arms the United Colonies against the hostile attempts of the British Fleets and Arms. Extracts from the Minits [sic]. Charles Thomson, Secretary [6] Unfortunately, there is no one “history” of the Committees of Safety, either as a whole or in their respective colonies. Records of the specific committees do exist, but many of them were badly treated at the time and are hard, if not impossible to read. Many of the men who later served as delegates to the Continental Congress either began their careers, or worked assiduously, in their respective state committees of safety. The use of the Committee of Safety, or Councils of Safety, were needed for years after new governments were established in the individual states. A report done for the Continental Congress in January 1777 ordered “[t]hat the several Councils of Safety, Governors, or Legislatures of the respective States, take the most effectual

224

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Steps to collect from the Inhabitants, not in actual Service, all Continental Arms, and give Notice of the Number they have so collected to General [George] Washington.” [7]

foreign correspondence and for instructions to ministers and agents at foreign courts. Though the committee’s membership changed frequently and its name was eventually changed to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, its duties remained largely unaltered for several years. It represented the single notable success of the best system of standing committees, although it too suffered substantial turnover and chronic short handedness.” [1] The resolution was published not in the Journals of the Continental Congress, but in the Secret Journals, which were not published until many years after the end of the revolution. The establishment of the committee is reflected in those secret journals:

[1] Gardiner, Samuel Rawson, “History of the Great Civil War, 1642-1649” (London: Longmans, Green, and Co.; four volumes, 1891), III:115. [2] Glow, Lotte, “The Committee of Safety,” The English Historical Review, LXXX:315 (April 1965), 289. [3] Samuel Adams to James Warren, 21 May 1774, in “WarrenAdams Letters: Being Chiefly a Correspondence Among John Adams, Samuel Adams, and James Warren” (Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society; two volumes, 1917-25), I:26. [4] Breen, T.H., “American Insurgents, American Patriots: The Revolution of the People” (New York: Hill and Wang, 2010), 18. [5] See entry for 18 July 1775 in “Journals of The American Congress: From 1774 to 1788. In Four Volumes” (Washington, DC: Printed and Published by Way and Gideon; four volumes, 1823), I:119. [6] “Action of Deerfield, N.H. in 1776, on the Question of Armed Resistance to the Crown,” The New-England Historical and Genealogical Register and Antiquarian Journal, XXIV:1 (January 1870), 5. The resolve of the Continental Congress that follows it is also sources to this particular source. [7] Ford, Worthington C., ed., “Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789. Edited from the Original Records in the Library of Congress by Worthington Chauncey Ford, Chief, Division of Manuscripts” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; 34 volumes, 1904-37), VII:74.

The Committee of Secret Correspondence This group came about due to the French wanting to coordinate its efforts against British forces in the area of the United Colonies with the Continental Congress. The French Foreign Minister, Charles Gravier, the Comte de Vergennes, recommended that the Continental Congress establish a “Committee of Secret Correspondence” to carry secret messages between the Continental Congress and Paris. This system came about in 1775, during the Second Continental Congress. Historians Calvin C. Jillson and Rick K. Wilson explained, “The final major administrative arena addressed in the second Continental Congress was foreign affairs. On November 29, 1775, the Congress initially charged a standing committee of five with ‘the sole purpose of parts of the world.” This Committee of Secret Correspondence had general responsibility for

November 29, 1775. Resolved, That a committee of five be appointed for the sole purpose of corresponding with our friends in Great Britain, Ireland, and other parts of the world, and that they lay their correspondence before Congress when directed. Resolved, That this Congress will make provision to defray all such expenses as may arise by carrying on such a correspondence, and for the payment of such agents as they may send on this service. [2] The five men who were initially named to this committee were Benjamin Franklin (Pennsylvania), Thomas Johnson (Maryland), Benjamin Harrison (Virginia), John Dickinson (Pennsylvania and Delaware), and John Jay (New York). Later, additional members were named: for instance, James Lovell of Massachusetts, an expert in codes, was captured by the British and until his release could not help the committee. In addition, Arthur Lee of Virginia and Silas Deane of Connecticut were named as special agents for the committee—Lee sent to London to spy, and Deane dispatched to Paris to court that government for additional loans and aid. Quickly, Robert Morris (Pennsylvania) was added as a member of the committee. Of the members of the committee, it was perhaps Benjamin Franklin, the elderly diplomat and scientist, who contributed the most. Even behind the scenes of the secret committee,

The Committee of Secret Correspondence225 he was corresponding with Don Gabriel de Bourbon, a member of the Spanish royal family, who Franklin wished to befriend to get Spain to contribute to the American cause. On 12 December 1775, he wrote to the prince. After thanking him for a book of literature sent to him, Franklin explained: I am very old, and can scarce hope to see the event of this great contest; but, looking forward, I think I see a powerful dommion [sic] growing up here, whose interest it will be, to form a close and firm alliance with Spain (their territories bordering), and who being united, will be able, not only to preserve their own people in peace, but to repel the force of all the other powers in Europe. It seems, therefore, prudent on both sides to cultivate a good understanding that may hereafter be so useful to both; towards which a fair foundation is already laid m our minds, by the well founded popular opinion entertained here of Spanish integrity and honor. I hope my presumption in hinting this will be pardoned. If in any thing on this side the globe I can render either service or pleasure to your Royal Highness, your commands will make me happy. [3] Overseas were Arthur Lee and Silas Deane, with Lee initially in London, then joining Deane in Paris. Deane responded to letters from Robert Morris, writing to the committee on 1 October 1776: Mr. Morris’ letters of the 4th and 5th of June last, on politics and business, I received with the duplicates of my commission and instructions on the 25th ultimo. I stand corrected, and confine myself to politics. Your letter found me in a most critical situation. The ministry had become extremely uneasy at your absolute silence; and the bold assertions of the British ambassador that you were accommodating matters, aided by the black and villainous artifices of one or two of our own countrymen here, had brought them to apprehend not only a settlement between the two countries, but the most serious consequences to their West India islands, should we unite again with Great Britain. For me, alas! I had nothing left but to make the most positive assertions that no accommodation would or could take place, and to pledge myself in the strongest possible manner that thus would turn out the event; yet so strong were their apprehensions, that an order issued to suspend furnishing me with

stores. Think what I must feel upon such an occasion. Our friend M[onsieur] Beaumarchais exerted himself and in a day or two obtained the orders to be countermanded, and everything is again running on favorably. For Heaven’s sake, if you mean to have any connection with this kingdom, be more assidnous [sic] in getting your letters here. I know not where the blame lies, but it must lie heavy somewhere, when vessels are suffered to sail from Philadelphia and other ports quite down to the middle of August without a single line. This circumstance was urged against my assertions, and was near proving a mortal stab to my whole proceedings. Dr. Williamson of Pennsylvania, and Colonel Mercer of Virginia, have been in France. The latter I believe is still here. The former has returned with his budget for London. Under pretense of being an American this man is doing the Colonies prodigious mischief, and the situation of affairs here at this critical moment renders it as dangerous for the ministry to take him up as it is to let him alone. Let his name be known in America, and every one be put on their guard how they correspond with him. [4] On 2 May 1776, after Lee and Deane had worked their sources in Europe, Spain and other powers sent some 2 million liras for arms, funneled through a phony merchants company, Rodrigue, Hortalez et Cie, headed by the French playwright Pierre-Augustin Caron de Beaumarchais. The loan specified that it would be paid back through the sending of tobacco to France. Ironically, this all happened before there was an actual break with England: Many of the delegates to the Continental Congress held out the hope that the shooting war would end and that there would be eventual reconciliation with London. Remember that it was not until early June that Richard Henry Lee introduced a resolution calling for the drafting of a declaration of independence. Until then, the membership of the committee changed: Benjamin Franklin went to Paris to aid in the war effort there, joining Lee and Deane in a three-man group that negotiated with the powers of Europe for aid for the American nation. They were eventually able to secure a treaty of aid and friendship with France in February 1778, the Franco-American Alliance. The passage of the Declaration of Independence did not just sever the ties between the colonies

226

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

and England: It also made the “secret” work of the Committee of Secret Correspondence irrelevant, although it did continue for some time. For instance, on 1 October 1776, an agent working for the colonies, Thomas Story, secretly informed both Franklin and Morris that France would offer credit to the United Colonies (as the United States was then called) so that the infant nation could purchase arms to fight the British. The two men prepared a report with the testimony of one Thomas Story, and American agent in London:

with such unguarded people and prevent their granting other loans of assistance that we stand in need of.

On my leaving London, Arthur Lee, Esq., requested me to inform the Committee of Correspondence, that he had had several conferences with the French Ambassador, who had communicated the same to the French Court; that in consequence thereof the Duke de Vergennes had sent a gentleman to Mr. Lee, who informed him that the French Court could not think of entering into a war with England, but that they would assist America by sending from Holland this fall two hundred thousand pounds sterling worth of arms and ammunition to St. Eustatius, Martinico, or Cape François. That application was to be made to the Governours or Commandants of those places by inquiring for Monsieur Hortalez, and that on persons properly authorized applying, the above articles “would be delivered to them.” The above intelligence was communicated to the subscribers, being the only two members of the Committee of Secret Correspondence now in the city, and our considering the nature and importance of it, we agree in opinion that it is our indispensable duty to keep it secret even from Congress, for the following reasons: First, Should it get to the ears of our enemies at New-York, they would undoubtedly take measures to intercept the supplies, and thereby deprive us not only of those succours, but of others expected by the same route. Second, considering the nature and importance of [this intelligence] we agree in opinion that it is our indispensable duty to keep it a secret from Congress . . . As the court of France has taken measures to negotiate this loan in the most cautious and secret manner, should we divulge it immediately we may not only lose the present benefit but also render the court cautious of any further connection

Third, We find by fatal experience the Congress consists of too many members to keep secrets, as none could be more strongly enjoined than the present embassy to France, notwithstanding which Mr. Morris was this day asked by Mr. Reese Meredith, whether Dr. Franklin and others were really going Ambassadors to France, which plainly proves, that this Committee ought to keep this secret, if secrecy is required. Fourthly, We are of opinion that it is not necessary to inform Congress of this intelligence at present, because Mr. Morris belongs to all the Committees that can properly be employed in receiving and importing the expected supplies from Martinico, St. Eustatius, or Cape François, and will immediately influence the necessary measures for that purpose; indeed, we have already authorized William Bingham, Esq., to apply at Martinico and St. Eustatius for what comes there, and remit part by the armed sloop Independence, Captain Young, promising to send others for the rest. Mr. Morris will apply to the Marine Committee to send other armed vessels after her; and also to Cape François, (without communicating this advice,) in consequence of private intelligence lately received, that arms, ammunition, and clothing can now be procured at those places. But should any unexpected misfortune befall the States of America, so as to depress the spirits of the Congress, it is our opinion, that on any event of that kind, Mr. Morris (if Dr. Franklin should be absent) should communicate this important matter to Congress; otherwise keep it until part of or the whole supplies arrive, unless other events happen to render the communication of it more proper than it appears to be at this time. B. FRANKLIN. R. MORRIS. [5] On 17 April 1777, the Continental Congress officially renamed the Committee of Secret Correspondence the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and named one person, a secretary of foreign affairs, to handle all of the office’s work. That office, which followed the Continental Congress around during its myriad number

Committees of Correspondence227 of moves, is considered to be the forerunner of the US Department of State, established in 1789.

[1] Jillson, Calvin; and Rick K. Wilson, “Congressional Dynamics: Structure, Coordination, & Choice in the First American Congress, 1774-1789” (Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press, 1994), 103. [2] Resolve of the Continental Congress in the Secret Journals of Congress, 29 November 1775, in Francis Wharton, ed., “The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States. Edited Under Direction of Congress” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; six volumes, 1889), II:61. [3] Franklin to Don Gabriel de Bourbon, 12 December 1775, in Jared Sparks, ed., “The Works of Benjamin Franklin, Containing Several Political and Historical Tracts Not Included in Any Former Edition, and Many Letters Official and Private Not Hitherto Published. With Notes and a Life of The Author” (Boston: Hillard, Gray, and Company; 10 volumes 1836-40), VIII:167-68. [4] Deane to the Committee of Secret Correspondence, 1 October 1776, in Wharton, op. cit. II:153. [5] “Intelligence Communicated by Thomas Story” in Peter Force, ed., “American Archives: Consisting of a Collection of Authentick Records, State Papers, Debates, and Letters and Other Notices of Publick Affairs, the Whole Forming a Documentary History of the Origin and Progress of the North America Colonies; of the Causes and Accomplishment of the American Revolution; and of the Constitution of Government for the United States, to the Final Ratification Thereof. In Six Series” (Washington, DC: Published by M. St. Clair Clarke and Peter Force; ten volumes, 1837-53), Series 5, II:818-19.

Committees of Correspondence Historian Edward D. Collins wrote in 1901, “In its inception, this government in embryo which Samuel Adams set going was purely a local affair. It was, broadly speaking, Adams’ attempt to organize, in such a way that it could be utilized, that spirit of suspicion, discontent, and rebellion which he had long been fomenting in Massachusetts. That the organization should overleap the limits of the colony and his management may not have been a part of his original purpose. It does not appear, at any rate, that he foresaw the degree of success awaiting his scheme or ardently desired its development along the lines it followed. The movement, once begun, assumed large proportions and passed out of his control.” [1] Most historians believe that the Committees of Correspondence were established after the beginning of the American Revolution—but

they could not be more wrong. In fact, such committees had existed since the early 1760s. In 1763, when the Britain authorities tried to force the beginning of trade restrictions on the colonies, colonial leaders, advised these merchants to hold meetings, and send correspondence to other colonial leaders asking for advice. On 13 June 1764, the Massachusetts General Court established a committee to send letters to other colonies to instruct its agents in London what to do about the Sugar Act (1764) and in anticipation of the Stamp Act (1765). When the latter legislation was enacted, additional Committees of Correspondence sprang up in defiance of London. One of the Massachusetts leaders in this movement, a member of the Sons of Liberty, was Samuel Adams, who would later serve in the Continental Congress. Thus, in 1772, when the debate began in the House of Commons on additional legislation designed to punish the colonies, Adams merely resurrected the moribund Committees of Correspondence and set about to making them not only defy London but to organize resistance to all British rule in the colonies. Within a single year, such committees had been established, or reestablished, in every colony. [2] Historian Carl Becker tracked the formation of a committee of correspondence in New York State, following the Stamp Act Congress in 1765. He wrote in 1901: The lead in the opposition was at first taken by the assembly. As early as October 18, 1764, the assembly had ordered that the committee which had been appointed to correspond with the assembly’s agent in England, should also be a committee to correspond with other assemblies with reference to the late acts of Parliament on the “trade of the northern colonies.” The next year, the Stamp Act raised an opposition which carried away nearly all classes alike, the movement in New York was still directed by the assembly. It approved the plan of a congress of delegates to consider the matter and decide upon measures of resistance, which had been suggested by the assembly of Massachusetts, and it provided for the appointment of delegates to represent New York by referring the whole matter to the committee of correspondence that had already been named. [3]

228

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

The institution of the Committee of Correspondence in Massachusetts, led by Adams, played a vital, if not key, role in aiding in the defiance of British rule. Historian William Warner wrote in 2009:

and several steps that have been taken in the American Colonies directly tend. Nay, a rebellion is evidently commenced in New England, in the county of Suffolk, without room for retreating. The inhabitants of that large and populous county have openly bid defiance to the united authority of the King, Lord, and Commons, assembled in Parliament; they have most contemptuously rejected the regulations of their courts of justice, &c. established by Parliament; and not only so, but they have set up in direct opposition to their authority, a government of their own. In the spirit of outrageous licentiousness, they have compelled, by brutal violence, those respectable gentlemen that held Commissions under the Crown, to resign them in forms of their own inditing [sic], and to relinquish their stations; and they have appointed others of the same factious and turbulent dispositions with themselves to fill their places, till their long-projected republic shall be settled, which is the glorious object. They have already, if we may believe credible information, marked out the inland town of Worcester for the seat of this Republic; they are now collecting an artillery for its defence, and some of them have nominated the man who is to be their Protector. Whether this be so or not, it appears from authentic intelligence, dated Boston, September 27, that they have done as bad. For the Select Men and the Committee of Correspondence have proclaimed the King’s troops to be public enemies, and declared to Mr. Scot that he DESERVED immediate death, for selling warlike stores to them . . . [5]

When Samuel Adams learned in the fall of 1772 of a new British administrative initiative to control the courts of Massachusetts by paying judges from customs duties instead of from the appropriations of the Massachusetts House of Representatives, Adams published a pseudonymous essay in The Boston Gazette that called upon his fellow subjects to channel public indignation into a wide-ranging exchange of sentiments: “The next step may be fatal to us. Let us then act like wise Men; calmly look around us and consider what is best to be done. Let us converse together upon this most interesting Subject and open our minds freely to each other. Let it be the topic of conversation in every social Club. Let every Town assemble. Let Associations & Combinations be everywhere set up to consult and recover our just Rights. Valerius Poplicola.” Crucial here is Adams’ call to calm the passion of the moment by slowing down and coming together. Only as a group will the voluntary associations of private citizens have the strength and confidence to enable a “calm,” “wise,” “open,” and inclusive “conversation” about this political crisis. But how does one organize this diffuse “conversation,” so that it amounts to more than mere talk? How can these private opinions and feelings be made to count in a public manner? How can the Whigs of the Town of Boston promote the intellectual coherence and the geographical reach of this discussion? In the same month as this Boston Gazette article appeared, Samuel Adams joined others in petitioning the selectmen of Boston for a meeting so that Boston could institute a standing committee of correspondence with the charge of composing a pamphlet-letter to the other towns of Massachusetts. In this way the Boston Whigs hoped to arouse, shape, and direct the public “conversation” that they considered to be so essential. [4] In 1774, a work ascribed to one Thomas Bradbury Chandler (1726-1790) was published, delivering “a friendly address to all reasonable Americans,” in which he wrote: [t]o this wretched and accursed state of rebellion, the principles that have been propagated,

The Journals of the Continental Congress reflect that while there was still a need for the Committees of Correspondence, their importance was secondary to the Continental Congress itself. In October 1774, the Continental Congress mandated that “should our enemies, by any sudden maneuvers, render it necessary to ask the aid and assistance of our brethren in the country, some one of Committee, or a Select Man of such town or the town adjoining, where such hostilities shall commence or shall be expected to commence, shall dispatch couriers with written messages to the select men, or committees of correspondence, of the several towns in the vicinity, with a written account of such matter, who shall despatch others to committees more remote, until proper and

The Conciliatory Resolution of 1775229 sufficient assistance be obtained, and that the expense of said couriers be defrayed by the county, until it shall be otherwise ordered by the provincial Congress.” This last dictate is known as the Suffolk Resolves. [6]

[1] Collins, Edward D., “Committees of Correspondence of the American Revolution,” Annual Report of the American Historical Association for 1901 (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1902), 247-48. [2] See “Proceedings of the Congress at New-York” (Annapolis, MD: Printed by Jonas Green, Printer to the Province, 1766). [3] Becker, Carl, “Growth of Revolutionary Parties and Methods in New York Province 1765-1774,” The American Historical Review, VII:1 (October 1901), 61-62. [4] Warner, William B., “The Invention of a Public Machine for Revolutionary Sentiment: The Boston Committee of Correspondence,” The Eighteenth Century, L:2-3 (Summer/Fall 2009), 14647. Valerius Poplicola was an early Roman consul. [5] Chandler, Thomas Bradbury, “A Friendly Address to All Reasonable Americans, On the Subject of Our Political Confusions: In Which the Necessary Consequences of Violently Opposing the King’s Troops, and of a General Non-Importation, Are Fairly Stated” (New-York: Printed: London: Printed for Richardson and Urquhart, at the Royal-Exchange, 1774), 27-29. [6] “Journal of the Proceedings of the Congress, Held that Philadelphia, September 5, 1774” (Philadelphia: Printed by William and Thomas Bradford, at the London Coffee-House, 1774), 38.

Committee of Foreign Affairs See: The Department of Foreign Affairs

The Conciliatory Resolution of 1775

one week later. The resolution is short, and is presented here in its entirety: That it is the opinion of this Committee, that when the Governour, Council, and Assembly, or General Court, or any of his Majesty’s Provinces or Colonies in America, shall propose to make provision, according to the condition, circumstances, and situation of such Province or Colony, for contributing their to the common defence (such proportion to be raised under the authority of the General Court, or General Assembly, of such Province or colony, and disposable by Parliament), and shall engage to make provision also for the support of the Civil Government, and the Administration of Justice, in such Province or Colony, it will be proper, if such proposal shall be approved by his Majesty and the two Houses of Parliament, and for so long as such provision shall be made accordingly, to forebear, in respect of such Province or Colony, to levy any Duty, Tax, or Assessment, or to impose any further Duty, Tax, or Assessment, except only such Duties as it may be expedient to continue to levy or to impose for the regulation of commerce; the next produce of the Duties last mentioned to be carried to the account of such Province or Colony respectively. [1] In the papers of Thomas Jefferson is his personal draft of the report on the North motion. This original draft reads: “The Congress preceding to take into their consideration a resolution of the House of Commons of Gr Br [Great Britain] referred to them by the several assemblies of New Jersey, Pnnsylva [sic] & Virga [sic], which resoln [sic] is in these words ‘that it is the opinion &c’ are of Opinion

Better known as Lord North’s conciliatory resolution of 27 February 1775, this document was addressed not to the Continental Congress, but to the individual colonies themselves. It was, in essence, a last ditch attempt to try to head off a full-blown rebellion against British rule in the American colonies. The resolution was ignored, denounced, and, ultimately, rejected by all the colonies. With its rejection, the ministry of Lord North realized that the only way to keep the colonies under British rule was through military action only.

That the colonies of America possess the exclusive privilege of giving & granting their own money; that this involves the right of deliberating whether they will make any gift, for what purpose it shall be made, and what shall be it’s the amount of the gift, and that it is a high breach of this privilege for any body of men, extraneous to their constitutions, to prescribe the purposes for which money shall be levied on them, & to take to themselves the authority of judging of their conditions [,] circumstances, & and situation, & of determining the amount of the contribution to be levied.” [2]

The resolution was introduced in the Committee of the Whole of the House of Commons on 20 February 1775, and passed through that body

Historian James Brown Scott wrote, “The conciliatory act was meant to be a concession, not a surrender, and it was shortly followed by

230

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

the New England Restraining Act of 30 March 1775, cutting off all trade between the colonies and foreign countries and restraining their trade to Great Britain. In April the southern colonies were likewise restrained, and these various measures were later superseded by the general act of 22 December 1775, prohibiting trade and intercourse with America” [3]

one of three sons, of Peter Condict and his wife Phebe (née Dodd) Condict. Nothing is known of Silas Condict’s family or education; his official congressional biography merely states that he “completed preparatory studies.” [1]

[1] The text of the North resolution can be found in William MacDonald, ed., “Select Charters and Other Documents Illustrative of American History, 1606-1775” (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1914), 367-68. [2] “Draft of Report on Lord North’s Motion” in Paul Leicester Ford, ed., “The Writings of Thomas Jefferson: Collected and Edited by Paul Leicester Ford” (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons; ten volumes, 1892-99), I:476-77. [3] Scott, James Brown, “The United States of America: A Study in International Organization” (New York: Oxford University Press, 1920), 28-29.

Silas Condict (1738–1801)

In addition to being a delegate to the Continental Congress (1781-82), Silas Condict spent much of his life as a landholder and surveyor in his native New Jersey. He was born in Morristown, in Morris County, New Jersey, on 7 March 1738, the son, and

Peter Condict was a large landowner in New Jersey, and he passed these holdings on to his sons, Silas, Peter, and Ebenezer. Silas Condict grew the holdings, and also was trained as a surveyor, from which he earned a substantial living. It appears from the few sources on his life that he grew up in a wealthy family. In 1776, with the war against England entering its second year, Condict joined the State Council, an advisory group to the governor, where he served until 1780. He also served as a member of the Committee of Safety, which ruled the state with the collapse of royal colonial government. On 2 November 1781, Condict was elected as a delegate to the Continental Congress; he was subsequently reelected in October 1782, serving in the sessions of December 1781 to about 9 May 1782, and from about 25 June 1782 to 18 October 1782, prefering not to attend after his reelection. [2] Unfortunately, a study of the letters of members of the Continental Congress show no correspondence to, or from, Condict. The Journals of the Continental Congress do not reflect any committees he may have been a member of, or if he ever introduced any legislation or participated in any debates. It is unknown exactly what Condict did when he returned to New Jersey; however, there is a mention in a newspaper from that state, from November 1786, which related that “[n]otes given by the commissioners, on settlement, for pay due to the militia of this state; notes for debts liquidated by Silas Condict, Esq; and notes given by the Treasurer for balance due to persons, on demand, against forfeited estates, will be taken in payment or the above-mentioned lands.” The note was signed by Cornelius Haring, the land agent for Bergen County, New Jersey. [3] In May 1797, a man named Daniel Phoenix published a note in another newspaper, stating that he had a letter from Aaron Kitchell to Condict, which read, “I have been at the war-office, and find the warrant of Armstrong Johnnes entered in your name, but I cannot take it out without powers from you; I enclose you the warrant of attorney,

Benjamin Contee (1755–1815)231 with one proper to execute it, and return it to me, I hall [sic] do the business for you with pleasure.” It is unknown why the warrant was sworn out, or what the results of this matter may have been. [4] In his later life, Condict served in the New Jersey state Assembly, from 1791 to 1794, from 1796 to 1798, and in 1800, serving as Speaker of that body from 1792-94, and again in 1797. [5] Silas Condict died at his home near Morristown, New Jersey, on 6 September 1801 at age 63. The Centinel of Freedom, a New Jersey paper, eulogized him:

[4] See The Centinel of Freedom [Newark, New Jersey], 3 May 1797, 2. [5] Condict’s official congressional biography, op. cit., online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay. pl?index=C000669. [6] “Died,” The Centinel of Freedom, 22 September 1801, 3. Further mentions of Condict’s passing may be found in The Philadelphia Repository, and Weekly Register, 26 September 1801, 367, and Poulson’s American Daily Advertiser [Philadelphia], 24 September 1801, 2.

Benjamin Contee (1755–1815)

In the death of this man, society has been bereft of one of its most useful members. The various trusts confided to him during a long series of years by his fellow-citizens, proved that his fidelity was never doubted, and that their confidence with not placed in his in vain. In his legislative capacity, when a member of that honorable body, he displayed a bright genius, enterprising talents, and an unwearied ardor for the interest of his constituents, and the respectability of the state. As a politician, he was well informed in the nature and principles of government—he early adopted those politics which gave birth to our independence—he continued faithful in its cause in every vicissitude of public opinion—he was zealous in supporting and propagating the just principles of our constitution, and by his patriotism, he justly merited the title of a friend to his country, and the genuine whig. [6] Condict was laid to rest in the First Presbyterian Churchyard in Morristown; his second wife, Abigail, is buried with him. His tombstone, a flat piece of rock, reads, “This Monument is Erected to the Memory of Silas Condict Esqr who was born March 7 17[38] departed this life Sepbr 16 18[01] In the 64 Year of his Age.” Actually, Condict was 63.

[1] Condict official congressional biography, online at http:// bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=C000669. [2] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VI:xlviii. [3] “Confiscated Lands: To be Sold at Publick Vendue, in the County of Bergen,” The New-Jersey Journal, and Political Intelligencer [Elizabethtown], 1 November 1786, 4.

A delegate from Maryland and a wealthy man among society circles, Benjamin Contee’s family had ties to England and to the colonial Maryland government. He was born at his family’s estate, “Brookefield,” located near Nottingham, in Prince Georges County, Maryland, the son of Col. Thomas Contee and his wife Sarah (née Fendall) Contee. A family tree goes back to Peter Contee (c. 1670-c.1714), Benjamin Contee’ great-greatgreat-grandfather, who was born in Barnstaple, Devonshire, England. [1] The elder Contee was a signer of the Declaration of the Associate of Freemen of Maryland (26 July 1775), in effect that state’s “declaration of independence,” which reads, “The long premeditated and now

232

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

avowed design of the British Government to raise revenue from the property of the colonies without their consent, on the gift, grant and disposition of the Commons of Great Britain; the arbitrary and vindictive statutes passed under color of punishing a riot, to subdue by military force and by famine the Massachusetts Bay . . .” [2] From his mother, Contee was descended from Lieutenant General Josias Fendall, Jr. (c. 1628-1687), the fourth proprietary governor of Maryland (1656).

slowly being voted out of existence, to be replaced by a bicameral national legislature. As for Contee, he attended sessions of the Continental Congress from 23 January to 29 February 1788, from 13 June to 13 August 1788, and from 6 October to 3 November 1788. According to historian Edmund Cody Burnett, “Contee and [delegate] Hugh Williamson of North Carolina were the only delegates to attend on November 3, the beginning of the new federal year.” [5]

Due to his family’s wealth and influence, Benjamin Contee attended a private school. On 25 February 1777, The Pennsylvania Packet of Philadelphia reported, “The General Assembly of this State have elected the Hon. Thomas Johnson, Jun. Esq; Governor—Charles Carroll, Sen. Josiah Polk, John Rogers, Edward Lloyd, and John Contee, Esquires, are chosen members of the Council—Samuel Chase, Benjamin Rumsey, William Smith, Charles Carroll, of Carrollton, Thomas Stone, and William Paca, Esquires, are appointed Delegates to represent this State in the Honorable Congress.” [3] With the opening salvos of the American Revolution, Benjamin Contee volunteered for service in the Third Maryland Battalion, rising from the rank of lieutenant to captain. What other service he provided during the conflict is unknown. In 1785, when the war was over, Contee was elected to a seat in the Maryland House of Delegates, where he served until 1787. The Pennsylvania Packet reported on 21 December 1787 that “Colonel John E. Howard, Joshua Sevey, David Rose, Benjamin Contee, and William Harrison, Esqrs. are chosen delegates, to represent this state in the Congress of the United States.” [4] For some reason, the date of 21 December 1787 is not reported; what is noted, is that on 4 January 1788, Contee was elected to a seat in the Continental Congress “for one whole year from the second monday [sic] of december last”; he was reelected on 15 January 1789 under the same conditions. There is no reason given for the discrepancy. When he initially was elected to this seat, the Constitutional Convention had already been held in Philadelphia, and the document that came out of it, the Constitution, had already been drafted and was in the process of being ratified by the states—thus, the Continental Congress was

Only one letter from Contee exists in the collection of “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress”—in this case, it was from him to Christopher Richmond, a ship’s captain in Maryland, on 20 September 1788. Contee wrote: I very lately recd. a Letter from Major Ross acquainting me that the state of his family obliged him to return to Maryland and that it was necessary that Col. Howard and my self shd. go up to supply the place of himself and Mr. Seney who was likewise returning to Maryland-they have allready left N. York as I wish to get up as soon as I can and it is out of the road to come by Anna. I have taken the Liberty to send you the ac’t inclosed and beg you’ll receive for me and transmit the Bala. By the Gent. who waits on you with this. Mrs. Contee is here with me. I wished very much to take her to N. York, but as the weather at the Time I shall probably return will be cold, her friends at Blenheim think it imprudent, all things considered, she shd go. I am now setting out for Blenheim to leave her with her Grandmama. Major Ross informs me there is some hope of a removal farther south than N. York. and that the prospect of R Island’s voting on the question is now relinquished by the advocates for N. York. [6] In April 1788, Contee married Sarah Russell Lee; together, the couple had four children—two sons and two daughters, all of whom lived to adulthood, although one daughter died at age 26. The new Constitution mandated national elections in November 1788. At that time, Contee was elected to a seat in the First Congress (1789-91), but after a single term he refused renomination, and left office in March 1791. According to his official congressional biography, Contee then “traveled in various European countries, and studied theology.” [7] When he returned to the United States, Contee continued his theological studies; in 1803, he was ordained as a minister in the Episcopal Church, serving as pastor of the Episcopal Church at Port Tobacco, in Charles County, Maryland. At some

The Continental Association233 point, however, he gave up his ministerial duties, and accepted a position as the presiding judge of the Charles County Orphans’ Court. Widowed in 1810, Benjamin Contee died in Charles County, Maryland, in November 1815. He was buried at “Bromont,” his estate in Newburg, near Port Tobacco, Maryland.

[1] Contee family tree, online at http://www.geni.com/people/ Hon-Benjamin-Contee-D-D/6000000006100968652. [2] Richardson, Hester Dorsey, “Side-Lights on Maryland History with Sketches of Early Maryland Families” (Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins Company; two volumes, 1913), I:371-72. [3] “Baltimore, February 18,” Dunlap’s Pennsylvania Packet, or General Advertiser [Philadelphia], 25 February 1777, 3. [4] “Baltimore, December 14,” Dunlap’s Pennsylvania Packet, or General Advertiser [Philadelphia], 21 December 1787, 3. [5] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VIII:lxxxvi. [6] Contee to Christopher Richmond, 20 September 1788, in ibid., VIII:798. [7] Contee official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=C000710.

The Continental Association In October 1774, this organization was established by the First Continental Congress, meeting in Philadelphia, to help carry out a boycott of all merchandise made in Great Britain that would be shipped and sold in the colonies. The boycott had been called in reaction to a series of harsh economic measures enacted by the English Parliament, including the Sugar Act (1764) and Stamp Act (1765); but it was the Boston Port Bill, passed through Parliament on 31 March 1774, which directly led to the embargo. The delegates of the Continental Congress hoped that if the colonies as a whole boycotted all Britishmade goods, it would force British merchants who depended on such sales to pressure the Parliament to withdraw the legislation. Historian John Archer Silver wrote in 1895 of the atmosphere in Maryland in which the Continental Association was created, following passage of the Boston Port Bill: [p]ublic feeling ran high in sympathy with the oppressed Bostonians, and the counties were not slow to respond. All mind [sic] were turned to the revival of the nonimportation agreement, and, to this end, a general

meeting at Annapolis naturally suggested itself. During the latter part of May and the early part of June, the inhabitants of the counties met and at their respective courthouses, or other convenient meeting places, and passed a series of resolutions recognizing the cause of Boston as the common cause of all the colonists, and the duty of each and all to unite in effectual means to obtain a repeal of the obnoxious Act. To this end, they expressed themselves strongly in favor of a union of all the colonists pledged neither to import to, nor export from, Great Britain any articles of commerce, and they agreed to enter such a Provincial and Continental Association under oath, and to break off trade and dealings with that colony, county, or town that should refuse to enter such an Association. [1] A history of the war in America by William Gordon, published in four volumes in 1788, said of this period: The Maryland convention met at Annapolis, and unanimously resolved upon an association to be signed by the members, an by all other the freemen of the province. They said, “We do unite as one band, and solemnly plege ourselves and to each other, and to America, that we will, to the utmost of our power, support the present opposition, carrying on, as well by arms as by the continental association, restraining our commerce.” They also resolved, “That there shall be forty companies of Minute Men en[r]olled as soon as may be; and that ever able-bodied effective freeman within the province, between sixteen and fifty (clergymen of all denominations, practicing physicians, the household of the governor, minute and artillery men and persons who from their religious principles cannot bear arms in any case, excepted) as soon as may be, and at the furthest before the fifteenth of September, shall enroll himself in such company of militia.” [2] The association of national importance was established by the Continental Congress on 20 October 1774. The best source for the information regarding this is the Journals of the Continental Congress. On that date, the Journals reflect: The Congress met. The association being copied, was read and signed at the table, and is as follows: We, his majesty’s most loyal subjects, the delegates of the several colonies of New-Hampshire, Massachusetts-Bay, Rhode-Island, Connecticut, NewYork, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, the three lower counties of New-Castle, Kent and Sussex, on Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, North-Carolina, and South-

234

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Carolina, deputed to represent them in a continental Congress, held in the city of Philadelphia, on the 5th day of September, 1774, avowing our allegiance to his majesty, our affection and regard for our fellowsubjects in Great-Britain and elsewhere, affected with the deepest anxiety, and most alarming apprehensions, at those grievances and distresses, with which his Majesty’s American subjects are oppressed; and having taken under our most serious deliberation, the state of the whole continent, find, that the present unhappy situation of our affairs is occasioned by a ruinous system of colony administration, adopted by the British ministry about the year 1763, evidently calculated for inslaving these colonies, and, with them, the British empire. In prosecution of which system, various acts of parliament have been passed, for raising a revenue in America, for depriving the American subjects, in many instances, of the constitutional trial by jury, exposing their lives to danger, by directing a new and illegal trial beyond the seas, for crimes alleged to have been committed in America: and in prosecution of the same system, several late, cruel, and oppressive acts have been passed, respecting the town of Boston and the Massachusetts-Bay, and also an act for extending the province of Quebec, so as to border on the western frontiers of these colonies, establishing an arbitrary government therein, and discouraging the settlement of British subjects in that wide extended country; thus, by the influence of civil principles and ancient prejudices, to dispose the inhabitants to act with hostility against the free Protestant colonies, whenever a wicked ministry shall chuse so to direct them.

1. That from and after the first day of December next, we will not import, into British America, from GreatBritain or Ireland, any goods, wares, or merchandise whatsoever, or from any other place, any such goods, wares, or merchandise, as shall have been exported from Great-Britain or Ireland; nor will we, after that day, import any East-India tea from any part of the world; nor any molasses, syrups, paneles [brown unpurified sugar], coffee, or pimento, from the British plantations or from Dominica; nor wines from Madeira, or the Western Islands; nor foreign indigo.

To obtain redress of these grievances, which threaten destruction to the lives, liberty, and property of his majesty’s subjects, in North America, we are of opinion, that a non-importation, non-consumption, and non-exportation agreement, faithfully adhered to, will prove the most speedy, effectual, and peaceable measure: and, therefore, we do, for ourselves, and the inhabitants of the several colonies, whom we represent, firmly agree and associate, under the sacred ties of virtue, honour and love of our country . . . [3]

4. The earnest desire we have, not to injure our fellowsubjects in Great-Britain, Ireland, or the West-Indies, induces us to suspend a non-exportation, until the tenth day of September, 1775; at which time, if the said acts and parts of acts of the British parliament herein after mentioned are not repealed, we will not, directly or indirectly, export any merchandise or commodity whatsoever to Great-Britain, Ireland, or the WestIndies, except rice to Europe.

As part of the mandate of the Continental Association, importation of all British goods into the colonies would be forbidden on 1 December 1774; further, if the boycott had not worked, by 10 September 1775 exportation of all American goods to England would also cease. The Continental Congress set up the Continental Association with a series of orders, contained in fourteen articles in its founding:

2. We will neither import nor purchase, any slave imported after the first day of December next; after which time, we will wholly discontinue the slave trade, and will neither be concerned in it ourselves, nor will we hire our vessels, nor sell our commodities or manufactures to those who are concerned in it. 3. As a non-consumption agreement, strictly adhered to, will be an effectual security for the observation of the non-importation, we, as above, solemnly agree and associate, that, from this day, we will not purchase or use any tea, imported on account of the East-India company, or any on which a duty hath been or shall be paid; and from and after the first day of March next, we will not purchase or use any EastIndia tea whatever; nor will we, nor shall any person for or under us, purchase or use any of those goods, wares, or merchandise, we have agreed not to import, which we shall know, or have cause to suspect, were imported after the first day of December, except such as come under the rules and directions of the tenth article hereafter mentioned.

5. Such as are merchants, and use the British and Irish trade, will give orders, as soon as possible, to their factors, agents and correspondents, in Great-Britain and Ireland, not to ship any goods to them, on any pretence whatsoever, as they cannot be received in America; and if any merchant, residing in Great-Britain or Ireland, shall directly or indirectly ship any goods, wares or merchandise, for America, in order to break the said non-importation agreement, or in any manner contravene the same, on such unworthy conduct being

The Continental Association235 well attested, it ought to be made public; and, on the same being so done, we will not, from thenceforth, have any commercial connexion with such merchant. 6. That such as are owners of vessels will give positive orders to their captains, or masters, not to receive on board their vessels any goods prohibited by the said non-importation agreement, on pain of immediate dismission from their service. 7. We will use our utmost endeavours to improve the breed of sheep, and increase their number to the greatest extent; and to that end, we will kill them as seldom as may be, especially those of the most profitable kind; nor will we export any to the WestIndies or elsewhere; and those of us, who are or may become overstocked with, or can conveniently spare any sheep, will dispose of them to our neighbours, especially to the poorer sort, on moderate terms. 8. We will, in our several stations, encourage frugality, economy, and industry, and promote agriculture, arts and the manufactures of this country, especially that of wool; and will discountenance and discourage every species of extravagance and dissipation, especially all horse-racing, and all kinds of gaming, cock-fighting, exhibitions of shews, plays, and other expensive diversions and entertainments; and on the death of any relation or friend, none of us, or any of our families, will go into any further mourning-dress, than a black crape or ribbon on the arm or hat, for gentlemen, and a black ribbon and necklace for ladies, and we will discontinue the giving of gloves and scarves at funerals. 9. Such as are venders of goods or merchandise will not take advantage of the scarcity of goods, that may be occasioned by this association, but will sell the same at the rates we have been respectively accustomed to do, for twelve months last past.--And if any vender of goods or merchandise shall sell any such goods on higher terms, or shall, in any manner, or by any device whatsoever violate or depart from this agreement, no person ought, nor will any of us deal with any such person, or his or her factor or agent, at any time thereafter, for any commodity whatever. 10. In case any merchant, trader, or other person, shall import any goods or merchandise, after the first day of December, and before the first day of February next, the same ought forthwith, at the election of the owner, to be either re-shipped or delivered up to the committee of the county or town, wherein they shall be imported, to be stored at the risque of the importer, until the non-importation agreement shall cease, or be sold under the direction of the committee aforesaid;

and in the last-mentioned case, the owner or owners of such goods shall be reimbursed out of the sales, the first cost and charges, the profit, if any, to be applied towards relieving and employing such poor inhabitants of the town of Boston, as are immediate sufferers by the Boston port-bill; and a particular account of all goods so returned, stored, or sold, to be inserted in the public papers; and if any goods or merchandises shall be imported after the said first day of February, the same ought forthwith to be sent back again, without breaking any of the packages thereof. 11. That a committee be chosen in every county, city, and town, by those who are qualified to vote for representatives in the legislature, whose business it shall be attentively to observe the conduct of all persons touching this association; and when it shall be made to appear, to the satisfaction of a majority of any such committee, that any person within the limits of their appointment has violated this association, that such majority do forthwith cause the truth of the case to be published in the gazette; to the end, that all such foes to the rights of British-America may be publicly known, and universally contemned as the enemies of American liberty; and thenceforth we respectively will break off all dealings with him or her. 12. That the committee of correspondence, in the respective colonies, do frequently inspect the entries of their custom-houses, and inform each other, from time to time, of the true state thereof, and of every other material circumstance that may occur relative to this association. 13. That all manufactures of this country be sold at reasonable prices, so that no undue advantage be taken of a future scarcity of goods. 14. And we do further agree and resolve, that we will have no trade, commerce, dealings or intercourse whatsoever, with any colony or province, in NorthAmerica, which shall not accede to, or which shall hereafter violate this association, but will hold them as unworthy of the rights of freemen, and as inimical to the liberties of their country. [4] The delegates on hand that day were signatories to the establishment of the Continental Association. At the top of the document was the signature of Peyton Randolph, the president of the Continental Congress. The members then signed the document by the state they represented (Table 1). The “national” Continental Association, if one could call it, was based in part on colonial state associations, especially those in Maryland, as

236

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Table 1 New Hampshire

Jn. Sullivan Nath. Folsom Thomas Cushing

New Jersey

Step. Crane

Massachusetts Bay

Sam Adams John Adams Rob.Treat Paine

Rich. Smith John De Hart Jos. Galloway

Rhode Island

Step. Hopkins Sam Ward Elipht Dyer

John Dickinson Cha Humphreys

Pennsylvania

Thomas Mifflin

Connecticut

Roger Sherman Silas Deane Isaac Low John Alsop

The Lower Counties

Caesar Rodney John Jay Tho. M: Kean

New York

Ja. Duane

New Castle

Geo. Read Phil. Livingston Wm. Floyd Henry Wisner

Maryland

Wm. Paca S. Boerum

mentioned earlier, and Virginia. For the first time, economic cooperation between the colonies was streamlined. The trade in commodities that Britain sent to the colonies—first tea, then paper and other articles—went in effect. The ban on sales of American goods to British suppliers and merchants, the Continental Congress delegates knew, would impact the Americans extremely hard. But it was the threat of further economic injury from London that led the boycott instituted by the Continental Association to become stronger. The few businesses—mostly owned by Loyalists, still siding with the Crown—were harshly targeted as “the enemies of American liberty.” The boycott held—and it created American industries that eventually fueled war production in the coming years, as well as that of the Industrial Revolution in the next century.

J. Kinsey Wil Livingston

E. Biddle John Morton Geo. Ross

Mat. Tilghman Ths. Johnson Junr. Samuel Chase [5]

Although extremely important to the American cause, especially in the earliest years of the Revolution, the Continental Association is rarely mentioned by historians. Historian Christopher Gould, explaining the background of the association, wrote in 1986: In a letter to the Earl of Dartmouth, July 31, 1774, Lt. Gov. William Bull described South Carolina’s view of the conflict between Great Britain and her colonies: it was a choice between “liberty or slavery.” It was that simple. Throughout America, allegiances had been polarized by the Continental Association, a retaliatory measure against Britain that divided colonists into subscribers and non-subscribers, uniting the former behind federal (continental), state (provincial), and local enforcement agencies. Its adoption proved to be one of the most decisive colonial actions prior to the signing of the Declaration of Independence. Enforcement

Joseph Platt Cooke (1730–1816)237 of the Articles of Association by various extra-legal organizations—chiefly the General Committee, the Provincial Congress, and the various Committees of Observation—is an important chapter in the history of South Carolina and the Revolutionary War. [6]

[1] Silver, John Archer, “The Provincial Government of Maryland (1774-1777)” (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1895), 7-8. [2] Gordon, William, “The History of the Rise, Progress, and Establishment, of the Independence of the United States of America: Including an Account of the Late War; and of the Thirteen Colonies, From Their Origin to That Period” (London: Printed for the Author, and Sold by Charles Dilly, in the Poultry; and James Buckland, in Pater Noster-Row; four volumes, 1788), I:92. [3] Establishment of the Continental Association, 20 October 1774, in Ford, Worthington C., ed., “Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789. Edited from the Original Records in the Library of Congress by Worthington Chauncey Ford, Chief, Division of Manuscripts” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; 34 volumes, 1904-37), I:75-80. [4] Ibid., I:76-79. [5] List of signatories in ibid., I:80. [6] Gould, Christopher, “The South Carolina and Continental Associations: Prelude to Revolution,” The South Carolina Historical Magazine, LXXXVII:1 (January 1986), 30.

Joseph Platt Cooke (1730–1816)

A delegate from his native Connecticut to the Continental Congress on two separate occasions (1784, 1787-88), Joseph Platt Cooke was a

soldier and politician who rose to become a judge in the probate court. He was born in Stratford (now Bridgeport), Connecticut, on 4 January 1730, according to a family tree. [1] However, a biography in “Lamb’s Biographical Dictionary” from 1900 relates that Cooke was born in Danbury, Connecticut, “the son of the Rev. Cooke and Elizabeth (Platt) Cooke, and grandson of Thomas and Sarah (Mason) Cooke and of Joseph Platt.” [2] This latter information is backed up by “The New England Historical and Biographical Register,” which reported in 1909 that Cooke was indeed the son of the Reverend Samuel Cooke, born in 1687 and died in 1747, and his fourth wife, Elizabeth Platt (1701-32). [3] He entered Yale College (now Yale University) in New Haven, Connecticut, and graduated from that institution in 1750. In 1759 Cooke married Sarah Benedict, and together they had five children, of whom three survived to adulthood. Settling in Danbury with his new wife, Cooke invested in businesses, and became a wealthy man. Starting in 1763, and lasting for two decades, Cooke represented Danbury in the Connecticut colonial General Assembly and then the General Assembly as a state. In 1764 he was named as a justice of the peace. In 1771, Cooke was assigned to the Sixteenth Regiment of Connecticut Militia, with the rank of colonel. The opening salvo of the American Revolution in 1774 led Cooke to see action in battle, when he was assigned two years later to General Oliver Wolcott, Sr., who had served in the First Continental Congress and had signed the Declaration of Independence, on his march to provide needed support for Continental troops in New York City, threatened by an invasion by the British. Sent back to Connecticut to aid forces there to head off further British invasions, Cooke was at the forefront when the English attacked the city of Danbury on 26 and 27 April 1777, burning it to the ground. In a raid on the British on 2 May, General Daniel Wooster, one of the leaders of the Connecticut troops, was mortally wounded, dying of his wounds later that day. Unable to hold back the numerically superior British forces, Cooke, given command by Wooster’s death, ordered a retreat. Some sources speculate that Cooke may have been with General Israel Putnam during his campaign against the British General Burgoyne

238

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

in the Hudson River Valley. In early 1778, Cooke suddenly resigned his commission and left the military, for some unknown reason. He was named to the Connecticut Council of Safety that same year, resigning before the year was ended. [4] Over the next several years, Cooke served in the Connecticut state House of Representatives during several tenures (1776, 1778, 1780-82, 1784).

Congress, and was reelected on 11 May 1786 and 10 May 1787, attending sessions of 17 January to 2 July 1785, 14 July to 26 October 1785, 27 to 31 August 1785, 20 September to 27 October 1787, and 29 February to 31 March 1788. According to historian Edmund Cody Burnett, “Cooke returned home for a short time about the first week of July 1785. There may have been other absences in 1785. He did not attend in 1786.” [7]

On 13 May 1784, Cooke was elected by the state House to a seat in the Continental Congress; he ultimately served in sessions from 2 to 24 December 1784. [5] On 3 December, Cooke wrote to William Samuel Johnson, a Connecticut leader who had once served on the Connecticut Colonial Supreme Court (1772-74): I arrived at this Town the Day before yesterday, and found Congress had formed only the Day before, having elected the Hon’ble W. H. Lee Esqr. of Virginia President. Nine States were present yesterday in Congress: the States of New Hamshire, Connecticut, New York and Maryland are not yet represented; there is however one Delegate present from each of said States, except the latter. I am informed there is a Prospect of a full Representation of all the States in a short time, an Event much to be desired at this time in a particular manner, and which it seems has very seldom happened of late years. I was very particularly enquired of by the Members in general when Doctor Johnson might be expected, it being universally known that you had an Appointment. I mentioned the Week after next. they discovered not a little Impatience at so long a Delay, which I endeavoured to excuse by your recent Appointment to the Office and the Difficulty of immediately disengaging yourself from that Multiplicity of Business in which you were involved. I hope I did not set the time too short. A Variety of Matters, some of which are of great and general Concern, are referred to Committees, which will probably take up some time to ripen. I earnestly intreat of you, Sir, to endeavour to be here before those Subjects are brought under Consideration. [6] Cooke returned to Connecticut at the end of 1784, and was not reelected to the Continental Congress. Instead, he continued to serve in the state House, leaving that body in 1784. Elected as a judge of the Probate Court for the Danbury district in 1776, he apparently remained on this seat after leaving the state House. On 12 May 1785, Cook was again elected to the Continental

There is, like his first tenure in the Continental Congress, only one piece of correspondence from Cooke. In a letter to Jeremiah Wadsworth, a sea captain and official in the Continental Army (he served as the Deputy Commissary General of Purchases [1777] and Commissary General of Purchases [1778-79]) 13 February 1788, he wrote: Yesterday I received your favour of the [ ] instant by the tenor of which I find it necessary to be somewhat particular in apologizing for my non-attendance at Congress, which seems to have made some unfavourable impressions on your mind. I received the Governors letter the week before the Sessions of the State Convention directing my attendance and informing that you would attend with me to which indeed I returned no answer as none was desired and I expected to go on, but as I could not reasonably expect your attendance untill after the Convention, I thought it expedient to wait till I should hear from you, as I could be in New York within two days after being informed that you was there. The week before last I had the first notice that you was gone on, and at the same time was informed in such a manner as to depend upon it that Mr. Mitchel was to join you there in a very short time. From this information and not hearing from you I really supposed that some new arrangement had taken place by which my attendance would be dispensed with, and upon that idea gave over the thoughts of going. I am sorry to find I have been mistaken and more especially as the present state of my health will not now admit of my leaving home. I returned from Fairfield last Week very unwell and have been confined ever since. Pray write to Mr. Mitchel [8] or Col. [John] Chester to come on, and if it be not convenient for either of them, I will attend as soon as my health will permit, which I fear will not be under a fortnight. [9] Cooke remained on the Probate court until 1813, when he retired. In 1803, he was named to the Governor’s Council, an advisory group to the chief executive of the state. Cooke placed a letter

John Cooper (1729–1785)239 in The Connecticut Courant on 23 March 1803, in which he wrote, “The Subscriber presents his grateful acknowledgements to the Freemen of the State of Connecticut, for their respect and confidence in honoring whom with a seat in The Council nineteen years successively; but having arrived at that period of life, which renders domestic retirement proper and expedient, he desires to be considered no longer a Candidate for that office.” [10] Joseph Platt Cooke died at his home in Danbury, Connecticut, on 3 February 1816, one month after his 86th birthday. The Connecticut Courant of Hartford merely noted that Cooke died, giving his age as 87, not the true 86, “for many years a member of the Hon. Council of this State.” There was no word on his service before, during, and after the war, or his tenures in the Continental Congress. [11] Cooke was laid to rest in the Old North Main Street Cemetery in Danbury.

[1] The Joseph Platt Cooke family tree, showing no parents’ names, is online at http://www.geni.com/people/JosephCooke/6000000011384295077. [2] See the biography in question in John Howard Brown, “Lamb’s Biographical Dictionary of the United States” (Boston: James H. Lamb Company, 372 Boylston Street; seven volumes, 1900-03), II:168. [3] See “Family Record,” in “The New England Historical and Genealogical Register,” LXIII (April 1909), 195. [4] See Cooke’s official congressional biography, online at http:// bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=C000733. [5] Dates of service in Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VII:lxiii. [6] Cooke to William Samuel Johnson, 3 December 1784, in ibid., VII:619. [7] Ibid., VIII:lxxxiii. [8] This should be Stephen Mix Mitchell (1743-1835), delegate to the Continental Congress from Connecticut (1785-88). [9] Cooke to Jeremiah Wadsworth, 13 February 1788, in ibid., VIII;697-98. [10] Letter from “Joseph P. Cooke,” 14 March 1803, in The Connecticut Courant [Hartford], 23 March 1803, 3. [11] “Died,” The Connecticut Courant [Hartford], 13 February 1816, 3.

John Cooper (1729–1785) A long-standing official in New Jersey, John Cooper was named as a delegate to the Continental Congress (1776) but refused. A member of the Society of Friends, or Quakers, he cited his religion in opposing the continuance

of slavery in a nation governed under the tenets of the Declaration of Independence, which he did not sign. He was born near Woodbury, in Gloucester County, New Jersey, on 5 February 1729. Cooper “received a liberal education,” which could mean that he was educated in languages, in classical literature, and other subjects taught at the time. [1] According to the official congressional biography, Cooper served as a member of the Committee of Correspondence for Gloucester County in 1774, a member of the New Jersey Provincial Congress in 1775 and 1776, serving on a committee in the latter body that drafted New Jersey’s first state constitution. On 28 October 1775, he was appointed by the Provincial Congress as the Treasurer of the Western Division of New Jersey, serving from that date until 31 August 1776. [2] On 14 February 1776, Cooper was elected to a seat in the Continental Congress. According to historian Edmund Cody Burnett, Cooper “did not attend.” [3] There appeared to be no official document stating it, but Cooper apparently refused the honor. Historian Mary Sherrerd Clark wrote in 1905: There were five members of the New Jersey delegation in the Continental Congress who were fortunate enough to have the privilege of affixing their names to the great document in American history; and few know how nearly they came to missing it altogether. The Continental Congress of the Revolutionary days was a casual sort of Congress, its membership changing continually according to the whims of the States and of the members themselves, most of which were obliged to make many sacrifices in order to attend the sessions. On February 14, 1776, New Jersey took into its sovereign head to resolve that William Livingston, John DeHart [should be spelled “De Hart”], Richard Smith, John Cooper and John Dickinson Sergeant “to be delegates to represent this province in the Continental Congress, for the space of one year or until others shall be legally appointed in their stead,” and on the 20th of February, 1776, three of these gentlemen attended in Philadelphia and presented their credentials.” Cooper is not mentioned again: he had refused the honor offered by his native state and its people. [4] During this period, Cooper also served on the legislative council, representing Gloucester

240

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

County, from 1776 to 1780, and again in 1780. He also served on the New Jersey state Council of Safety in 1778. On 25 December 1779, Cooper was elected as a judge of the Court of Pleas for Gloucester County; reelected, he served until his death.

Cornell (c. 1594-1655), was born in Fairstead Manor, in Fairstead, Essex, England, emigrating to Portsmouth, Rhode Island, sometime in the early 17th century. [1]

John Cooper died in Woodbury on 1 April 1785 at the age of 56. He was buried in a Society of Friends Cemetery in Woodbury, New Jersey; some sources call it “the Quaker Cemetery,” but its official name is the Society of Friends.

[1] Cooper official congressional biography, online at http:// bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=C000756. [2] Ibid. [3] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), I:xlix. [4] Clark, Mary Sherrerd, “In The Olden Days: Papers Colonial and Revolutionary” (Greenwich, Connecticut: Privately Printed at the Literary Collector Press, 1905), 51-52.

Ezekiel Cornell (1732–1800)

Ezekiel Cornell attended public schools and was apparently as a mechanic, the profession he entered as a youth. In 1775, when he was 43 years old, he was appointed as a lieutenant colonel in the Rhode Island regiment commanded by Colonel Daniel Hitchcock. That year, Cornell was “present” at the British siege of Boston; his role and degree of participation is unknown. He was named as a deputy adjutant general on 1 October 1776, and was appointed a brigadier general of Rhode Island state troops later in 1776, serving until 16 March 1780. [2] On 8 May 1780, Cornell was elected to a seat in the Continental Congress. According to historian Edmund Cody Burnett, he initially attended sessions from 5 June to 19 December 1780; he was replaced in December by James Mitchell Varnum. On 29 December, he was selected by the Continental Congress as the commissioner of the Board of War. [3] According to Burnett, Cornell was then elected a second time to the Continental Congress on 2 May 1781, and attended sessions from 19 November 1781 to 18 September 1782. [4] There are numerous pieces of correspondence from Cornell to others. In a letter to William Greene, dated 2 September 1780, Cornell wrote:

A delegate to the Continental Congress, Ezekiel Cornell was born in Scituate, Rhode Island on 7 March 1732, according to a family tree, by which his parents were Richard Cornell and Content Brownell. His great-grandfather, Thomas

I wrote your Excellency very fully and by the last Post, little expecting to write you again so soon, but the importance of the inteligence in Congress the 31st Ulto. lays me under an obligation of giving you a most disagreeable narative [sic] of Our situation in the Carolinas. I will not say that General Gates hath had a general Action. But that he hath suffered a General and total defeat is certain by his letter dated Hilsborough North Carolina August the 20th 1780. It is imperfect and I have no liberty to take a coppy [sic] of it. But I do my self the honour to inclose a copy of one from Mr. Burk [this should be Thomas Burke] a Member of Congress for N. Carolina who went home since I came, to which I beg liberty to refer you for particulars therein contained, And leave further particulars to be digested by time. I am this day informed that the Militia of this state are on their March home from Bucks County

Ezekiel Cornell (1732–1800)241 where they have been for some time As they could not be subsisted at their Quarters for want of provisions. I have not been informed of the particular reason for their returning . . . Congress are endeavouring if possible to reconcile matters so as to bring about a completion or Ratification of the Confideration as every member is more and more convinced of the Necessity of the measure. [5] In another letter to Greene, 10 September 1780, he wrote: Offensive opperations are no longer talked of for this Campaign. Our Thoughts are now Turned to consider what our Army will be on the first of January Next, which appears Molancolly but our thoughts are here interupted by reports still more Molencolly that of our present Army starving. I have letters from Genl officers Dated Hackinsack Sepr. 5th Avering the Army had been served with meat only two Days in Seven including the 5th And no prospect of Any. It is my private opinion if the states do not comply more fully with the recommendations of Congress the Army will disband. Can we expect they will stay in the field with out pay or Subsistence. It is well known Congress have no money at Command, either to pay for Subsistance or wages. Who is to blame I cannot say but I am confident it is in our power to give the Troops meat if we cannot give them pay, which hath not been the case for half the days the Month past. The Army now live principally by plunder both for meat & forrage. And will if they keep together I fear soon become freebooters. And I think every man must feel for the Inhabitants where the Army marches. [6] Finally, in a third letter, this time to Greene’s brother, General Nathanael Greene, 19 September 1780, he explained: That there have been and still are some members in Congress of a persecutting [sic] Spirit is not to be doubted or wondered at when we reflect that one of the best judges of Mankind choose only Twelve out of the whole lump, and one of his number was of that class. But to suppose that Congress take their tone from that Class appears to me rather censorious. And if we may Judge from their final determinations I think the Contrary will appear . . . People in different stations of life are apt to think indifferently of each other as they do not feel the force of the difficulties that attend the other. The Gentlemen of the Army feel the difficulties and hardships that they are exposed to with all the severity attending, and are perhaps

too apt to suppose they arise from want of Attention in Congress or a wicked disposition to distress them when perhaps the real cause arose from a train of disappointments that no humane prudence could foresee. I have lived the life of a Soldier for five years and I can say upon the word of an honest man I never passed a Summer so disagreablely as I have the present. Every day furnishing a new Catelogue of Complaints from the Army and other publick Creditors with out the means of Satisfying them on one Side, On the other a Series of Letters from governors and presidents in answer to letters pressing the states for money seting forth the exhausted state of their several Treasurys and the inability of their consituents to pay the Quotas of Taxes assessed upon them. After all what shall Congress do, Curse the states as some of the gentlemen of the Army do Congress for not fulfilling their contracts with them immediately when its out of their power. But after all I will go further and not only say that the members of Congress are friends to their Country but far the greatest part of them have the highest opinion of the officers in the Army and are their real friends. I can only lament that the gentlemen of the Army are not fully acquainted with the sentiments and Conduct of Congress towards them with every difficulty and obstruction they meet with when endeavouring to serve them in such a manner as to make the Army Comfortable, I am sure their candor is such that many prejudices would be removed that now exist. [7] Following his service in the Continental Congress, Cornell retired to his farm in Scituate. He died in Milford, Massachusetts, on 25 April 1800, possibly one month after his 68th birthday. His burial site is unknown.

[1] Cornell family tree, online at http://www.geni.com/people/ General-Ezekiel-Cornell/6000000003611574800. [2] Cornell official congressional biography, online at http:// bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=C000781. [3] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), V:lxii. [4] Ibid., VI:li. [5] Cornell to William Greene, 2 September 1780, in Paul H. Smith, ed., “Letters of Delegates to Congress, 1774-1789” (Washington, DC: Library of Congress; 26 volumes, 1976-2000), XVI:7-9. [6] Cornell to William Greene, 10 September 1780, in ibid., XVI:44-45. [7] Cornell to Nathanael Greene, 19 September 1780, in ibid., XVI:85-8.

242

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Tench Coxe (1755–1824)

the attorney general of Pennsylvania in 1741, and for whom he was named. [1] Tench Coxe entered the Philadelphia College and Academy (now the University of Pennsylvania), in 1771, when he was 16. By 1772, he had left the school, becoming a merchant in Philadelphia, opening his own trading house. In 1776, in the midst of the American Revolution, he joined his father’s commercial concern as a partner, making it Coxe, Furman, and Coxe. Again, interested more in trade than in politics, Coxe was a founding member of the United Company of Philadelphia for Promoting American Manufactures, which advocated for building factories in the nation, while angling for increased American trade abroad.

Tench Coxe is remembered more for his work on behalf of commercial and trade measures— establishing postwar American industries as a leader in the world—than for his political work, or service in the Continental Congress (1789). His service in other political offices included Purveyor of Public Supplies (1803-12). He was one of Pennsylvania’s earliest leaders along with Benjamin Franklin. Coxe was born in Philadelphia on 22 May 1755, the son of William Coxe, a landowner, and his wife Mary (née Francis) Coxe. Coxe came from a family that had long served the governments where they lived. His great-grandfather, Colonel Daniel Coxe (1673-1739), was born in London, England, and was the official physician to King Charles II and Queen Anne of England. He lived and died in his native land, but because of a sale of land in the New World he became, for a short time, the governor of West Jersey, now a part of the state of New Jersey. His son, also named Daniel Coxe, came to the American colonies, where he settled in Pennsylvania, rising to serve on that colony’s Supreme Court and Speaker of the Assembly; he later moved to New Jersey and served on that colony’s Supreme Court. Tench Coxe’s maternal grandfather was Tench Francis, a leading attorney in Pennsylvania who served as

Placed in active service in the Fourth Pennsylvanian Regiment, Coxe decided he did not want to fight and he resigned his commission. When his name became associated with Loyalists who were siding with the British against the American cause, Coxe panicked and fled to New York City, then under British control, a move that certainly did not endear him to those who suspected that he might be a Britain sympathizer. To make matters worse, when the British raided Pennsylvania and seized control of Philadelphia, forcing the Continental Congress to flee, Coxe marched alongside the British troops into the city on 26 September 1777 along with such men as Joseph Galloway, Andrew Allen, and others. Later, it was charged that Coxe marched “with a British officer locked in his arm.” Such actions could earn a noose for anyone not with the connections in Philadelphia society that Coxe had. [2] The British were able to hold onto the Continental capital for a time, even during select attempts to force them out by the Continental Army, including military disasters at Brandywine and Germantown, both in late 1777. Coxe, safely ensconced in Philadelphia, was able to go about his business, making a tidy profit from the increased British business. When the Americans won a decisive victory at Saratoga (17 October 1777), Coxe paid it no attention, although his Loyalist friend Edward Goold, writing from New York, wrote to Coxe with what feared what might come next: “I shall make no reflections upon this melancholy affair,” he explained about Saratoga. “I expect our Turn will come next.” In the meantime, Coxe used

Tench Coxe (1755–1824)243 his influence with the British to gain mercantile contracts and increased business. He wrote, “If we must suffer misfortunes, we ought to drain all the good from them possible.” [3] When the British were forced to flee from Philadelphia, amazingly Coxe remained behind, and some of the revolutionary forces that reinhabited the city accused him of being either a Loyalist or a full supporter of the British Army— in short, a spy. For some reason, however, no harm came to him. The war ended before anything could be done to him, and he seems to have kept a low profile during the entire period, spent building up his business. As soon as the war had ended, however, Coxe decided to enter politics. He had married Catherine McCall, the daughter of a fellow Philadelphia merchant, in early 1778; she died suddenly, perhaps from tuberculosis, in January 1782, and Coxe married his first cousin, Rebecca Coxe, with whom he had ten children. By this time, both through his business and land speculation, purchasing numerous pieces of land in and around Pennsylvania, he had become an extremely wealthy man. In 1786, Coxe served as the commissioner to the Federal Convention held in Annapolis, Maryland, which called for the complete overhaul of the weak and ineffectual Articles of Confederation. Seeing his service on behalf of the patriot cause, now with the war at an end, on 14 November 1788 Coxe was elected to a seat in the Continental Congress. That body was doomed—earlier that year, the last states had ratified the US Constitution, mandating elections for a new bicameral legislature, a US House of Representatives and US Senate, and elections for that body were being held in November 1788 just as Coxe was being named to the Continental Congress. Nevertheless, according to historian Edmund Cody Burnett, Coxe did attend the Congress for a single day: 10 January 1789. [4] On 3 March, the Continental Congress was dissolved, and the following day the new US Congress came into being. Coxe’s correspondence during this short period of service in the Continental Congress is important. A letter to Benjamin Rush, 13 January 1788, reports that “Four States are represented and three in part. A Quorum from seven will be here by the 2oth, when a president will be chosen. Mr. [Jeremiah] Wadsworth [of Connecticut] has been mentioned to me. I have some wishes

on this subject of which more hereafter.” [5] A further missive, to Thomas Mifflin, the president of Pennsylvania, 26 January 1789, updates the situation: “I had the honor of writing you a very few lines shortly after my arrival. Mr. [Nathaniel] Gorham [of Massachusetts] having arr’d since, we have five states, and every reason to expect there will be seven in a week or ten days.” [6] To James Madison of Virginia he penned on 27 January 1789: I have been here about a Fortnight during which time we have not made a Congress So. Carolina, Virga., Pennsa., N. Jersey, and Massachusetts are represented. There is one Member from each of the States of Rhode Island, N. Carolina and Georgia, but none from New Hampshire, Connecticut N. York, Delaware or Maryland. I very much wish we may make a house in a week or ten days, as I think the Appearance in Europe, and perhaps even here, of the old Congress being in full operation and tranquilly yielding the seats to the new would have a good effect. The misrepresentations in Europe have been extremely gross, and must have an unfavorable effect upon Emigration in the poorer ranks of life. Colonel Wadsworth has been mentiond as President I respect him much, but I wish to give appearance to the old System by a character of rather more celebrity. Mr. Adams would meet my Judgment better than any member of the present house. The principal Objection is his Absence, which I fear will deprive him of his chance. [7] Other correspondence from Coxe demonstrates his interest in asking to allow for astronomical observations to be done in Canada. Coxe left the Continental Congress after that single day of attendance in New York, and returned to Philadelphia. He decided to use his business experience to aid the new American nation in expanding its factory system and in pushing for increased trade with other countries, vital lifeblood for a nation’s economy. When the new US Constitution was drafted in 1787 and ratified by the states the following year, Coxe had already become one of infant America’s first “economic writers.” He was one of the founders of the group The Pennsylvania Society for the Encouragement of Manufactures and Useful Arts (PSEMUA) in 1787, the first industry advocacy organization. A mill built by the group as a test burned down in 1790, ending its initial experiment. Coxe then turned to trying to establish a national bank, and other national economic measures.

244

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

In 1790, Coxe met, and began a long relationship with, Thomas Jefferson. Historian Jacob E. Cooke explained:

Philadelphia/the piece was lent and returned with a complimentary card. Mr. Jefferson therein asked WHY the work was not reported in America? He added that he would gladly become a purchaser, as it continued the most astonishing concentration of political abuses, he had ever heard of. In the preface to the American editions, this card has been quoted, as an apology for the republication.” [9] In the next few years, Coxe was utilized in various governmental offices, including service as the commissioner of revenue (1792-97). The same paper reported less than a year later that “Israel Whelan, Esq. has resigned the office of Purveyor of Publick Supplies; and Tench Coxe, Esq. has been appointed by the President of the United States, his successor.” [10]

The two men first met in the late spring of 1790, shortly after Coxe arrived in New York to assume office as Assistant to Alexander Hamilton, the Secretary of the Treasury. Although doubtless prompted by a degree of self-serving, Coxe promptly fell under the spell of the courteous Virginian whose polite diffidence did not mask an uncommonly penetrating and cultivated mind . . . But their amiable relationship, personal as well as official, was also owing to certain affinities that overshadowed differences that otherwise might well have divided a southern Republican planter, like Jefferson, whose political creed was vigorously antistatist, and an urban Federalist merchant, like Coxe, whose political theory was consistently that of an interventionist. Both were aristocrats, sharing the manners and social standards characteristic of the Virginia gentry as well as of the Philadelphia elite. Though Jefferson was far more learned and sophisticated than Coxe, they had in common a wideranging interest in science and technology, in the arts and education, and in history and politics. They also shared complementary needs: Coxe’s need for the type of recognition Hamilton was incapable of granting was matched by Jefferson’s need for the kind of assistance Coxe was well equipped to supply. [8] As the assistant secretary of the treasury, Coxe gathered research that Secretary Alexander Hamilton utilized in preparing a report on manufactures in 1791. The was followed by Coxe’s landmark “Plan for a Manufacturing Society” (1791). Using this plan, the US government established a Society for Establishing Useful Manufactures, a program that provided public monies to private concerns to start small businesses, perhaps the forerunner of the Small Business Administration. The first use of this program came in New Jersey, when a “model city,” later to become the city of Paterson, was set up as a model of manufacturing. Unfortunately, the Economic Panic of 1792 came along at the same time, wiping out the city’s capital. In 1796, five years after being established, the model city went bankrupt, and the Society was dissolved. The Gazette of the United States in 1802 reported, “In Summer [of] 1793, Mr. Tench Coxe borrowed from [James] Callendar, the Political Progress of Britain. He asked to leave it to Mr. Jefferson, then secretary of state [sic], and residing in

We also find that Coxe was deeply interested in making sure that newspapers were published to express political viewpoints: the potential closing of The Aurora, published in Philadelphia by Benjamin Franklin Bache, is a prime example. With Bache’s death in that city’s yellow fever epidemic in 1798, the paper, influential for many years, ceased publication. It is here that Coxe stepped in, corresponding with William Duane, the paper’s editor, to try to salvage it. Historian Peter J. Parker explains: Whatever the reason, Coxe, acting in concert with Joseph Clay, wrote to Duane shortly after Bache died making inquiries about the paper. Although Coxe’s letter has not survived, it is clear from Duane’s reply that Coxe was deeply interested in the Aurora’s future. Coxe seems to have suggested that a number of Republican purchasers might be induced to underwrite the financially ailing but politically necessary (Aurora. Coxe’s questions would naturally have been directed to Duane, who had been Bache’s associate on the paper. Moreover, Duane had remained in town during the epidemic, while Margaret Bache had moved her family to her father-in-law’s country house, “Settle,” and possibly had access to Bache’s books. [11] Coxe was a devout believer in the right to own and bear arms—what is now endowed in the Second Amendment to the US Constitution. During the run-up to the ratification of the US Constitution, he argued in several letters to Pennsylvania newspapers his opinions, signed “And American Citizen.” He wrote in February 1788, “[t]he militia of these free commonwealths, entitled and accustomed to their arms, when compared with any possible army, must be tremendous

Stephen Crane (c. 1709–1780)245 and irresistible Who are the militia? Are they not ourselves? Is it feared, then, that we shall turn our arms each man gainst his own bosom. Congress have no power to disarm the militia. Their swords, and every other terrible implement of the soldier, are the birthright of an American . . . [T]he unlimited power of the sword is not in the hands of either the federal or state governments, but, where I trust in God it will ever remain, in the hands of the people . . .” [12] In another newspaper article, Coxe wrote, “As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.” [13] Serving in the Jefferson administration from 1803 until 1812, following this period of service Coxe retired to Pennsylvania. In this time, and even before, he had penned a series of works, including “A View of the United States of America, in a Series of Papers Written at Various Times in the Years Between 1787 and 1794” (1794), “An Exposition of Some Facts Relative to the Personal Conduct and Business of the Office of Tench Coxe, Purvey of Public Supplies” (1805), “An Examination of the Conduct of Great Britain” (1808), and “A Memoir of February, 1817” (1817). Coxe died in Philadelphia on 17 July 1824 at the age of 69; he was laid to rest in the Christ Church Burial Ground in Philadelphia. Buried in a sarcophagus alongside his wife, who died in 1806, Coxe’s stone merely mentions his birth and death dates.

[3] Coxe to Edward Goold, 1 March 1778, in The Tench Coxe Papers, The Historical Society of Pennsylvania, ---. [4] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VIII:xciv. [5] Coxe to Benjamin Rush, 13 January 1789, in ibid., VIII:815. [6] Coxe to Thomas Mifflin, 26 January 1789, in ibid., VIII:816. [7] Coxe to James Madison, 27 January 1789, in ibid., VIII:816-17. [8] Cooke, Jacob E., “The Collaboration of Tench Coxe and Thomas Jefferson,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, C:4 (October 1976), 468-69. [9] Gazette of the United States [Philadelphia], 6 August 1802, 2. [10] Gazette of the United States [Philadelphia], 8 July 1803, 2. [11] Parker, Peter J., “Notes and Documents: The Revival of the ‘Aurora’: A Letter to Tench Coxe,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, XCVI:4 (October 1972), 522. [12] Coxe in The Pennsylvania Gazette [Philadelphia], 20 February 1788, quoted in Stephen P. Halbrook, “That Every Man Be Armed: The Evolution of a Constitutional Right” (Santa Fe: The University of New Mexico Press, 2013), 73-74. [13] “A Pennsylvania,” “Remarks on the First Part of the Amendments to the Federal Constitution,” The Philadelphia Federal Gazette, 18 June 1789, 2. [14] Cooke, Jacob E., “Tench Coxe: American Economist: The Limitations of Economic Thoughts in the Early Nationalist Era,” Pennsylvania History, XLII:4 (October 1975), 266.

Stephen Crane (c. 1709–1780)

Historian Jacob E. Cooke summed up the impact of Tench Coxe: “Coxe, a Tory during the Revolution and then successively a prominent Philadelphia merchant and big land speculator, Alexander Hamilton’s assistant in the Treasury Department, and a stalwart Jeffersonian, is best remembered as a political economist, a precursor of the so-called ‘American School’ of economists, including men like Daniel Raymond, Henry Carey, John Rae, and Friedrich List.” [14]

[1] Coxe family tree, online at http://www.geni.com/people/ Tench-Coxe/6000000006900934758. [2] Cooke, Jacob Ernest, “Tench Coxe and the Early Republic” (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1978), 26.

A delegate to the Continental Congress from his native New Jersey, Stephen Crane should not be confused with the famous author of the same name, his great-great-grandson. This Stephen Crane was active in his state’s political scene,

246

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

rising to serve on the New Jersey Committee of Correspondence and Inquiry (1774-75), as president of the convention that nominated delegates to the Continental Congress (June 1774), and was a member of the Continental Congress from 1774 to 1776.

as well as the Boston Port Act (1774), the New Jersey General Assembly named Crane, among others, as a delegate to what would become the First Continental Congress. He was ultimately reelected to the Second Continental Congress on 2 January 1775, and served in sessions of that body from 5 September to 26 October 1774, 10 May to about 14 May 1775, 11 September to about 9 November 1775, 8 to 13 December 1775, and from about 6 February to 20 February 1776. Historian Edmund Cody Burnett wrote of Crane, “There is no record of Crane in the Journals between May 10 and July 31, 1775. He attended the New Jersey assembly [from] May 15-19 and may not have returned to Congress during the summer session. The committee appointment July 31 is not evidence of his presence. He did not sign the second petition to the King, July 8. He is not mentioned in the Journals between Sept. 14 and Dec. 8, but his signature to the resolution of secrecy, Nov. 9, 1775 is evidence that he was present on that date. He attended the New Jersey assembly Nov. 15 to Dec. 6, but received committee appointments in Congress Dec. 8 and 11. The dates of his departure, Dec. 13, 1775, and Feb. 2, 1776, are learned from Smith’s Diary.” [4]

He was born, possibly in July 1709, [1], although a family tree has him born “circa 1709” [2], in Elizabethtown (now Elizabeth), New Jersey. He was one of five sons of Daniel Crane and his wife Hannah Susannah (née Miller) Crane. The family has been traced back to Stephen Crane’s 11th great-grandfather, Ferrel Crane, who was born in England in 1255. Stephen Crane’s greatgrandfather, John Jasper Crane, was born in Preston, in Suffolk, England, about 1594, an emigrated to what is now the state of Connecticut before his death in 1658. Daniel Crane, the father of Stephen, was born in Elizabethtown about 1672 and died there in 1724. All that is known about Hannah Crane is that she was born in Elizabethton in 1681. At some point, Crane married Phoebe (no maiden name known), who bore him several children, including William Crane (1778-1830), who served as mayor of Essex County, New Jersey, and fought in the War of 1812, rising to the rank of brigadier general of the New Jersey militia following the war. In 1743, a group of Elizabethtown elders chose Crane to go to England to lay down a petition before King George II regarding colonial matters. [3] Seven years later, he served as a member of the Elizabethtown town committee. Crane soon rose to become one of the foremost political figures in Essex County. He served in a number of elected and appointed offices, including that of high sheriff, as judge of the Court of Common Pleas, as a member of the New Jersey Assembly from 1766 to 1776, during which he served as Speaker of that body, from 1770 to 1772, and as mayor of Elizabethtown (1772-74). By 1774, Crane was an experienced member of the Elizabethtown political scene, but that year he was chosen as the chairman of the County Committee of New Brunswick. On 23 July 1774, in response to a call from all of the colonies to name delegates to a meeting to be held in Philadelphia to address the harsh economic measures enacted by the British Parliament against the colonies, including the Sugar Act (1764) and the Stamp Act (1765),

In that diary, delegate Richard Smith of New Jersey wrote on 13 December 1775, “M[r]. Crane went home, [Robert R.] Livingston [of New York] and myself remain, [James] Kinsey [of New Jersey] and [John] De Hart [of New Jersey] have largely resigned.” [5] In his diary on 20 February 1776, Smith wrote “Mr. Crane went Home and Mr. [Jonathan Dickinson] Sergeant [of New Jersey] attended in his Stead by Virtue of the new Appointment in these Words.” [6] Unfortunately, there are no pieces of correspondence from Crane from this period contained in this collection by Burnett. Returning to New Jersey, Crane served as a member of the New Brunswick town committee in 1776, and as a member of the State Council, a governing body that assisted the state governor, in 1776, 1777, and 1779. Crane died in Elizabeth, New Jersey, on 1 July 1780, probably just days shy of his 71st birthday. He was laid to rest in the First Presbyterian Cemetery in Elizabeth. His gravestone reads, “Sacred to the Memory of Stephen Cane Esq. who departed this Life July Year A.D. 1780 In the 71 Year of his Age.”

William Cumming (c. 1724–c. 1797)247 Among Crane’s descendants are his grandson, Ichabod Crane (1787-1857), who served in the US Marine Corps and fought in the War of 1812, rising to the rank of Colonel; his great-grandson, Charles Henry Crane (1825-1883), who served as Surgeon General of the United States (1882-83); and, finally, the aforementioned Stephen Crane (1871-1900), who became famous through his numerous written works, including “Maggie: A Girl of the Streets” (1883), and “The Red Badge of Courage” (1895), and who died at age 28 from tuberculosis. His grandson, Joseph Halsey Crane (1782-1851), served as an Anti-Jacksonian member of the US House of Representatives from Ohio (1829-37).

[1] Crane’s official congressional biography, online at http:// bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=C000874. [2] See the Crane family tree and other genealogical information, online at http://www.geni.com/people/StephenCrane/6000000012769685574. [3] Crane’s official congressional biography, op. cit. [4] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), I:xlix. [5] Diary of Richard Smith, 13 December 1775, in ibid., I:275. [6] Diary of Richard Smith, 20 February 1776, in ibid., I:357.

William Cumming (c. 1724–c. 1797)

William Cumming served as a delegate to the Continental Congress from North Carolina in

1785. He was born in Annapolis, Maryland, on 30 July 1724, the son of William Cumming and his wife Elizabeth (née Coursey) Cumming. [1] Most sources on Cumming state that he was born in Edenton, North Carolina; however, he did not move to the Tarheel State until 1762. It appears that he did study the law, which, in those days, was done in the office of a local attorney considered to be one of the leading members of his community. It was around this time that Cumming was admitted to the Maryland bar. [2] Financial reasons necessitated Cumming’s move to Edenton, North Carolina. In his will, done in his own hand in 1796 near the end of his life, he explained that he had been forced to pay his father’s debts, which forced the younger Cumming to mortgage his property and thus necessitated a transfer to another location to find different financial opportunities. Why he chose North Carolina, or Edenton, remains a mystery; however, in that same will, Cumming wrote lovingly of his adopted home, “where I have experienced humanity, friendship, promotion, perhaps more than my merit.” The Revolutionary War changed Cumming, forcing him to make a choice: either support the Crown or his fellow colonists. Cumming chose the latter. In 1776, he served as a member of the North Carolina Provincial Congress, the first body of elected representatives in that state following the outbreak of the revolution. Cumming also served as a member of the North Carolina state House of Commons, then the lower body of the newly instituted North Carolina legislation, in 1781, 1783, 1784, and 1788. This body, in May 1784, elected Cumming as a delegate to the Continental Congress, although he did not appear for service until the following year. According to the “Journals of the American Congress,” in the entry for 21 July 1785, “Congress assembled . . . Mr. William Cumming, delegate from North-Carolina, produced credentials of his appointment, by which it appears, that in May, 1784, he was elected to represent the said state for one year, commencing the first Monday in November of that year.” [3] For an extended period of time, Cumming is listed as the only representative for

248

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

North Carolina; however, for several days at a time, Cumming is not listed as having attended sessions of the Congress. [4]

Thomas Cushing (1725–1788)

There is little evidence of what Cumming did at the Continental Congress. A search of the official entries and debates in the Continental Congress during the remainder of 1785 show no work by Cumming save his votes on various matters, including no introduction of bills or other legislation, or any service on any specific committee of that body. Following his service in the Continental Congress, Cumming appears to have vanished. All that is known is that he was nominated to serve as a state judge in North Carolina, but it is unknown if he accepted the honor, and, if so, when he served. Historian C. Sylvester Green wrote, “In 1791, when he was a candidate for the General Assembly, Cumming noted that he had served his county sporadically for nearly twenty-eight years; he apparently was not elected.” [5] Cumming never married. According to Green, there is no date of death for Cumming—he surmises that he was dead by 29 June 1797, when James Hathaway was named as the executor of his estate. A search of North Carolina newspapers for the years 1791 to 1800 shows no record for Cumming. William Cumming’s burial site is unknown.

[1] C. Sylvester Green, “Cumming, William” in William S. Powell, ed., “Dictionary of North Carolina Biography” (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press; four volumes, 1979-96), II:473. [2] For the “lack” of a listing for Cumming, see Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: The Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), lvii-lviii. [3] “Journals of The American Congress: From 1774 to 1788. In Four Volumes. Also, the Journal of the Committee of the States, From the 1st Friday in June, to the 1st Friday in August, 1784. With an Appendix” (Washington, DC: Printed and Published by Way and Gideon; four volumes, 1823), IV:551. [4] “Journals of Congress: Containing Their Proceedings From November 1, 1784, to November 4, 1785. Published by Authority” (Philadelphia: From Folwell’s Press; thirteen volumes, 1801), X:168-200. [5] Green, op. cit., II:473.

One of the leading politicians in colonial Massachusetts, Thomas Cushing served in a series of elective offices in the colony prior to independence 1776. He rose to serve as lieutenant governor (1780-88), and Speaker of the House of Representatives for several terms between 1766 and 1774. From 1774 to 1776, Cushing served as a delegate to the Continental Congress, where he took a leadership role. The son of Thomas Cushing and Mary (née Bromfield) Cushing, Thomas Cushing was born Boston, in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, on 24 March. Researches by several family members find that the name comes from either Cosseys or Cusseyn, an old England derivation of “cousin,” or that one of the family’s original ancestors received a land grant during the time of William the Conquerer, prior to the 11th century, listed in the name of Cossey. Either way, the family can be traced back to the DeLimisi clan, from the 11th and 12th century, of whom one had a daughter who married into the Cushing family, with the line moving downwards from there. [1] Thomas Cushing’s great-grandfather, John Cushing, was born in Hingham, in Suffolk, England, in 1627 and

Thomas Cushing (1725–1788)249 he emigrated to the colonies and settled in Boston, in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. [2] Thomas Cushing, the father of our subject, was a noted merchant and officeholder in colonial Massachusetts. Owing to his family’s power and wealth, his son Thomas received tutoring before he entered Harvard College (now Harvard University), graduating in 1744. He received a master’s degree from the same school three years later. In that latter year 1747, Cushing married Deborah Fletcher, of whom little is known from family history. The couple had seven children (some sources report two). Deborah Cushing would survive her husband by two years, dying in 1790. [3] Following his graduation, Cushing went into the family business of importing wool products into the colonies. (Cushing’s official congressional biography states that he had earned a law degree at Harvard, and after graduation practiced the law for some short period.) [4] However, it was about this time that relations between England and the colonies was becoming more heated, following the passage of several harsh economic measures. Cushing desired to enter politics, and he ran for a seat in the Provincial Assembly, winning and ultimately serving in that body until 1774. (A report in The Boston Evening Post, 19 March 1764, reported that Cushing had been elected, along with Samuel Hewes and Ezekiel Lewis, as Select Men for the city of Boston. [5] During this time span, Cushing served as Speaker of the Assembly, becoming the most powerful elected politician in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. (The most powerful politician overall was the royal governor, who was appointed by London and not elected by the people.) In 1765, the Assembly chose Samuel White (1710-1769) as Speaker. Historian John A. Schutz wrote, “After serving only three years as speaker, both House and Governor were pleased to elevate him in 1766 to the [Governor’s] Council, probably because of ill health, and continue him there until his death in 1769. His successor as speaker was James Otis, Jr., who was totally unsuitable for the task and was immediately disapproved by the governor. The House then nominated Thomas Cushing, who easily won approval as White’s replacement. A cautious man of charm and with, Cushing was annually

re-elected and reconfirmed until the Revolution swept away the royal establishment.” [6] On 2 March 1765, it was reported that “[t] he following are the Instructions of the Freeholders and other Inhabitants of the Town of Boston, to the Hon. James Otis, Esq. Thomas Cushing, Esq. and Mr. Thomas Gray, their Representatives in [the] General Assembly. Gentlemen, At a time when the British American objects are every where loudly complaining of arbitrary and unconstitutional innovations, the town of Boston cannot any longer remain silent, without just accusation of inexcusable neglect. We therefore, the freeholders and other inhabitants, being legally assembled in Faneuil Hall, to consider what steps are necessary or us to take at this alarming crisis, think it proper to communicate to you our united sentiments, and to give you our instruction thereupon.” [7] The Boston Massacre and the Boston Tea Party led to further tensions between London and the colonies. On 15 September 1768, “at a meeting of the freeholders and other inhabitants of the town of Boston, James Otis, Jr., was unanimously chosen as Moderator, and further, that Cushing, joined by Samuel Adams, Richard Dana, John Rouse, John Hancock, Benjamin Keat, and Dr. Joseph Warren, were named to a committee to wait upon his Excellency, if in town, humbly requesting that he would be pleased to communicate to the town the grounds and assurances he may have thereof.” [8] Cushing observed that two camps were being established: the hardliners who wanted full British control, and those patriots who wanted full independence from London. Cushing came down in the middle, espousing a more moderate line that tried to get the British to peel back the harsh economic measures while assuring them that the colonies would not declare independence. However, with the opening shots of the war, he reluctantly joined the colonial Committee of Correspondence, which transmitted messages with the other colonies, and he denounced the Coercive Acts as being against trade. Finally, a Provincial Congress was called to plot a future for the colony, and Cushing was named as a delegate to that meeting. While attending this convention, on 17 June 1774, Cushing, along with John

250

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Adams, Samuel Adams, and James Bowdoin, were elected as delegates from Massachusetts to the First Continental Congress, convening in Philadelphia. Cushing as subsequently reelected to this seat on 5 December 1774, 6 February 1775, and in November 1775, ending his term on 31 January 1776. He attended session from 5 September to 26 October 1774, from 10 May to 2 August 1775, and from 11 September 1775 to about 2 January 1776. [9]

Cushing refused to consider even the possibility of the colonies becoming an independent nation, believing that an economic boycott of English goods would eventually force London’s hand. As such, he was distrusted by the leaders of the independence movement in Massachusetts, and in December 1775 they engineered his being turned down for another term. In 1779, perhaps disgusted at his treatment, he refused a potential election back to the Continental Congress.

Several pieces of important correspondence from Cushing, from his service in the Continental Congress, survive. In the first, a letter to his wife dated 4 October 1774, he penned, “I wish I could write you any politics; but as I am enjoined to secrecy, must refrain. It is currently reported in the city that the Congress have voted that no goods shall be imported from Great Britain and Ireland after the first day of December next, and that none imported after that day shall be used or consumed, and that the Congress have also voted that no goods or merchandise shall, after the 10th day of September next, be exported from the Colonies to Great Britain, Ireland, or the West Indies, unless our grievances shall be redressed before that time, and I do not deny or contradict these reports.” [10] The second was a letter co-written with fellow Massachusetts delegate John Hancock to the Massachusetts Council, 24 November 1775: Mr. [Paul] Revere, the express, informs us this morning he is setting out for home, so that by his return we are not able to give you any advice with respect to the subject of your letter of the irth [sic] instant. The determination of the question referred to in that letter, either one way or the other, so nearly affects the interests of, and will be so important in its consequences to the Colony we have the honour to represent, that we dare not venture our opinions what would be the sentiments of Congress upon such a measure as the House proposes, and therefore are clearly of opinion the matter ought to be laid before the Congress, and their sentiments taken upon the same, but we have been so crowded with the consideration of so many interesting and important matters since Mr. Revere’s arrival, that there has been no opportunity for this as yet, and therefore must defer at present giving you the advice you request. Your application for money is now under the consideration of a Committee of Congress. [11]

In 1780, when Hancock ran for governor of Massachusetts, Cushing ran with him as lieutenant governor, and the men were both elected. Cushing served in the second spot of the state’s high offices for two four-year terms, until 1788. In January 1785, when Hancock resigned and a new election was called, Cushing served as acting governor, and remained so until the new governor, James Bowdoin, was elected and could take over the office. Cushing was the candidate who ran against Bowdoin for governor, but he lost, remaining as lieutenant governor. In 1788, at the tail end of his service, when Hancock ran again for governor and was elected, once again served as his lieutenant governor. After he left office, Cushing was one of the founders of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Cushing was in Boston on 28 February 1778 when he died suddenly, a month shy of his 63rd birthday. He was laid to rest in Boston’s famed Granary Burial Yard, where the victims of the Boston Massacre were also interred. A large obelisk stands on his grave, with his name and accomplishments.

[1] Cushing, James L., “Genealogy of the Cushing Family, An Account of the Ancestors and Descendants of Matthew Cushing, Who Came to American in 1638” (Montreal: The Perrault Printing Co., 1905), 1-10. See also Effie A.W. Rideout, comp., “Sketches From the History of the Cushing Family, Which Relate to Laban and Nancy Whitney Cushing to Their Ancestors and Descendants” (Privately Printed, 1928). [2] See the family tree of Thomas Cushing, online at http://www. geni.com/people/Thomas-Cushing/6000000003939528103. [3] For the discrepancy in the number of children, see Gordon E. Kershaw, “Thomas Cushing” in John A. Garraty and Mark C. Carnes, gen. eds., “American National Biography” (New York: Oxford University Press; 24 volumes, 1999), V:909-10.

Thomas Cushing (1725–1788)251 [4] See Cushing official congressional biography, online at http:// bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=C001017. [5] “At a Meeting of the Freeholders,” The Boston Evening Post [Massachusetts], 18 March 1764, 2. [6] Schutz, John A., “Legislators of the Massachusetts General Court, 1691-1780: A Biographical Dictionary” (Boston: Northeastern University Press, 1997), 34-35. [7] “The following are the Instructions,” The Georgia Gazette, 24 October 1765, 2.

[8] “Boston, September 15,” The Penn Gazette [Philadelphia], 29 September 1768, Supplement, 1. [9] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), I:xlviii. [10] Thomas Cushing to Deborah Cushing, 4 October 1774, in ibid., I:62 [11] John Hancock and Thomas Cushing to the Massachusetts Council, 24 November 1775, in ibid., I:258.

D Francis Dana (1743–1811)

A jurist in his native Massachusetts, Francis Dana served the infant American nation in various ways, most notably as the first US minister to Russia (1780), and as the chief justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Court (1791-1806). In his two different tenures in the Continental Congress (1777-78, 1784), he worked on issues involving foreign policy, including service on a commission that considered a potential peace offering from Lord North, the British prime minister. The son of Richard Dana, an attorney in colonial Massachusetts, and his wife Lydia (née Trowbride) Dana, Francis Dana was born in Charlestown, Massachusetts, on 13 June 1743. According to family historian Henry Wadsworth Longfellow Dana, the family can be traced back to Richard Dana (1617-1690). Henry Dana wrote in 1941, “Among these new comers to Cambridge, three hundred years ago, was a young man by the name of Richard Dana. At first engaged

as a servant in such humble tasks in mowing hay on the salt maches [sic] along the river, he gradually rose to positions of some importance and, at his death fifty years later, left behind him a large family, from whom in turn have come innumerable Dana descendants scattered today through the length and breadth of the country. Since there seem to have been no one else by the name of Dana to have settled from this one pioneer ancestor. These various members of the Dana family have succeeded in tracing their ancestry back to him and have naturally been anxious to find out more about him and his origins.” Dana discovered that the family name was originally either Dawney or Daunay, and that they came from Westmor[e]land, in Yorkshire, tracing them back as far as 1328, in the second year of the reign of Edward III. [1] Francis Dana entered Harvard College (now Harvard University), graduating four years later. In 1765 he earned a Master’s degree from Harvard, during which he studied the law under the tutelage of his uncle, Edward Trowbridge. He was admitted to the Massachusetts bar in 1767, and opened a law practice in that colony. In 1773, Dana married Elizabeth Ellery, the sister of fellow Continental Congress delegate William Ellery; together the couple had seven children; one these was Richard Henry Dana, a noted literary figure in 19th century America. [2] Like many of his generation, Dana did not get involved in politics until the harsh economic measures of the British Parliament began in the early 1770s, causing economic and social strife in the colonies. In 1774, running on a platform in opposition to these policies, Dana was elected as a delegate to the First Provincial Congress of Massachusetts, although he never served in this body, established to fill the vacuum when the royal government collapsed. Dana departed from the colony to England; some sources give the date as 1774, and some give it as 1775. A letter from his father-in-law, William Ellery, explaining Dana’s absence at a crucial time in history, wrote, “On the 19th of April, 1775, the British began hostilities at Lexington, and two

Francis Dana (1743–1811)253 or three days before that he [Dana] sailed from Newport, where he had engaged a passage, for England. His departure at that period, indeed, created comment from some persons, who differ’d from him in political principles, and represented his conduct in this instance in a bad light.” Dana had left in part to settle his father’s estate, in part to visit his brother, the Reverend Edmund Dana, and, perhaps most importantly, to try to get some British notables to convince their government of the folly of their harsh policy towards the colonies. Dana’s grandson, Richard Henry Dana, Jr., wrote in 1877, “He remained in England two years, and arrived in Boston in April, 1776, bringing with him a decided opinion that all hope of and adjustment with England on any terms which the colonists could accept must be abandoned.” [3] Dana now became a leading advocate for independence. William Hooper, a delegate to the Continental Congress from North Carolina, wrote to Josiah Trumbull of Connecticut on 13 May 1776, “In the packet [ship] arrived in New York arrived Mr. Temple late of New Hampshire and Mr. Francis Dana of Cambridge.” Later in the letter, Hooper added, “Mr. D. will satisfy you [that] we have no reason to expect peace from Great Britain.” Dana immediately traveled to Philadelphia to brief the delegates of the new Continental Congress; however, he quickly learned that that body was “prepared for any question, even independence.” One of the people who Dana made an impression on was John Adams, a delegate from Dana’s own Massachusetts. Dana wrote to Adams, 28 July 1776, “I had the pleasure of receiving your letter of the 12th ulto. on the 1st inst: It reminded me of my duty, or rather the omission of it. Indeed I know not what apology to make [to] you for not having wrote [sic] you before it came to hand. The favor I esteem the greater on that account. Business I feel almost ashamed to offer in excuse, when I consider how constantly you are engaged in matters of the highest importance that ever fixed the attention of Men. But my private affairs were in confusion, having been almost neglected during my long absence; before I could restore these to any tolerable order, by the suffrages of the most respectable part of my Countrymen, I was placed in a station wherein I have found no rest.” [4]

Dana did not sign the Declaration of Independence, although he did apparently support its passage. Returning home to Massachusetts, he was elected to the Executive Council, the upper body of the new state legislature, where he served from 1776 to 1780. Despite holding this position, Dana was elected, by the lower house of the legislature, to a seat in the Continental Congress on 10 December 1776. He would attend sessions of that body from 17 November to 31 December 1777 [5], and, when reelected on 4 December 1777, attended from 21 May to 1 December 1778. [6] According to historian Edmund Cody Burnett, there is only one piece of correspondence, at least in his collection of correspondence, from Dana during this specific period of service in the Continental Congress: a missive to General George Washington, dated 11 June 1778: “I had the honor last evening, of your favor of the 9th inst: requesting me to repair to camp to assist in the business of arranging the army, as soon as possible Altho’ I am impressed with the necessity of that business being finished without delay, yet I cannot in duty to the State I represent quit Congress till the Confederation is ratified, which I hope will be done in a few days.” [7] As for that “confederation” that Dana referred to, it was the Articles of Confederation, the first blueprint that mapped a federal government for the first time in American history; Dana signed his name to that document in 1778, and it was ratified by the states by 1781. In 1778, a commission of three British politicians, led by Frederick Howard, the Fifth Earl of Carlisle, arrived in Philadelphia to offer an end to the conflict if the Declaration of Independence was dropped; they offered proposals by British Prime Minister Lord North. Dana was named by the Continental Congress as part of a three-man delegation to hear the Carlisle Commission’s proposals, and, after a hearing, advised that the Continental Congress turn them down. After he left the Continental Congress, Dana was named by his former allies in that body as one of three members, along with John Adams and his son, John Quincy Adams, of a commission sent to Paris to negotiate with the British to end the American Revolution. Dana left Boston for Paris on 13 November 1779, and for a time during 1780 Adams left him in complete control of the negotiations as Adams travelled across

254

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Europe looking for financial backing for the infant American government. Perhaps it was this confidence in Dana from Adams, as well as others, that led the Continental Congress in December 1780 to name Dana as the first US minister to Russia, to the Court of Catherine the Great. According to the US Department of State, Dana “[p]roceeded to [the] pot but was not officially received at court; [he] left [the] post [in] Sep[t] 1783.” [8] Before returning to America, Dana stopped in Paris to consult with John Adams and Benjamin Franklin, who were now negotiating with the British on a peace treaty.

Congress, but was leaning towards turning down the honor:

On 11 February 1784, Dana was once again elected by the Massachusetts legislature to a seat in the Continental Congress, “until the first day of November, 1784.” He was subsequently reelected on 17 June 1784, serving from 24 May to 4 June, and 26 June to 11 August 1784. [9] Again, there is limited correspondence during this service, but two pieces stand out: the first is a letter from Dana to Elbridge Gerry, from Annapolis, 17 June 1784, in which Dana penned: The last post bro’t me your’s of the I Ith inst. from Philadelphia. I am glad you had so agreable a journey from hence, and so good an opportunity of entertaining yourself on the way with reflecting upon the congressional scenes; You have acted one of the principal parts in them, and cannot but derive much solid satisfaction from this reflection, ‘that what has been done, is pro bono publico, well done.’ The interested views, absurd projects, prejudices, and partialities, of which you speak are so many irresistable arguments against your conclusion, viz. that your own happiness can never be promoted by partaking in the politics of such an extensive republican government etc. Reflect, my dear Sir, again upon these things, and you will be convinced, that altho a Man shou’d not be able to effect much positive good in such an heterogeneous a body, yet if he can prevent mischief, ‘tis his duty to struggle hard to do it: And what it is our duty to do, that upon due reflection we shall find productive of our happiness. But you are out of your element when you are out of politicks . . . [10] In the second letter, to John Avery, Jr., from Annapolis, 30 July 1784, Dana was relating that he had been reelected to the Continental

I have received your letter of the 17th June acquainting me of my reelection by the Genl. Court to serve as a Delegate from the Commonwealth, in the United States in Congress assembled, for one Year from the first Monday in Novr. next, on the 16th inst. Tho’ fully sensible of the honour they have again done me, yet it is probable I may find myself under the necessity of declining that office, having been so long separated from my private affairs. On my return home I shall be better able to judge in this matter. Your’s of the 2d inst: reached me on the I6th also. By this I learn that the Genl. Assembly have been pleased to elect me together with Messrs. [James] Sullivan and [John] Lowell Com’rs to support the claim of our Commonwealth to Lands lying west of Hudson’s River, against the claim of New York. As I am a stranger to this business, and shall have no time to make myself Master of it by the time fixed for its decision I must absolutely decline accepting a Trust upon the execution of which so great an Interest of our State is depending. You will be pleased to signify this to the hon’ble the Genl. Assembly or if they are not sitting to the Governour and Council. It may not be amiss to inform the other Commissioners of it also. [11] After leaving the Continental Congress for a second time, Dana returned to Massachusetts, where his legal training finally allowed him to advance to a statewide office: He was appointed as a judge on the Supreme Court of Massachusetts, serving in this capacity from 1785 to 1791. On 29 November 1791, he was appointed as the chief justice of that same court, a post he held until his retirement in 1806. During this period, Dana served, in 1788, in the state convention that ultimately voted to ratify the US Constitution, enacted the previous year in Philadelphia. In The Worcester Magazine, printed in Massachusetts, for the second week of February 1788, is an announcement: “Wednesday afternoon, at five o’clock, the Convention of this Commonwealth, ASSENTED TO, and on Thursday RATIFIED the CONSTITUTION, proposed by the late Federal Constitution. The YEAS and NAYS, on the question of Ratification, being taken, agreeably to the order of the day, were as follows, viz,” and listed Francis Dana as voting “yea.” [12]

Nathan Dane (1752–1835)255 After leaving the bench, Dana retired, serving in a series of positions, including as a member of several organizations, most notably the Society for Propagating the Gospel Among Indians and Others in North America, as well as the American Academy of Arts and Sciences. Francis Dana died in Cambridge on 25 April 1811, two months shy of his 68th birthday. Despite his lengthy career, few papers carried much more than the simple news of his passing. [13] Dana was laid to rest in the Old Burying Ground in Cambridge, Middlesex County, Massachusetts. His gravestone, in the shape of a cross, reads, “Let Them Be Buried With the Saints.” Dana’s son, Richard Henry Dana (1787-1879), was a poet and editor of the noted 19th century periodical Idle Man. His son, Richard Henry Dana, Jr. (1815-1882), was an antislavery attorney, who served as the US Attorney for Massachusetts during the Civil War, and was the author of Two Years Before the Mast (1840).

[1] Dana, Henry Wadsworth Longfellow, “The Dana Saga: Three Centuries of the Dana Family in Cambridge” (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge Historical Society, 1941), 1-2. [2] For information on Ellery, see Thomas Wentworth Higginson, “William Ellery, Signer of the Declaration of Independence,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, II:4 (1878), 433-35. A biography of Ellery, himself a delegate to the Continental Congress, can be seen under William Ellery (17271820). [3] Dana, Richard Henry, Jr., “Francis Dana,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, I:1 (1877), 89. [4] Cresson, W.P., “Francis Dana: A Puritan Diplomat at the Court of Catherine the Great” (New York: Lincoln MacVeagh, The Dial Press, 1930), 31. [5] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), II:li. [6] For information on Dana’s 1777 reelection and 1778 attendance, see ibid., III:liv. [7] Dana to George Washington, 11 June 1778, in ibid., III:28687. [8] “Francis Dana,” courtesy of the US Department of State, online at http://history.state.gov/departmenthistory/people/ dana-francis. [9] Burnett, “Letters of Members,” op. cit., VII:lxviii. [10] Dana to Elbridge Gerry, 17 June 1784, in ibid., VII:555. [11] Dana to John Avery, Jr., 30 July 1784, in ibid., VII:576. [12] “Wednesday afternoon, at five o’clock,” The Worcester Magazine, IV:20 (February 1788), 253. [13] For instance, see “Died,” The Lady’s Miscellany; Or, The Weekly Visitor. For the Use and Amusement of Both Sexes, XIII:2 (4 May 1811), 30; and “Died, In Cambridge,” The Panoplist, and Missionary Magazine United, III:11 (April 1811), 528.

Nathan Dane (1752–1835)

Dane served as a delegate from Massachusetts to the Continental Congress from 1785 to 1788. He authored the Northwest Ordinance in 1787 that established the territories outside of the original 13 colonies, which became the first 13 states of the United States of America. The son of Daniel Dane, and his wife Abigail (née Burnham) Dane, both farmers, Nathan Dane was born in Ipswich, Massachusetts, on 29 December 1752. Nathan Dane’s great-grandfather, John Dane, was born in Berkhamstead, England, in 1612, and emigrated to the New World, dying in Ipswich in 1684. [1] According to a biography of Dane that appeared in the magazine American Jurist in 1835, Dane “was descended from one of three brothers of that name, who early [on] came over from England and settled in Gloucester, Andover and Ipswich. His father was a farmer, of that worthy and substantial class from which have sprung so many of the distinguished men of our country. His parents are both of them represented to have been respectable and excellent persons, and he always spoke of them with veneration and affection. They had a numerous family—six sons and six daughters of whom only two daughters now survive.” [2] Although Dane’s parents are considered wealthy

256

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

for their station, nevertheless having twelve children did hamper their ability to gain a major education, and apparently Dane received an “elementary education” at that time, through the study of English, grammar, languages, and works of literature. At the same time, he joined with his brothers and sisters in working on the family farm, and he remained there until he began to attend Harvard College (now Harvard University) in Massachusetts, in 1774 at the age of 22. Two year later, however, he quit so he could enter the Massachusetts militia during the siege of the city by the British. He returned to school when the crisis had subsided, and he eventually graduated.

having had only seven States assembled in Congress, at any time since I arrived here, until last Tuesday, Congress has completed no business of importance we begin now to bring into consideration the more interesting affairs of the Union, and to put them in a train for decision.” [5] He made similar complaints to Theodore Sedgwick, who would later serve in the US House of Representatives under the new Constitution and rise to become Speaker of the House (1799-1801) in a letter dated 11 February 1786:

After leaving Harvard, Dane became a teacher in a school in Beverly, Massachusetts, a small town approximately 17 miles (27 kilometers) northeast of Boston. At the same time, he read the law in the offices of Judge William Westmore in Salem, approximately 2 miles (3 kilometers) north of Beverly. He would be admitted to the Massachusetts state bar in 1782. It was during this period that he married a widow, Mary Brown, in 1779; the couple had no children. After being admitted to the bar, Dane opened a law practice in Beverly, but he spent more time working for the people than for himself: according to his official congressional biography, in 1782 Dane was elected to a seat in the Massachusetts state House of Representatives, where he sat until 1785. [3] As his tenure was coming to a close, that same state House elected Dane to a seat in the Continental Congress, on 16 June 1785 “for one year, commencing the first Monday in November next”; he was subsequently reelected on 27 June 1786 and 27 June 1787, attending sessions from 17 November 1785 to 27 July 1786, from 13 September t0 November 1786, 17 January to 27 October 1787, and from 21 February to about 13 September 1788. Historian Edmund Cody Burnett added that “Dane was in Boston during August and early September, 1786.” [4] In his correspondence, at least in one letter, that to Samuel Holten, dated 4 February 1786, Dane complained about the slow pace of the work in the Continental Congress: “I should do myself the honor and pleasure, Sir, to proceed to give you some accounts of affairs here, had I any thing new or worthy your notice to write-

I received your letter dated on your way home. I should have wrote you before this, but I have been waiting for a fuller representation of the States in Congress and for the more important business to come forward, neither of which have taken place as I wished, there were only seven States assembled till the first inst. since we have had eight. Dr. [William Damuel] Johnson [delegate from Connecticut] proposes to go home next week[,] which will probably reduce us to seven for we have no evidence to be depended upon that any o’r Gentleman from Connecticut or that the delegates from the States unrepresented will be here at present. we have done little or no business since you left us and formed no interesting determinations, this inattention this negligence and torpidity in some of the States in administering [sic] our government will ruin us—if suffered to continue, but as I hope a better mode than this of conversing with you on the subjects of politics and public affairs soon, I forbear making any observations on them at present. In point of facts nothing new or unusual has taken place. we have reason to think there is little or no probability that this State will adopt the impost. the people here seem to be contracting their ideas in matters of government instead of expanding them. [6] And, in a third letter, Dane continues this line— perhaps demonstrating the increasing need for a newly-reformed governmental structure: I should have wrote to you before this had my situation furnished me with anything worth communicating for want of a fuller representation of the States since I have been here but little business of Consequence has been done by Congr. and but few interesting subjects brought forward or examined, we have of course been confined to the dull but necessary business of examining the past doings of Congr. on their Journals and collecting information from the files of the several appendent offices. I have nearly the same opinion of

Nathan Dane (1752–1835)257 our federal affairs I had when I left you at Boston, except in this the federal Government may not be administred with so much attention and energy even as I expected, while in fact the machinery of it is of such a nature as to require in those who administer it the greatest candor industry and perseverence. many of the gentlemen in Congress from the Southward have recd. polite educations and possess abilities that at first appear brilliant and plausible but not very well adapted to the managing of our forms of Government— their information in the essential parts of it does not appear to me to be suff’y extensive nor their ideas well and maturely digested their arguments propositions and observations often at first appear plausible but they seldom bear that Strict enquiry they must and will undergo in Congress. The many amusements and multitude of social forms, the unsubstantial etiquette of society in this City are not very favourable to the industry of men not naturally inclined to it. [7] On 9 November 1786, Dane addressed the members of the Massachusetts House of Representatives, giving the body and update on matters laid before the Continental Congress. We will not present the entire report here, but one portion stands out as being indicative of what would become Dane’s greatest contribution to the United States: The Gentleman mentioned, that the affairs of the Western territory, and of the Indians, had long employed the attention of Congress, and more particularly of late; that Congress is intrusted with the disposition and governing of an extensive and valuable tract of country, which has been justly considered as a fund capable of going far towards discharging the federal domestic debt, on which, and on the frontiers of the Middle and, Southern States, are about sixty tribes of Indians, who probably muster about ten thousand warriors; that it has been the policy of Congress, to keep peace with these tribes; that Commissioners have been sent out from time to time to treat with them, who have assigned them lands to live and hunt on, and paid them for their other lands; and that treaties have lately been formed with most of the nations, of importance to the United States, and at a very great expence; Congress having formed several treaties, and made many regulations, for the disposing and governing of that country in the last year, begun the surveys of those lands they had purchased of the Indians; and then conceived that the 7oo troops at that time called for, would be sufficient to protect the frontiers and secure the federal lands,

against those tribes which had not formed treaties; that it was soon found that the Indians are not to be depended on, the surveys were interrupted by them, and the benefits expected from those surveys that year, were quite lost to the Union, and a considerable expence incurred; that during the last winter and spring, treaties being further formed and more of those 7oo troops brought into service and ordered to protect the surveys, it was reasonably hoped that the Surveyors, the present year, would be able to prosecute their business without interruption. Early in the summer past, information was received of the hostile disposition of several of the tribes, and measures were then brought forward to augment the troops of the United States, to the numbers now called for; but it was then thought by the Delegates of this State, and of some of the other States, that there was not sufficient evidence of a general hostile disposition in those nations; but the information from that country since, has fully evinced the hostile intentions, of several tribes, and their determinations to prevent the surveys of these lands. The Indians express a general uneasiness at our progress Westward, and much pains seems to be taken by some traders among them, to promote this uneasiness; that in this situation of affairs, the hostile Indians must be brought to terms, or the disposition of those federal lands suspended. Considering the extensive frontiers and surveys to be protected, and lines of post necessary to be established, through and extensive tract of country, against many hostile tribes of troublesome enemies, the troops called for, cannot be more than adequate to these purposes; and on the other hand, it is to be hoped, that under their protection, the surveys of that country, may be carried on, and the Indians again reduced by them, to peace and order. [8] By 1787, as delegates were meeting in Philadelphia to draft a complete overhaul of the Articles of Confederation, the Continental Congress was considering what would eventually happen when the states decided to expand westward, and either add to their current borders, or establish wholly new state entities. To this end, wrote historian Edmund Cody Burnett, “On the 9th of July [1787] the ordinance for the temporary government of the western territory, which had twice been read, was referred to a new committee, consisting of Edward Carrington, Nathan Dane, Richard Henry Lee, John Kean, and Melancton Smith. On July 11 this committee reported ‘An Ordinance for the Government of the territory of the United States North West of the river

258

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Ohio,’ which contained the essential features of government found in the preceding forms, but with important additions. It was read a second time on July 12, and on July 13 it was read the third time and passed.” [9] It is not known who served as chairman of this committee, but because those sources which go into the specifications of what came out of it give most of the credit to Dane, it may be supposed that he may have been its chairman. What is important, however, is that the committee’s report, drafting legislation for this potentiality, is in fact credited to Dane. This legislation is known as the Northwest Ordinance of 1787. Adopted by the Continental Congress on 13 July 1787, it created a blueprint for the organizing of territories outside the strictures—and structures—of the first thirteen states. Each specific territory would have an executive (a governor), a bicameral legislature, with and upper and lower house, and a judiciary co-equal to the other branches. Most important, each territory would be free of slavery and involuntary servitude, and would have individual constitutions that contained, unlike the new US Constitution which was just being ratified, would include a Bill of Rights. (Missing from the original text of the US Constitution, a Bill of Rights, encompassing 10 amendments, was added by the new US Congress in September 1789, and ratified by the states in December 1791.) Historian Maurice Baxter called the ordinance “[o]ur first national bill of rights.” He wrote in 1987, “Today the Northwest Ordinance of 1787 is best known for its plan of government in the frontier area north of the Ohio River—the stages of development and eventual admission of new states into the Union on a footing equal to the old ones.” [10] Joseph Story, the eminent legal scholar of 19th century America, who served on the US Supreme Court (1812-45), wrote, “The Northwest Territory has been peopled under the admirable Ordinance of the Continental Congress of the 13th of July, 1787, which we owe to the wise forecast and political wisdom of a man, whom New England can never fail to reverence.” He refers, of course, to Nathan Dane. [11]

[T]he inclosed paper I believe contains all that has been done of any importance by the General Court during their present Session. I imagine the Yeas and nays as they stand on the resolve of the 13th are true evidence of the disposition of the House; those in the negative argued that the troops were unnecessary—probably they thought so; but I think you will not be at a loss to discover the principle on which they acted and formed their Opinions when you shall cast your eye upon the accurate division of men, men on the one hand that have been for years steady in support of Government, etc; on the other men who for years have opposed taxes, proposed paper money, tender laws, etc. Dr. [Samuel] Holten has arrived, and I wish the officers of Congress and members not engaged in the Convention would return to New York. I do not know how it may be in the Southern States, but, I assure you, the present State of Congress has a very disagreeable effect in the Eastern States. The people hear of a convention in Philadelphia, and that Congress is done sitting, etc. Many of them are told, it seems, that Congress will never meet again probably. Dr. H[olten] says he saw several sober men who had got an idea that the people were to be called on to take arms to carry into effect immediately the report of the Convention, etc. I see no help for men’s being so absurd and distracted . . . [12]

Dane feared what might happen if the government was allowed too much power under a new Constitution. He wrote to Nathaniel Gorham on 22 June 1787:

In 1790, Dane was elected to the Massachusetts state Senate, where he served until 1791, returning again to that body from 1794 to 1797. In 1794 he was appointed as a judge of the court of common pleas for Essex County; the following year he was named as a commissioner to codify the laws of Massachusetts into one specific volume. In 1812, Dane served as a presidential elector for a ticket that had Vice President George Clinton as its head, but Clinton had to settle for second place behind former Secretary of State James Madison. In 1814, Dane served as a member of the Hartford Convention, held in New England to oppose the War of 1812 and demand secession from the union, although in the end the delegates merely adopted recommendations for constitutional amendments to limit the powers of the president of the United States to go to war. In his final potential service, Dane was elected a delegate to the state constitutional convention in 1820, but he did not serve. In his final years, Dane continued writing, including several essays, titled “A Moral and Political Survey of America,” which were never

John Dawson (1762–1814)259 published. Dane also authored nine volumes of “A General Abridgment and Digest of American Law, with Occasional Notes and Comments” (Boston: Published by Cummings, Hilliard & Co; nine volumes, 1823-29). Nathan Dane died at his home in Beverly, in Essex County, Massachusetts, on 15 February 1835, at the age of 82. He was laid to rest in the Central Cemetery in Beverly; his wife, Mary, died in 1840 and is buried next to him. In his honor, Dane County, Wisconsin, as well as the city of Dane in that county, were named for him.

Ordinance of 1787,” The Wisconsin Magazine of History, LI:4 (Summer 1968), 294-314. [11] Story, Joseph, “A Familiar Exposition of the Constitution of the United States: Containing a Brief Commentary on Every Clause, Explaining the True Nature, Reasons, and Objects Thereof; Designed for the Use of School Libraries and General Readers, With an Appendix, Containing Important Public Documents, Illustrative of the Constitution” (Boston: Thomas H. Webb & Co., 1842), 139. [12] Dane to Nathaniel Gorham, 22 June 1787, in Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Third Series, LIX (November 1925), 95-96. [13] Chaney, Henry A., “Nathan Dane,” The Green Bag [Boston, Massachusetts], III:12 (December 1891), 548.

Historian Henry Chaney, writing in the magazine The Green Bag in 1891, said of this man, this patriot, this leader of his nation at a time when such leaders were needed to create America:

Second Lord Dartmouth, William Legge  (1731-1801)

There was living in the Massachusetts town of Beverly, within the memory of men still active, a deaf old lawyer who wore to the end of his long life the costume of the last century, and whose name was Nathan Dane. This man was in some sense the Father of American Jurisprudence; the three conspicuous acts of his career, though distinct in themselves, all went to the foundation of such a system of American law would help to make the young Republic a leader among nations. In his youth he had drafted the most famous statute in American history; in his later years he prepared the first great compend of American law; and the crowning act of his last days was the endowment of a Harvard professorship from which have proceeded most of the leading treatises in American jurisprudence. [13]

[1] Dane family tree, online at http://www.geni.com/people/ Nathan-Dane/6000000002304406497. [2] “Biographical Notice of the Honorable Nathan Dane,” American Jurist, XXVII (July 1835), 62-63. [3] Dane official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=D000027. [4] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the ­Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VIII:lxxxvii. [5] Dane to Samuel Holten, 4 February 1786, in ibid., VIII:298-99. [6] Dane to Theodore Sedgwick, 11 February 1786, in ibid., 301-02. [7] Dane to Thomas Dwight, 11 February 1786, in ibid., VIII:302. [8] “Nathan Dane, Address Before the Massachusetts House of Representatives,” 9 November 1786, in ibid., VIII:500-05. The relevant portion is at 503. [9] Burnett, “Letters of Members,” op. cit., VIII:xli. [10] Baxter, Maurice, “The Northwest Ordinance-Our First National Bill of Rights,” OAH Magazine of History, II:4 (Fall 1987), 13. For more information on the Northwest Ordinance, see also Pease, Theodore C., “The Ordinance of 1787,” The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XXV:2 (September 1938), 167-80, and Eblen, Jack E., “Origins of the United States Colonial System: The

See: William Legge, Second Earl of Dartmouth

John Dawson (1762–1814)

He was a delegate to the Continental Congress (1788) from his native Virginia; he also served in the state convention that ratified the US Constitution (1788) and in the new US Congress (1789-97). A close intimate of James Madison, much of John Dawson’s correspondence is found in Madison’s papers. Dawson was born in Caroline County, Virginia, in the northeast portion of the state in 1762, the son of the Rev. Musgrave Dawson, a rector in the Anglican Church, and his wife Mary (née Waugh) Dawson. [1] It was noted in the William and Mary

260

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

College Quarterly Historical Magazine in 1897, “Rev. Musgrave Dawson was brother of William Dawson, President of William and Mary. He married in 1757 Mary Waugh, daughter of Alexander Waugh, whose will was proved in Orange county, January 23, 1793.” [2] When John Dawson was about one year old, the Reverend Dawson suddenly died, and his wife remarried Joseph Jones, an attorney from Fredericksburg, who raised John as his own son.

communicate to the Executive of our State, some transactions which have come to my knowledge I have receivd an address to Congress from the Convention of Kentucky on the subject of the navigation of the Mississippi, coverd by a letter from the President.’ this will be presented at the earliest moment, and in answer to the Presidents letter I have observed that it cannot, with propriety, be acted on by the present Congress, as there will not be more than nine states represented, some of which have ever been in favour of the surrender of that river to Spain . . . You will readily perceive, sir, that for the want of a Congress and a foederal tribunal, we coud do nothing decisive in this business. We however advisd the Secretary, to write to Gov [Arthur] St. Clair, and to advise him to keep a strict eye over Conolly, and if he found his suspiccons [sic] well grounded to have him apprehended and deliver’d to the State in which he shoud be taken, and to be careful to have his papers etc securd, as it woud probably bring on a national discussion. [5]

As his uncle, William Dawson, as well as his other uncle, Thomas Dawson, were presidents of William and Mary College, John Dawson attended the same school of higher learning starting in 1780. He graduated two years later; it is possible that he received a degree in some science, but it is not known which. [3] In 1785 Dawson began a lifelong correspondence with James Madison, a fellow Virginian, who was to become one of the colony’s, and, ultimately, the state’s, leaders. The following year, Dawson was elected to a seat in the Virginia House of Delegates, where he served until 1789. During Madison’s service in the Continental Congress, it was John Dawson who regularly wrote to him, keeping him updated on Virginia politics and the activities in the House of Delegates. On 11 October 1788, even as the Continental Congress was slowly being ended to make way for the new bicameral legislature established under the US Constitution, drafted in Philadelphia in 1787 and ratified by the states in 1788, Dawson was elected to a seat in the Continental Congress, “from the first Monday in November 1788 ‘til the first Wednesday in March next.” According to historian Edmund Cody Burnett, Dawson attended a single session of this body: on 1 December 1788. [4] Two pieces of correspondence from Dawson during his Continental Congress service, or at least during this period, merit attention. The first was to Beverley Randolph, the governor of Virginia, 29 January 1789: The states of Massachusetts bay, New York, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Virginia and South Carolina are now represented, and altho they do not make a congress, yet I consider it incumbent on me to

The second is a report to James Madison, also updating him on the happenings in the Continental Congress: “Since I wrote you nothing worthy your attention has presented itself. We have now six states on the floor iz Massachusetts-bay, New York New Jersey Pennylvainia S. Carolina and Virginia; and a member from Rhode Island, North Carolina and Georgia, another member from Rhode Island is on his way and one from N. C. in Pennylvania, Connecticut you know can come in at any time; we therefore expect in three or four days to have nine states represented. Colo. Wardsworth, I think will be chosen President.”[6] Prior to his service in the Continental Congress, Dawson sat as a member of the Virginia convention, which ultimately ratified the US Constitution. In Fredericksburg, on 19 October 1787: [a]t a meeting of the Freeholders and Inhabitant of the town of Fredericksburg . . . A copy of the constitution which the Convention framed and submitted to the United States in Congress assembled, [was] being read, and unanimously approved of; thereupon It was Resolved, To draw up instructions to JAMES MUNROE, and JOHN DAWSON, Esquires, Delegates of the county of

John Dawson (1762–1814)261 Spottsylvania . . . The fœderal constitution being read and maturely considered, it was unanimously approved of, and resolved, that our Delegates for the county of Spottsylvania should be instructed in the following words: To John Dawson and James Munroe, Esquires. WE, the freeholders and inhabitants of the town and corporation of Fredericksburg, convinced of the inefficacy of our present form of government, and of the propriety of immediately adopting the system of government recommended by the General Convention of the United States; and that the safety, prosperity and happiness of Virginia, as well as the other states, depend greatly thereon; We, therefore, direct you, our representatives, to declare, that this is the opinion of your constituents in this corporation; and that we request and immediate recommendation may be made from the legislature of this state, to submit the same to a convention of delegates, chosen by the freeholders thereof, in conformity to the resolved of the convention in that case made and provided. [7]

1801, he served as a bearer of dispatches from President John Adams to the governor of France to head off a potential war between the two nations. [10] Although a close associate of the administration of President John Adams, Dawson nevertheless spoke out against the Alien & Sedition Acts, enacted in 1798, as an unconstitutional violation of the First Amendment to the US Constitution. Dawson published an open letter to several notables including former President George Washington, in which he denounced the act:

The Independent Gazetteer of Philadelphia reported on 20 March 1788 from Richmond, that among the “[d]elegates chosen to serve in the State Convention to be held in June next, viz.,” it listed Dawson and “James Monro” as delegates for Spottsylvania. [8] That convention was held in Richmond on 25 June 1788. According to the newspaper accounts of the meeting, the convention went into a committee of the whole to debate the document before them. Dawson is then listed as having voted in the affirmative to ratify the Constitution. [9]

Many laws have been passed, a list of which I enclose to you and send a copy of those which are printed to your court for the use of the county—Some of there [sic] are highly important, and claim your particular attention; especially the law entitled “an act in addition to the act for the punishment of certain crimes against the United States.” This law, in my judgement [sic], is an open violation of that amendment, now a part of the constitution, which declares, That “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the pre[ss], or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances;” And this, I trust, will be the opinion of the Courts—Should it not, it behoves [sic] you and every citizen to endeavour in the mode prescribed by the constitution, to obtain its repeal, as it will have a tendency to curtail one of the first and dearest privileges which we enjoy; that of freely expressing our sentiments on all public men and measures. [11]

Under the new US Constitution, as noted, elections for the bicameral national legislature were held in November 1788, even as Dawson was making his way to his seat in the Continental Congress. Dawson, unlike many of his contemporaries, was not elected to either the First Congress (1789-91) or to the Second Congress (1791-93); instead, in 1789, he was elected a privy councilor in Virginia, offering political and other advice to the state’s leaders. However, in 1796, Dawson was elected to the US House of Representatives, and he served from the Fifth Congress (1797-99) until his death during the Thirteenth Congress (181315). During this period, Dawson served as the chairman of the Committee on [the] District of Columbia in the Thirteenth Congress. In

Dawson represented Spottsylvania during his entire tenure in Congressional; The Scioto Gazette of Ohio announced on 21 May 1801, that in Virginia elections for Congress, one of those elected was “John Dawson, for the dit [sic] of Spottsylvania, &c. re-elected without opposition.” [12] Following the 1800 election, in which Thomas Jefferson and Aaron Burr received the same number of electoral votes, Dawson proposed a new constitutional amendment to have those casting electoral votes to vote separately for president and vice president. His plan ultimately resulted in the passage and ratification of the Eleventh Amendment to the US Constitution. During the War of 1812, Dawson left Congress for a time, while continuing to hold his seat, to

262

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

serve as an aide to General Jacob Brown and to General Andrew Jackson during the conflict. It was while seeing limited action, especially at his age, that Dawson apparently suffered an illness that led to his death.

[2] “Dawson,” William and Mary College Quarterly Historical Magazine, V:3 (January 1897), 211. [3] Dawson official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=D000151. [4] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VIII:xcvii. [5] Dawson to Beverley Randolph, 29 January 1787, in ibid., VIII:817-18. Dawson refers to the same person by spelling his name two different ways: “Conelly” and “Conolly.” [6] Dawson to James Madison, 29 January 1787 [?], in ibid., VIII:818-19. Dawson’s mention of a “Colo. Wardsworth” refers to Colonel Jeremiah Wadsworth (1743-1804) of Connecticut, who served in the Continental Congress (1788), but was not elected president of that body in its closing months. For his biography, see Jeremiah Wadsworth (1743-1804). [7] “Fredericksburg, Oct. 25,” The New-Jersey Journal, and Political Intelligencer [Elizabethtown], 14 November 1787, 2. [8] “Richmond, March 12,” The Independent Gazetteer; or, The Chronicle of Freedom [Philadelphia], 20 March 1788, 2. [9] “Richmond, State of Virginia, in Convention, Wednesday the 25th of June, 1788,” The Pennsylvania Packet, and Daily Advertiser [Philadelphia], 7 July 1788, 2. [10] Dawson official congressional biography, op. cit. [11] Letter from John Dawson to his Constituents, Philadelphia, 19 July 1798. Printed broadside, courtesy of The Rare Book and Special Collections Division, Library of Congress, item #94.01.00. [12] “Virginia Elections. Congress,” The Scioto Gazette [Chillicothe, Ohio], 21 May 1801, 2. [13] “Died,” Daily National Intelligencer [Washington, DC,], 2 April 1814, 3. [14] For more information on the grave of Dawson, as well as other notables buried in that yard, see “Congressional Cemetery. Extract of a Letter, dated Washington City, April 24, 1820,” National Recorder [Philadelphia], June 1820, 364-65.

John Dawson died in Washington, D.C., on 31 March 1814, and was laid to rest in the Congressional Cemetery in that city. The Daily National Intelligencer of Washington, DC, stated: Died, In this city, on Thursday night, of a lingering illness, JOHN DAWSON, a Representative in Congress, from Virginia, aged about 52 years. He had filled with respectability various public stations, having been in the occupation of some appointment by the People, from the time he reached maturity until the day of his death. He had successively filled the stations of Member of the Virginia Convention, of the General Assembly and Executive Council of Virginia and Representative in Congress from the Fredericksburg district, to which he had been reelected by the People for sixteen or eighteen years . . . successively. Mr. Dawson owed his painful illness and his death to his expedition to the seat of war during the last summer, in the capacity of volunteer aid to the commanding general. He caught the fever common on the Lakes; which left him much debilitated, and induced a cold, which settling on his lungs, terminated his life by rapid and painful decay of those vital organs. He was buried on yesterday evening. His remains were attended to “that bourne whence no traveller returns,” by both Houses of Congress, and a numerous train of personal friends, who had known him long and appreciated his political virtue and private worth. [13] His grave, a small cenotaph, has a plaque which reads, “In Memory of John Dawson, A Representative in the Congress of the US from the State of Virginia.” [14] Despite his numerous pieces of correspondence, Dawson is credited with authoring only one book: “Dear Sir, After a Session of Somewhat More Than Eight Months, Congress Adjourned” (Philadelphia: No Publisher, 1798).

[1] For information on the Rev. Dawson and his father, William, see http://www.geni.com/people/Rev-Musgrave-DawsonA-B/6000000012979098339.

Elias Dayton (1737–1807) More a merchant than a politician, Elias Dayton was elected to the Continental Congress in 1778, but he declined the honor. Instead, he served as a member of the state militia for New Jersey during the French and Indian War (1754-63), as well as the American Revolution. Dayton was born in Elizabethtown (now Elizabeth), New Jersey, on 1 May 1737, the son of Jonathan Dayton, Sr., and his wife Patience (née Bailey) Dayton. A family member, Edson Carroll Dayton, compiled a family history in 1931 that traced the Dayton family back to Ralph Dayton and his wife Alice, who were married in Ashford, Kent, England, in 1617. [1] Although his son Elias and grandson Jonathan made names for themselves by both serving in the Continental Congress, Jonathan Dayton, Sr. also was an influential member of his community. For instance, a 1900 history of

Elias Dayton (1737–1807)263 the Dayton ancestry noted that “[a]t a meeting of the freeholders of Elizabethtown in Essex County, in the province of New Jersey, on Tuesday, the first day of December 1774, the committee of correspondence for the county of Essex, appointed among others Jonathan Dayton, Sr., and his son Elias Dayton, to serve on that committee. Jonathan Dayton, Sr., died suddenly in his chair, 4 October 1776, one of the most venerated citizens of the town. Jonathan Dayton and his wives Mary and Patience are buried in St. John’s churchyard in Elizabeth, New Jersey.” [2] Trained as a mechanic, Elias Dayton finished his preparatory studies—usually in literature, the law, and other subjects considered vital at that time—before he joined the New Jersey militia in March 1756, serving with the rank of lieutenant until he was given a promotion to captain in March 1760. As a member of the “Jersey Blues,” Dayton served alongside British troops during the war in Canada during the French and Indian War (1754-63), a fight for control of parts of the American continent between Britain and France. Dayton saw intense action with the New Jersey militia during the battle of Quebec (September 1759) under General James Wolfe against the French commander Louis-Joseph de Montcalm, in which both commanders died during the fight. Returning to the American colonies, Dayton saw action against Chief Pontiac, or Obwandiyag, the leader of the Ottawa in what is now the state of Michigan near Detroit. With his military career at an end, Dayton went back to New Jersey, opening a general store in Elizabethtown. Dayton married Hannah Rolfe in 1757, and together the couple had eight children, including the aforementioned Jonathan. According to his official congressional biography, Dayton was elected an alderman for Elizabethtown, although no date for the election or service is provided. [3] With the outbreak of tensions between England and the colonies that led to a shooting war in 1775, a “general meeting” of delegates from the colonies was called to assemble in Philadelphia; this became the First Continental Congress. Initially, this body was established to “force” England to repeal a series of harsh economic measures that had pushed

the colonial economy to the breaking point— thoughts of independence were distant at best. Dictates enacted by the Continental Congress were sent to each colony, to try to get the royal governments in each colony to comply or send a message to London that the imposition of the measures was not to be tolerated any longer. Dayton, in New Jersey, was named to a committee that enforced the rulings of the Continental Congress on that specific colony. On 26 October 1775, he was promoted to an additional office, that of a muster-master for Essex County, New Jersey. (A “muster- master” is described as “one who takes an account of troops, and of their equipment; a mustering officer; an inspector.” Based on this work on behalf of the patriot cause, on 10 January 1776 Dayton was commissioned as a colonel of the Third New Jersey Regiment of Foot, also known as the Third Battalion, New Jersey Line Although he remained in the service for the remainder of the war, until 1783, little has been written about his service during the war. For instance, his unit helped to construct Fort Schuyler, near Rome, New York, as well as Fort Dayton, named in his honor and located near Herkimer, New York. His New Jersey troops saw fighting at Bound Brook on Staten Island in New York, and at the battle of Brandywine (1777). His troops were at Yorktown (1781) when Charles, Lord Cornwallis, the-then British commander of troops in America, surrendered, ending the war (a peace treaty formally ending the conflict was not signed between the United States and Great Britain until 1783.) On 3 January 1783, Dayton was promoted to the rank of brigadier general, although his unit was discharged from further duty on 3 November of that same year. On 12 December 1778, the New Jersey Assembly elected Dayton to a seat in the Continental Congress, after another delegate-to-be, John Neilson, turned down the offer. Ironically, Dayton also refused the honor. There may be many reasons for this decision, although it was well known that the Continental Congress was constantly bogged down in political and other matters, unable to aid the states or the military with quickly made decisions. Historian Arnold Pavlovsky wrote, “This lack of information was

264

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

coupled with Congress’ inability to expedite important legislative matters. Upon arriving at Congress in 1776, Wolcott perceived that “members have a hard service;” more than two years later he thought his duties had grown still more arduous with members continuing their debates until ten or eleven o’clock every night. John Mathews observed that business was conducted slowly, in “the plain John trot mode.” Because affairs did not proceed rapidly, Laurens worried about public accounts remaining unadjusted, and the journals of Congress not being brought up to date. In 1779, Elias Boudinot wrote: “it is an uphill cause to get anything done here.” [4]

See also: Jonathan Dayton

After the war, Dayton again opened a general store in Elizabethtown. He served as the Recorder for the city in 1789. The following year he was elected to the New Jersey state Assembly, serving from 1791-92 and again from 1794-96. In the latter year, Dayton was elected as the mayor of Elizabethtown, serving from 1796 to 1805. After leaving office, he served as the president of the New Jersey Society of the Cincinnati, a veterans’ rights group modeled along the Grand Army of the Republic from the Civil War. Elias Dayton died on 22 October 1807 in Elizabethtown at the age of 70. He was laid to rest in the First Presbyterian Churchyard Elizabeth, in Union County, New Jersey, in a sarcophagus that carries his name. [5] Dayton’s passing evoked little coverage in the nation’s newspapers. The Boston Gazette of Massachusetts mentioned his death in one line [6]. The New-Jersey Journal of Elizabethtown did write extensively of Dayton’s passing and funeral: “Died, on Thursday morning last, very suddenly, of the gout in the stomach, Major General ELIAS Dayton, in the 71st year of his age; and on Saturday the corpse was removed to the Presbyterian Church, where a funeral sermon was preached by the Rev. John McDowell . . . And behold this day I am going the way of all the earth. The assemblage of citizens was more numerous than we ever knew on the like occasion in this town. Military honors were performed. The whole proceedings were marked with uncommon solemnity, and evinced the unfeigned affection felt by all classes of citizens.” [7]

[1] Dayton, Edson Carroll, “The Record of a Family Descent from Ralph Dayton and Alice (Goldhatch) Tritton, Married June 16, 1617, Ashford, County Kent, England: a Genealogical and Biographical Account of One Branch of the Dayton Family in America” (Hartford, Connecticut: Privately Printed by The Case, Lockwood & Brainerd Company, 1931). [2] “Ancestry and Biography: The Dayton Family,” American Monthly Magazine, XVII:1 (July 1900), 141. [3] Dayton official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=D000164. [4] Pavlovsky, Arnold M., “‘Between Hawk and Buzzard’: Congress as Perceived by Its Members, 1775-1783,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, CI:3 (July 1977), 354. [5] See photographs of Dayton’s place on Find-a-Grave, online at http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=gr&GRid=4824. [6] See “Deaths,” Boston Gazette [Massachusetts], 29 October 1807, 2. [7] “Elizabeth-Town, October 27. Died,” New-Jersey Journal [Elizabeth-Town], 27 October 1807, 3.

Jonathan Dayton (1760–1824)

The son of Continental Congress delegate and successful merchant Elias Dayton, Jonathan Dayton chose a career in the military. He served as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention (1787), as a member of the US House of Representatives

Jonathan Dayton (1760–1824)265 (1791-99), where he was elected Speaker of the House in the Third Congress (1793-95) and the Fourth Congress (1795-97), and in the US Senate (1799-1805), where he was charged, but never convicted of, conspiring against the nation with Vice President Aaron Burr. He was born in Elizabethtown (now Elizabeth), New Jersey, on 16 October 1760, the son of Elias Dayton and his wife Hannah (nee Rolfe) Dayton. Elias Dayton was the son of Jonathan Dayton (1700-1776) and his wife Patience (nee Bailey) Dayton. Elias’ great-grandfather, Robert Dayton (1629-1712) was born in Ashford, Kent, England, and emigrated to the colonies as a young man. The family name may have originally been Tritton, as records from Kent show that a Daniel Tritton (1585-1615) list him as being the father of Robert Dayton. [1] Due to his father’s wealth and privilege in the New Jersey colony, Jonathan Dayton likely attended the prestigious Elizabethtown Academy. In late 1774, the younger Dayton entered the College of New Jersey, now Princeton University, and graduated two years later, although by that time he had already joined the Continental Army. Historian Richard A. Harrison writes that, “[l]ike many members of his class, Dayton did not stay in Princeton for the truncated commencement of 1776, described by his classmate William Vernon in a letter home.” [2] Dayton’s official congressional biography does note that Dayton, during this period, studied the law and was admitted to the New Jersey colonial bar. [3] Dayton had received his commission as an ensign on 7 February 1776, even before he had turned 16 years old. Despite this, he rose in the ranks of the Army, starting first in the Second New Jersey Regiment, and then moving on to the Third New Jersey Regiment, both of which were commanded by his father. On 1 January 1777, Dayton was advanced to the rank of lieutenant, and completing his rise in the ranks when in March 1780 he was given the rank of captain. During the war, he also served for several periods as the regimental paymaster. In the conflict known as the American Revolution, Dayton saw action at the battles of Brandywine (1777), Germantown (1777), and at Monmouth (1778) against the British. At the same time, Dayton also fought alongside General John Sullivan as

his aide-de-camp during the fight against the Iroquois in New York State in 1779. While fighting the British at Herd’s Tavern in Connecticut Farms, now in Union, New Jersey, Dayton was taken prisoner and sent to a prisoner of war center on New York’s Staten Island; however, he was quickly exchanged, and he returned to service in the Continental Army, assigned to a brigade commanded by General Benjamin Lincoln. It was under Lincoln that Dayton saw additional action in New York state until nearly the end of the war. He was mustered out of the army on 3 November 1783. [4] Historians Robert K. Wright, Jr. and Morris J. MacGregor, Jr. explained, “Dayton came home from the war to assume important responsibilities in the family’s mercantile business and to study law. Although a political neophyte, his prominence in the community, his war record, and his father’s influential connections led quickly to a role in state government.” [5] Dayton married Susannah Williamson of Elizabethtown. Although Dayton’s official congressional biography notes that he studied the law, and was admitted to the New Jersey bar, prior to his military service, other sources state that this occurred after his military service, and that he was admitted to the New Jersey State bar in 1786. [6] His wife’s sister Margaretta married Dayton’s brother William, but she died, rather young, in 1794. [7] Dayton did join in his father’s mercantile business, making it “E. Dayton and Son” for a brief period. In 1786, however, Dayton entered the political arena and was elected to a seat in the New Jersey Assembly, where he served from 1786 to 1787, and in 1790. In 1787, a convention was called to be held in Philadelphia to drastically reform the weak and moribund Articles of Confederation. Elias Dayton was named as a delegate from New Jersey to this meeting, but for various reasons he declined the honor. Instead, his son Jonathan accepted the offer, and traveled to Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 to aid the infant nation. At 26 years of age, Jonathan Dayton would be the youngest delegate to this Constitutional Convention. Fellow delegate William L. Pierce, of Georgia, who spent a good part of this time describing the various delegates to the convention, wrote of the New Jerseyan, “Capt. Dayton is a young Gentleman of talents, with ambition to exert

266

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

them. He possesses a good education and some reading; he speaks well, and seems desirous of improving himself in Oratory. There is an impetuosity in his temper that is injurious to him; but there is an honest rectitude about him that makes him a valuable Member of Society, and secures to him the esteem of all good Men. He is about 30 years old, served with me as a Brother Aid to General Sullivan in the Western expedition of ‘79.” Dayton was actually 26 years old. [8]

and retained his seat in the state legislature, elected as Speaker of that body in 1790.

Dayton wrote to William Livingston on 13 July 1787, “I have the mortification to inform your Excellency that, altho’ we have been daily in Convention, we have not made the least progress in the business since you left us. It is unnecessary and would perhaps be improper, to relate here the causes of this delay. They will very readily occur to your Excellency from your knowledge of them heretofore. I must request that your excellency will be pleased agreeably to the arrangement made at parting, to return to this place on Tuesday or Wednesday next at the farthest.” [9] In a work on the Speakers of the House, which included Dayton, Mark Grossman noted, “Dayton was named to a group of delegates who would be responsible for the formation of the American government. Although he supported the initiatives of others who backed a tripartite form of government— forming Executive, Legislative, and Judicial branches—Dayton’s real contribution to the convention was his idea for an ‘Electoral college’ to decide who was elected President of the United States, instead of a system of direct voting for the presidency.” [10] After signing the Constitution, Dayton was so popular because of his beliefs and his service, both politically and militarily, that his colleagues in the state legislature elected him to a seat in the Continental Congress, then in its final months of business. According to historian Edmund Cody Burnett, Dayton was elected on 7 November 1787, and, subsequently, reelected on 25 November 1788, and he ultimately attended sessions of 13 November 1787, 22 January to about 1 November 1788, and on 11 December 1788. [11] Burnett does not have any correspondence either to or from Dayton during his service in the Continental Congress. Dayton returned to New Jersey at the end of his service,

In that same year, Dayton was elected to a seat in the US House of Representatives, the lower house of the national bicameral legislature envisioned in the US Constitution. He took his seat in the Second Congress (1791-93), and he remained in that body until 1799. In the Third Congress (1793-95), the Fourth Congress (179597), and the Fifth Congress (1797-99), Dayton served as Speaker. A Federalist with strong ties to former President George Washington and to President John Adams, Dayton’s ascension to Speaker is not surprising—he was considered a moderate who at times voted with the antiFederalists. Even as the Speaker, Dayton wished for higher office. In late 1798, he was elected by the New Jersey state legislature to a seat in the US Senate, which he entered in March 1799 and remained for a single six-year term until March 1805. It was during this tenure that Dayton got into the trouble that would end his political career and threaten to send him to prison. Dayton had always had an interest in the western United States—what is now the midwestern states of Ohio and Kentucky. He used his family’s extensive wealth to invest in land speculation in these states, and he used first his congressional office, then his Senate office, to try to get these areas admitted to the Union as states. To try to expand the influence of those who wished to be involved, Dayton loaned money to an old friend, fellow Princeton classmate Aaron Burr, at the time the vice president of the United States, to invest in lands as well. When allegations surfaced that Burr had potentially tried to get Spain involved in the area—possibly treasonous activities—Dayton was implicated because the money was his, although there no proof exists that he did anything wrong. Dayton was ultimately cleared when a federal grand jury, empaneled in the matter, refused to indict him, but for Dayton total exoneration never truly came. He left the US Senate after a single term, his reputation ruined. [12] Although forced to return to New Jersey without a national office, nevertheless Dayton was still popular in his home state, and he parlayed this popularity into service in the New Jersey Assembly from 1814 to 1815. He then retired to

Silas Deane (1737–1789)267 his estate, “Boxwood Hall,” in Elizabethtown, New Jersey. Dayton died there on 9 October 1824, seven days shy of his 64th birthday. He was laid to rest, like his parents, in the St. John’s Episcopal Church Cemetery in Elizabeth. The church is now called St. Michael’s, and the church building was expanded after Dayton’s death. His grave was covered over in part by the new construction, and it now lies under the church. A grave marker outside along the wall disappeared in 2009. [13] Historian Joseph C. Morton wrote of Dayton’s controversial career and reputation: “His legacy is a tattered reputation earned both from his oftenimpetuous nature and from his still ill-defined association with Aaron Burr and—because he had earlier secured title to some 250,000 acres of Ohio land—a city named after him, Dayton, Ohio. Despite the controversy surrounding his apparent connection with the so-called Burr Conspiracy, Jonathan Dayton should be remembered as a devoted public servant, of sound rank, who gave years of dedicated service to both his state and nation.” [14]

[1] Dayton family genealogy, online at http://www.geni.com/ people/Brig-General-Elias-Dayton/6000000010112891155. [2] “Jonathan Dayton” in Richard A. Harrison, “Princetonians, 1776-1783: A Biographical Dictionary” (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1981), 31-42. [3] Dayton official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=D000165. [4] See Francis B. Heitman, “Historical Register of the Officers of the Continental Army During the War of the Revolution, April, 1775, to December, 1783. New, Revised, and Enlarged Edition” (Washington, DC: The Rare Book Shop Publishing Company, Inc., 1914), 627. [5] Robert K. Wright, Jr., and Morris J. MacGregor, Jr., “SoldierStatesmen of the Constitution” (Washington, DC: United States Army, Center of Military History, 1987), 81. [6] For instance, see the biography of Dayton by Harry S. Ward in John A. Garraty and Mark C. Carnes, gen. eds., “American National Biography” (New York: Oxford University Press; 24 volumes, 1999), VI:279. [7] For information on Susannah Williamson Dayton and her family, see Janice E.M. Kenney, “Women of the Constitution: Wives of the Signers” (Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press, Inc., 2013), 48. [8] Farrand, Max, ed., “The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787” (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; three volumes, 1911), III:90. [9] Dayton to William Livingston, 13 July 1787, in James H. Hutson, ed., “Supplement to Max Farrand’s The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787” (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1987), 187. [10] Grossman, Mark, “The Speakers of the House of Representatives” (New York: Grey House Publishing, 2009).

[11] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VIII:xc. [12] See Nancy Isenberg, “Fallen Founder: The Life of Aaron Burr” (New York: Penguin, 2007). [13] For information on Dayton’s grave, see http://www.findagrave.com/cgi-bin/fg.cgi?page=pv&GRid=4714&PIpi=50747636. [14] Morton, Joseph C., “Shapers of The Great American Debates: Shapers of the Great Debate at the Constitutional Convention of 1787L A Biographical Dictionary” (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2006), 65.

Silas Deane (1737–1789)

Silas Deane played an extremely important role in the arena of foreign relations during the earliest years of the infant American nation, but allegations of corruption led to his downfall. He was born Silas Dean in Groton, Connecticut, on 24 December 1737, the son of Silas Dean, a blacksmith, and his wife Sarah (née Barker) Dean. [1] Silas Deane’s grandfather, James Deane (the spelling appears to have alternated between “Dean” and “Deane” throughout history), was born in Taunton, Somerset, England, in 1648, and he died in Plainfield, Connecticut, in 1725. [2] We also know that the elder Dean, the father of Silas Deane, was a blacksmith like his father before him. But he was also a colonial official, who served a single

268

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

term in the Connecticut Assembly. Silas Deane apparently received a local education, probably through a small schoolhouse near his home on the Thames River in Connecticut. Dean entered Yale College, now Yale University, in New Haven; while attending, he taught school to pay his bills. It was during this time that Dean added an extra “e” to his name, for reasons known only to him. He graduated in 1758 and moved to the small village of Wethersfield, on the Connecticut River, where he continued his studies in the law. In 1760 and 1761 both of his parents died, and Deane was forced to bring his six younger siblings to Wethersfield to keep them from starving. In October 1763, Deane married Mehitable Webb, the widow of Joseph Webb, a leading merchant of Wethersfield. He adopted her six children from her previous marriage; the couple also had a son, Jesse Deane.

first week of September 1774, “Col. Floyd and my brother arrived; The city is full of people from abroad and all the lodgings in town full, or engaged . . . The Delegates from Virginia, Maryland, the Lower Counties, and New York are not arrived. We spent this day in visiting those that are in town, and find them in high spirits, particularly the gentlemen from the Jerseys, and South Carolina. In the evening we met to the number of about thirty, drank a dish of coffee together, talked over a few preliminaries, and agreed to wait for the gentlemen not arrived, until Monday next, before we proceeded to business. This day, therefore, Friday, I mean to ramble over the city and make my observations.” [5] On 5 September Deane wrote, again to his wife, “The Congress formed, by choosing the Honl P. Randolph, Esqr, of Virginia, President, and Charles Thompson [sic] Esqr, of this city, Secretary, and fix’d on Carpenters Hall for the place to meet in. This proceeding is highly agreeable to the mechanics and citizens in general, but mortifying to the last degree to Mr. Galloway and his party, Thompson being his sworn opposite, as you may say, and by his means prevented being one of the Congress for this Province. It was a matter of dispute whether we should choose a Secretary out of the Members, and I doubted in my own mind the propriety, but did not oppose it, as by opposing I most probably should have had the task myself, which is too burdensome to one who wants all spare hours for relaxation. The day, until three, was spent in reading our Certificates and adjusting some formalities; after which, adjourned until ten next morning.” [6] In an update on his activities in the Continental Congress, Deane wrote on 9 September 1774, “Two Committees are now out, and when they report I shall be able to judge better of our business. The one is to ascertain our Rights, enumerate the violations of them, and recommend a proper mode of Redress. The other, to take a view of all those Acts of the British Parliament which affect our Trade and Manufactures. I am in the latter Committee, which I must attend directly.” [7]

Silas Deane’s political career began in Wethersfield, in 1768, when he was elected as a representative in the lower house of the Connecticut General Assembly from that village. According to one biography of Deane, “[H]e was chosen to the name station in 1772, 1773, 1774, and probably, also, for both sessions in 1775, although prevented from taking his seat by his attendance upon Congress in Philadelphia.” [3] Possibly because of his influence in the Connecticut General Assembly, on 13 July 1774 Deane was elected to a seat in the First Continental Congress, scheduled to meet in Philadelphia. Deane was subsequently reelected on 3 November 1774, ultimately attending sessions from 5 September to 26 October 1774, 10 May to 2 August 1775, and from 11 September 1775 to 16 January 1776. Historian Edmund Cody Burnett explained that “Deane was absent on a mission to New York from about 15 November to 20 November [1775]. [4] Correspondence from Deane during the period of his service in the Continental Congress is extensive and is widely documented. Deane took along his brother Simeon, a Connecticut merchant, along to Philadelphia, either as a companion or as someone to aid him in his travels. In one of the first pieces of correspondence from the Continental Congress, Deane wrote to his wife, Mehitable, in the

Deane then warned his wife that letters would now become fewer and fewer in number from him: “I tell you on the other page that I shall not be so particular in my future letters. I shall

Silas Deane (1737–1789)269 not have time: for the business of the Congress having been at Committees, and the Committees I was upon having the least difficulty, has given me time to scribble; but as both Committees are now ready to report, we shall attend night and day until we are through, or adjourn. I believe we shall adjourn until May next, but this is out of door talk.” [8] Needing a mechanism to conduct foreign relations by getting other countries to aid the new American nation, the Continental Congress established the Committee of Secret Correspondence on 29 November 1775, initially consisting of delegates John Dickinson, Benjamin Franklin, Benjamin Harrison, John Jay, Thomas Johnson—later, delegates James Lovell and Robert Morris were added. This committee used private correspondence to contact sympathetic Britons in England who wished to see Great Britain get out of the North America continent, as well as the governments of France, Spain, and Holland. It was through the Committee of Secret Correspondence that the delegates to the Continental Congress concluded that France offered the best chance for a foreign country, in competition with England, to aid the patriot cause. Thus, as historian Thomas P. Abernethy explained in 1934: On March 3, 1776, Congress appointed Silas Deane their agent and dispatched him to France. His duties were to purchase commercial supplies, especially for the Indian trade, to obtain from the government arms and clothing for 25,000 troops, and to sound [out] the ministers on the question of American independence. His mission was thus partly diplomatic and partly commercial, but in public he assumed the guise of a commercial agent and his talents lay in that direction. This discussion deals with the enterprises through which he sought to profit by his position, some of which had little or no relation to his duties as commercial agent. Deane soon learned that Caron de Beaumarchais [the French observer in London] was to be the intermediary between himself and the Comte de Vergennes, French [M]inister of [F]oreign [A]ffairs; and it was through this channel that the supplies promised to Arthur Lee were furnished. Besides Beaumarchais, there were other agents who served Vergenrnes in his relations with Deane,

the most important among them being his secretary Conrade Gerard, later [the] French minister to America; M. le Rey de Chaumont, a gentleman of large affairs and a government contractor of note; and M. Ferdinand and Sir George Grand, bankers of Paris and Amsterdam, respectively. In addition to these influential men, there were commercial houses in all the important trade centers of France which acted as agents for Chaumont, and, through him, for Deane. Though Deane’s original instructions directed him to another banker, Ferdinand Grand was soon handling his affairs. [9] For a time, until Benjamin Franklin arrived in Paris as the first US minister to that nation, Deane conducted all relations for the United States in France. It was he who informed the French government of the signing, in July 1776, of the Declaration of Independence. The ship with the original copy of the Declaration of Independence sailed from Salem, Massachusetts, on 7 August 1776, and did not arrive in Paris until 17 November of that same year. In a responding letter to the Continental Congress, Deane expressed anger at the length of time it took for him to get this important document into his own hands—however, he expressed even more indignation at the “form” that the letter took that Deane might have to use to present it to leading diplomats in Europe: Your favor of the 7 of August last covering Copy of yours of y[r] 8 July I rec’d tho the Original never came to hand[.] This Letter also enclosed the Declaration of Inde pendency [sic] with Instructions to make it known to this, & the other powers of Europe, and I received it the 17[th] Instant, tho the Vessel which bro’t it, had but 38 days passage from Salem. This Letter was very farr [sic] from relieving me, as it inclosed what had been Circulated thro’ Europe for two months before, and my pretending to inform this Court, could be only a matter of form in Consiquence of your Orders, which were expressed, in the State of any Common affair[.] I certainly prefer and must on all Occations, simplicity of Stile [sic] as well as Manners, but something is due, to the dignity of old and powerfull [sic] States, or if you please to their prejudices, in favor of long Accustomed Form, & and as the United States of America, by this introduce themselves among the Established powers, and rank with them it must of

270

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Course be expected that at the first introduction, or the announcing of it some mode more formall [sic], or if I may say respectfull [sic] would have been made use of than simply two or three Lines from the Committee of Congress in a Letter something more apparently Authentic not that either your power or the reality of your Letter could be doubted[.] I mention this as something deserving of serious Consideration, whither in your Applications here, & your powers & Instructions of a public Nature it is not alway proper to use a seal. This is a very antient [sic] Custom, in all public & even private concerns of any Consequence further to keep a proper intercourse with Europe, it is by no means sufficient, to write a single Letter & leave it, to be forwarded, when the Captain of a Vessel, thinks of it, or has nothing else to do, duplicates of every Letter in the hand of faithfull & attentive persons to be forwarded by the first Conveyance to any part of Europe, had this been practised since my leaving America instead of receiving but two short Letters from you I might have had Intelligence every month, let me urge you from the Danger our Affairs have been in, of totally miscarrying for want of intelligence to pay some Attention to this in [the] future. [10]

Deane for his travels. The Journals reflected that, 11 days later, on 13 May, the delegates “ordered that 3,000 dollars be paid [to] Mr. Simeon Deane in consideration of his faithful execution of a most important trust reposed in him by the commissioners of these States at Paris.” The record states “that there is due to Mr. Simeon Deane a balance of 685 80/90 dollars on account of his expenses in bringing [these] despatches from the commissioners at Paris.”

It was at this time that the Deane brothers, Silas and Simeon, played an integral role in the diplomatic history of the United States. As the story is related in the Journals of the Continental Congress, on 2 May 1778, Simeon Deane appeared in York, Pennsylvania, where the Continental Congress had fled after leaving Philadelphia to avoid being captured by the British troops led by Lord William Howe. Deane was carrying with him a sheaf of papers, signed by his brother, who could not leave France, which also included a treaty of amity and friendship between the United States and France. The Journals relate, “During the adjournment[,] Mr. [Simeon] Deane, brother of S[Silas] Deane, Esqr., one of the commissioners at the Court of Versailles, arrived express from France, with sundry [many] important despatches; Whereupon, Congress was convened, and the despatches laid before them. Among which a treaty of commerce and alliance, concluded between the King of France and the United States of America on the 6[th] of February last.” [11] It took the delegates to the Continental Congress time to absorb this news—and to thank

[12]

It is impossible to fully judge what happened that led to Deane’s fall from the pinnacle of power. But the fact that Deane never got along with the third commissioner sent to help conduct American business and foreign policy in France was the beginning of the end. This commissioner was Arthur Lee, a delegate to the Continental Congress from Virginia. Due to the machinations, and influence, of his family, Arthur Lee was named as the US commissioner to Spain on 5 May 1777. Once in Madrid, however, Lee found that his “influence” extended only to the edge of American waters. He found even less ability to get things done in Vienna and Berlin, so he moved to Paris in July. There, he was constantly reminded of Silas Deane, going about his business. Soon, Lee began to make allegations, sent back to his brother Richard Henry Lee and to others sympathetic to his cause in the Continental Congress, that Deane had been using his influence to make money on the side; Lee also speculated that Dean was somehow sending secret messages to the British government on what was happening both in Paris and inside the Continental Congress itself. Walter Isaacson, a recent biographer of Benjamin Franklin, commented, “The great antagonist amid this menagerie, to Deane and then to Franklin, was the third American commissioner, Arthur Lee of Virginia. He was suspicious of all around him to the point of paranoia, a trait only partly vindicated by the fact that he was right in many cases. He had been jealous of Franklin since serving with him as a colonial agent in London (and being part of a rival land scheme syndicate). Along with his brothers, William Lee and Richard Henry Lee, he was behind many of the rumors on Franklin’s loyalty and character.” [13]

Silas Deane (1737–1789)271 To simplify, this appears to be the gist of the allegations against Deane: the French, to quietly funnel money and arms to the American military, set up a “dummy” corporation, which was called Rodrigue Hortalez and Company. Lee and his cohorts allegedly—did not tell the Continental Congress that the French wanted recompense for the articles sent to aid the patriot cause, although Lee himself did know that such payment was due. Deane may or may not have known about the entire arrangement. Lee intimated that Deane had taken the profits from the enterprise, and, worse yet, was quietly informing a source of his inside the British government of the French actions. At least, those are the allegations. Defenders of Arthur Lee contend that letters found that Deane had written intimated such a scheme, and they later published these in several American newspapers while Deane was out of the country. Deane defenders, if any exist, argue that Lee set the entire “Deane profited plan” up by himself so that he could get rid of both Silas Deane and Benjamin Franklin and have the entire French mission to himself. On the Lee side, there is some evidence of Deane’s complicity. In 1959, Thomas Jefferson scholar Julian P. Boyd wrote, “On 4 July 1788, one Foulloy, a Frenchman who had just come from London, presented himself to the American minister in Paris and complained that Silas Deane had ‘taken him in for a sum of 120 guineas.’ Failing to obtain any other satisfaction, he had “laid hands on his account book, and letter book” and now offered to sell them for the amount of the alleged debt. [14] Thomas Jefferson believed the allegations against Deane, he being the “minister” that Boyd refers to. In a letter to John Jay from Paris, 3 August 1788, Jefferson explained: About three weeks ago, a person called on me and informed me that Silas Deane had taken him in for a sum of one hundred and twenty guineas, and that being unable to to obtain any other satisfaction, he had laid hands on his account book and letter book, and had brought them off to Paris, to offer them first to the United States, if they would repay him his money, and if not, that he should return to London, and offer them to the British Minister. I desired him to leave them with me for four-and-

twenty hours, that I might judge whether they were worth our notice. He did so. They were two volumes. One contained all his accounts with the United States, from his first coming to Europe to January the 10th, 1781. Presuming that the treasury board [of the Continental Congress] was in possession of this account till his arrival in Philadelphia, August 1778, and that he had never given in the subsequent part, I had that subsequent part copied from the book, and now enclose it, as it may, on some occasion or other, perhaps be useful in the treasury office. The other volume contained all his correspondence from March the 30th to August the 23rd, 1777. I had a list of the letters taken, by their dates and addresses, which will enable you to form a general idea of the collection. On perusal of many of them, I thought it desirable that they should not come to the hands of the British Minister, and from an expression dropped by the possessor of them, I believe he would have fallen to fifty or sixty guineas. I did not think them important enough, however, to justify my purchasing them without authority; though, authority, I should have done it. Indeed, I would have given that sum to cut out a single sentence, which contained evidence of a fact, not proper to be committed to the hands of enemies. I told him I would state his proposition to you, and await orders. I gave him back the books, and he returned to London without making any promise that he would await the event of the orders you might think proper to give. [15] Based on these allegations, on 7 November 1777 the Continental Congress recalled Silas Deane from Paris to answer charges of corruption. Once back in Philadelphia, the story of the “man at the Embassy” and the profit-taking were laid out by Arthur Lee. [16] Deane penned a letter in a Pennsylvania newspaper accusing Lee of fabricating the entire scheme, forcing Lee to answer these serious charges. [17] One writer, “Cato,” penned a missive to Francis Bailey, the editor of The Freeman’s Journal newspaper of Philadelphia, in which he explained: It is said great pains have been taken to prevail on you to decline printing the intercepted letters under the signature of Silas Deane, and probably with some success, as you have not continued them. While it was doubtful whether they were genuine or spurious, whether Mr. Deane had proved treacherous or not, you might have properly hesitated; but America

272

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

will now be more benefited by the detection of bad men and their adherents than she can be injured by anything Silas Deane can write. It is well known in this city, and ought to be through all America, that Mr. Deane’s former friends and zealous supporters admit that though these letters may not be literally genuine, letters have been received from him containing similar sentiments, such as evince his base desertion of his first principles and the cause of his country; his ingratitude to the French nation, by which he had been so kindly treated; his corruption by the British government; and that he is now in all respects, as he ever has been, the bosom friend of [Benedict] Arnold. If there are no more of these letters to be published, it is hoped some able pen will take up the subject, and draw some useful lessons for the people of America from the conduct of and towards these two men . . . [18]

was then for the first time made acquainted with, and the letter which inclosed it expressed nothing to the contrary, yet, sensible of the extremely difficult situation in which I had been placed previous as well as subsequent to the arrival of my colleagues; of the variety of transactions, political and commercial, in which on account of these States I had been engaged, and knowing that I had been so unfortunate as to have enemies at Paris and at Nantes who frequently wrote to America, I thought myself warranted to suspect that misrepresentations had been made, either with design to injure me, or through ignorance and misapprehension. My venerable friend and colleague, Dr. Franklin, had the same suspicions, as his letters before Congress show. Although the dispatches just before sent out by Mr. Simeon Deane and Captain Courter were sufficient to inform Congress, generally, of “the slate of affairs in Europe,” yet my disposition to pay the most ready and implicit obedience to the orders of Congress on every occasion, with a desire to know in what light my conduct had been represented, prevailed over every other consideration, and I left Paris the last of March in the manner, and under the circumstances which I shall hereafter relate. [19]

Called before the Continental Congress, Deane pled innocence. He told the delegates in part: I beg leave to remind Congress of my having several times mentioned to them, in my letters desiring an audience, that my detention was very prejudicial to my private affairs, as well as that it might tend to embarrass or prevent the settlement of those of the public, which my sudden departure from France obliged me to leave without being adjusted and closed. The prejudice resulting from this delay I now hope will be fully compensated, from the ample time it has afforded for making the most minute and scrupulous examination into every part of my public conduct, both in Europe and America. In August last, when I had the honor of being heard by Congress, I expressed my desire of knowing if objections had been made to any part of my conduct whilst in their service, and if any, what they were. Previous to the entering on a general narrative, I take the liberty to mention in a few words the reasons which induced me to make that request. I set out for Europe, intrusted with the political and commercial agency of these States, and in the month of December following received a commission from Congress appointing me one of their commissioners at the Court of Versailles, by which my former commission was superseded, and a person appointed to the commercial agency in my room. From the time of my leaving my native country in March, 1776, to the 4th of March, 1778, I had reason to flatter myself that my conduct had been such as to meet with the approbation of my honorable constituents; and though the resolution of Congress of the 8th December, 1777, which I

Because there was no absolute proof of wrongdoing by Deane, the delegates could not find him guilty; at the same time, the allegations had to be fully investigated. And when a nation is at war that was, essentially, a life-or-death struggle for survival, the guilt or innocence of one Silas Deane was a low priority issue for the Continental Congress. And, so, Silas Deane was left hanging in limbo: He was neither cleared nor was he pronounced to have committed the crimes he was alleged to have committed. Deane expressed this frustration in a letter to John Hancock, 14 September 1778: The Affairs which respect me have dragged on so heavily that nothing decisive has been done, though I have been constantly applying, and my patience is really worn out, and I cannot, and will no longer endure a Treatment which carries with it marks of the deepest ingratitude, but if the Congress have not Time to hear a Man, who they have sent for Four Thousand Miles, solely under the pretence [sic] of receiving Intelligence from him, it is Time that the good people of this Continent should know the manner in which Their Representatives conduct the public Business, and how They treat their Fellow Citizens, who have

Silas Deane (1737–1789)273 rendered their Country the most important Services. I freely appeal to every man of honor and feelings, and will be content to be judged from what passes in his breast, on supporting himself but for one moment exactly in my Situation. A Majority of Congress are disposed to do me justice and complain of my being delayed in the manner I am from day to day, and from week to week, but you know that in Congress a few men can put off the decision of any Question by one means or other as long as they please; and you are not a Stranger to what a certain Triumvirate, who have been from the first members of Congress are equal. [20] In 1781, Deane moved to Ghent, Belgium, and two years later had relocated to London. He continued his work in trade, but his enemies, political and otherwise, liked to bring attention to the fact that Deane lived openly with a prostitute in London. In 1785, he joined a group of investors who were raising money to build a canal from Lake Champlain in New York State to the St. Lawrence River. Just before Deane departed from Europe to return to America, Thomas Jefferson wrote to James Madison, “Silas Deane is coming over to finish his days in America, not having one sou [sic] to subsist on elsewhere. He is a wretched monument of the consequences of a departure from right.” [21] In September 1789, Deane boarded a ship from Gravesend in the United Kingdom to Boston, Massachusetts, to return to the United States, but as the voyage began Deane became ill, and the ship was forced back to the port of Deal, on the Kentish coast of England. There, Deane suffered an apparent stroke and died, never seeing America again or getting the vindication he so clearly desired. Deane was two months shy of his 62nd birthday. He was laid to rest in St. Leonard’s Churchyard in Deal. In September 1789, The Reverend Samuel Peters, a leading Loyalist in New England, wrote to a friend, The Reverend Benjamin Trumbull, to tell him of Deane’s passing. Peters penned, “His excellency Silas Deane, our old Companion at Mater Yale and the Sole Author of prevailing with the Court of France to espouse the Cause of America against the claims of Great Britain, departed this life the 23d of September 1789 at two O’clock afternoon, after four hours Illness, on Board the Boston Packet, [Captain] Davis

Master, bound to Boston in New England, and was decently buried in the Churchyard at Deal by the benevolence of sundry Persons. Thus the evening has closed in upon the active Life of a Brilliant Genius, yet Immortality is nailed to his Name, & Ingenuity has given it a Niche in the Temple of Memory—which Time itself can-not obliterate—good actions and bad are equal in the Records of Man whenever Success follows.” [22] Since his death, Silas Deane’s passing has been subscribed to a stroke, to suicide, or even to murder by poisoning. There is no evidence of anything but death by natural causes . . . however, that does not stop the speculation from continuing to this day. Historians Dennis Kent Anderson and Godfrey Tryggve Anderson wrote in 1984: At ten o’clock on the morning of 23 September 1789, Silas Deane walked the deck of the Boston Packett, anchored off the coast of England. Deane, a one-time representative from Connecticut to the Continental Congress and later a participant in the negotiations to secure French support for American independence, had resided in England since 1783. He had been accused of corruption by the Continental Congress and was known to have expressed disillusionment with the Revolution. On this morning, however, anticipating his return to America, Deane was apparently in good spirits. Four hours later, at the age of fifty-two, he was dead. Captain Edward Davis docked the ship at Deal, where Deane’s body was interred. . . . On the basis of opinions expressed by seven leading authorities in neurology, toxicology, and pulmonary disease, we can offer a compelling new theory about the death of Silas Deane. His symptoms indicate that for years Deane suffered from a chronic, debilitating disease like tuberculosis but died when he suffered a stroke or some other acute attack. In spite of the circumstantial evidence incriminating [Deane’s personal physician, Dr. Edward] Bancroft, then, stronger medical evidence has shown that it is highly improbable that Bancroft did indeed commit this “crowning infamy.” [23] Whatever the ultimate judgment of history as to how he died, Silas Deane is assured of one thing— vindication, at least partially. In 1835, years after Deane’s death, his granddaughter and heir, Philura Deane Alden, and her husband, Horatio Alden, asked Congress for a hearing into the allegations against Deane, and for recompense

274

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

for the payment alleged to be owed to him. In 1842, after seven years of investigating, the congressional committee found that Deane’s estate should be paid $37,000, and they concluded that Arthur Lee had committed “ex parte, erroneous and a gross injustice to Silas Deane.”

Manuscripts” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; 34 volumes, 1904-37), XI:417-18. [12] Ibid., XI:495. [13] Isaacson, Walter, “Benjamin Franklin: An American Life” (New York: Simon & Schuster, 2003), 331. [14] Boyd, Julian P., “Silas Deane: Death by a Kindly Teacher of Treason?,” The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, XVI: 4 (October 1959), 515. [15] Jefferson to John Jay, 3 August 1788, in “The Writings of Thomas Jefferson. Monticello Edition, Containing his Autobiography, Notes on Virginia, Parliamentary Manual, Official Papers, Messages and Addresses, and Other Writings, Official and Private, Now Collected and Published in Their Entirety for the First Time, Including All of the Original Manuscripts, Deposited in the Department of State and Published in 1853 by Order of the Joint Committee of Congress; with Numerous Illustrations and a Comprehensive Analytical Index. Andrew A. Lipscomb, Chairman Board of Governors, Ed.-in-Chief. Albert Ellery Bergh, Managing Editor” (Washington, DC: Issued under the Auspices of The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association of the United States; twenty volumes, 1903-04), VII:109-10. [16] “Paris Papers; or Mr. Silas Deane’s Late Intercepted Letters, to his Brothers, and other Intimate Friends, in America. To Which are Annexed for Comparison, the Congressional Declaration of Independency in July 1776, and That Now Inculating [sic] among the Revolted Provinces, with the Never-to-be-Forgotten Orders of the Rebel General in August 1776, for Preventing a Pacification” (New-York: Re-printed by James Rivington, 1782). [17] See “Extracts from a Letter Written to the President of Congress, by the Honorable Arthur Lee, Esquire, in Answer to a Libel Published in the Pennsylvania Gazette of the Fifth of December, 1778, by Silas Deane, Esquire. In Which Every Charge or Insinuation Against Him in That Libel, is Fully and Clearly Refuted” (Philadelphia: Printed by Francis Bailey, 1780). [18] “Cato” to Francis Bailey, undated, in “The Deane Papers” in “Collections of the New York Historical Society for the Year 1890. Publication Fund Series” (New York: Printed for the Society, 1891), V:2. [19] “Mr. Deane’s Narrative” in “Papers in Relation to the Case of Silas Deane. Now Published from the Original Manuscripts” (Philadelphia: Printed for the Seventy-Six Society, 1855), 17-18. [20] “Letter of Silas Deane to John Hancock, 1778,” The NewEngland Historical and Genealogical Register, XVII:1 (January 1863), 54. [21] Jefferson to James Madison, 28 August 1789, in Julian P. Boyd, ed., “The Papers of Thomas Jefferson” (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 35 volumes, 1950- ), XV:368. [22] Cohen, Sheldon, “Samuel Peters Comments on the Death of Silas Deane,” The New England Quarterly, XL:3 (September 1967), 428-29. [23] Anderson, Dennis Kent and Godfrey Tryggve Anderson, “The Death of Silas Deane: Another Opinion,” The New England Quarterly, LVII:1 (March 1984), 98, 105. [24] Stillé, Charles J., “Silas Deane, Diplomatist of the Revolution,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, XVIII:3 (1894), 273.

In 1894, in discussing the life and services of Silas Deane, historian Charles J. Stillé explained, “Two men in the history of the American Revolution are alike conspicuous for the services which they rendered to their country during the struggle and for the ignominious end which they reached. They were both among the most active and useful of our public servants during the darkest days of the struggle, but they are remembered now only as outcasts and traitors to the cause which, in their earlier days, they upheld with so much zeal and courage. Their services in their better days are either forgotten or ignored, and their memory is kept alive in the present generation only because history has branded their names with indelible infamy.” One of these men, Stillé wrote, is Benedict Arnold, still reviled more than 200 years after his assistance to the enemies of his native land. The other, he penned, is Silas Deane. [24] See also: William Carmichael

[1] Grout, Lucy Deane, Edith Severance Gallup, and Myrtie Dean Newton, “Continuation of the Deane Family Historical Records” (Worcester, MA: American Antiquarian Society, 2004). [2] Deane family tree, online at http://www.geni.com/people/ Silas-Deane/6000000009655624647. [3] Hoadley, Charles J., “Silas Deane,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, I:1 (1877), 96. [4] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), I:xli. [5] Deane to Mrs. Deane, 1-3 September 1774, in ibid., I:4. [6] Deane to Mrs. Deane, 5 September 1774, in ibid., I:11. [7] Deane to Mrs. Deane, 9 September 1774, in ibid., I:26. [8] Deane to Mrs. Deane, 19 September 1774, in ibid., I:36. [9] Abernethy, Thomas P., “Commercial Activities of Silas Deane in France,” The American Historical Review, XXXIX:3 April 1934), 477-78. [10] “Letters of Silas Deane,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, XI:2 (July 1887), 199-200. [11] Ford, Worthington C., ed., “Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789. Edited from the Original Records in the Library of Congress by Worthington Chauncey Ford, Chief, Division of

The Declaration of Independence The Declaration of Independence is not just a document in which a people proclaim their independence from their home country; to say that would be to diminish its ultimate

The Declaration of Independence275 importance. It is a list of grievances between old friends; it is compendium of wrongs, real and perceived, done by one to another; it is a cry that oppressive economic measures must end, and can only end, as the drafters and signers say, with this declaration. And while Thomas Jefferson was the ultimate “author” of this document, the declaration was a mélange of thoughts, ideas, and words. One of these “fathers” of the declaration was Thomas Paine, a British-born revolutionary who, once in the colonies, took sides against his native land and chafed for independence from England. In his 1776 work, “Common Sense” (Philadelphia: Printed and Sold by W. and T. Bradford, 1776), Paine called for a “declaration of independence” from England, a move that had not yet taken hold, even in the Continental Congress, where there was still a feeling of possible reconciliation with the “Mother Country.” But Paine knew better; he wrote that it was impossible for the colonies to live in freedom and live under the dictates of the British crown at the same time. Paine’s 1776 work was a part of his “American Crisis” series of pamphlets that he published to address the problems facing the American colonies. Historian Kevin Springman wrote in 1997 that Paine used pseudonyms in some of his later writings as a way to keep himself front and center of the political debate in America. “In 1951 A. Owen Aldridge identified a number of pieces, including an article written by Paine in York, Pennsylvania, on June 10, 1778, and published in The Pennsylvania Gazette on June 13, 1778, signed ‘Common Sense,’ which had not been included in the published canon of Paine’s writings. Similarly, it appears that Paine contributed a letter and associated commentary in the April 25, 1778, ‘Postscript’ edition of The Pennsylvania Packet, published in Lancaster, which has also been overlooked. Addressed to ‘R. L.’ and signed ‘T. P.,’ there is ample evidence to suggest that T. P. is Thomas Paine. The identity of R. L. is somewhat problematic.” [2] Whatever the true nature of Paine’s contribution to the declaration, or even to the American cause in its totality, he is heralded by historians as one of the first men to explain just what “liberty”

is. John Adams, in his diary of the Continental Congress, wrote, “[Delegate Benjamin] Harrison gave us for a sentiment, ‘A constitutional death to the Lords [John Stuart, Third Earl of] Bute, [William Murray, First Earl of] Mansfield, and [Frederick] North.’ Paine gave us, ‘May the collision of British steel and American steel produce that spark of liberty which shall illumine the latest posterity.’” [3] With “Common Sense,” Paine had begun a sort of “national conversation” on whether or not to break all ties to England. Until that time, those advocating full independence were a distinct minority; the “Loyalists,” who wished a reconciliation with London, dubbed them as “radicals.” Paine eagerly donned the mask of this radicalism; after all, he asked, what was “radical” about calling for fundamental civil and economy rights? Paine wrote in “Common Sense”: Men of passive tempers look somewhat lightly over the offences of Britain, and, still hoping for the best, are apt to call out, “come, come, we shall be friends again, for all this.” But examine the passions and feelings of mankind, bring the doctrine of reconciliation to the touchstone of nature, and then tell me, whether you can hereafter love, honor, and faithfully serve the power that hath carried fire and sword into your land? If you cannot do all these, then are you only deceiving yourselves, and by your delay bringing ruin upon your posterity. Your future connexion [sic] with Britain, whom you can neither love nor honor, will be forced and unnatural, and being formed only on the plan of present convenience, will in a little time fall into a relapse more wretched than the first. But if you say, you can still pass the violations over, then I ask, hath your house been burnt? Hath your property been destroyed before your face? Are your wife and children destitute of a bed to lie on, or bread to live on? Have you lost a parent or a child by their hands, and yourself the ruined and wretched survivor? If you have not, then are you not a judge of those who have[?] But if you have, and can still shake hands with the murderers, then are you unworthy [of] the name of husband, father, friend, or lover, and whatever may be your rank or title in life, you have the heart of a coward, and the spirit of a sycophant. [4]

ñ

276

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

The Text of Declaration of Independence

of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

[Just 1,338 words in length, this momentous document was adopted by the delegates in the Continental Congress on 2 July 1776, and announced to the people two days later. Delegates continued to sign it into the following month, and perhaps even longer than that.] IN CONGRESS, July 4, 1776. The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America, When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.—That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,—That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.— Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good. He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them. He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only. He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures. He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people. He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within. He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands. He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers. He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

The Declaration of Independence277 He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harrass our people, and eat out their substance. He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the Consent of our legislatures. He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power. He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution, and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation: For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us: For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States: For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world: For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent: For depriving us in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury: For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies: For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments: For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever. He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us. He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people. He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of

death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty & perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation. He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands. He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions. In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people. Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends. We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain,

278

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent

States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

Signed by ORDER and in BEHALF of the CONGRESS, JOHN HANCOCK, PRESIDENT. Attest, CHARLES THOMSON, SECRETARY. Button Gwinnett

Francis Lightfoot Lee

John Witherspoon

Lyman Hall

Carter Braxton

Francis Hopkinson

George Walton

Robert Morris

John Hart

William Hooper

Benjamin Rush

Abraham Clark

Joseph Hewes

Benjamin Franklin

Josiah Bartlett

John Penn

John Morton

William Whipple

Edward Rutledge

George Clymer

Samuel Adams

Thomas Heyward, Jr.

James Smith

John Adams

Thomas Lynch, Jr.

George Taylor

Robert Treat Paine

Arthur Middleton

James Wilson

Elbridge Gerry

Samuel Chase

George Ross

Stephen Hopkins

William Paca

Caesar Rodney

William Ellery

Thomas Stone

George Read

Charles Carroll of Carrollton

Thomas McKean

George Wythe

William Floyd

Richard Henry Lee

Philip Livingston

Thomas Jefferson

Francis Lewis

Benjamin Harrison

Lewis Morris

Thomas Nelson, Jr.

Richard Stockton

ñ But while Thomas Paine was the initiator behind the movement towards independence, others were involved as well. The Continental Congress

Roger Sherman Samuel Huntington William Williams Oliver Wolcott Matthew Thornton

added to the controversy when, on 10 May 1776, it called on each colony to establish a government independent of the royal governments that had controlled each individual colony since their inception. The Continental Congress stated “[t]hat it be recommended to the respective

The Declaration of Independence279 assemblies and conventions of the United Colonies, where no government sufficient to the exigencies of their affairs have been hitherto established, to adopt such government as shall, in the opinion of the representatives of the people, best conduce to the happiness and safety of their constituents in particular, and America in general.” [5] On the basis of this resolution, on 7 June 1776 delegate Richard Henry Lee rose in the Continental Congress and offered his own resolution, calling for full independence for the colonies. Lee stated, “[t]hat there United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, free and independent States, that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved. That it is expedient forthwith to take the most effectual measures for forming foreign Alliances. That a plan of confederation be prepared and transmitted to the respective Colonies for their consideration and approbation.” [6] Delegate John Adams saw this as a turning point, as he wrote to his wife, Abigail, on 17 May 1776: Great Britain has at last driven America to the last step, a complete separation from her; a total absolute independence, not only of her Parliament, but of her crown, for such is the amount of the resolve of the 15th. Confederation among ourselves, or alliances with foreign nations are not necessary to a perfect separation from Britain. That is effected by extinguishing all authority under the crown, Parliament, and nation, as the resolution for instituting governments has done, to all intents and purposes. Confederation will be necessary for our internal concord, and alliances may be so for our external defence. I have reasons to believe that no colony, which shall assume a government under the people, will give it up. There is something very unnatural and odious in a government a thousand leagues off. A whole government of our own choice, managed by persons whom we love, revere, and can confide in, has charms in it, for which men will fight. [7] Two days of debate followed; the delegates voted to put off further debate until 1 July. Before that could happen, however, a change to the Virginia delegation occurred that would change history

again: US Senator Albert Beveridge, Republican of Indiana, a historian in his own right, wrote in 1926, “The Virginia spokesman was suddenly called home by the serious illness of his wife, and, in his place, a quiet, retiring young man, thirty-three years old, was chosen. He had made careful notes of the great de bates over Lee’s resolution for Independence. His name was Thomas Jefferson.” [8] Jefferson was a classical thinker whose penned works prior to the Declaration of Independence made him one of the America colonies’ greatest minds. In 1774, he had written “A Summary View of the Rights of British America,” which, like the declaration he penned two years later, was more a list of grievances against the Crown than an actual call for independence. In that 1774 document, Jefferson had explained: [T]hat it be an instruction to the said deputies, when assembled in general congress with the deputies from the other states of British America, to propose to the said congress that an humble and dutiful address be presented to his majesty, begging leave to lay before him, as chief magistrate of the British empire, the united complaints of his majesty’s subjects in America; complaints which are excited by many unwarrantable encroachments and usurpations, attempted to be made by the legislature of one part of the empire, upon those rights which God and the laws have given equally and independently to all. To represent to his majesty that these his states have often individually made humble application to his imperial throne to obtain, through its intervention, some redress of their injured rights, to none of which was ever even an answer condescended; humbly to hope that this their joint address, penned in the language of truth, and divested of those expressions of servility which would persuade his majesty that we are asking favours, and not rights, shall obtain from his majesty a more respectful acceptance. [9] Thus, Jefferson based the declaration on this previous document. John Adams agreed that the declaration, especially as Jefferson had written it, was not an original document at all. Adams wrote to Timothy Pickering in 1822, “As you justly observe, there is not an idea in it but what had been hackneyed in Congress

280

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

for two years before. The substance of it is contained in the declaration of rights, and the violation of those rights, in the Journals of Congress, in 1774. Indeed, the essence of it is contained in a pamphlet, voted, and printed by the town of Boston, before the first Congress met, composed by James Otis, as I suppose, in one of his lucid intervals, and pruned and published by Samuel Adams.” [10] In 1825, Jefferson wrote to Henry Lee of his own views of the reason behind the declaration’s wording: “When forced, therefore, to resort to arms for redress, an appeal to the tribunal of the world was deemed proper for our justification. This was the object of the Declaration of Independence.” [11]

corners of the colonies: to political leaders, to military leaders, and to the people. On 9 July, General George Washington, the head of the Continental Army, told his commanding officers that the declaration should be read to the American troops stationed in New York. Other copies from Dunlap made their way across the colonies, and, in one case, wound up in the archives in London, where it was not discovered until the 21st century. All of these original copies, all originating from that order given by John Hancock, are known as “Dunlap Broadsides.”

The declaration was initially given to a committee composed of some of the leading luminaries in the Continental Congress; on 11 June, the delegates appointed Thomas Jefferson, John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, Roger Sherman, and Robert R. Livingston as members of this committee. The group, dubbed “The Committee of Five,” delegated Jefferson to draft much of the language of the declaration. Jefferson’s notes show the differing historical ideas and documents that he utilized to compose the language that he wanted in what he would submit. Jefferson then gave copies of his notes to the members of the committee: first, he went to Adams, then to Benjamin Franklin, and, finally, to the committee as a whole. Each one of these members made various changes to Jefferson’s initial draft, sending him back for a rewrite. Finally, on 28 June 1776, “The Committee of Five” sent the final composition to the delegates of the entire Continental Congress for an up-or-down vote. This came 2 July; however, the delegates had additional changes in mind for the final document—39 in all. When Jefferson had incorporated all of these corrections into what he had submitted, the Continental Congress voted to approve it. The delegates then ordered that the declaration be sent to an official printer, and, on the 4 July, that printer, John Dunlap, sent the first official printings to the members of the Continental Congress. It was not until the next day, 5 July, that John Hancock, the president of the Continental Congress, ordered that copies sent from Dunlap be dispatched to all

The declaration came at a time that America, or what would become America, was at war, with a foreign enemy. But it was also at war with itself, although it hardly knew it. The war was over slavery, and whether or not it would be banned in the new country. Jefferson, a slave owner himself—anywhere from one-third to one-half of the signers of the Declaration of Independence owned slaves or indentured servants who were black—eagerly sought to write a ban of the practice into the declaration, but he was stymied by the southern delegates to the Continental Congress, as well as to deference of the northern colonies to the need for slave labor to make the colonial economy run. Historian Henry Leffmann wrote in 1923, “It is well known that Jefferson inserted into the written Declaration a clause condemning slavery, which was stricken out. He says that this was due principally to the efforts of South Carolina and Georgia, but adds ‘our Northern brethren, also, I believe, felt a little tender under these circumstances, for tho’ these people have very few slaves themselves, they have been pretty considerable carriers of them to others.” [12] Unable to reform the laws on slavery—the rights of women were never even broached at the Continental Congress—Jefferson drafted a document that called for human rights and for rights under God, but in effect had no support for them. Instead, he fashioned a protest letter mixed with a discussion of the rights of man. Historian Sydney George Fisher wrote in 1907, “The Declaration of Independence consists roughly of two parts. The first part may be described as composed of the two or three opening paragraphs which set forth with much eloquence the right of revolution and the

The Declaration of Independence281 doctrine of political equality and other rights of men, as they were called, which have become the foundation principles of our American life. The second and much longer part is the rest of the document devoted to the twenty-eight charges against the King . . . But when we know in some detail the facts and circumstances which underlie the Twenty-eight Charges they are fully as interesting as the general reasoning about the rights of man and they contain a condensed history of the revolutionary movement up to the year 1776.” [13]

Declaration, he did not believe that declaring a complete break from England was a wise course, and he never signed the document.

Jefferson took copious notes of how he drafted the declaration; he also wrote of the deliberations in the Continental Congress on the final language of his document. In his official papers is a multipage collection of notes, in which he gives the reader a first-hand view of what happened once his declaration was submitted to the delegates:

The two delegates to the Continental Congress who were the youngest signers were both from South Carolina: they were Thomas Lynch, Jr. and Edward Rutledge. Both men had been born in 1749 and were only 26 years old when they applied their signatures to this momentous document and ensured their places in history.

Congress proceeded the same day to consider the Declaration of Independence, which had been reported and lain on the table the Friday preceding, and on Monday referred to a committee of the whole. The pusillanimous idea that we had friends in England worth keeping terms with, still haunted the minds of many. For this reason, those passages which conveyed censures on the people of England were struck out, lest they should give them offence. The clause too, reprobating the enslaving the inhabitants of Africa, was struck out in complaisance to South Carolina and Georgia, who had never attempted to restrain the importation of slaves, and who, on the contrary, still wished to continue it. Our northern brethren also, I believe, felt a little tender under those censures; for though their people had very few slaves themselves, yet they had been pretty considerable carriers of them to others. The debates, having taken up the greater parts of the 2d, 3d, and 4th days of July, were, on the evening of the last, closed; the Declaration was reported by the committee, agreed to by the House, and signed by every member present, except Mr. Dickinson. [14]

Nine of the 56 men who signed the declaration did not live to see the end of the American Revolution in 1783.

The oldest signer was Benjamin Franklin, who, having been born in 1706, was 70 when he applied his name to the declaration. Franklin would live another 14 years, serving as a member of the commission which helped to draft a treaty of peace with England, and as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention in 1788.

Two of the signers—John Adams and Thomas Jefferson—would go on to serve the new nation as president of the United States. The declaration was not signed on 4 July 1776; instead, signers began applying their names starting in August 1776, until all states had agreed to the document and had their representatives in the Continental Congress sign it. These last signers include Elbridge Gerry, Thomas McKean, Lewis Morris, Matthew Thornton, and Oliver Wolcott. McKean, of Delaware, was serving in his colony’s militia, and did not sign until long after the others; sources list dates as wide as 1777 to 1781 when he finally put his name to the document.

Facts About the Declaration of Independence

Although the document was allegedly written in the hand of Charles Thomson, the secretary of the Continental Congress, it was actually prepared by Thomson’s assistant, Timothy Matlack on Pennsylvania, who engrossed the document onto fine parchment. An “engrosser” is a handwriting expert who prepares official documents for signing.

Although Robert Livingston served on the committee that ultimately drafted the

The document containing the signatures measures 24¼ inches by 29¾ inches.

ñ

282

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Delaware delegate Caesar Rodney, despite suffering debilitating pain from asthma, and from the recent removal of a malignant tumor from his face, rode from Annapolis to Philadelphia to sign the declaration, both for himself and for his state, riding through severe rain and thunderstorms. Although a delegate to the Continental Congress, Rodney was also the head of his colony’s militia. In 1999, as part of its quarter coin program, Delaware put an image of Rodney on a horse, to represent the state and honor him and his incredible deed.

slave owner, as were about one-third to one-half of all of the signers.

Signer Charles Carroll of Carrollton, a delegate from Maryland, was the only Catholic to sign the declaration. He signed not only his name, but “Charles Carroll of Carrollton,” so that if punishment came to any of the signers, it would not go to someone with a similar name. Signer Stephen Hopkins, a delegate from Rhode Island, was 69 years old—a year younger than Benjamin Franklin—and a Quaker. He felt that the declaration would end the war quickly. As he signed the declaration, he said, “My hand trembles, but my heart does not.” Two brothers from Virginia—Francis Lightfoot Lee and Richard Henry Lee—signed. Another delegate from Virginia, George Wythe, had been a teacher to James Monroe and Thomas Jefferson when they were young. In 1806, Wythe was murdered by his nephew. John Trumbull’s famous painting of the signing of the declaration is a composite; many of those portrayed in the painting were not in the same room at the same time. It is only contemporary image that we have of the declaration’s signing, and hangs today in the Rotunda of the Capitol Building in Washington, D.C. 24 of the 56 signers had formal legal training and/or education in the law. 11 of the 56 signers were important colonial merchants who owned large estates and/or plantations. In his original draft of the declaration, Thomas Jefferson included a paragraph that condemned King George III for “allowing” slavery in the colonies even though Jefferson himself was a

Twelve of the signers saw their homes ransacked or destroyed by the British during the course of the war, including John De Hart of New Jersey, and Thomas Nelson, Jr. of Virginia. An unknown handprint appears on the bottom left corner of the Declaration of Independence; attempts to identify it, without harming the original document or the parchment, have proved fruitless.

ñ Reaction to the declaration was varied. The Connecticut Journal of New Haven published the entire declaration on the second page of its edition of 17 July without editorial comment; however, on its first page, was a story from New York that heralded, “On Wednesday the Congress’s [sic] Declaration of the Independence of the United States of America, was read at the Head of each Brigade o the Continental Army posted in and near this City, and every where received with the utmost Demonstrations of Joy. The same Evening the Equestrian Statue of George III, erected in the Year 1770, was thrown from its Pedestal and broken in Pieces; and we hea [sic] the Lead wherewith this monument was made, is to be run [turned] into Bullets.” [15] The Pennsylvania Packet of Philadelphia, headlining a story from Boston, reported, “Thursday last, pursuant to an order of the Honorable Council, was proclaimed from the Balcony of the State-House in this town, the Declaration of the American Congress, absolving the United Colonies from their allegiance to the British Crown, and declaring them Free and Independent States. There were present on the occasion, in the Council Chamber, the Committee of Council, a number of the Honorable House of Representatives, the Magistrates, Ministers, Selectmen, and other Gentlemen of Boston and the neighboring towns . . . ” [16] The Freeman’s Journal of Portsmouth, New Hampshire, editorialized, “Let us break their slavish bands asunder and cast their cords from us: These words of the psalmist; as used and utter’d by the heathen

The Declaration of Independence283 nations against the Almighty and his laws, are replete with the greatest impiety and rebellion; but are most religiously sanctified by being made the motto of as pious, once loyal, and oppress’d a people, as the earth ever bred and sustain’d. It is now (I think) [a] matter of suspence and consideration, whether this country shall become independent of GreatBritain or not; but with humble submission to better judgments; the enquiry is absurd; since actions speak louder than words, ten thousand of which have already been proclaim’d, our most absolute independence of her: so that the thing now to be examin’d, is, whether it be best to remain in that state, or again to become dependent. Let us give this subject a fair hearing.” [17] The New York Journal reported that “[t]he State of Rhode Island, and Providence Plantation, have Voted and Resolved, That if any person within the State shall, under pretense of preaching, or praying, or in any other way and manner whatever, acknowledge, or declare George the 3d king [sic] of Great Britain, to be their rightful Lord and Sovereign, or shall pray for the success of his arms, or that he may vanquish or overcome all his enemies, shall be deemed guilty of a high misdemeanor—and upon conviction thereof shall forfeit and pay to that State, the sum of One Hundred Pounds, lawful money, and pay costs of prosecution.” [18] The British did not take the news of the declaration’s announcement well. The Howe brothers—Richard, Viscount Howe, and his brother, General William Howe, the head of British forces in America, penned an open letter to the people, which was distributed via handbill in New York and in other places where the British controlled the ground. Their own “declaration” read: “Although the Congress, whom the misguided Americans suffer to direct their opposition to a re-establishment of the constitutional government of these provinces, have disavowed every purpose of reconciliation, not consonant with their extravagant and inadmissable claim of independency, the King’s Commissioners think fit to declare, that they are equally desirous to confer with his Majesty’s well affected subjects, upon the means of re[s] toring the public tranquility, and establishing

a permanent union with every Colony, as a part of the British Empire.” [19] Newspapers in Britain, to a large degree, merely reported the declaration without editorializing. [20] The declaration was printed in the colonies in newspapers, and was also originally printed in German. Historian Karl Arndt wrote in 1985 that previous research had shown that the first German printing of the declaration had been on 9 July—but that this was in error: The document, now in the special collections section of the Gettysburg College library, is a broadside measuring 16 inches by 12¾ inches, on ordinary laid paper without watermark, slightly damaged at the center through inept repair but clearly legible. At the bottom center it has the imprint, “Philadelphia: Gedruckt bey Steiner und Cist, in der Zweyten-strasse.” The document was discovered by Werner Tannhof, a bibliographer from the University of Göttingen working for the Seidensticker project, with the help of Nancy Scott, Gettysburg College special collections librarian. At first glance a comparison of this document with Henrich Miller’s well-known printing on July 9th3 shows great similarity, but a closer examination proves that the two printings are from different typesettings from different fonts. [21] In addition to a German printing, the declaration was printed in Hebrew as well. As a matter of pride, in 1948, when the Jewish state of Israel was formed, it based its founding document in large part on the thoughts and words embodied in the Declaration of Independence. [22] In 1825, as he neared the end of his life, Thomas Jefferson reminisced about the document he had fashioned that had changed human history. In a letter to Dr. James Mease, Jefferson explained, “It is not for me to estimate the importance of the circumstances concerning which your letter of the 8th makes inquiry. They prove, even in their minuteness, the sacred attachments of our fellow citizens to the event of which the paper of July 4th, 1776, was but the declaration, the genuine effusion of the soul of our country at that time. Small things may, perhaps, like the relics of saints, help to nourish our devotion to this holy bond of our Union, and keep it longer alive and warm in our affections.” [23]

284

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses The Signers of the Declaration of Independence, By Colony

Connecticut: Samuel Huntington Roger Sherman William Williams Oliver Wolcott Delaware: George Read Caesar Rodney Thomas McKean Georgia: Button Gwinnett Lyman Hall George Walton Maryland: Charles Carroll Samuel Chase Thomas Stone William Paca Massachusetts: John Adams Samuel Adams John Hancock Robert Treat Paine Elbridge Gerry

New Hampshire: Josiah Bartlett William Whipple Matthew Thornton New Jersey: Abraham Clark John Hart Francis Hopkinson Richard Stockton John Witherspoon New York: Lewis Morris Philip Livingston Francis Lewis William Floyd North Carolina: William Hooper John Penn Joseph Hewes Pennsylvania: George Clymer Benjamin Franklin Robert Morris John Morton

Benjamin Rush George Ross James Smith James Wilson George Taylor Rhode Island: Stephen Hopkins William Ellery South Carolina: Edward Rutledge Arthur Middleton Thomas Lynch, Jr. Thomas Heyward, Jr. Virginia: Richard Henry Lee Francis Lightfoot Lee Carter Braxton Benjamin Harrison Thomas Jefferson George Wythe Thomas Nelson, Jr.

The Signers of the Declaration of Independence, By Name John Adams John Hancock Thomas Lynch, Jr. Samuel Adams Benjamin Harrison Thomas McKean Josiah Bartlett John Hart Arthur Middleton Carter Braxton Joseph Hewes Lewis Morris Charles Carroll of Carrollton Thomas Heyward, Jr. Robert Morris Samuel Chase William Hooper John Morton Abraham Clark Stephen Hopkins Thomas Nelson, Jr. George Clymer Francis Hopkinson William Paca William Ellery Samuel Huntington Robert Treat Paine Benjamin Franklin Thomas Jefferson John Penn William Floyd Francis Lightfoot Lee George Read Elbridge Gerry Richard Henry Lee Caesar Rodney Button Gwinnett Francis Lewis George Ross Lyman Hall Philip Livingston Benjamin Rush Edward Rutledge George Taylor James Wilson Roger Sherman Matthew Thornton John Witherspoon James Smith George Walton Oliver Wolcott Richard Stockton William Whipple George Wythe Thomas Stone William Williams

The Declaration of Independence285 Signers of the Declaration, By Birthplace John Adams Massachusetts Arthur Middleton South Carolina Samuel Adams Massachusetts Lewis Morris New York New Hampshire Robert Morris England Josiah Bartlett Carter Braxton Virginia John Morton Delaware Charles Carroll Carrollton Maryland Thomas Nelson Virginia Samuel Chase Maryland William Paca Maryland Abraham Clark New Jersey Robert Treat Paine Massachusetts George Clymer Pennsylvania John Penn Virginia John De Hart New Jersey George Read Maryland William Ellery Caesar Rodney Rhode Island Delaware George Ross Delaware William Floyd New York [1] Benjamin Franklin Massachusetts Benjamin Rush Pennsylvania Massachusetts Edward Rutledge South Carolina Elbridge Gerry England Roger Sherman Massachusetts Button Gwinnett Lyman Hall Connecticut James Smith Ireland Massachusetts Richard Stockton New Jersey John Hancock Virginia Thomas Stone Maryland Benjamin Harrison New Jersey Ireland Joseph Hawes George Taylor Thomas Hayward South Carolina Ireland Matthew Thornton William Hooper Massachusetts George Walton Virginia Stephen Hopkins Rhode Island Maine William Whipple Francis Hopkinson Pennsylvania William Williams Connecticut Connecticut James Wilson Scotland Samuel Huntington Thomas Jefferson Virginia John Witherspoon Scotland Francis Lightfoot Lee Virginia Oliver Wolcott Connecticut Virginia George Wythe Virginia Richard Henry Lee Francis Lewis Wales [1] Floyd was actually born on New York’s Long Island. Philip Livingston New York Thomas Lynch South Carolina Thomas McKean Pennsylvania On the 46th anniversary of the signing of the declaration, in 1822, the magazine The Genius of Universal Emancipation wrote, “The 4th of July, 1776, was the memorable period when the people of the United States, wearied with the wrongs and insults heaped upon them, by the British government, resolved to throw off their allegiance to it, and to establish within their borders, the empire of justice, liberty and law. Forty-six years have now passed away since they issued through their representatives in Congress that most

important declaration, which has been heard in every nook and corner of the civilized world; has been admired by millions; and by some is hailed as the day star of political regeneration for the whole family of nations existing on the terraqueous globe.” [24] In August 1826, following the deaths on the same day of Jefferson and Adams, Daniel Webster, one of the greatest orators of the 19th century, spoke at Faneuil Hall in Boston, in which he

286

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

remarked about the incredible document that is the Declaration of Independence. He said:

[7] John Adams to Abigail Adams, 17 May 1776, in Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” ­(Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), I:453. [8] Beveridge, Albert J., “Sources of the Declaration of Independence,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, L:4 (1926), 291. [9] [Jefferson, Thomas], “A Summary View of the Rights of British America. Set Forth in Some Resolutions, Intended for the ­Inspection of the Present Delegates of the People of Virginia, Now in Convention. By a Native and Member of the House of Burgesses” ­(Williamsburg, VA: Printed by Clementina Rind; reprinted, London: Reprinted for G. Kearsly, at No. 46, near Serjeants Inn, at Fleet Street, 1774), 4-5. [10] John Adams to Timothy Pickering, 6 August 1822, in Charles Francis Adams, “The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States: With a Life of the Author, Notes and Illustrations” (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown; two volumes, 1850), II:512-14. [11] Thomas Jefferson to Henry Lee, 8 May 1825, in Paul Leicester Ford, ed., “The Writings of Thomas Jefferson: Collected and Edited by Paul Leicester Ford” (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons; ten volumes, 1892-99), X:343. [12] Leffmann, Henry “The Real Declaration of Independence: A Study of Colonial History Under a Modern Theory,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, XLVII:4 (1923), 288-29. For a more involved discussion of the slavery issue, see Schlobohm, Dietrich Hana, “The Declaration of Independence and Negro Slavery: 1776-1876” (Ph.D. dissertation, Michigan State University, 1970). [13] Fisher, George Sydney, “The Twenty-Eight Charges against the King in the Declaration of Independence,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, XXXI:3 (1907), 257-58. [14] “Jefferson’s Notes on the Declaration of Independence” in “The Writings of Thomas Jefferson. Monticello Edition, Containing his Autobiography, Notes on Virginia, Parliamentary Manual, Official Papers, Messages and Addresses, and Other Writings, Official and Private, Now Collected and Published in Their Entirety for the First Time, Including All of the Original Manuscripts, Deposited in the Department of State and Published in 1853 by Order of the Joint Committee of Congress; with Numerous Illustrations and a Comprehensive Analytical Index. Andrew A. Lipscomb, Chairman Board of Governors, Ed.-in-Chief. Albert Ellery Bergh, Managing Editor” (Washington, DC: Issued under the Auspices of The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association of the United States; twenty volumes, 1903-04), I:28-30. [15] “New-York, July 15,” The Connecticut Journal [New Haven], 17 July 1776, 1. [16] “Boston, July 25,” Dunlap’s Pennsylvania Packet, or, The General Advertiser [Philadelphia], 5 August 1776, 2. [17] “To the Public,” The Freeman’s Journal, or New-Hampshire Gazette [Portsmouth], 6 July 1776, 1. [18] “New-Haven, July 31,” The New-York Journal; or, General Advertiser, Containing the Freshest Advices, both Foreign and Domestic, 8 August 1776, 2. [19] “Philadelphia, October 2,” The New-England Chronicle [Boston], 17 October 1776, 2. [20] For instance, see The Glocester Journal, 19 August 1776, 3. As well as The London Chronicle, 15-17 August 1776, 164. [21] Arndt, Karl J.R., “The First Translation and Printing in German of the American Declaration of Independence,” Monatshefte, LXXVII:2 (Summer 1985), 138. [22] For a history of this translation, see Troen, S. Ilan, “The Hebrew Translation of the Declaration of Independence,” The Journal of American History, LXXXV:4 (March 1999), 1380-84.

It has sometimes been said, as if it were a derogation from the merits of this paper, that it contains nothing new; that it only states grounds of proceedings, and presses topics of argument, which had often been stated and pressed before. But it was not the object of the Declaration to produce anything new. It was not to invent reasons for independence, but to state those which governed the Congress. For great and sufficient causes, it was proposed to declare independence; and the proper business of the paper to be drawn, was to set forth those causes, and justify the authors of the measure, in any event of fortune, to the country and to posterity. The cause of American independence, moreover, was now to be presented to the world, in such manner, if it might so be, as to engage its sympathy, to command its respect, to attract its admiration; and in an assembly of most able and distinguished men, Thomas Jefferson had the high honor of being the selected advocate of this cause. To say that he performed his great work well, would be doing him injustice. To say that he did excellently well, admirably well, would be inadequate and halting praise. Let us rather say, that he so discharged the duty assigned him, that all Americans may well rejoice that the work of drawing the titledeed of their liberties devolved upon him. [25] See also: John Adams; Thomas Jefferson; Richard Henry Lee; The Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence; Thomas Paine

[2] Springman, Kevin T., “Notes and Documents: Thomas Paine’s Response to Lord North’s Speech on the British Peace Proposals,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, CXXI:4 (October 1997), 351-52. [3] “Diary of John Adams” in Charles Francis Adams, “The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States: With a Life of the Author, Notes and Illustrations” (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown; two volumes, 1850), II:363. [4] Excerpt from “Common Sense” in “The Political Writings of Thomas Paine, Secretary to the Committee of Foreign Affairs in the American Revolution. To Which is Prefixed a Brief Sketch of the Author’s Life. In Two Volumes” (Charlestown, MA: Printed and Published by George Davidson; two volumes, 1824), I:38-39. [5] Ford, Worthington C., ed., “Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789. Edited from the Original Records in the Library of Congress by Worthington Chauncey Ford, Chief, Division of Manuscripts” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; 34 volumes, 1904-37), IV:342. [6] Lee resolution, 7 June 1776, in “Journals of the Continental Congress,” op. cit., V:425-26.

John De Hart (1728–1795)287 [23] Thomas Jefferson to Dr. James Mease, 26 September 1825, in Paul Leicester Ford, coll. and ed., “The Works of Thomas Jefferson: Federal Edition. Published in Twelve Volumes” (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons; 12 volumes, 1904), XII:413. [24] “Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence,” The Genius of Universal Emancipation. A Monthly Paper, Containing Original Essays and Selections, on the Subject of African Slavery, II:4-5. [25] Speech of Daniel Webster, 2 August 1826, quoted in William F. Dana, “The Declaration of Independence,” Harvard Law Review, XIII:5 (January 1900), 322-23.

John De Hart (1728–1795)

Stuyvestant, quite possibly a close relation of Peter Stuyvestant, the founder of New York. [1] According to his official congressional biography, he completed preparatory studies— usually the study of languages, English, classical literature, etc.—and then studied the law before he was admitted to the New Jersey colonial bar and opened a law practice, quite possibly in Elizabethtown, earning the title of “sergeant-atlaw” in September 1770. [2] From the start of the controversies with Great Britain over that country’s harsh economic measures enacted against the colonies, De Hart was one of New Jersey’s leaders in siding with the patriot cause. A study of the minutes of the New Jersey Provisional Congress and the Council of Safety for that colony from 1774 shows De Hart’s name all over the documents that formed the first revolutionary councils. For instance, a “call for [the] Essex County Meeting,” 7 June 1774, is co-signed by both De Hart and Isaac Ogden; as well, a “Commission of Delegates for New Jersey to [the] Continental Congress at Philadelphia, September 5, 1774,” is also signed by De Hart. [3] In October 1774, the Continental Congress, formed among all of the colonies and held in Philadelphia, enacted “Articles of Association,” a paper expressing, on behalf of the colonists and the colonies, their outrage at the economic measures as well as the fighting launched in Massachusetts that same year. John De Hart was one of the signers in New Jersey of this document. [4]

De Hart served as a delegate to the Continental Congress from 1774 to 1776. He was born in Elizabethtown (now Elizabeth), in Union County, New Jersey, in 1728, the son, and one of four children—two sons and two daughters— of Colonel Jacob De Hart (1699-1777) and his wife, Abigail (nee Crane) De Hart, who some histories show was approximately three years her husband’s senior. John De Hart’s father was the named Jacob; Jacob was descended from his father, Matthias DeHart (the spelling of the last name varies depending on the source), a sea captain; and Matthias was the son of Balthazar DeHaert (c. 1633-c.1672), a Dutchman whose “partner” is listed as being Margritie

Perhaps because of his stand against the British Crown even before he signed the “Articles of Association,” De Hart was considered a leading light among the patriots in his colony. On 23 July 1774, the New Jersey General Assembly elected him to a seat in that First Continental Congress; he was subsequently reelected on 24 January 1775 and 14 February 1776, serving from 5 September to 26 October 1774, 10 May to about 2 August 1775, about 13 September to sometime in November 1775, and from about 30 March to sometime in April 1776, and then from sometime in April to sometime in June 1776. Historian Edmund Cody Burnett wrote of De Hart’s attendance at the Continental Congress: Except for his attendance on the opening day (May 1o) and his signature to the second petition to

288

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

the king (July 8), there is no record of De Hart’s attendance prior to the adjournment, August 2, 1775. The only day in the autumn on which any record of his presence has been found is September 25; if however he had retired prior to Oct. 1, Richard Smith would probably have made note of it. His signature is not appended to the resolution of secrecy, November 9, 1775, therefore he had doubtless withdrawn before that date. He resigned November 3. In 1776 the first record in the Journals is of a committee appointment Apr. 1, but he probably attended the day Richard Smith retired (March 30). He appears to have been absent for a short period in April. The last record in the Journals is May 18. He resigned June 13. [5]

for Massachusetts; Stephen Hopkins and Samuel Ward for Rhode Island; Eliphalet Dyer and Roger Sherman for Connecticut; James Duane and John Jay for New York; William Livingston and John De Hart for New Jersey, Joseph Galloway and Edward Biddle for Pennsylvania; Caesar Rodney and Thomas McKean for Delaware; Thomas Johnson and Robert Goldsborough for Maryland; Richard Henry Lee and Edmund Pendleton for Virginia; Thomas Lynch and John Rutledge for South Carolina); 1:31, for William Hooper and Joseph Hewes, the North Carolina delegates; and 1:41 for the final three: Thomas Cushing (Massachusetts), Patrick Henry (Virginia), and Thomas Mifflin (Pennsylvania). [6]

Historian Neil York wrote on the business of the Continental Congress on its first day:

While there does not appear to be correspondence from De Hart during his Continental Congress service, there are notices of his time there: most importantly is that from fellow New Jersey delegate Richard Smith, who wrote in his diary on 25 September 1775: “Monday 25. De Hart moved to restrict all Conventions and Assemblies from issuing any more Paper Money and to recall what they have done without Permission from hence, he was not seconded. On reading Wilson and Morris’s Letters and other Papers Willing moved that the Congress would interfere in settling a temporary Line between Virginia and Pennyslvania. a letter was read from the Delegates of those Two Colonies to the Inhabitants recomm’g Peace etc. several Orders of the King in Council Dated in June last relative to this Line were read.” [7]

Division came quickly enough when Congress opened on September 5. Those wanting each colony to have one vote prevailed over those who wanted representation to be based on “the respective importance of each Colony.” Putting those differences aside rather than truly resolving them the delegates moved on to what they deemed a more pressing matter, unanimously approving on September 6 a resolution that a committee be appointed to “state the rights of the Colonies in general, the several instances in which these rights are violated or infringed, and the means most proper to be pursued for obtaining a restoration of them.” Congress then decided by “a great majority’ rather than unanimously that the committee be composed of two men from each of the delegations and the members were named the next day. Geographical representation took precedence over any presumed expertise on constitutional issues, with twenty-two men? effectively half of the forty-five delegates then present from eleven provinces? On just this one committee. Because Rhode Island and New Hampshire had only two delegates apiece their entire delegations sat on the committee. Two more members were added to the group on September 14 when the North Carolina delegates finally arrived. The committee expanded yet again on September 19 when three members, including Patrick Henry of Virginia, joined them from another committee (on trade and manufactures). Both Adamses were present from the beginning, as were Joseph Galloway of Pennsylvania and Stephen Hopkins of Rhode Island who presided as chair.” . . . for the “majority” and original membership (John Sullivan and Nathaniel Folsom for New Hampshire; Samuel and John Adams

After his service in the Continental Congress ended, De Hart came home to New Jersey, helping to prepare the draft of the bill that eventually became the new New Jersey state Constitution when enacted in June 1776. That September, De Hart was elected as the chief justice of the new New Jersey state Supreme Court, and he served in this position from September 1776 to February 1777, when he resigned. In 1789, he was elected as the mayor of Elizabethtown under a revised charter, and he remained in that position until his death. De Hart died in Elizabethtown, New Jersey, on 1 June 1795, either at age 66 or 67. He was buried in St. John’s Churchyard in Elizabethtown. The New York Magazine of June 1795 reported that he had “Died, [i]n New-Jersey, At ElizabethTown [sic], John De Hart, Esq; Mayor of that

Charles DeWitt (1727–1787)289 borough, and many years an eminent Counsellor at the bar.” [8]

[1] Riker, David M., “The DeHart Family. Some of the Descendants of Balthazar de Haert, a Merchant of Early New York” (Mechanicsburg, PA: Privately Printed, 1980), 27. [2] De Hart official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=D000199. [3] “Minutes of the Provisional Congress and the Council of Safety of the State of New Jersey” (Trenton, NJ: Printed by Naar, Day & Naar, 1879), 6, 30. [4] Wolf, Edwin, “The Authorship of the 1774 Address to the King Restudied,” The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, XXII:2 (April 1965), 189-224. [5] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), I:l. [6] York, Neil L., “The First Continental Congress and the Problem of American Rights,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, CXXII:4 (October 1998), 358-59. [7] “Richard Smith, Diary,” entry for 25 September 1775, in ibid., I:206. [8] “In New-Jersey,” The New-York Magazine; or Literary Repository (June 1795), 384.

Charles DeWitt (1727–1787)

A delegate from New York, Charles DeWitt gave lengthy service to his colony and state, as a delegate to the colonial assembly, to the Provincial Convention (1775), as a delegate to the Provisional Congress that approved the Declaration of Independence, and, later, as a delegate to the Continental Congress (1784). He was also the editor of a New York State newspaper.

He was born in Kingston, in Ulster County, New York, in 1727. His parents, according to several genealogical websites, were Johannes DeWitt and Mary (née Brodhead) DeWitt. [1] Johannes and Mary DeWitt had four children, two sons and two daughters, with Charles being the second oldest. [2] According to his official congressional biography, DeWitt pursued classical studies—usually the study of languages, of English, and mathematics. In 1768 he became a member of the New York colonial assembly, having already served as a colonel of the colonial militia. He served in the Assembly until 1776, during which he sided with the patriot cause against England This period began a series of positions in which he aided in the establishment of the new American nation, including as a delegate to the New York Provisional Convention (1775), as a member of the Provisional Congress (1775-77) which, during his service, approved the Declaration of Independence, as a member of the Constitutional committee (1776), and as a member of the Committee of Safety (1777). [3] DeWitt was elected to the Continental Congress in February 1784, sitting in that body from New York from February 1784 until October of that same year. Robert Morris, the economic “brains” behind the American Revolution, wrote in his diary for 16 March 1784, “Mr. DeWitt a Member of Congress from the State of New York[,] [appeared in Congress].” [4] According to historian Edmund Cody Burnett, DeWitt was elected on 3 February 1784 “for the ensuing year,” and that he attended sessions from 27 March to 4 June of that same year. Burnett added that “DeWitt was the New York member of the Committee of the States but attended only the first session, June 4.” [5] There are, incredibly, several pieces of correspondence from DeWitt during his service in the Continental Congress. For instance, he apparently wrote several letters to Governor George Clinton to keep him informed as to the in the Congress: Congress having Resolved to Adjourn on the 3d of June next to Trentown [sic] and to appoint a Committee to sit in the recess thereof, it may perhaps be thought unnecessary for the Delegates at Home to come, but this is not the case. General McDougall has promised in the most positive terms to be here

290

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

by the First of June. I shall therefore propose in Congress that he be appointed the Member of the Committee, from our State. I proposed it to Mr. Paine the other Day, on which he replied that he did not believe that General McDougall would come. From this and other circumstances it appears to me that it would suit him to stay, but I hope not. I shall write General McDougall by the next Post and put him in mind of his positive promise to me in New York, which I expect he will perform. If any documents to Prove that the United States took the Bells belonging to the City of New York can be produced, I wish they may be sent, in order to save the expence of transportation from Carlisle, if the Corporation Should think it an object worthy of an application to Congress. [6]

System to take that Country from us. Massachusets Delegates have put in a petition Yesterday From the Legislature of that state setting forth that New York is possessed of a part of their Land and requested a Court agreeably to the Confederation for a Decision etc. I shall bring with me a Copy thereof, but my fears are not so great from this quarter than from a quarter which I do not know how to name, I shall postpone it to a future Day. [8]

DeWitt also informed noted New York politician Robert R. Livingston of matters happening, as the Continental Congress assembled not in Philadelphia, but in Annapolis, Maryland: “Inclosed you have an extract of a letter of Mr. Franklin by which you will find that our old Friend Mr. Jay is by this time on his way to America: in consequence of which, Congress did on Fryday last appoint him, Secretary of Foreign affairs, and in his room Mr. Jefferson a Minister. These appointments I believe will please you. I should not have consented to dismiss my much beloved friend Mr. Jay from the office of Minister, if this letter of Mr. Franklin’s had not arrived, notwithstanding the positive declarations he made in some of his letters that he would return to America. My situation with my curious and singular Colleague is not so agreeable as I could wish; when I have the Happiness to see your face, which I much long for, I shall communicate the reasons.” [7] Finally, in another missive to Governor Clinton, 4 June 1784, DeWitt told of the chaos in the Continental Congress: I take this oppertunity to acquaint your Excellency that Congress adjourned last night at near eleven oClock [sic] in C__f_sion. Mr. Paine will some days hence be with you, Who will give every necessary information. I am appointed one of the Committee of the States, but I shall not stay many Days after Mr. Paines departure, expecting that Genl. McDougall or some other Delegate will take my place. I hope the Legislature have taken every precaution respecting the W. Territory. I believe Sir a Plan is formed and perhaps wrought into

After he left the Continental Congress, DeWitt worked as the editor of the Ulster Sentinel of New York; he also served as a member of the New York state Assembly (1781, 1785, 1786), and, near the end of his life, as a member of a state committee which drafted a new New York state constitution. Charles DeWitt died in Kingston, New York, on 27 August 1787, either aged 59 or 60, and he was laid to rest in the Dutch Reformed Cemetery in Hurley, New York, now called the Old Hurley Burial Ground. The marker on his grave calls him a “patriotic statesman and leader.” An historical paper for the Historical Society of Newburgh [New York] and the Highlands stated in 1900: Charles DeWitt was one of the most prominent men of Ulster County in the events which preceded and accompanied the war of the Revolution. From 1768 to 1775, he was a member of the Colonial Assembly, and, as a member of the last legislative body which sat under Royal authority, was one of the nine resolute and patriotic men who voted to approve of the Continental Congress, then recently organized in Philadelphia. He was a member of the Provincial Convention of April, 1775, and of the third and fourth Provisional Congresses, where he was associated with John Jay, William Duer, and others in the Committee for Defeating Conspiracies, etc. [On] 21 December 1775 he was commissioned as [a] Colonel of Minute Men [sic]. When the State Government was organized, Col. DeWitt was made a member of the committee to draft a Constitution, and from 1781 to 1785 he sat in the State Assembly. [9]

[1] DeWitt family genealogy, online at http://www. jonesgenealogy.org/getperson.php?personID=I3331&tree=Jones. [2] Further DeWitt family genealogy, courtesy of The Genealogical Society of Bergen County, NJ: http://www.njgsbc.org/ files/familyfiles/p377.htm.

Samuel Dick (1740–1812)291 [3] DeWitt official congressional biography, online at http:// bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=D000283. [4] “Diary, March 16, 1784” in Elmer James Ferguson, ed., “The Papers of Robert Morris” (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press; nine volumes, 1973- ), IX:188. [5] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VII:lxxi. [6] DeWitt to George Clinton, the governor of New York, 8 May 1784, in ibid., VII:520-21. [7] DeWitt to Robert R. Livingston, 9 May 1784, in ibid., VII:521-22. [8] DeWitt to George Clinton, 4 June 1784, in ibid., VII:545. [9] Information on Charles DeWitt in “Tjerk Classen DeWitt, and Some of His Descendants” in “Historical Society of Newburgh Bay and The Highlands. Centennial Number, May 8, 1900” (Newburgh, NY: Newburgh Journal Printing House and Book-Bindery, 1900), 44-45.

Samuel Dick (1740–1812)

When the American Revolution began in 1774, Dick sided with the patriot cause, serving as a member of the New Jersey Provincial Congress in 1775. [2] The next year, in 1776, he was elected as a deputy in the Convention of New Jersey, which opened on 10 June 1776. He was appointed to the First Battalion of the Salem County Militia, with the rank of Colonel, on 20 June 1776. There is no record of what action Dick saw, except, again, from his official congressional biography, which states without additional evidence that Dick served as an “assistant surgeon in the Continental Army in the Canadian campaign.” [3] However, historian David Bonk, in a history of the battles of Trenton and Princeton (both in 1777) states that at Trenton, 22 December 1777, Dick is listed as an “independent commander,” a leader of the Salem County militia, serving as a part of Griffin’s New Jersey Militia Brigade. [4] A 1913 work on the constitution of the Sons of the Revolution stated about Dick, “[He was] [p]roscribed by name in [a] proclamation of Colonel [Charles] Mawhood, British commander.” [5] According to another source, during a 1778 battle, Mawhood, to counter American forces, took control of the field of battle, establishing his headquarters at the home of Dr. Samuel Dick.” [6] Back in New Jersey, Dick was elected to the New Jersey state Assembly, the first postcolonial body established in the state, where he served from 1776 to 1777. In 1778, Dick was appointed as the Collector of Customs for the western district of New Jersey.

Samuel Dick served as a delegate to the Continental Congress (1784-85) from his adopted state of New Jersey. A physician of some note in his state, Dick was born in Nottingham, in Prince Georges County, Maryland, on 14 November 1740. According to his official congressional biography, Dick “received a classical education,” after which he studied medicine in Scotland. Returning to the colonies in 1770, he settled not in his native Maryland but in New Jersey, opening a practice in the town of Salem. [1] He married Sally Sinnickson.

On 6 November 1783, Dick was elected by that state assembly to a seat in the Continental Congress; he was subsequently reelected on 29 October 1784. He ultimately served in sessions from 25 February to 4 June 1784, 5 July to 11 August 1784, and about 11 to 24 December 1784. Historian Edmund Cody Burnett wrote that Dick “as the New Jersey member of the Committee of the States.” [7] There are several pieces of correspondence from Dick during the period of his service in the Continental Congress; however, three are of note here. In a letter to his brother-in-law, Thomas Sinnickson, dated 18 March 1784, Dick penned a lengthy missive: You cannot expect from me much Congressional News as the Time I have Spent here has given me but an

292

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Imperfect Idea of the Manner of doing Business which is much retarded by the Thinness of Representation; Maryland New York and Georgia are unrepresented and the Delegates from Delaware (tho’ one of them had Just Arrivd) have been dismissed on Acct. of Some want of conformity in their Appointment to the fœderal Articles. An Adjournment of Congress it is thought will take place in May (A Consummation devoutly to be wished for) But a full Representation is Essential to Expedite the important Business, the Transaction of which must necessarily precede that Period. The Severity of the Winter has Extended itself as far south as we have had any late Intelligence and here the Signs of returning Spring are yet Equivocal. The Road from Baltimore to this town is chiefly bounded by Pines, here and there the Ruins of Iron Works and of wornout Plantations intervening Annapolis is pleasantly situated on a bason which forms the Mouth of the River Severn. They Count about 30o houses some of them Superb and Magnificient with corresponding Gardens and improvements. A waste space of some hundred Acres Unimployd(?) and Uncultivated bounded by Pines of short Growth Adjoins the Town. The whole View resembling An Asiatic picture, Excites not those pleasing Ideas which arise in the Mind of a more Northern Inhabitant from the view of a Country beautifyd by the hand of Industry. Most of the Gentlemen of Congress have been liberally Educated. Eight of us lodge in one house and our Time at home is Spent agreeably enough whilst the polite Attention of the Gentlemen of the Town Engages all our leisure hours in Visits and Amusements. The Players Exhibit twice a week and there is a Brilliant Assembly or Ball once a fortnight to which We have Standing Cards of Invitation. [8]

our Ambassador in Spain and Russia) from Boston, Mr. Blanchard, (my former Housemate) from New Hampshire, General Hand from Pennsylvania and Myself (all in the Married Row) Lodge at Mrs. Brices– four other Gentlemen of the Com’ee being Batchelors dine together in their own Stile. We keep up a good Correspondence and were to have din’d with them Yesterday, But the Citizens Invitation to the whole Com’ee prevented. I have not Experienced any of the Effects of heat so much here as on those few warm days we had at Salem in the last of June. The High Situation of the Town and a Breeze from the Water once a Day, makes the Weather As Yet very Supportable. I have little to Communicate Except such trivial Matters as above, but as I know it will be Agreeable, will write frequently if only to repeat the Assurances of that Sincere Affection with which I am Yours. [9]

The next letter, from Dick to his wife Sally, was written from the new Continental Congress headquarters at Annapolis, dated 7 July 1784: I cant employ this Leisure hour in the Morning more Agreeably than by informing You of my safe Arrival in this place. tho’ I was four days on the Way, Yet my Journey was attended with as much Pleasure as I had Reason to Expect in so warm a Season. I din’d with Mr. Trenchard on that day we parted, and soon after pass’d over the River without waiting the return of the Boat from Wilmington . . . I declin’d Going to the Governors Ball last Evening, these Amusements being too much for one day. There was the Ladies field for Exhibition, the Company at the two preceding Entertainments consisting wholly of Gentlemen. The Committee are Quarter’d in two houses Except Mr. Chace who lives in town. Mr. Dana (who has been

The final letter, to delegate William Ellery of Rhode Island, dated about 15 July 1784, allowed Dick to relate some of the inside workings of the Continental Congress: We have made a Com’ee without the help of Rhode Island New York or Connecticut a member from Georgia Attending. We are in daily Expectation of a Delaware Gent. cannot but think Rhode Island will be wanting in her usual Policy to suffer her Essential Interests to be determined on in a Body where she is not represented. North Carolina have by an act of the 4th of June ceded to the U.S. all her right title and Claim to the Territory west of the apalachian Mountains passed the Impost act and that allowing congress the power of regulating foreign Trade with some others of inferior import . . . If I who now actually support on my shoulders the Ninth part of the weight of the U. S. can write so degagee and sans Ceremonie what have I a right to expect from You who are safe on Your Little Island nescio quid Meditans Nugarum et totus in illis. [10] Dick served as a Salem County surrogate from 1785 to 1804. [11] In 1787, when the newlydrafted US Constitution was submitted to the states for ratification, Dick served as a delegate to the New Jersey state convention that ratified the document. Although this Constitution mandated national elections for a US House of Representatives and a US Senate, Dick never ran for public office again, instead remaining as a physician in New Jersey. He died in Salem on 16 November 1812, two days after his 72nd birthday, and was laid to rest in Saint Johns

John Dickinson (1732–1808)293 Episcopal Cemetery in Salem, Salem County, New Jersey. His tombstone reads, “Doctor Samuel Dick. Died 16 November 1812, aged 72 years. He spoke evil of none.”

[1] Dick official congressional biography, online at http:// bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=D000304. [2] This date comes from “The Constitution of the Sons of the Revolution and By-Laws and Register of the Society in the State of New Jersey. Instituted January 6, 1891” (Trenton, NJ: Printed for the Society, 1913), 85. Dick’s official congressional biography gives the date of his attendance in the provincial congress as 1776, not 1775. [3] Dick official congressional biography, op. cit. [4] Bonk, David, “Trenton and Princeton 1776-77: Washington Crosses the Delaware” (Botley, Oxford, UK: Osprey Publishing, 2009), 22. [5] ““The Constitution of the Sons of the Revolution and ByLaws and Register of the Society,” op. cit., 85. [6] Alper, M. Victor, “America’s Freedom Trail: A Tour Guide of Historical Sites of the Colonial and Revolutionary War Period” (New York: Macmillan, 1976), 363. [7] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VII:lxx. [8] Dick to Thomas Sinnickson, 18 March 1784, in ibid., VII:471-72. [9] Dick to Mrs. Sally Dick, 7 July 1784, in ibid., VII:564-65. [10] Dick to William Ellery, 15 July 1784[?], in ibid., VII:567. [11] See Gordon Den Boer, ed., “Documentary History of the First Federal Elections, 1788-1790” (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press; four volumes, 1976), III:47.

John Dickinson (1732–1808)

In the early history of the United States, John Dickinson was a vital factor. He served in the Continental Congress from two states: from Pennsylvania (1774-76) and from Delaware (1779). Born on his family’s estate in Talbot County, Maryland, known as “Crosiadoré,” on 2 November 1732, John Dickinson was the son and youngest of two sons of Samuel Dickinson, a lawyer, and his wife Mary (née Cadwalader) Dickinson. John Dickinson’s older brother was Philemon Dickinson, who also would serve as a delegate to the Continental Congress. According to historian Charles Stillé, one of Dickinson’s biographers, “The family name of Dickinson has been for many generations well known in various parts of the country. Those who bear it in the Middle and Southern States appear to recognize as their common ancestor Charles Dickinson, who died in London in 1653. He left three sons, all of whom were Quakers, who came to Virginia in 1654 to escape imprisonment at whom as nonconformists. From these three sons are descended the Dickinson families who are found throughout the Southern States and in certain parts of Pennsylvania.” [1] From his mother, Dickinson was related to the influential Cadwalader family of Philadelphia; his uncle was Dr. Thomas Cadwalader. [2] Samuel Dickinson was an attorney by trade, and when his son John was nearly eight years old he picked up the entire family from Maryland and moved them to Delaware, purchasing an estate in Kent County, near Dover. He was appointed as a judge of a local county court, and became an important colonial official. John Dickinson followed his father into the practice of the law, studying in Philadelphia under private tutors paid for by his father. He initially studied the law in the offices of Philadelphia attorney John Moland; he completed his legal education by leaving the colonies and traveling to London, entering the Middle Temple, one of the Inns of Court of the English legal and judicial system, in 1753. Dickinson returned to Philadelphia in 1757 and was admitted to the colonial bar; he opened a practice in Philadelphia. In a short time, John Dickinson became known as one of the finest attorneys in all of the American colonies.

294

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

In 1962, historians H. Trevor Colbourn and Richard Peters cataloged correspondence from Dickinson home to his parents from London from 1754 to 1756. These historians wrote in July 1962, “If the letters John Dickinson wrote to his parents from London do nothing more than focus fresh attention upon his legal education— and that of his associate—they will justify their survival. While well over a hundred Americans studied at the Inns of Court between 1750 and 1775, few recorded their intellectual experiences the detail [that] Samuel and Mary Dickinson and in their son’s correspondence. John Dickinson’s letters provide an unusual perspective on mideighteenth century England; they reveal much of his early political thinking; and they indicate the real influence of his legal studies at the Middle Temple.” [3]

others, sent a letter to the newly-crowned George III, asking that the colony’s proprietary governmental system be replaced with that of a royal government, with a royal governor running things based on dictates from London. Dickinson argued profusely in the Pennsylvania Assembly on 24 May 1764 that there must not simply be change for change’s sake: “If the change of government now meditated, can take place, with all our privileges preserved, let it instantly take place: but if they must be consumed in the blaze of royal authority, we shall pay too great a price.” [5]

Dickinson slowly grew in influence as a member of the Philadelphia bar. However, he wanted to enter the political arena; in 1760, he ran for a seat in the Delaware colonial Assembly, known as the “Assist of the Lower Counties,” as Delaware was officially known. Over the next decade and a half, he would serve both in the Delaware assembly as well as the Pennsylvania Assembly, representing the people of both colonies and then both states. He represented Pennsylvania strictly after 1762. That year, Dickinson wrote to John Hall: I think really that your Patriots have taken deep Draughts of our Politics. We left some Dregs in the cup, that might make another Brewing; but your Gentlemen have gone to the Bottom. We drank a great Deal—but it made us active. Your Dose was so strong, that you have kept your Beds these six years, and the Fumes of the Liquor are not yet evaporated. But I beg your Pardon for speaking so freely of these civil Heroes—Their Motives may be commendable though I acknowledge their Conduct would appear as laudable to me, if they were quite idle as when they are so busily employed—in doing nothing. Our Legislators are now assembled, after having adjourned in some Discontent on the Govenor’s refusing the Supply Bill. It is yet doubtful, whether anything effectual will be done at this Meeting. [4] It was here, two years later, in 1764, that John Dickinson made his first real inroad into the consciousness of the American psyche. That year, several Pennsylvania notables, including Joseph Galloway, Benjamin Franklin, and

The following year after becoming involved in this controversy, Dickinson served as a delegate to the Stamp Act Congress in 1765, and helped to draft the resolutions of that meeting. Any talk of “independence” from England at that time was barely spoken of, except for talk from those considered “radicals.” John Dickinson was not a radical; he was actually a moderate who, at the Stamp Act Congress, stated quite clearly that he wished for reconciliation with London, if the effort led King George III and the British Parliament to repeal The Stamp Act (1765), as well as other, previous, legislation, which was economically harming the colonies. In 1767, to make his views more widely known, Dickinson published them in a two-volume work, “Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania to the Inhabitants of the British Colonies” (New York: Reprinted by John Holt, Near the Exchange, 1768). As Dickinson explained, “[t]he meaning of these letters . . . is to convince the people of these colonies that they are at this moment exposed to the most imminent dangers; and to persuae them immediately, vigorously, and unanimously, to exert themselves in the most firm, but most peaceable manner, for obtaining relief.” [6] Dickinson used the pages of this-now famous work to push forward a message that he later used in his initial drafts of the document that became the Declaration of Independence. (Dickinson’s work on this draft can be seen in the following entry, The “Dickinson Draft” of the Articles of Confederation.) He explained in the final “letter,” number XII: Let these truths be indelibly impressed on our minds—that we cannot be happy, without being Free—that we cannot be free, without being secure

John Dickinson (1732–1808)295 in our property—that we cannot be secure in our property, if, without our consent, others may, as by right, take it away—that taxes imposed on us by parliament, do thus take it away—that duties laid for the sole purpose of raising money, are taxes— that attempts to lay such duties should be instantly and firmly opposed—that this opposition can never be effectual, unless it is the united effort of these provinces—that therefore benevolence of temper towards each other, and unanimity of counsels, are essential to the welfare of the whole—and lastly, that for this reason, every man among us, who in any manner would encourage either dissension, dissidence, or indifference, between these colonies, is an enemy to himself, and to his country. [7] In 1770, William Goddard wrote in “The Partnership,” “The Farmer’s Letters appeared in the Chronicle, supposed to be written by the ingenious Mr. Dickinson, a gentleman, whom, at that time, I had never seen. Here the ignorance of Mr. Wharton, and the envy of Mr. Galloway, and the wickedness of both united were clearly manifested. They were angry, they fretted, they swore and affirmed, that they were too inflammatory for this latitude. While Mr. Galloway exclaimed, with a countenance expressive of the deepest envy, that they were ‘damned ridiculous! mere stuff! fustian! altogether stupid, inconsistent! only a compilation by Dickinson and Thomson!’ the very sagacious and deep-read Mr. Wharton, with a great deal of solemn dump and grimace in his book, signified that ‘Friend Goddard was very imprudent in introducing such pieces into our Chronicle at such a time . . . [8] In 1768, not only did Dickinson publish a second edition of Letters (the first, rarer edition from 1767 was first printed in Ireland), but he also penned “The Liberty Song,” also known as “The American Liberty Song.” A history of literature of the period noted, “At the same time that the author publishes his famed Letters from a Farmer, he writes these ten stanzas that deal with common issues of his day; slavery or freedom; the need for unification; and the sweet spoils of victory. The song, which would become the anthem of the Sons of Liberty, was soon one of the most popular of its time and was reprinted extensively.” [9] In 1770, Dickinson married Mary Morris; together, the couple had five children, three of whom died in infancy.

Dickinson and his fellow patriots got what they wanted—the repeal of the hated Stamp Act—he continued to speak out against other pieces of legislation enacted by the British Parliament, including the Quartering Act (17665), the Restraining Act (1766), and the despised Townshend Duties (1767). His “Letters” argued against these well, warning the British that they risked a war if the measures were not done away with—but the Crown, and the British government as a whole, turned deaf ear to the protests. As delegate to the Pennsylvania colonial Assembly, in 1771 he called for the drafting of a letter to King George III, which would directly call upon the monarch to demand that Parliament end high duties on British tea and coffee and other commodities sold in the colonies. From this period until 1776 when Dickinson earned the reputation of “The Penman of the Revolution.” He wrote not only the resolutions of the Stamp Act Congress, but “Letters from a Farmer,” the first petition to King George III in 1774, and Olive Branch Petition (1775) the Declaration for Taking Up Arms (1775), and, as mentioned, the first draft of the Declaration of Independence (1776)—all in less than a decade. Dickinson slipped between the different fields of thought in the colonies at that time: He, as others, hated the actions of the British actions, yet wanted to remain “attached” to the Mother Country. Historian Jane Calvert explained this dichotomy in 2007: The confusion over Dickinson’s politics hinges on two seminal and apparently contradictory moments—the publication of the Farmer’s Letters and his refusal to support the Declaration of Independence. It is clear that the Letters had the result scholars have claimed—they certainly helped prepare the colonists for revolt. But after painting him as the “Penman of the Revolution,” scholars then find themselves at a loss to explain Dickinson’s stance on the Declaration. If one takes their interpretation of the Farmers Letters as accurate, Dickinson’s behavior does indeed seem erratic and contradictory. David L. Jacobson, the author of the only scholarly monograph on Dickinson’s politics, writes that in 1776 his opinions were “a hodgepodge of contradictory ideas.” For centuries historians have been trying to make sense of his seemingly inscrutable opposition to the Declaration, but they have given only vague, speculative, and

296

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

unsatisfactory explanations for it, most of which paint him in an unfavorable light. [10]

that they “Have always been ascribed to the pen of Mr. Dickinson.” Among these was the first Address, or Petition, to the King. “The question, whether I wrote the first Petition to the King is of little moment, but the question, whether I have countenanced an opinion that I did write it though in reality I did not, is to me of vast importance.” In a letter to Charles Thomson, Dickinson wrote, Dear Sir, Please to propose to Coll. [colleague] Lee the following Amendments in the Address to the King—Instead of saying—“Delegates in Congress met” -say-Freemen-thus the (change) alternate use of the words—“We—they—us—them— our—their—will be avoided.” Instead of-“will justify the loyal subjects” say must justify, We presume, the loyal subjects[.] Instead of—“We have only refused to submit to them” say—We have only oppos’d them[.] Instead of “high Rank” say preeminent Rank after these words towards the Conclusion- “(submit to Judgment) new right in our Favor” -instead of the Words (“Gracious Sovereign” &c &c say) “Your Majesty’s authority is essential to the due Government of the Colonies” &c say (We presume not to sollicit any Diminution of the Prerogative, nor the Grant of) The royal Authority, and turn over of any new Right in our Favour. (Your) The royal Authority and our subordinate Connection with Great Britain We shall always carefully and zealously endeavour to preserve and maintain. [12]

The passage of The Tea Act of 10 May 1773, in response to continuing colonial anger over the price of British tea, did not lower—or even raise—duties on British tea sent to the colonies, but it did force colonial tea merchants to handle British tea only. This legislation directly led to the action by patriots known as The Boston Tea Party. Follow-up legislation by the British government arising out of that riot ultimately caused the break that led, in 1774, to a shooting war. But, in 1773, before The Tea Act, Dickinson still believed that reconciliation, talking, and a meeting of the minds, could end the crisis. The Tea Act changed him from a moderate to a radical who two short years later would be helping to draft the Declaration of Independence. Taking control of the political situation in Pennsylvania, in May 1774 at a meeting to discuss the Boston Tea Party, Dickinson penned four anonymous letters, all addressed to “The Inhabitants of the British Colonies,” which called for the meeting of a “general congress” of all of the colonies to plan a unified strategy. Historian Richard Gummere explained in 1956: Dickinson composed in 1774 a Letter to the Inhabitants of the British Colonies in America, citing, along with the problem of unjust taxation, the right of all men to be masters of their own “lives, liberties, or properties,” following the dictum of Sir Edward Coke. Into this argument Dickinson wove the golden rule of Cicero which John Wise had used a half-century earlier in his plea for church harmony: “Non nobis solis nati sumus, ortusque nostri partem patria vindicat, partem amici”—“We are not born for ourselves alone: part of our birthright belongs to our country, and part to our friends.” Such unselfish living, according to free compact and consent, is also advocated in Dickinson’s note of instruction from the provincial committee to the representatives in the Assembly, containing a beautiful passage of Cicero’s to this purpose: “Nothing is more agreeable to the Supreme Deity that governs this universe, than civil societies lawfully established.” [11] Historian Edwin Wolf wrote in 1965: In a collected edition of John Dickinson’s political writings, published in 1801 under his supervision, a number of public documents from the Journals of Congress were included with the prefatory remark

The meeting that was called by the likes of Dickinson and others was the First Continental Congress. In response to the calling of that meeting, on 15 October 1774 Dickinson himself was elected to the Continental Congress, ultimately reelected on 15 December 1775 and 4 November 1775. He served in sessions from 17 to 26 October 1774, 10 May to 2 August 1775, and from about 5 September 1775 to 4 July 1776. Historian Edmund Cody Burnett explained, “Dickinson was probably among those who attended September 5, 1775. Being a member of the Pennsylvania assembly Dickinson vibrated, as did several other Pennsylvania members, between Congress and the assembly when the latter was in session. He attended the assembly on some days of the session of September 18-30, 1775, most of the time during that of October 14 to November 25, apparently all of that of February 12 to April 6, 1776, and a part of that of May 2o to June 14. Dickinson was one of a committee (with [George] Wythe and [John] Jay) sent to the New Jersey assembly December

John Dickinson (1732–1808)297 4, and was probably absent for a few days thereafter.” [13] Dickinson left the Continental Congress on 4 July 1776. This happened because, even though he felt that the break between the colony and England was too large to meld back together, nevertheless he did not feel that he should sign the Declaration of Independence, even though he had helped to draft it. Again, reiterating what historian Jane Calvert wrote above: “Dickinson’s behavior does indeed seem erratic and contradictory.” Here we are once again confronted with a man who called for one thing, and acted in another way. Because of his ultimate ambivalence towards full-blown independence for the American colonies, Dickinson clashed with those who wanted just such an outcome— among these was John Adams, delegate from Massachusetts. Historian Burnett added, “In the Congress of 1774 the struggle reached something of a climax in the contest over Galloway’s plan of union, some account of which is furnished by Galloway himself, and upon which additional information is derived from the Duane papers. An episode of a similar sort in 1775 was the contest over the second petition to the king, which culminated in July in the temporary victory of the conservatives, under the leadership of John Dickinson. The break between Adams and Dickinson, in consequence of Adams’s famous intercepted letter of July 24, 1775, is one of the notable incidents of the struggle.” [14] On the other hand, Dickinson was close friends with others who desired to keep the bonds between London and the colonies together, including Joseph Galloway of Pennsylvania and Arthur Lee of Virginia. In a missive to Lee, from Philadelphia and dated 27 October 1774, Dickinson penned: Yesterday the Congress broke up. You will immediately know their Proceedings from publications. The Colonists have now taken such grounds that Great Britain must relax, or inevitably involve herself in a civil war, likely in all human probability to overwhelm her with a weight of calamities, in comparison of which, “plus quam civilae bella,” the contentions between the Houses of York and Lancaster, or the distractions of the last century, were gentle misfortunes. A determined and unanimous resolution animates this Continent,

firmly and faithfully to support the common cause to the utmost extremity, in this great struggle for the blessing of liberty-a blessing that can alone render life worth holding . . . I wish for peace ardently; but must say, delightful as it is, it will come more grateful by being unexpected. The first act of violence on the part of Administration in America, or the attempt to reinforce General Gage this winter or next year, will put the whole Continent in arms, from Nova Scotia to Georgia. [15] In another letter to Lee, 7 July 1775, Dickinson writes of the petition sent to King George III— that the war had begun, and that independence looks likely—and John Dickinson sounds like a man who backed just such a movement: Before this comes to hand, you will have received, I presume, the Petition to the King. You will perhaps at first be surpriz’d, that we make no Claim, and mention no Right. But I hope, [on] considering all Circumstances, you will be [of] opinion, that this Humility in an address [to] the Throne is at present proper. Our Rights [have] been already stated—our Claims made—W[ar] is actually begun, and we are carrying it on Vigor[ously], This conduct and our other Publications will shew, [that our] spirits are not lowered. If Administration [be] desirous of stopping the Effusion of British [blood,] the Opportunity is now offered to them [by an] unexceptionable Petition, praying for [an] accommodation. If they reject this application] with Contempt, the more humble it is, [the more] such Treatment will confirm the Minds of [our] Countrymen, to endure all the Misfortunes [that] may attend the Contest. [16] It was perhaps this change of heart that led the delegates to point to Dickinson to draft the initial portions of the Declaration of Independence in the first months of 1776. Yet, deep down, it appears that war, and the fact that things could never go back to the way they had been in 1772 and 1773 between London and the colonies, did not awaken John Dickinson to a sense that he needed to be with his countrymen in a time when a document like the Declaration of Independence was being signed. By early 1776, he had once again swung to the side of opposing any declaration of independence from England. Two publications caused much of the trouble, as he saw it: Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense,” a revolutionary call for independence, and John Adams’ “Thoughts on Government,”

298

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

which outlined how a national American government could exist under a blueprint that would later come together at the Constitutional Convention in 1787. Those who opposed independence saw the danger these two works presented to their side—and they struck out against them. Dickinson called Adams’ work a “Machine to fabricate Independence.” Yet, the Pennsylvania Assembly gave instructions to its delegates in the Continental Congress “to concur with the other Delegates in Congress, in forming such further Compacts between the United Colonies, concluding such Treatises with foreign Kingdoms and States, and in adopting such other measures . . . as shall be judged necessary for promoting the Liberty, Safety, and Interests of America.” To comply with this, Dickinson offered his services to pen an initial draft of what would become the Declaration of Independence. Dickinson used the language of his previous works to push the idea that American independence was a foregone conclusion.

all that had from time to time been said in Congress by himself and others. He conducted the debate not only with great ingenuity and eloquence, but with equal politeness and candor, and was answered in the same spirit. No member rose to answer him, and after waiting some time, in hopes that some one less obnoxious than myself, who had been all along for a year before, and still was, represented and believed to be the author of all the mischief, would move, I determined to speak.” [17]

Yet, when debate arose on the eventual draft that took some of Dickinson’s ideas, melded them with the eloquence of Thomas Jefferson and the studiousness of Dr. Benjamin Franklin, Dickinson balked: He could not support the document he had aided in writing. On 4 July 1776, Dickinson left the Continental Congress rather than sign the declaration. John Adams, in his autobiography, wrote of the stormy 1 July 1776 meeting to discuss the final stages of the declaration, when Dickinson faced down his fellow delegates with his ultimate refusal to sign the document: I am not able to recollect whether it was on this or some preceding day, that the greatest and most solemn debate was had on the question of independence. The subject had been in contemplation for more than a year, and frequent discussions had been had concerning it. At one time and another all the arguments for it and against it had been exhausted, and were become familiar. I expected no more would be said in public, but that the question would be put and decided. Mr. Dickinson, however, was determined to bear his testimony against it with more formality. He had prepared himself apparently with great labor and ardent zeal, and in a speech of great length, and with all his eloquence, he combined together all that had before been written in pamphlets and newspapers, and

Backing up this recollection, Thomas Jefferson, in a letter collected in his Writings, wrote of the signing of the declaration, “[A]ll the states voted for it, except New York, whose vote was delayed for the reason before stated. [I]t was not till the 2d of July that the Declaration itself was taken up; nor till the 4th. That it was decided: and it was signed by every member present, except [M]r. Dickinson. [18] Historian Matthew Harris speculated on Dickinson’s reasoning for this change of heart: “[H]e did not want to create a new political union but instead purge the British constitution of its ‘inpurities’ and ‘build an empire upon the ruins of Great Britain.’ In that respect, Dickinson found the British constitution as a perfect pattern for the new American union. He wanted to impose the power structure of the old empire on the new American states. Having ‘admiring and preferred the British Constitution,’ he wanted to transfer Parliament’s sovereign functions to the states and the king’s to Congress. In this division of power, he believed that the new American government would be in perfect harmony with the distribution of power that the colonists had been living under in the British empire.” [19] Returning to Pennsylvania, Dickinson entered military service, gaining a commission as a colonel in the First Pennsylvania Battalion, where he saw, up close, the dismal state of military readiness and preparedness, and the lack of true military science in how the colonies could fight what was, at that time, the most powerful military force in the world, that of Great Britain. He saw some limited military action in northern New Jersey. Perhaps seeing the situation on the ground changed Dickinson’s mind again—before he left the Continental Congress, he aided in the writing up of some portions of the blueprint for government that became, in 1777, the Articles

John Dickinson (1732–1808)299 of Confederation. Growing anger at the political situation in Pennsylvania forced Dickinson to resign his commission as well as his seat in the Pennsylvania Assembly. He moved his family to the family’s estate in Delaware, and he volunteered for duty in the Delaware militia. What came next was surprising: On 18 January 1779, the Delaware Assembly elected Dickinson to the Continental Congress, where he had once sat and had departed after refusing to sign the Declaration of Independence. The election was for a single year, and Dickinson served in sessions from 23 April to about 28 September 1779, and from about 21 October to 18 November 1779. Historian Edmund Cody Burnett, whose dates and notes on Dickinson’s earlier service in the Continental Congress is covered extensively here, wrote of this tenure, “Dickinson’s attendance appears to have been somewhat irregular as his name is frequently missing from the yeas and nays. Only the most extensive and evident of such absences is, however, indicated in the record set down above. In that instance the last recorded vote is September 24, but the accounts of the election of a minister to Spain give definite evidence of his attendance [from] September 25-27, and [a] letter to [Caesar] Rodney [of] September 28 [1779] suggests still later attendance. Although the Journals [of the Continental Congress] record the order for a warrant December 4 on Dickinson’s application, that is not necessarily evidence that he actually attended after obtaining leave of absence November 18.” [20] There are several pieces of correspondence worth examining. Discussing the national situation regarding the American “confederation.” Dickinson wrote to Caesar Rodney on 10 May 1779: My Opinion is clear, that the Interests of each State bring objects comprehended within the Confederation, are to be regarded as the Interests of the whole, and as such to be contended for and defended. [On] interests of this kind, Difficulties, I apprehend, will not arise, but on Interests beyond these Limits they may. On these my opinion is also clear, that as a Delegate I am bound to prefer the general Interests of the Confederacy to the partial Interests of Constituent Members, how many soever they be, and however respectable and meritorious; and further that if such

a Competition should arise, it is my Duty to prefer the particular Interests of that State that honours me with her Confidence and invests me with a share of her power, to the particular Interests of any other State on this Continent.” [21] In another letter to Rodney, Dickinson wrote on a recent military victory for the patriots in South Carolina: “Let us at this important Crisis intensely recollect our duty to Heaven and our Country—co-operate in our several stations with the Efforts of our Gallant Brethern in the field, and after vanquishing scores in fair fights, not offer ourselves to be ruined in our internal and domestic affairs by the most contemptible vermin that ever crept upon the Earth . . . If we baffle the attempt of our invaders this campaign, and convince them that our Finances are not in an utterly irrecoverable Disorder, I hope this year will crown our Labours with Peace Liberty and Safety . . . [22] In a rather “telling” that Dickinson made, he inserted the following into a draft of propositions for a treaty of peace with France: “While I believe in my Conscience that I am faithfully serving my Country I shall deplore but not dread her Resentment if I happen to offend her. She is my Parent. as a dutiful son, I shall kiss her correcting Rod. Let her strike but let her also hear me. If the present day is too warm for me to be calmly judg’d, I ever credit my Country for justice some years hence. Tis true, I may be mistaken, but sufficient it will be for my vindication, if it be decided, that my Conduct is influenced by what I think right, for then it must be influenced by Honesty and affection.” [23] After leaving the Continental Congress for a second time, Dickinson reentered the military field, serving as a brigadier general of the Pennsylvania militia. However, he again departed from Pennsylvania and returned to Delaware, and in 1781 was elected president of the state, serving for that single calendar year. Once again torn to go back to Pennsylvania, he returned to Philadelphia, where, in 1782, he was elected as the president of that commonwealth. [24] Few men, in the entire history of this nation, have served in the hierarchies of state government of two different states. Dickinson remained as the president of Pennsylvania until 1785, after which he returned to Delaware. In

300

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

1787, the Delaware Assembly elected him as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, which drafted the US Constitution, signing the document on behalf of the state. [25] It was at this point that John Dickinson seems to have departed from the national and state stage, retiring to his family estate in Delaware where he spent the remainder of his life. According to all of the sources on his life, Dickinson apparently suffered from declining health from this period until his death. He did serve as the president of the Delaware constitutional convention of 1791-92, and, in the latter year, was elected to a seat in the Delaware state Senate, but poor health forced him to step down from the office before the end of 1793.

cemetery. When Thomas Jefferson, in his last year as president of the United States, heard of Dickinson’s passing, he wrote to a friend, Henry Bringhurst, “A more estimable an [sic] or true patriot could not have left us. Among the first of the advocates for the rights of the country when assailed by Great Britain, he continued to the last the orthodox advocate of the true principles of our new government, and his name will be consecrated in history as one of the great worthies of the Revolution.” [28]

Relations between America and France reached a new low during the first year of the administration of President John Adams—by 1798, a potential war was not just possible, but seemed likely. That year, there was penned “A Caution; or, Reflections on the Present Contest Between France and Great Britain,” a pamphlet that did not have his name on it but was published anonymously. Historian William G. Sofer, in a 1953 article, subscribes this publication to John Dickinson, using, as evidence of this, the fact that there is a rare copy of the work in the collections of The Library Company of Philadelphia, with notes, corrections, and other writings in Dickinson’s hand. [26] Perhaps returning again to form, he called for a break between the United States and France, and a closer term of relations between the United States and Great Britain. Perhaps his last public service, at least one that could be found in contemporary newspapers, was a notice in a Washington, D.C., newspaper, which heralded that “[a]t a numerous meeting of the citizens of Wilmington, in the state of Delaware, pursuant to public notice, John Dickinson, esq[.] was appointed chairman, and Outerbridge Horsey, esq. secretary.” The meeting was called, stated the account, “relative to the inhuman violence committed on the frigate Chesapeake.” [27]. John Dickinson died in Wilmington, Delaware, on 14 February 1808 at the age of 75, and was laid to rest in the Wilmington Friends Meetinghouse Burial Ground, a Quaker

Historian Gregory Ahern summed up the career of John Dickinson when he wrote in 1997, “Dickinson has been called ‘the Penman of the American Revolution.’ Such an appellation is not without justification. For Dickinson was responsible for the drafting of more official papers and private essays in defense of the American cause than perhaps any other figure leading up to the Declaration of Independence. Moreover, he was the only one of the Founders to play a role in every significant event in American history from the Stamp Act Congress of 1765 to the Constitutional Convention of 1787. It has also been said of him that he is, with Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina, ‘definitive of the moderate Federalist position of 1787-1788 and a key to the meaning of what was achieved’ in that remarkable document, the Constitution of the United States.” [29] See also: The Articles of Confederation; Philemon Dickinson; The “Dickinson Draft” of the Articles of Confederation; The “Franklin Draft” of the Articles of Confederation

[1] Stillé, Charles J., “The Life and Times of John Dickinson. 1732-1808” (Philadelphia: The Historical Society of Pennsylvania, 1891), 9. [2] Dickinson family tree, online at http://www.geni.com/people/John-Dickinson-Signer-of-the-US-Constitution-President-ofPennsylvania-President-of-Delaware/6000000003444497570. [3] Colbourn, H. Trevor, and Richard Peters, “A Pennsylvania Farmer at the Court of King George: John Dickinson’s London Letters, 1754-1756,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, LXXXVI:3 (July 1962), 241-86. See the continuation of the article, in H. Trevor Colbourn,” A Pennsylvania Farmer at the Court of King George: John Dickinson’s London Letters, 17541756,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, LXXXVI:4 (October 1962), 417-53. [4] John Dickinson to John Hall, 3 May 1762, in “Letters of Some Members of the Old Congress,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, XXIX:2 (1905), 201-02.

The “Dickinson Draft” of the Articles of Confederation301 [5] John Dickinson, “Speech on a Petition for a Change of Government of the Colony of Pennsylvania, May 24, 1764” in Paul Leicester Ford, ed., “The Writings of John Dickinson” (Philadelphia: Memoirs of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, 1895), 22-23. [6] “Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania to the Inhabitants of the British Colonies” (New York: Reprinted by John Holt, Near the Exchange, 1768), 16. [7] Ibid., 111. [8] Goddard, William, “The Partnership: or, The History of the Rise and Progress of the Pennsylvania Chronicle, &C. Wherein the ­Conduct of Joseph Galloway, Esq; Speaker of the Honourable House of Representatives of the Province of Pennsylvania, Mr. Thomas Wharton, Sen. and their Man Benjamin Towne, My Late Partners, with my own, is Properly Delineated, and Their Calumnies against me Fully Refuted. By William Goddard” (Philadelphia: Printed by William Goddard, in Arch-Street, between Front and Second Streets, 1770), 16. [9] Burt, Daniel S., ed., “The Chronology of American Literature: America’s Literary Achievements from the Colonial Era to Modern Times” (New York: Houghton Mifflin Company, 2004), 69. [10] Calvert, Jane E., “Liberty Without Tumult: Understanding the Politics of John Dickinson,” Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, 131 (July 2007), 234-35. [11] Gummere, Richard M., “John Dickinson, the Classical Penman of the Revolution,” The Classical Journal, LII:2 (November 1956), 82-83. [12] Wolf, Edwin, “The Authorship of the 1774 Address to the King Restudied,” The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, XXII:2 (April 1965), 189, 218-19. [13] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), I:lix. [14] Ibid., I:xvii. [15] Dickinson to Arthur Lee, 27 October 1774, in ibid., I:83. [16] Dickinson to Arthur Lee, 7 July 1775, in ibid., I:157. [17] John Adams’ Autobiography, 1 July 1776, in Charles Francis Adams, “The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States: With a Life of the Author, Notes and Illustrations” (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown; three volumes, 1851), III:54. [18] See Thomas Jefferson to Samuel Adams Wells, 12 May 1819, in Paul Leicester Ford, ed., “The Writings of Thomas Jefferson: Collected and Edited by Paul Leicester Ford” (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons; ten volumes, 1892-99), X:127. [19] Harris, Matthew, “‘Experience Must Be Our Guide’: John Dickinson and the Origins of American Federalism, 1754-1808” (Ph.D. dissertation, The Maxwell School of Citizenship and Public Affairs, Syracuse University, 2004), 152-53. [20] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), IV:li. [21] Dickinson to Caesar Rodney, 10 May 1779, in ibid., IV:204-05. [22] Dickinson to Caesar Rodney, 10 June 1779, in ibid., IV:257. [23] “John Dickinson, Proposition for a Treaty of Peace,” 22 July 1779, in ibid., VI:335-37. [24] Powell, J.H., “John Dickinson as President of Pennsylvania,” Pennsylvania History, XXVIII:3 (July, 1961), 254-67. [25] Hutson, James H., “John Dickinson at the Federal Constitutional Convention,” The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, XL:2 (April 1983), 256-82. [26] For evidence of the authorship of Dickinson of this work, see William G. Sofer, “A Reattribution: John Dickinson’s Authorship of the Pamphlet “A Caution,” 1798,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, LXXVII:1 (January 1953), 24-31. [27] See the obituary for Dickinson in Daily National Intelligencer [Washington, DC], 13 July 1807, 2. [28] Jefferson to Henry Bringhurst, 24 February 1808, in “The Writings of Thomas Jefferson. Monticello Edition, Containing his

Autobiography, Notes on Virginia, Parliamentary Manual, Official Papers, Messages and Addresses, and Other Writings, Official and Private, Now Collected and Published in Their Entirety for the First Time, Including All of the Original Manuscripts, Deposited in the Department of State and Published in 1853 by Order of the Joint Committee of Congress; with Numerous Illustrations and a Comprehensive Analytical Index. Andrew A. Lipscomb, Chairman Board of Governors, Ed.-in-Chief. Albert Ellery Bergh, Managing Editor” (Washington, DC: Issued under the Auspices of The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association of the United States; twenty volumes, 1903-04), XI:445. [29] Ahern, Gregory Stephen, “‘Experience Must Be Our Only Guide:’ John Dickinson and the Spirit of American Republicanism” (Ph.D. dissertation, Catholic University of America, 1997), 2-3.

The “Dickinson Draft” of the Articles of Confederation John Dickinson, a delegate to the Continental Congress from Pennsylvania and Delaware, is the principle author of the Articles of Confederation. The document that Dickinson penned is the story of how the American nation, just a year into its existence, agitated to have a central government, and how the Continental Congress fashioned a blueprint of a unicameral legislature, no judicial branch, and no executive branch. On 11 June 1776, even as the Continental Congress was considering a declaration of independence from England, that body established three separate committees after delegate Richard Henry Lee of Virginia, four days earlier, had introduced a resolution calling for independence. As part of his resolution, however, Lee also called for the Continental Congress to form “foreign alliances” to aid the new nation, and, most importantly, to establish “a plan for confederation.” Based on each specific portion of the resolution, the three committees were established, with one to handle creating just such a plan, the focus of our attention here. The members of this specific committee were not named until the following day, as noted in the Journals of the Continental Congress: Resolved, That the committee to prepare and digest the form of a confederation to be entered into between these colonies, consist of a member from each colony: New Hampshire

Mr. [Josiah] Bartlett

Massachusetts

Mr. S[amuel] Adams

Rhode Island

Mr. [Stephen] Hopkins

302

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Connecticut

Mr. [Roger] Sherman

New York

Mr. R[obert R.] [Livingston]

New Jersey

__________[1]

Pennsylvania

Mr. [John] Dickinson [2]

Delaware

Mr. [Thomas] McKean

Maryland

Mr. [Thomas] Stone

Virginia

Mr. [Thomas] Nelson

North Carolina

Mr. [Joseph] Hewes

S. Carolina

Mr. [Edward] Rutledge

Georgia

Mr. [Button] Gwinnett [3]

The committee members selected Dickinson as the chairman of the committee. Dickinson came with a lot of experience. In July 1775, in an attempt to head off a full-blown independence movement in the Continental Congress, he and others who wished for reconciliation with England drafted the aptly named, “Olive Branch Petition,” which appealed to British King George III to try to head off a complete break by getting the British Parliament to repeal most if not all of the harsh economic measures that had been enacted against the American colonies since the middle of the previous decade. The effort failed, but not for lack of trying, especially on Dickinson’s part. With the Declaration of Independence signed in July 1776, Dickinson was still not fully on board with the independence movement: He departed from the Continental Congress on 4 July because he not vote for the declaration, but he did not want to stand in its way of being unanimously accepted by the Continental Congress. Ultimately, Dickinson was to be the main author of the plan for confederation, and it is for this reason that the first draft of the articles is called the “Dickinson Draft.” In a probable preview of the ideas he would instill in his draft, Dickinson wrote, “Let our government be like that of the solar system. Let the general government be like the sun and the states the planets, repelled yet attracted, and the whole moving regularly and harmoniously to several orbits.” It is for this, as well as for his other writings prior to, during, and following the revolution, that historian Moses Coit Tyler called Dickinson “the Penman of the American Revolution.” [4]

As the initial draft came together, dispirited arguments between the sections of the country rose up. Historian Jack Greene explained in 1982, “Dickinson worried in July 1776 about the eventual dissolution of the American union, he drew the line not between north and south, but between New England and the rest of the states. “Whatever the continuing variety among the new American states and to whatever extent that variety continued to impress contemporaries, their interests, ‘Trade, Language, Customs, and Manners,’ [delegate] Benjamin Rush could credibly insist in congressional debate during the summer of 1776, were by no means ‘more divided than they are among . . . people in Briton.’ This growing convergence was the single most important precondition for either the American Revolution or the emergence of an American national government and an American nationality.” [5] One immediate problem with the Dickinson draft was that it made all of the states “subservient” to a strong central government, ultimately weakening the union that binded the nation together. Delegate Thomas Burke of North Carolina denounced any such plan, and he threatened to vote against the articles. Burke, with considerable power in his state, could keep North Carolina from endorsing the articles, a fatal blow to a document that needed unanimous approval amongst the states to go into effect. Ultimately, because of Burke’s warnings, the Continental Congress inserted what is known as Article II, which reads, “Each state retains its sovereignty, freedom, and independence, and every power, jurisdiction, and right which is not by this Confederation expressly delegated to the United States, in Congress assembled.” History Jack Rakove explained: But again, once this plan was under debate, political difficulties intervened. Conflicts over three issues– representation, the apportionment of expenses, and the control of western lands–demonstrated that it would be difficult to strike compromises within Congress or secure the ratification of the states. With no acceptable solutions to these issues in sight, Congress chose to defer further consideration of the Articles rather than risk exacerbating the emerging conflicts. Over a year elapsed before the Articles were completed. Even then, expedient political considerations remained

The “Dickinson Draft” of the Articles of Confederation303 decisive. No breakthroughs on the major issues preceded the final (and hurried) deliberations of October 1777. The delegates simply realized that a confederation had to be completed even at the risk of leaving specific groups of states unhappy with the solutions that had to be imposed on the most difficult issues. This resolution to push the Articles through to a conclusion took shape at a time when Congress was preparing to issue a comprehensive plan for dealing with inflation and was also, in the wake of Saratoga, growing anxious to conclude a treaty of alliance with France. [6] Under the Dickinson draft, the nation that would be formed by the Declaration of Independence in 1776 would, with the passage of the Articles of Confederation, be called “the United States of America,” the first time that this phrase was ever used. In a reversal of what would happen a decade later when the US Constitution was written, all powers not explicitly given to the states would be granted to the federal government under the articles. Each state would be granted congressional representation based on population. However, the Dickinson draft, and, ultimately, the document that the delegates to the Continental Congress approved of, provided for a weak central government. There was no Supreme Court to hear judicial cases; there would be only a unicameral legislature— the single-bodied Continental Congress—and the “President” of the Continental Congress would sit as the head of that body, elected by that body, and answerable to that body. On 15 November 1777, the Continental Congress began a lengthy debate over what is titled the second report of the Articles, which incorporated much of Dickinson’s original draft, and a third report, which still had a his words but had enormous changes. Even to this third report, the states had questions and queries: New York asked, for instance, to include language which read that “[f]or deciding all Disputes or Differences, which may arise between any two or more States in the Confederacy, concerning Boundaries or Jurisdiction[,] Commissioners shall be appointed by the United States in Congress assembled by the Ballot of States as have no Claim with Respect to Boundaries or Jurisdiction with either of the States,” questions that did not have enough

support in the Continental Congress and were eventually withdrawn from consideration. [7] The delegates approved the Articles that same day, and ordered that 300 copies be printed for distribution. Historian Ben Black wrote, “With the defeat of the British at Saratoga, Congress saw an opportunity to convince the French that the Americans had a reasonable chance of success in the war. Within a month it approved the Articles of Confederation with the hope that this action, coupled with the victory at Saratoga, would persuade the French to recognize and assist American independence. A letter making this argument was sent along with a copy of the articles to each of the states urging ratification.” [8] Because there had to be a unanimous vote of all 13 states in favor of the Articles, each state’s legislature could hold up its passage until it got what it wanted. Thus, because of arguments over specific state’s rights, representation in the Continental Congress, and the ultimate borders of western lands that did not belong to one state and were in dispute, it took four long years to ultimate get all 13 states to ratify the Articles, with Maryland being the last on 1 March 1781. See also: John Dickinson

[1] There is no name given as having represented New Jersey on this committee. [2] Dickinson represented Pennsylvania in the Continental Congress (1774-76) and Delaware (1779) in that same body, but at the time he served on this committee he represented Pennsylvania. [3] Resolution and listing of committee members in Ford, Worthington C., ed., “Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789. Edited from the Original Records in the Library of Congress by Worthington Chauncey Ford, Chief, Division of Manuscripts” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; 34 volumes, 1904-37), V:433. [4] Tyler, Moses Coit, “The Literary History of the American Revolution,” 1763-1783 (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons; two volumes, 1897), II:24. [5] Greene, Jack P., “The Background of the Articles of Confederation,” Publius, XII:4 (Autumn 1982), 32-33. [6] Rakove, Jack, “The Legacy of the Articles of Confederation,” Publius, XII:4 (Autumn 1982), 49. [7] Ford, Worthington C., ed., “Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789. Edited from the Original Records in the Library of Congress by Worthington Chauncey Ford, Chief, Division of Manuscripts” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; 34 volumes, 1904-37), IX:906-28. [8] Black, Ben, “Forging a Nation State: The Continental Congress and the Financing of the War of American Independence,” The Economic History Review, New Series, LIV:4 (November 2001), 645.

304

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Philemon Dickinson (1739–1808)

as an overseer of his family’s estates. According to historian Wharton Dickinson, “[f]rom the time of his father’s death in 1760, he remained at home superintending the large estates of his father who owned 3,480 acres in Kent County, Delaware, 4,080 acres in Talbot County, 1,400 acres in Dorchester County and 800 acres in Queen Anne County.” [2]

A soldier and member of the Continental Congress (1782-83), Philemon Dickinson came from a distinguished Maryland family, one which counted among its members (older brother) John Dickinson, one of the most powerful voices of the American Revolution period. Philemon Dickinson was born at his family estate, “Crosiadore,” near Trappe, in Talbot County, Maryland, on 5 April 1739, the son of Samuel Dickinson, a merchant and judge in Maryland and Mary (née Cadwalader) Dickinson, also a member of a noted colonial family [1]. Shortly after younger brother Philemon’s birth, his family moved to the area known as Jones Neck, located in Kent County, Delaware; and it would be here, in Delaware, that Philemon Dickinson would make his name known. Due to his family’s wealth and influence, he was taught by private tutors. He entered the College of Philadelphia (now the University of Pennsylvania), and graduated from that institution in 1759. For a time, he considered following in the family footsteps of the law: he clerked in his older brother’s John’s law office, but after a short period at this decided not to go into that vocation and withdrew to instead serve

In 1767, Dickinson moved again, this time from Delaware to an estate near what is now Trenton, New Jersey. There he married his first cousin, Mary Cadwalader, a Quaker, whom he would remain married to until her death in 1791. Over the next several years, Dickinson served in a series of colonial offices, but it was not until 1776 that he threw his lot in with the patriot forces battling against the harsh economic policies of the British government. In that year, Dickinson was named as a delegate to the New Jersey Provisional Congress. As soon as that council had concluded, Dickinson entered military service in the Continental Army, commissioned as a brigadier general in 1776, and, the following year, promoted to major general and commanding a corps of New Jersey militia. [3] He remained in this position for the remainder of the war, which concluded with the surrender of the British at Yorktown in 1781. A biographical examination of Dickinson, which appeared in 1890, stated: His zeal and devotion to the cause of his country became at once conspicuous, and engaged him in an enterprise which secured to the army a large quantity of flour, at that time essential to its wants. In 1777, when the army under General Washington was wintering near Morristown, and suffering badly from the smallpox [sic] a lined military post was formed along the Millstone River, in the direction of Princeton; one of these was occupied by General Dickinson, with but a few hundred men. Not for distant, and on the opposite bank of the river, stood a mill, in which a large quantity of flour had been collected for the use of the troops. At this time Lord Cornwallis, with his army, were at New Brunswick, and having received information of this depot, immediately despatched [sic] a large foraging party, amounting to over four hundred men and upwards of forty wagons for the purpose of taking possession of it. [4] In the end, it was through the machinations of Philemon Dickinson that the flour was saved for the American troops.

Diplomacy of, and by, the Continental Congress305 On 2 February 1782, the Delaware legislature elected Dickinson to a seat in the Continental Congress, “for the present year,” and he attended sessions from 22 February to about 19 July 1782, and from about 28 October to about 2 November 1782. [5] Unfortunately, most biographies of Dickinson report that he served in the Continental Congress in 1782 and 1783, which is simply not true. [6] Historian Edmund Cody Burnett reports that “[o]nly one reference in the Journals (May 24) indicates Dickinson’s presence between May 16 and June 25; he may therefore have been absent some part of that period. A report [of] November 5 by a committee of which he was a member is not evidence that he attended beyond the end of the congressional year.” [7] Historian John A. Munroe wrote, “He had moved to an estate near Trenton, in New Jersey, in 1767, when he was married to Mary Cadwalader, and had filled several public posts in the state of his adoption. As one of the Delaware valley gentry, with property in Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Delaware, he could easily get to Philadelphia for sessions of Congress, he could afford to stay there and attend them, and his own interests were sufficiently inter-colonial to insure his attention to affairs of the Confederation. Delaware might expect such service from him as she had from McKean, and with reason, for she got it. Dickinson came to Congress in the month of his election, attended fairly faithfully until mid-summer, and returned for a time in the fall and again in the winter.” [8] Philemon Dickinson had a history of unsuccessful runs for state office in New Jersey, running for governor three times from 1778 to 1780. In 1784, he was named to a commission, composed of Robert Morris and Philip Schuyler, to found a potential national capital city for a new federal government that was to be established in the coming years. In 1790, when William Paterson resigned his seat in the US Senate, the New Jersey legislature elected Dickinson in his place, where he served until the end of the term in March 1793. In 1791, when his wife Mary died, Dickinson married her sister, Rebecca, also his first cousin; she would survive him. In his final years, Philemon Dickinson attended to his family estates in several states. He died

at his official home, “The Hermitage,” near Trenton, New Jersey, on 4 February 1809 at the age of 69. The Mercantile Advertiser of New York City said in eulogy, “General Dickinson took an early and decided part in support of the rights of his fellow-citizens in the revolutionary struggle with Great-Britain. He as an active and useful military officer in the most gloomy periods of the war, and encouraged by his example and exertions, his fellow-citizens, in the arduous [fight] with the mother country.” [9] Dickinson was laid to rest in the Friends Meeting House Burying Ground, now simply known as the Friends Burying Ground, a Quaker cemetery, located in Trenton, New Jersey. His simple gravestone merely states, “Philemon Dickinson, Who Died February 4th 1808.” See also: John Dickinson

[1] Lindsey, Jack L., “Colonial Philadelphia and he Cadwalader Family,” Philadelphia Museum of Art Bulletin, XCI:384/85 (1996), 5-9. [2] Dickinson, Wharton, “Philemon Dickinson: Major-Gen., New Jersey Militia—Revolutionary Service,” Magazine of American History, VII (December 1881), 420. [3] Ross, Frank E., “Philemon Dickinson” in Allen Johnson, et al., “Dictionary of American Biography” (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons; eleven volumes and five supplements, 1958-77), V:302-03. [4] “Biographical Portfolio: General Philemon Dickinson,” Ballou’s Monthly Magazine, LXXI:3 (March 1890), 248-49. [5] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the ­Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the ­Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VI:xliv. [6] For instance, see Dickinson’s official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay. pl?index=D000324, which reports the 1783 date as well. [7] Burnett, “Letters of Members,” op. cit., VI:lxiv. [8] Munroe, John A., “Nonresident Representation in the Continental Congress: The Delaware Delegation of 1782,” The William and Mary Quarterly, IX:2 (April 1952), 171-72. [9] “Died, at his seat, near Trenton,” Mercantile Advertiser [New York City], 8 February 1809, 2.

Diplomacy of, and by, the Continental Congress In the landmark work, “The Diplomatic Correspondence of the American Revolution,” historian Francis Wharton explained, “The history of the diplomacy of a country involves

306

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

the history of its finances and of its wars. Diplomacy can not be carried on without money to back it, or without resting on war as its final process of enforcement; and when war comes, diplomacy does not cease. Then neutral sovereigns intervene on questions of neutral rights and of mediation; and then unofficial intermediaries flit through belligerent territory with functions not the less important because [they are] secret.” [1] The men who formed the “leadership” of the United States following the formation of the First Continental Congress had little in the area of expertise when it came to international relations and the conduct of foreign affairs. The colonies, as singular entities, could not conduct such affairs on their own, and the specific colonies looked towards the delegates of the Continental Congress to make decisions in this area.

However, because the States regarded themselves as sovereign, the Congress decided that it needed to clarify its relations with them, particularly respecting the commitments embodied in the Treaty of Peace with Great Britain, signed in 1783. [2]

The true “start” of the conducting of foreign affairs in the colonies can be traced back to early 1774. It was at this time that the British Parliament enacted a series of measures known as “The Intolerable Acts”—all served to punish the colony of Massachusetts for the Boston Tea Party by inflicting economic sabotage on the economy of the colony. The act called for the closing of the port of Boston, forcing it to be placed, in effect, under martial law; this action forced the hands of those who wanted a break with England, and a call for a “congress” went out. The subsequent meeting in Philadelphia, which ultimately became the First Continental Congress, put the issue of foreign relations front and center—after all, support for the war that soon broke out between the colonists and England was required from foreign powers, most likely France and Spain, among others. Historian Elmer Plischke wrote: Until the Constitution went into effect in 1789, the Continental Congress developed both agencies and processes for managing the foreign affairs of the Confederation and its constituent States. It exercised authority to formulate foreign policy determinations and to administer external relations with both the European powers and the Indians. The critical process of producing State constitutions was largely completed within four years after the Declaration of Independence, but these and later constitutions to 1789 evidenced little concern with foreign relations.

Foreign affairs historian John Bassett Moore wrote in 1900, that “the representatives of the United States of America, assembled in General Congress at the city of Philadelphia, declared that the thirteen United Colonies, possessed, as free and independent States, “full power to levy war, conclude peace, contract alliances, establish commerce, and to do all other acts and things which Independent States may of right do.” [3] With the start of the “shooting war” that broke out between English forces and American colonists at Lexington and Concord in April 1775, most colonists still resisted that final belief that the ties to “Mother England” could be cut forever with a declaration of independence. Even John Adams, that fiery Massachusetts orator who would become one of the authors and signers of the declaration in July 1776, wrote to fellow Massachusetts patriot James Warren, “After all, my Friend, I do not at all Wonder, that so much Reluctance has been Shewn [sic] to the Measure of Independency. All great Changes, are irksome to the human Mind, especially those which are attended with great Dangers, and uncertain Effects. No Man living can foresee the Consequences of such a Measure. And therefore I think it ought not to have been undertaken, untill the Design of Providence, by a series of great Events had so plainly marked out the Necessity of it that he that runs might read. We may feel Sanguine Confidence of our Strength: yet in a few years it may be put to the Tryal.” [4] However unpalatable the step might be towards independence, Adams realized that such a step was likely, perhaps beyond debate. And with such a declaration of independence from England would force the new nation to conduct serious steps of diplomatic matters, including naming ministers to represent the county abroad, and appointing others to try to get not only diplomatic recognition for America, but obtain loans and, even more importantly, possible military forces to aid in the fight against British troops. Even in the most normal

Diplomacy of, and by, the Continental Congress307 of times, such steps are hard to pull off; in the midst of a war, with military forces from one of the world’s greatest powers at the time marching on American cities, it would take a miracle to accomplish. The Declaration of Independence, signed in 1776, paved the way for the institution of the earliest years of American diplomacy. Historian Stephen D. Kertesz, in formulating how both the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation (1781) helped to shape the foreign policy of the new nation, explained: The Declaration of Independence at once became a guide for American foreign relations. When the Declaration severed the ties with Britain, military aid reached the colonies mainly from France through clandestine channels. The Continental Congress in Philadelphia directed the war efforts and prepared instructions for the “militia diplomats” sent to European countries. The Articles of Confederation, adopted by Congress in 1777 and ratified by all the states in 1781, established a loose union that functioned satisfactorily during the war. Although the ideas of the American Revolution seemed strange if not repugnant to the European monarchies, the conservative Bourbon rulers of France and Spain supported the American revolutionaries for reasons of power politics. An important handicap remained elsewhere: the American agents represented a revolutionary regime in the courts of legitimate monarchs who had little confidence in the colonies’ survival and did not want to antagonize Britain. [5] William Vincent Wells, a biographer of Samuel Adams, wrote in 1865 of the body that would ultimately conduct foreign policy for the new country after 1776: The Continental Congress had long hesitated to adopt even the non-importation and non-consumption agreements, but the assemblage at Cambridge had ceased petitioning, and having assumed the forms and acts of supreme local power, had already set in motion new wheels of government, and was, to all intents and purposes, the Legislature of a people wholly separated from Great Britain. Officers holding their appointments under the Crown took no part in their deliberations, and even the Governor was treated with as the agent of a foreign nation. No titled personage, no scion of nobility, occupied any

position among them. They were a body of Provincial statesmen, mostly untutored in the arts of diplomacy, but not surpassed in any civilized society in the world for intelligence and devotion to the rights of mankind. Courage, determination, sagacity, piety, and all the qualities which compose true greatness in men, were there; and time has proved the consummate wisdom of all their measures. [6] The goal of “American diplomacy” at this time was not just in dealing with, or against, England—it also involved Canada, the European states, Russia, and even the Native American nations that inhabited areas in and around the 13 colonies and, in most cases, were fighting alongside the British troops against the Americans. Numerous treaties were negotiated by the Continental Congress. At the same time, through various committees of the Continental Congress, a commission got France to not only contribute military forces, but loans as well, to the continental cause. This commission of three, led by Benjamin Franklin, negotiated the terms of the deal in 1776. (The others were Silas Deane and Arthur Lee.) New York delegate to the Continental Congress John Jay was sent as the first US minister to Spain. Other diplomats were sent to such nations as Russia, the Netherlands, and even Prussia. Officially, William Palfrey of Massachusetts was first US consul, sent to France on 4 November 1780. Palfrey, a veteran of the American Revolution who was a postmaster general of the Continental Army, never saw his post: his ship sank on the way, and he became the first American diplomat to die doing his job. Samuel Flagg Bemis, writing in 1935, explained that previous historians writing on this specific subject confined themselves to American sources only, wholly ignoring British, French, Spanish, and even Dutch, Russian, Austrian, and even Prussian archival sources. [7] This is important: many of the first diplomatic dealings that were conducted by the Continental Congress were with these nations. Historian Benjamin Irvin wrote, “France, however, was not the only power with whom the United States conducted negotiations [with] during the war. A full three years before the Continental Congress concluded treaties with Louis XVI, it first opened diplomatic relations with the indigenous peoples of North America. These peoples also ranked among the powers of

308

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

the earth, however so little or much they might be recognized at international law. And just as delegates to Congress measured the United States against France, so too did they adjudge their fledgling republic in relation to their Native American neighbors.” [8]

That it shall be the duty of the said secretary to keep and preserve all the books and papers belonging to the Department of Foreign Affairs; to receive and report the applications of all foreigners; [to correspond with the ministers of the United States at foreign courts, and with the ministers of foreign powers and other persons, for the purpose of obtaining the most extensive and useful information relative to foreign affairs, to be laid before Congress when required; also to transmit such communications as Congress shall direct, to the ministers of these United States and others at foreign courts, and in foreign countries;] the said secretary shall have liberty to attend Congress, that he may be better informed of the affairs of the United States, and have an opportunity of explaining his reports respecting his department; [he shall also be authorized to employ one or, if necessary, more clerks to assist him in the business of his office; and the secretary, as well as such clerks, shall, before the president of Congress, take an oath of fidelity to the United States and an oath for the faithful execution of their respective trusts.] [9]

On 1o January 1781, after years of having foreign policy conducted by various committees inside the Continental Congress, that body established the Department of Foreign Affairs, with a secretary of foreign affairs to be the head of the agency. As the Journals of the Continental Congress relate: Congress took into consideration the report of the committee appointed to consider and report a plan for the Department of Foreign Affairs, wherein they state, “That the extent and the rising power of these United States entitle them to a place among the great potentates of Europe, while our political and commercial interests point out the propriety of cultivating with them a friendly correspondence and connection; That to render such an intercourse advantageous, the necessity of a competent knowledge of the interests, views, relations, and systems of those potentates, is obvious; That a knowledge, in its nature so comprehensive, is only to be acquired by a constant attention to the state of Europe, and an unremitted application to the means of acquiring well grounded information; That Congress are moreover called upon to maintain with our ministers at foreign courts a regular correspondence, and to keep them fully informed of every circumstance and event which regards the public honor, interest, and safety: That to answer those essential purposes, the committee are of opinion, that a fixed and permanent office for the Department of Foreign Affairs ought forthwith to be established, as a remedy against the fluctuation, the delay and indecision to which the present mode of managing our foreign affairs must be exposed; Whereupon, Resolved, That an office be forthwith established for the Department of Foreign Affairs, to be kept always in the place where Congress shall reside: That there shall be a secretary for the despatch of the business of the said office, to be stiled [sic] [a] ‘Secretary for [F]oreign [A]ffairs:”

The new “department” included the secretary and one or two clerks. But in the scheme of things, the conduct of foreign affairs for the new country had taken a giant step. Robert R. Livingston was the first secretary of foreign affairs, but he was ineffective at best, and in 1784 he was replaced by John Jay of New York, who held the position until the new US government was formed in 1789 under the Constitution, signed in 1787 and ratified in 1788. Historian John Kaminski penned: In his service as Secretary for Foreign Affairs (1784 to 1789), John Jay rejected the traditional European balance-of-power diplomacy in favor of a new diplomacy patterned after his belief in strong government and his own personal sense of morality. Jay felt that America had an important future—but one that was neither predestined nor inevitable. Its future depended solely on its ability to pass various tests and surmount obstacles along its arduous path. Two years after America achieved independence, Jay shared his outlook with former British Prime Minister Lord Shelburne: “To what events this country may in the future be instrumental, is indeed uncertain; but I cannot persuade myself that Providence has created such a nation, in such a country, to remain like dust in the balance of others.” [10]

William Henry Drayton (1742–1779)309 Historian Dorothy Burne Goebel added, “During John Jay’s incumbency (1784- 89), Congress increased the Secretary’s authority to some extent, such as granting him the power to frame instructions to diplomatic agents, but continued to keep a tight rein on the conduct of foreign relations.” [11]

William Henry Drayton (1742–1779)

In the late 19th century, the first secret papers of the Continental Congress were slowly published, officially, by the US government. Among these were a multi-volume collection of letters and dispatches, edited by historian Francis Wharton. Since that time, other volumes and other publications have sought to “fill in” the picture of what the Continental Congress did, especially with respect to the conduct of foreign policy. The entire picture may never be completely known, but historians today have a far better image than their predecessors ever had.

[1] “Chapter 1. Municipal Relations” in Francis Wharton, ed., “The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States. Edited Under Direction of Congress” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; six volumes, 1889), I:251. [2] Elmer Plischke, “US Department of State: A Reference History” (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1999), 9. [3] Moore, John Bassett, “A Hundred Years of American Diplomacy,” Harvard Law Review, XIV:3 (November 1900), 165. [4] Quoted in Bradford Perkins, “The Cambridge History of American Foreign Relations: The Creation of a Republican Empire, 1776-1865” (Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press; two volumes, 1993), I:17. [5] Kertesz, Stephen D., “Achievements and Pitfalls of American Diplomacy, 1776-1980,” The Review of Politics, XLII:2 (April 1980), 216-17. [6] Wells, William V., “The Life and Public Services of Samuel Adams, Being a Narrative of His Acts and Opinions, and of His Agency in Producing and Forwarding the American Revolution. With Extracts From His Correspondence, State Papers, and Political Essays” (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company; three volumes, 1865), II:260-61. [7] Bemis, Samuel Flagg, “The Diplomacy of the American Revolution” (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 1935), vii. [8] Irvin, Benjamin H., “‘Clothed in Robes of Sovereignty’: The Continental Congress and the People Out of Doors” (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2011), 178. [9] Resolution of the Continental Congress of 10 January 1781, in Worthington C. Ford, ed., “Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789. Edited from the Original Records in the Library of Congress by Worthington Chauncey Ford, Chief, Division of Manuscripts” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; 34 volumes, 1904-37), XIX:42-44. [10] Kaminski, John P., “Honor and Interest: John Jay’s Diplomacy During the Confederation,” New York History, LXXXIII:3 (Summer 2002), 293. [11] Goebel, Dorothy Burne, “Congress and Foreign Relations before 1900,” Annals of the American Academy of Political and Social Science, CCLXXXIX (Congress and Foreign Relations) (September 1953), 24.

Perhaps the most important political leader to come out of South Carolina in the years prior to, and during, the American Revolution, was William Henry Drayton. Historian Keith Krawczynski, one of Drayton’s biographers, wrote, “From his birth in September 1742, circumstances destined William Henry Drayton for leadership among South Carolina’s ruling oligarchy.” [1] Drayton was born at his family’s estate, “Drayton Hall,” located on the Ashley River near Charles Town (now Charleston), South Carolina, in September 1742, the son of John Drayton (17151779), a noted colonial South Carolina official, and his second wife, Charlotte (née Bull) Drayton. John Drayton was, himself, the scion of a famed colonial family: the son of Thomas Drayton II, born in London, England, in 1650, who emigrated first to Barbados and then to South Carolina in 1678, John Drayton served as the chief justice of the South Carolina colonial Supreme Court, as the head of the South Carolina Royal Council (1754), and, before his death, rose to become the wealthiest man in South Carolina. [2] A genealogical study done on the family and the other families who lived along the Ashley River by historian Henry A.M. Smith in 1919 stated that “this John Drayton was the grandson of the

310

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

original Thomas Drayton who seems to have come to the Province in 1679 in the same vessel with Stephen Fox. This first Thomas whose wife appears to have been named Elizabeth died about 1700 . . . ” Smith added, “The Honourable John Drayton was married no less than four times.” Charlotte Bull, his second wife, was the daughter of Lieutenant Governor William Bull of South Carolina; his two children with her were his sons William Henry Drayton and Dr. Charles Drayton. John Drayton’s third wife, Margaret Glen, was the sister of South Carolina Governor James Glen. [3]

October 1776. Thirteen years earlier, few would have predicted the incredible events that drove the American colonies from a part of the British Empire to becoming an independent nation a decade later. In 1765, with few problems in his life save where to spend his vast fortune, Drayton was elected to a seat in the South Carolina Commons House of Assembly, the lower house of the colonial legislature. He apparently did not see the ultimate danger, or the incredible damage, that the Stamp Act (1765), one of a series of harsh economic measures enacted by the British Parliament against the colonies, did to his constituents, and he did not speak out against it; for this, in 1768 he lost his bid for reelection. It was a stunning blow to a man who rarely could not gain what he wished and when. It was perhaps this electoral defeat that opened his eyes to what was happening to the America merchants; he then decided to condemn the parliamentary measures through pen and ink. Writing in the South Carolina Gazette under pseudonym “Freeman,” Drayton denounced the Townshend Act duties. Advocated by Charles Townshend, the British Chancellor of the Exchequer, the act, coming on the heels of the repeal of the universally-despised Stamp Act, was enacted to “defray the expenses” of running the colonial governments; the legislation established a Customs Commission to oversee new shipping rates for British merchandise shipped into the colonies, and it also used economic measures to punish New York for its refusal to comply with the Quartering Act (1765), which forced ordinary families to give shelter to British soldiers. Taking the side not of his fellow colonists but the British government, Drayton wrote that it was inconceivable that men, like him with an education, should have to deal “with men who never were in a way to study, or to advise upon any points, but rules how to cut up a beast in the market to the best advantage, to cobble an old shoe in the neatest manner, or to build a necessary house.” He called these men who dictated “the profanum vulgus,” and wrote that while they were “a species of mankind,” that “[n] ature never intended that such men should be profound politicians or able statesmen . . . Will a man in his right senses be directed by an illiterate person in the prosecution of a law-suit? Or, when a ship is in a storm, and near the rocks who, but a fool, would put the helm into the hand of a landsman?” [5]

Along with the Pinckney family, the Draytons were one of the most influential families in the colony of South Carolina. So it is not out of the ordinary for William Henry Drayton to be a close friend of both scions of that family, Thomas Pinckney and his brother Charles Cotesworth Pinckney. In 1753, when he was 11, Drayton’s father sent his son along with both Pinckneys to England for their schooling: Drayton attended the prestigious Westminster School in London, where he went for eight full years. Then, in 1761, Drayton entered Balliol College, Oxford, but his father removed him from that school after two years for spending more time on “extracurricular activities” than doing his studies. Drayton left Balliol and never received a degree from that school, or from any other. Instead, he returned home to South Carolina, and in March 1764 he married a wealthy local woman, Dorothy Golightly, who survived him by one year, dying herself in 1780 at age 33. The couple, offered by John Drayton a rice plantation in St. Bartholomew parish as a wedding gift, had four children, two of whom survived to adulthood. Historian Henry Alexander White wrote in 1966, that upon his return to South Carolina, “Drayton began to write letters to the papers about certain great rights and liberties which belonged, he said, to all of the American colonies. The people of the middle and upper parts of South Carolina had been without law courts for the trial of thieves and other criminals. For this reason the settlers had organized themselves as regulators, and had taken into their hands the punishment of evildoers.” [4] “Never were a People more wrapped up in a King, than the Americans were in George the Third in the Year 1763,” Drayton later wrote in

William Henry Drayton (1742–1779)311 Drayton soon felt the effects of his words: Now unpopular at home, he was forced to flee South Carolina and sail to England, where he settled in London. Instead of trying to mitigate his words, however, he reiterated them, publishing the essays in a work titled “The Letters of Freeman, Etc.” (London: Privately Published, 1771). Historians William M. Dabney and Marion Dargan explained, “In the preface he expressed the hope that reason might be heard when popular clamor had subsided. He probably hoped also to attract the attention of the British ministry to his loyalty to the Crown during the nonimportation controversy. In the latter endeavor he seems to have succeeded. He was introduced at the court of George III and was particularly ‘noted by Lord Sandwich and others of the British nobility.’” [6] For his services to the Crown, on 1 February 1771 Drayton was given an appointment on the South Carolina Council, a board that aided the royal governor in running the colony. Ironically, it was during this period that Drayton changed from supporting the King to one who backed independence for America. Upon his return to South Carolina, his uncle, Lieutenant Governor William Bull, named him as temporary deputy postmaster general for the southern district of South Carolina, and requested that his nephew be made a judge to a court vacancy. Despite these recommendations from a highly respected royal official, the General Assembly refused to honor either request. Drayton’s work with Native American tribes, most notably the Catawbas, led Drayton to offer to protect their land in trust. This request, too, was turned down, this time by the King’s own Indian agent, John Stuart, who believed, without any proof, that Drayton wanted to steal the Indian land for himself. [7] Whether the judgeship being blocked, or the land deal being scrapped, was the final straw, no one knows. Drayton and his father, both leading politicians in the colony, denounced the refusal of the Council to approve a spending bill enacted by the Commons, and together they stole a copy of the original bill and published it in a local newspaper. The newspaper The Boston EveningPost reported on 4 October 1773, that the lower house of the South Carolina General Assembly resolved, “That this House will Tomorrow take into their Consideration the Protest entered by the Honorable William Henry Drayton.” The paper reported that “[t]he Honorable William Henry

Drayton, thereupon, in his Place, acknowledged that he was the Person who sent the Copy of that Part of the Journals, which was printed in the said Newspaper, to the Printer to be published, but, that he had no intention to affront the House by so doing, and he was sorry to find that the House had taken Displeasure at the same.” [8] But Drayton—and his father—both knew what they had been doing. This was Drayton’s first step away from allegiance to the Crown. It would not be his last. Despite his loyalty to the Crown, Bull also wanted to help his nephew, so he named Drayton to an interim position as an associate justice (Drayton’s official congressional biography states that the post was of assistant judge) [9], but by now Drayton was deeply involved in the revolutionary movement that he did not pay attention to his duties and, ultimately, was forced to leave the position. In August 1774, Drayton published a second work, “A Letter from Freeman of South-Carolina, to the Deputies of North-America,” which was an open letter to the delegates assembling for the Continental Congress, in which Drayton called out British attempts “to exercise despotism over America” while he called for a grand assemblage of the colonies to challenge Parliament to tax the colonies without fair representation. This was, in fact, a direct challenge to British rule— and now Drayton was persona non grata in South Carolina for these views. His uncle, Lieutenant Governor Bull, suspended him from the Royal Council, and his decision was upheld by London. The break between William Henry Drayton and the Crown was complete. Instead, in 1775, Drayton was named as the president of the South Carolina Council of Safety, a committee that filled the vacuum of power left after the collapse of royal governments in the colonies. One of the first issues of the Continental Congress, meeting in Philadelphia as a form of “national legislature,” was the institution of a nonexportation and nonimportation agreement among all of the colonies. Such economic measures were ultimately designed to harm England, because they banned all imports from England to the colonies, but also exports from American merchants and factories to England; but they would have an equally, if not more so,

312

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

devastating effect on these colonial merchants who sold the goods and exported the raw materials made in the factories. Nevertheless, such agreements were necessary if the British would learn that cost to keeping America in its current condition was rather high. In South Carolina, Drayton’s mission, among his most important, was to visit the “backcountry” of the colony and convince those Tories, still loyal to England, or those on the dividing line between the two sides, to back the Continental Congress and the two agreements.

irresolute leadership of Fletchall, thwarted Drayton’s plans to hold a meeting at Snow Hill on September 1. [10]

Historian Christopher Gould explained: [R]esponding to discontent in the backcountry, the General Committee formed a Committee of Intelligence to communicate to “the interior and back Parts of this Colony, every Kind of necessary Information.” In June and July, this Committee of Intelligence sent circular letters to backcountry parishes and districts, summarizing the patriot point of view. These letters stressed the need for the South Carolina Association as an act of union, noting that by their refusal to sign, some inhabitants of the backcountry had jeopardized this union, unintentionally of course. By the end of July, however, the Council of Safety was forced to conclude that the circular letters alone were not enough. William Henry Drayton, along with William Tennent and Oliver Hart, was sent to the backcountry to explain the patriot position in person; he was empowered to call upon the militia for support if necessary. Backcountry-men sympathetic to the Crown included Patrick and Robert Cunningham, Thomas Fletchall, Moses Kirkland, and Thomas Brown. Fletchall, their leader, proved to be the weak link. Although he believed that the Continental Congress had been “impolitick, disrespectful, and irritating to the King,” he vowed “never [to] take up arms against. . . his countrymen.” Drayton managed to persuade Fletchall to call a meeting on August 23 at Ford’s on the Enoree River to elect a representative to the Provincial Congress. At this meeting, Kirkland and Brown so conducted themselves—verbally abusing Drayton, denouncing the South Carolina Association, and vowing to make common cause with British troops when they arrived—that the election could not be carried out, although seventy persons did remain to sign the Association—most of them for the second time “to give a good example.” Kirkland, however, intensified his disruptive tactics; taking arms, he and his men, still nominally under the

Historian Walter Edgar added on the other men added to the mission were Oliver Hart, a Baptist clergyman; William Tennent, a Presbyterian minister; Joseph Kershaw of Camden; and Richard Richardson of the High Hills. [11] As a sidenote here, Drayton took notice that there had not been courts to try criminals in the colony of South Carolina; the General Assembly, in 1768, had tried to institute a system of such courts, but the bill was vetoed by the Royal Governor, Lord Charles G. Montagu. [12] The Drayton mission to try to end the challenge from Loyalists in the backcountry of South Carolina was the last service of Drayton prior to serving in the Continental Congress. The meeting that was held between the group led by Drayton and the Loyalists, at the village called Ninety Six. Historian Marvin L. Cann calls this meeting a “prelude to war”—in short, the opening salvo of the American Revolution. He penned: The late summer pilgrimage of Drayton and Tennent into the up country, designed to convert potential loyalists into sound patriots, met with little success. In a series of public meetings which combined elements of political rally and religious revival, Drayton and Tennent preached the message of rebellion with evangelical fervor and urged their audiences to endorse the Association. The response was unenthusiastic. Drayton held a meeting at a Lutheran church near the Saluda River where he “thought it prudent to mix many texts of Scripture” into his speech against British tyranny. “To my great surprise,” he reported, “Only one of the congregation subscribed to the association.” Later Drayton held a rally at Evan McLaurin’s store in the forks of the Broad and Saluda rivers. A large group of German settlers listened to Drayton’s appeal. Some had already heard his message twice “without the desired effect” and no one accepted the Association. Drayton charged that McLaurin had used his influence to prevent the people from sup porting the patriot cause and warned “the Dutch are not with us.” [13] A clash at Ninety Six, 18 November 1775, came directly from the failure of the Drayton mission.

William Henry Drayton (1742–1779)313 The first major land battle in the South in the Revolutionary War pitted 1,900 Loyalists against 562 patriots, the latter led by Major Andrew Williamson. The battle ended with Williamson and his troops surrounded, offering to tear down a fort if they were allowed to leave. The site of the fort is now called Ninety Six National Historic Site. The newspaper Dunlap’s Pennsylvania Packet, or The General Advertiser of Philadelphia reported in November 1775, that “[a]n express, which arrived here on Wednesday from S. Carolina, informs that the inhabitants of Charlestown have taken every measure necessary for their protection and defence, in case they should be attacked by any ships of war, or troops; and that they are up the country more than ten thousand men, well armed, who are ready to come to their assistance upon the shortest notice. Also that the Hon. William Henry Drayton, Esq; had reconciled a number of persons in the back parts, who, having been imposed upon by some artful incendiaries, had entertained unfavorable sentiments of the present opposition to the arbitrary proceedings of administration.” [14] The Pennsylvania Evening Post of Philadelphia then reported on 9 November that Charlestown was preparing for an invasion by British troops: Women and children almost all moved out of town, and barracks built for them in the country. They have twenty ton[s] of powder, and the quantity daily increasing. Two thousand men in uniforms, blue faced with red. Light horse [number] five hundred, blue faced with white, an well furnished. The militia in the country is in fine order, drill-serjeants [sic] having been sent among them many months past. The Regulators in the back country, who were under oath, have entered into a treaty to remain neuter[ed]; Thomas Fletcher and Patrick Cunningham, their chiefs, are now in Charlestown. The people are under no apprehensions from their Negroes. The Hon. William Henry Drayton, the worthy Judge of the Superior Court, has made a treaty with the Cherokees to assist the inhabitants in case of necessity. [15] The situation changed in the colonies in 1776. The publication in the first month of that year of Thomas Paine’s “Common Sense,” a call for independence, invaded every sense of the Continental Congress and the colonies and seemed to bring that issue rapidly to the

forefront. Historian Michael Piggott wrote in 1915: In April 1776, Judge William Henry Drayton, of South Carolina, delivering a charge to the grand jury, said: “I think it my duty to declare in the awful seat of justice, and before almighty God, that, in my opinion, the Americans can have no safety but by the Divine favor, their own virtue and their being so potent, as not to leave it in the power of the British rulers to injure them. Indeed, the ruinous and deadly injuries received on our side, and the jealousies entertained, and which in the nature of things, must daily increase against us on the other, demonstrates to a mind, in the least given to reflection upon the rise and fall of empires, that true reconcilement never can exist between Great Britain and America, the latter being in subjection to the former.” [16] Thomas Paine, the British-born author of “Common Sense,” which gave the impetus to the independent movement that led to the Declaration of Independence in July 1776, wrote of Drayton’s speech, “The legal necessity of being independent, with several collateral reasons, is pointed out in an elegant, masterly manner, in a charge to the grand jury for the district of Charlestown, by the hon. William Henry Drayton, esq. chief justice of SouthCarolina. This performance, and the address of the convention of New-York, are pieces, in my humble opinion, of the first rank in America.” [17] Paine was correct: The charge received such attention, that it was published in pamphlet form as “A Charge, on the Rise of the American Empire. Delivered by the Hon. William Henry Drayton, chief-justice of South Carolina: to the Grand jury for the district of Charlestown” (Charleston, South Carolina: Printed by David Bruce on Church-Street, 1776). With the failure of his mission to try to bring the backcountry Loyalists into the patriot fold, Drayton returned to Charles Town, where he participated in the naval fight against British forces. Now fully on board with the movement to bring independence to America, Drayton was elected as the president of the Second South Carolina Provincial Congress, where he remained one of the earliest advocates for independence. In March 1776, the Provisional Congress became the new South Carolina General Assembly, and the members elected Drayton as the chief

314

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

justice of the colony, in effect its governor. The following year, Drayton was one of the leaders to help to draft and sign a new constitution, which replaced one established in early 1776.

The second document is a letter from Drayton to John Laurens, the brother of Continental Congress delegate Henry Laurens, dated 7 September 1778. Drayton explained, “We have had but little information with respect to the operations of the French fleet during their expedition against Lord Howe. General Sullivan forgot to inclose a copy of D’Estaing’s letter to him immediately upon his return to Rhode Island. We have no account of the names of the officers who signed the protest, nor of the answer of the general officers to General Sullivan’s third proposition to them, immediately upon the departure of the French fleet for Boston; nor of the precise time when the fleet sailed for and arrived at Boston. These, you know, are of importance to me. The stationary nature of the camp at White Plains may enable you to inform me on this point, and on those relative to Monmouth.” [20]

On 21 January 1778, the South Carolina legislature elected Drayton to a seat in the Continental Congress; he would attend sessions of that body from 30 March to 5 May 1778, and from about 23 May to 31 December 1778. Historian Edmund Cody Burnett reports that Drayton was one of a group of leading South Carolinians elected to the Continental Congress; these men included Christopher Gadsden, Henry Laurens, Arthur Middleton, and Drayton. [18] Drayton signed the Articles of Confederation in July 1778. There are two important documents from Drayton’s service in the Continental Congress: the first is a motion he introduced in that body on 1 May 1778: Resolved, That the Commissioners of Congress at the Courts of France and Spain be instructed to inform those Courts respectively, that Congress are assured the King and Parliament of Great Britain intend very shortly to open a treaty with these United States to procure a reconciliation with that Kingdom. That Congress believe great Britain will consent to the Independence of America, only in consequence of the most absolute compulsion—that Great Britain is inclined to sacrifice much of her claim to bind these States in all cases whatsoever-that as it is the true Interest of America to be an Independent power, she will be inclined to relinquish her Independency, only from the most absolute necessity to do so-that the strength and resources of the two countries are considerably diminished by the War-that these States wish to be assisted with loans of money sufficient to enable them to support the credit of their paper moneyand that an annual supply of money to the amount of Millions Livre and an immediate declaration of War by France and Spain against Great Britain would enable these United States to continue the War and with the blessing of God to establish their Independence. In addition to these representations, the said Commissioners shall demand a categorical answer of France and Spain to this point. Whether or not they will grant to these United States an annual loan upon Interest of millions of Livres during the continuance of the War, and make an immediate Declaration of War against Great Britain. [19]

From the Connecticut Journal, 5 August 1778, the concluding part of a letter addressed to the British commissioners: A letter has been laid before Congress, signed Geo. Johnstone, dated, Philadelphia, June 10, 1778, directed, To the Hon. Francis Dana, Esq; and, among other things, the writer says, There are three facts I wish to assure you of. First, “Dr. Franklin, on the 29th of March last, in discussing the several articles we wish to made the basis of our treaty, was perfectly satisfied they were beneficial to North America, and such as she should accept.” Decisively to destroy this position, I have only to state two or three points. The Hon. Silas Deane has informe me, That a secret negotiator from Britain did arrive at Passy, immediately preceding the 29th of March last, and applied to Dr. Franklin: That he himself Paris the 1st of April, in order to imbark [sic] at Toulon for America: That at Toulon he received a letter from Dr. Franklin, dated the 7th of April. Mr. Deane put the letter into my hand; and, with his permission, I extracted the following paragraph: “The negotiator is gone back, apparently much chagrined at his little success. I have promised him faithfully, That since his propositions could not be accepted, they should be buried in oblivion.”—With every American I have no doubt but this testimony by Dr. Franklin will greatly outweigh the testimony given by Gov. Johnstone and negotiator, who has

William Henry Drayton (1742–1779)315 divulged the proposition he desired the Doctor to bury in oblivion. But there was design in this conduct: it is so obvious that I need not point it out. Second, “That this treaty with France was not the first that France has exacted, and with which Mr. Simeon Deane had put to sea, but granted and acceded to after the sentiments of the people of G. Britain had fully changed;” meaning with regard to the measures to be pursued with America, conciliation instead of coercion. Upon this second article I must observe, That the Hon. Silas Deane, to whom I read it, and who was at the court of France during the whole time of any negotiation there for a treaty between France and America, assures me, that France never exacted any terms from America but those contained in the treaties of the 6th of February; and that Mr. Simeon Deane had never put to sea with any other treaties: That it is true he had put to sea preceding this period, but only charged with the declaration of the court of France, to live erred by Mons. Gerard on the 16th of December, to the American Commissioners, of whom Mr. Deane was one, and with letters from the commissioners, informing Congress, that the treaty would be formed agreeable to that declaration; a declaration which I have already stated in my letter to your Excellencies of the 17th of June, at Yorktown. And thus, from the express authority of the Hon. Mr. Deane, Gov. Johnstone stands fully consulted. As for the third fact, “That Spain, unasked, had sent a formal message, disapproving of the conduct of France,” I have only to say, that as I cannot offer evidence against it, for argument I will admit the fact may be so. And what then? Will Gov. Johnstone pretend to say, Spain now disapproves the conduct of France? It is known to the world, that France and Spain are in the most perfect confidence together. France is now at war with G. Britain; Gov. Johnstone now knows this fact; and I assure myself that he does not doubt that Spain is either at this moment also at war with G. Britain, or very shortly will be. A few weeks will ascertain this matter, and demonstrate that the Governor is content to catch at a straw. When his Excellency wrote this on the 10th of June, he had then to learn, that the Count d’Estaign had sailed from Toulon; and that the Spanish plate-fleet had arrived at Cadiz. I now call upon Johnstone relative to a more serious subject: use personal honour is interested. The

following particulars are not unworthy [of] his notice. [21]

It is needless for me to make any reflections upon such particulars. I bid your Excellencies farewell. William Henry Drayton Philadelphia, July 18, 1778 [22] Drayton spent much of his time arguing over fine points of law, while at the same time he was busily collecting papers and documents for what he believed would be his life’s work: a comprehensive history of the American Revolution and the movement for American independence. On 3 September 1779, Drayton, at just 37 years of age, succumbed to a “billious fever” after many months of suffering; he was laid to rest the following day in the Christ Church in Philadelphia. Because of his illness, all of his personal papers were burned. William Henry Drayton was widely mourned. Newspapers across the new nation noted that he played an active role in the establishment of the United States. Thomas’s Massachusetts Spy, Or, American Oracle of Liberty of Worcester, featured one of the longest memorials to Drayton. That paper stated: On the fourth day of Sept. inst. Congress being informed that Mr. WILLIAM HENRY DRAYTON, one of the delegates for the State of South-Carolina, had died the preceeding night, and that circumstances required that his remains should be interred that evening. They Resolved, “That Congress would in a body attend the funeral that evening at 6 o’clock, as mourners, with a crape round the left arm and would continue in mourning for the space of one month.” They further resolved, That Mr. Laurens, Mr. Matthews [sic; should be John Mathews of South Carolina], and Mr. Harnet [sic; should be Cornelius Harnett of North Carolina], be a Committee to superintend the funeral; and that the Rev. Mr. White[,] the attending Chaplain, should be notified to officiate on the occasion. They also directed the committee to invite the General Assembly, the President and Supreme Executive Council of Pennsylvania, the Minister Plenipotentiary of France, and other persons of distinction in town to attend the funeral. . . . Mr. Drayton’s age did not exceed 38 years: He died of a putrid fever. His health had been almost insensibly impared [sic] by a sedentary life, and incessant attention

316

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

to business for near two years attendance on Congress, which his constitution, though naturally strong, was unable longer to sustain . . . to speak particularly of his character, would perhaps be improper in a newspaper, which, like the grave, generally places the dead on a level, without respect to the wise man or to the fool, the saint or the sinner. Let this subject, therefore, be reserved for the men of some impartial historian, who, when he shall inform posterity, that William Henry Drayton was an honest, independent patriot, and an upright candid gentleman . . . ” [23]

[2] Refer to the Drayton family tree, online at http://www. politicalfamilytree.com/samples%20content/members/signers/ Drayton-SC-1.pdf. Please also refer to M. Atherton Leach, “Some Account of the Draytons of South Carolina and Philadelphia” (Lancaster, PA: Wickersham Press, 1921). . See also Griffin, Dorothy Gail, “The Eighteenth Century Draytons of Drayton Hall” (Ph.D. dissertation, Emory University, 1985). [3] Smith, Henry A.M., “The Ashley River: Its Seats and Settlements,” The South Carolina Historical and Genealogical Magazine, XX:2 (April 1919), 93, 96. [4] White, Henry Alexander, “Stories of the States: The Making of South Carolina” (New York: Silver, Burdett and Company, 1906), 92. [5] Wood, Gordon S., “The Radicalism of the American Revolution” (New York: Vintage Books, 1993), 246. [6] Dabney, William M., and Marion Dargan, “William Henry Drayton and the American Revolution” (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1962), 38. For a modern version of Drayton’s work, see William M. Dabney (Robert M. Weir, ed.), “The Letters of Freeman, Etc.: Essays on the Nonimportation Movement in South Carolina” (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1977). [7] Drayton and Stuart had a lengthy contentious relationship until the start of the American Revolution, when Stuart fled back to England. See Philip M. Hamer, “John Stuart’s Indian Policy During the Early Months of the American Revolution,” The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XVII:3 (December 1930), 351-66. [8] “South-Carolina. In the Upper House of Assembly,” The Boston Evening-Post [Massachusetts], 4 October 1773, 1. [9] Drayton official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=D000491. [10] Gould, Christopher, “The South Carolina and Continental Associations: Prelude to Revolution,” The South Carolina Historical Magazine, LXXXVII:1 (January 1986), 43-44. [11] Edgar, Walter, “South Carolina: A History” (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1998), 223. [12] See “An Act, For Establishing Courts, building Gaols [jails], and appointing Sheriffs and other Officers, for the more convenient Administration of Justice in this Province,” Anno Regni Octavo GEORGII III. Regis, in “Acts of the General Assembly of South-Carolina, Passed the 12th Day of April, 1768” (Charles-Town, South-Carolina: Printed and Sold by Peter Timothy, Printer to the Honourable the Commons House of Assembly, 1768), 3-4. [13] Cann, Marvin L., “Prelude to War: The First Battle of Ninety Six: November 19-21, 1775,” The South Carolina Historical Magazine, LXXVI:4 (October 1975), 202. See also O’Donnell, James H., “A Loyalist View of the Drayton-Tennent-Hart Mission to the Upcountry,” The South Carolina Historical Magazine, LXVII:1 (January 1966), 15-28. [14] “Philadelphia, November 6,” Dunlap’s Pennsylvania Packet, Or, The General Advertiser [Philadelphia], 6 November 1775, 2. [15] “New-York, Nov. 8,” The Pennsylvania Evening Post [Philadelphia], 9 November 1775, 514. [16] Piggott, Michael, “American Genealogy” (Quincy, IL: Privately Printed by the Author, 1915), 203. [17] Paine, Thomas, “The Works of Thomas Paine, Secretary for Foreign Affairs, to the Congress of the United States, in the Late War. In Two Volumes” (Philadelphia: Printed by James Carey; two volumes, 1797), I:90. [18] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), III:lx. [19] “William Henry Drayton, Motion,” 1 May 1778, in ibid., III:213.

In 1979, upon the two hundredth anniversary of his death, Drayton’s remains were exhumed, and returned to his ancestral home on the banks of the Ashley River, buried in a family vault in what is now the Magnolia Plantation Saint Andrews Parish. Historian Jack B. Greene summed up the thoughts and ideas that William Henry Drayton propagated during the peak years of his short life: “Free men,” as the young William Henry Drayton defiantly announced in 1769 in refusing to be pressured into participating in the economic boycott against the Townshend Acts, had to “have free wills, in all cases, where the laws of our country do not restrain them.” The right to exercise that will, to give an independent opinion, said a later opponent of Drayton, was “the immediate Inheritance of every Man born free.” Supporting Draytons position in 1769, the iconoclast William Wragg demonstrated just how much significance Revolutionary South Carolinians could attach to this right. “I would endure every thing,” he declared, “rather than have the freedom of my will or understanding limited or restrained . . . by men not having authority.” No man could be genuinely “at liberty” who did not have such personal independence, a concept every bit as hallowed as liberty in the lexicon of the eighteenthcentury Anglophone world and one connoting an absolute exemption from any degree of subordination, support, or control by any other person. The distinguishing marks of a free man were thus that he was in no sense subject to “the disposal or discretion of another” and was in all things “governed [only] by himself, or by laws to which he has consented.” [24]

[1] Krawczynski. Keith, “William Henry Drayton: South Carolina Revolutionary Patriot” (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 2001), 1.

James Duane (c. 1732–1797)317 [20] William Henry Drayton to John Laurens, 7 September 1778, in ibid., III:403. The “d’Estaing” mentioned here refers to Jean Baptiste Charles Henri Hector, the Comte d’Estaing (1729-1794), the commander of the first French fleet sent to lend assistance to the Continental Army. [21] In this portion of the letter, excised here for space purposes, Drayton lists a series of allegations against Johnstone that are not relevant to this subject. [22] “America: W.H. Drayton to the Peace-Commissioners,” The Scots Magazine, XL (September 1778), 538. [23] “Philadelphia, Sept. 26,” Thomas’s Massachusetts Spy, Or, American Oracle of Liberty [Worcester, Massachusetts], 14 October 1779, 4. [24] Greene, Jack B., “‘Slavery or Independence’: Some Reflections on the Relationship among Liberty, Black Bondage, and Equality in Revolutionary South Carolina,” The South Carolina Historical Magazine, LXXX:3 (July 1979), 195.

James Duane (c. 1732–1797)

A close associate of Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, James Duane played a key role in the establishment of policy in New York as the movement for American independence took shape. He served as a delegate from New York to the Continental Congress (1774-83). Duane was born in New York City on 6 February 1732 or 1733,—the third son of Anthony Duane, an Irish emigrant who was a merchant in New York City, and his second wife, Althea (née

Kettletas) Duane. According to historian Samuel W. Jones, Anthony Duane was born in the village of Cong, in County Galway, Ireland, and as a youth joined the British navy as a purser. During one stopover in the port of New York, Duane was so taken with what he saw that when he returned home to Ireland he left the navy, took a ship back to New York, and became a lifelong resident of that city, opening a small business and becoming a merchant. He then married Eva Benson, the daughter of another merchant. The couple married and had two sons: Abraham and Cornelius. Born in 1680, Eva Duane died of some unknown disease, leaving her widowed husband to care for two young children. Anthony Duane remarried, this time to Althea (also spelled “Altea”) Kettletas, or Ketaltas, a daughter of Abraham Kettletas, a politician and Alderman in New York City. This couple had one child, James Duane, before the second Mrs. Duane’s death in 1736 when he was around three or four years old. [1] In 1741, Duane married for a third time, to Margaret Riker, a native of a part of Queen’s County on New York’s Long Island. This time, one of Anthony Duane’s wives survived him: he died in 1757, and James Duane’s stepmother lived until 1775. [2] Despite his father’s wealth, the opportunities for an education in New York at that time were few; James Duane, instead of attending a college like Columbia, which did not open for several years, was given private tutoring. He then studied the law under James Alexander, a noted city attorney, and was admitted to the New York colonial bar on 3 August 1754. Opening his own law practice, Duane soon became one of the most influential attorneys in the city, arguing cases before courts on appeal. In one of his most famous cases, Forsey v. Cunningham (1764), Duane handled the appeal that allowed the Acting Royal Governor, Cadwallader Colden, and his Council of advisors, to overrule court findings and institute their own decisions; the appealed decision eventually held that Governor Colden could not overrule the courts, a landmark in legal thinking for the American colonies as well as English law. [3] Earning the respect that came with such arguments, in 1762 Duane was named as the clerk of the Chancery Court, where he served for five years. In 1767, Duane was appointed as the attorney general for the

318

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

New York colony, serving during this period in additional positions, such as a boundary commissioner (1768, 1784).

correspondence, and other writings by Duane during this period is voluminous. For instance, aside from John Adams’ diary of his trip from Boston to Philadelphia to attend the opening days of the Continental Congress, the notes of John Duane demonstrate the earliest written opinions of the men who dared to challenge the King of England and his administration of the colonies. On 5 September 1774, Duane wrote:

In October 1759, Duane had solidified his status in New York’s hierarchy of power and privilege when he married Mary Livingston, the daughter of Robert Livingston, one of the members of one of New York’s most prominent political families. At the same time, Duane was using his own wealth, both earned and acquired, to make large land purchases in upstate New York, near what is now the city of Schenectady, helping to found the city of Duanesburgh, west of Schenectady. In 1797, when Duane’s health began to fail, he retired here, to spend his final days. The revolutionary movement in the colonies began not in New York, but in Massachusetts, and from his writings at the time we can surmise that Duane, as a colonial official, was not happy with the movement that challenged the royal officials and the governmental structure directed from London. In early 1774, he was named as the colonial Indian commissioner, and it appeared that he would be content to leave the colonial structure in place. However, he soon came to find fault with all things run by London and the Crown; he served as a delegate to the New York Provisional Convention, and, in 1775, as a member of the Revolutionary Committee of One Hundred, also known as the Committee of One Hundred. In 1776 and 1777, he served as a member of the New York Provisional Congress. [4] By 1774, however, as the opening shots at Lexington and Concord between British troops and the “Minute Men” gave way to the establishment of a Continental Congress held in Philadelphia among all of the colonies, Duane took sides—and he sided with his fellow colonists. On 28 July 1774, Duane was elected to a seat in the Continental Congress, sometimes known as the First Continental Congress. He was subsequently reelected on 22 April 1775, initially attending sessions of that body from 5 September to 26 October 1774, 10 May 1775 to 2 August 1775, and from 13 September 1775 to about 3 June 1776. [5] Duane would eventually serve in the Continental Congress until 1784, one of the longest tenures in that body. During this period, the record of speeches, notes taken,

The Members of the Congress met at Smith’s Tavern. The Speaker of the Pensylvania Assembly having offered the Congress the use of the State house; and the Carpenters the use of their Hall. It was agreed to take a View of each. We proceeded to the Carpenter’s Hall. Mr. Lynch proposed the Question whether as that was in all respects suitable it ought not to be fixed upon without further Enquiry. I observed that if the State house was equally convenient it ought to be preferred being a provincial and the Carpenter’s Hall a private House. And besides, as it was tendered by the Speaker it seemed to be a piece of respect which was due to him, at least to enquire whether the State House was not equally convenient. The Question was however called for; and a great Majority fixed upon the Carpenters [sic] hall. The names of the Members were then called over; after which Mr. Lynch proposed that we shoud elect a President or Chairman, and named Mr. Payton Randolph, Speaker of the Assembly of Virginia, who was unanimously approved and placed in the Chair. A Question was then put, what Title the Convention should assume, and it was agreed that it should be called the Congress. Another Question was put, what shoud be the stile [sic] of Mr. Randolph, and it was agreed that he should be called the President. The next point was to fix on a Clerk or Secretary. Mr. ____Thompson [sic] was proposed by Mr. Lynch. The next point was to fix on a Clerk or Secretary. Mr. ____ Thompson [sic] was proposed by Mr. Lynch. Mr. Jay observed that he had Authority to say that one of the members of the Congress was willing to accept the office, and he conceived the preference was due to him. To which it was answered, that such an appointment woud deprive the Congress of a Member, as he woud be too much incumbered by the Duties of a Clerk, to attend to the Trust for which he was chosen. The objection being thought Reasonable, Mr. Thompson [sic] was appointed by the Stile of Secretary of the Congress. [6] The following day, Duane took additional notes of the first meeting and debates and votes of those members who were in attendance:

James Duane (c. 1732–1797)319 The Congress met, [a]nd the first Question debated was whether the Congress should Vote by Colonies and what weight each Colony should have in the determination? Mr. [Patrick] Henry from Virginia insisted that by the oppression of Parliament all Government was dissolved, and that we were reduced to a State of Nature. That there were no longer any such distinction as colonies, that he conceived himself not a Virginian but an American. That one of the greatest Mischiefs to Society was an Unequal Representation. That there might and probably woud be further Occasions for a Congress and that it was time to form such a System as woud give each Colony a Just Weight in our deliberations in proportion to its opulence and number of inhabitants its Exports and Imports. He was answered by Mr. [Samuel Ward] of Rhode Island, who insisted that every Colony shoud have an equal Vote. That we come if necessary to make a Sacrifice of our all and that the weakest Colony by such a Sacrifice woud suffer as much as the greatest. Col. [Benjamin] Harrison from Virginia insisted strongly on the injustice that Virginia should have no greater Weight in the determination than one of the smallest Colonies. That he should be censured by his constituents and unable to excuse his want of attention to their Interest. And that he was very apprehensive that if such a disrespect should be put upon his Countrymen we shoud never see them at another Convention. The debate then took a different Turn. It was observed that if an equal Representation was ever so Just, the Delegates from the several Colonies were unprepared with Materials to settle that equitably. This was an objection that coud not be answered. The Question was then put and 1. Resolved, that the Sense of the Congress shall be taken by Voting in Colonies, each to have one Vote. 2. Resolved, that no person be permitted to speak twice on the same point, unless with the Leave of the Congress . . . 7. A question was put whether this Congress shoud be opened tomorrow morning with prayer. Mr. Samuel Adams proposed the revnd. Mr. Duche [sic] for this Service. Debates arose on this Subject, Those who were for the Motion insisting on the propriety of a Reverence and Submission to the Supreme Being and supplicating his Blessing on every undertaking, on the practice of the Romans, the British Parliament and some of the Assemblies on the Continent. [7] Continuing with his notes of the proceedings, on 7 September 1774 Duane penned:

The Congress was opened with prayers by the revnd Mr. Dutché [sic], which he Concluded with one suitable to the occasion. He was much admired both for his Eloquence and Composition, and Mr. Ward of Rhode Island moved that the thanks of the Congress be given him for his Services, which was unanimously agreed to; and Mr. [Thomas] Cushing [of Massachusetts] and Mr. Ward were appointed a Committee for the purpose. It was then moved that he should be requested to print the prayer: But it being objected that this might possibly expose him to some disadvantages, it was out of Respect to him waived. The Appointment of a Committee to state the Rights of the Colonies and the several Instances in which they have been violated and infringed, and the means most proper to obtain Redress, was then taken into Consideration. Mr. Lynch of Virginia [8] moved that the Appointment might be made out of the Members at large without Regard to Colonies, aledging that in. this way the Gentlemen who had made this point their study and were best qualified woud be fixed upon. This occasioned much debate-the difficulty of knowing who possessed this Qualification in the highest degree—The different Rights of the several Charter Governments and their Infringements, which must be best known to their respective Representatives, were insurmountable objections; and it was accordingly: Resolved, that this Committee shall be composed of two members from each Colony,’ to be recommended by their associates . . . Resolved that one Member from each Colony form the Committee to state and report the several statutes respecting the Trade and Manufactures of the Colonies . . . [9] One of Duane’s first committee assignments in the Continental Congress was as a member of the Committee to State the Rights of the Colonies. On 8 September 1774, he gave a speech before this group: The task assigned to this Committee is no less important than it is difficult. It may be reduced to these heads: 1. To State the Rights of the Colonies. 2. Their Grievances. 3. The Means of Redress. It is necessary that the first point, our Rights, should be fully discussed and established upon solid Principles:

320

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

because it is only from hence that our Grievances can be disclosed; and from a clear View of both, that proper Remedies can be suggested and applied. To ascertain the Constitution of the Colonies has employed the Thoughts and the Pens of our ablest Politicians. But no System which has hitherto been publishd s is solid or satisfactory. During the Disputes, which arose from the Stamp Act, an Exemption from Internal Taxes seemed to give general Content. The Regulation of Commerce was submitted to Parliament. Their Authority to alter the police of our respective Governments was not in Contemplation because it had not been exercised. Upon the Repeal therefore of the Stamp Act, we had Reason to Con[c]lude that the Blessings of Security in our Liberties and Harmony with the Parent State woud be placed on a permanent Basis, But short was our Repose and fleeting our Expectations. A despotic Minister soon discovered that under the Idea of a commercial Regulation our Property might still be invaded, and that by a guileful Change of a name we might still be oppressed at his Pleasure.

inflexible Integrity, That they will give it all the Time and opportunity to operate that can be desired, and if pacific measures finally prove ineffectual that they never will surrender up their Liberties. At the same time as far as my information extends they are universally of your opinion that the rights of regulating our Trade bona fide [sic], as the Basis of an accommodation ought to be ceded in the most express terms. The Maryland Arguments, in which you had so great a share, on this essential point were unanswerable-they never were attempted to be answered, yet unhapily they produced no conviction. Tell me then my dear Sir how a plan of Union is to be adopted which will be acceptable in every colony? You have not I see altered your opinion; If the Question comes to be proposed to you in your Legislative Capacity do you think you will? If not is it reasonable to expect that this Colony will at once recede from what they have always laid down as a fundamental principle of their constitution. For my part I candidly confess that had this cardinal point been properly ascertained on a great occasion I should have been much more happy than I am at present. Finding it would not be yielded in any terms which could give Satisfaction or even elude suspicion I listened to a certain plan ‘ which chiefly on that account made a deep Impression. I have not yet been fortunate enough to hear any objections against it which weigh in my Judgment. I ask the favour of you who were averse to it and will not determine but on good grounds to state them. In the mean time suffer me to explain the light in which it strikes me. The plan is calculated to secure to every colony its own exclusive interest, Legislation and form of Government except in matters which respect Great Britain and the Colonies jointly, such for instance as war and commerce, the new Council were to have no authority; and in all cases the Representatives of the people were to be vested with a complete negative.

Hence arose Mr. Townsend’s project of loading british Commodities (which we are restrained from importing from any other nation) with American duties-As if this poor evasion coud blind the colonists, and conceal the Evil which was cloaked under so thin a disguise. The Resentment and Vigorous opposition of this Country, and the immense Loss to which it exposed the British Manufacturers compeled the Repeal of this detested Law, Excepting the article of Tea, which has been the fatal Cause of our present Misfortunes. It is now, Sir, essential to place our Rights on a broader and firmer Basis, to advance and adhere to some solid and Constitutional Principle which will preserve us from future Violations-a principle clear and explicite and which is above the Reach of Cunning and the arts of oppression. I hope if we have the happiness to rest upon such a principle, we shall have the Fortitude and the Strength to maintain it. Let it be founded upon Reason and Justice, and satisfy the Consciences of our countrymen, Let it be such as we dare refer to the Virtuous and Impartial Part of mankind, and we shall and must in the issue of the Conflict be happy and triumphant.” [10] Duane wrote of the powers of the Continental Association in a missive to Samuel Chase, 29 December 1774: I think you may rely that the Inhabitants of this province will adhere to the Association with

[11]

A letter to the delegates of the New York Provisional Congress, 17 June 1775, clearly outlined monetary troubles, as well as announcing that General George Washington had been appointed as the head of the Continental Army: You have by this conveyance two packets from the President of the Congress, on the subjects to which they relate. I need make no remark. As it was found that you made no progress in raising men, the Congress have thought fit that the posts directed to

James Duane (c. 1732–1797)321 be taken in our Government should immediately be occupied by the Troops of Connecticut, which are ready for service, and unemployed. We enclose you, by order of the Congress, a certified copy of their Resolution on that head. Your great complaint of the want of money will, I hope, be soon removed. For your present satisfaction, we have obtained leave of the Congress to inform you that the General Committee of the whole body have reported a Resolution to emit, in Continental paper currency, a sum not exceeding the value of two millions of Spanish dollars, for the redemption of which all the Colonies are to be pledged. Upon revolving the effect of this Resolution, you will find to agree in the main point the stability of the fund, with your own judicious system. We hope soon to furnish you with the particulars of this important transaction. We are likewise at liberty to acquaint you that the Congress have agreed to raise, at the Continental expense, a body of fifteen thousand men—ten thousand for the defence of the Massachusetts, and the remainder to be employed in New York for keeping open the communication between the Northern and Southern Colonies; and that Colonel George Washington is appointed Captain-General and Commander-in-Chief of all the forces raised and to be raised in the common cause. You are under no further obligation of secrecy on that subject, than to prevent their being might arise. The letters for Governour [sic] [Jonathan] Trumbull and General [David] Wooster relate to the removal of the Connecticut Troops into our Government, and are to be forwarded with your despatches on that subject; but they are only from their Delegates, and not authoritative, the Congress having referred it to you to make the application to that Government. I have retired from the Congress at the request of my brethren to send off these despatches; for which reason I have done the honour of subscribing myself, with the greatest respect, gentlemen, your most obedient and very humble servant. [12] In 1782, Duane was elected to a seat in the New York state Senate, serving until 1785, and, then, again, in the same body, this time from 1788 to 1790. Historian Lewis Boutwell wrote in 1890 in a biography of Alexander Hamilton, “On the 3rd of September, 1780, at the request of James Duane, then a member of Congress from New York, [Alexander] Hamilton addressed a letter to that gentleman, pointing out the defects of the existing government, and indicating the manner in which they might be remedied. He

was imprelled [sic] to this by the failure of Congress to provide the means for carrying on the war, and by the danger, unless there was a change in government, that the struggle with England would come to an untimely end.” [13] In a letter from Duane to General John Morin Scott, dated 21 September 1782, Duane explained: Tho’ I have scarcely time, I feel too sensibly your polite attention to the excused from acknowledging the Receipt of your favor of the 1st Instant by Major Story. I have given this young Gentleman the best advice in my power, and if Mr. [Robert] Morris inclines, to employ him, will go as far in his Commendation as your Letter, and the acquaintance I have with him, can justify. I am obliged to you for your account of Weeks’s adventure. It happened too near home not to be interesting; and yet whatever may be the appearance from the passivity of the British and the Despair of the Tories; I do not think peace; no[,] not even the evacuation of our native City, so near as is generally apprehended. The naval success of the enemy have hardened the Heart of the British Pharoah and rekindled his expiring wishes for our subjugation. The Treaty at Paris goes on feebly and all eyes are fixed on the military Operations which will give a Complection to its further Progress at the close of the Campaign and not sooner. But I need not enlarge. Mr. Secretary [Robert] Livingston has obtained permission to attend for a few works on his private Affairs in our State. He will open the Budget and gratify your Curiosity in all points, and I wish you to see him. [14] Despite his misgivings as to the existing structure of the American government under the Articles of Confederation, Duane did not serve as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, held in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787. Duane did, however, win a seat as a delegate to the Annapolis Commercial Convention, held in Maryland in 1786, but he did not attend. During this period, Duane served as the mayor of New York City (1784-89), during which he served as a delegate to the state constitutional convention that ratified the US Constitution in 1788. After leaving the mayorship, Duane accepted a position as a district judge for the district court of New York, where he sat until 1794. [15] After leaving the bench, Duane retired to his home near Schenectady, in the village of

322

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Duanesburgh. Duane died there—on 1 February 1797, five days shy of his 64th birthday. He was buried in the Christ Episcopal Church, now in Duanesburg, in Schenectady County. The Gazette of the United States, a Philadelphia newspaper, said upon announcing his death, “Died at Schenectady, on the 1st instant, James Duane, Esq. late Mayor of this city, and afterwards District Judge of the United States for the District of New York—in which capacities he was highly esteemed by the gentlemen of the profession, but as a man of great legal acquirements and of firmness and integrity in all his decisions. American is also highly indebted to him for his patriotic and able exertions during the late war.” [16] Mary Livingston Duane outlived her husband by nearly a quarter of a century; after her death in 1821, she was laid next to her husband in the Duane family vault.

[13] Boutwell, Lewis Henry, “Alexander Hamilton: The Constructive Statesman” (Chicago: Privately Printed, 1890), 16-17. [14] James Duane to General John Morin Scott, 21 September 1782, in “Selections from Portfolios in Various Libraries,” The Historical Magazine, and Notes and Queries Concerning the Antiquities, History, and Biography of America, V:4 (April 1869), 255. [15] Alexander, Edward P., “James Duane, Moderate Rebel,” New York History, XVII:2 (April 1936), 123-34. For one of the charges to a grand jury given by Duane, see “New York, February 4,” Pennsylvania Packet [Philadelphia], 9 February 1790, 2. [16] “Died, at Schenectady,” Gazette of the United States [Philadelphia], 10 February 1797, 3.

[1] Jones, Samuel W., “Memoir of the Hon. James Duane, Judge of the District Court of the U. States for New York. By Hon. Samuel W. Jones” (Schenectady, NY: Keyser, Printer, 1852), 6. [2] Duane family tree, showing all three of Anthony Duane’s wives, online at www.geni.com/people/James-Duane/1o41268. [3] See “The Report of an Action, Assault, Battery, and Wounding, Tried in the Supreme Court of Judicature for the Province of New-York, in the Term of October 1764, Between Thomas Forsey, Plaintiff, and Waddel Cunningham, Defendant” (New-York: Printed by John Holt, 1764). See also Fowler, Robert Ludlow, “Organization of the Supreme Court of Judicature of the Province of New York.” The Albany Law Review, XIX: (31 May 1879), 430-33. [4] For the details of his numerous services, see Duane’s official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/ scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=D000508. [5] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), I:liii. [6] “John Duane, Notes of Proceedings, Philadelphia, Monday 5th September 1774,” in ibid., I:8. The “Mr. Thompson” referred to here is Charles Thomson, elected as the secretary to the Continental Congress. [7] “James Duane, Notes of Proceedings, Tuesday the 6th September [1774] in ibid., I:12-13. [8] Duane mentioned a “Mr. Lynch from Virginia”—there was no Mr. Lynch who served from that colony or state in the Continental Congress. There were, however, two delegates named Thomas Lynch—Sr. and Jr.—who both served from South Carolina. It is possible that one of these two men is who Duane was referring to, and that he merely got their place of residence wrong. [9] James Duane, Notes of Proceedings, Wednesday Morning 9 o clock[,] September 7th [1774]” in ibid., I:15-16. [10] “James Duane, Address Before the Committee to State the Rights of the Colonies, [September 8, 1774], in ibid., I:23-24. [11] James Duane to Samuel Chase, 29 December 1774, in ibid., I:87-88. [12] James Duane to the New York Provisional Congress, 17 June 1775, in ibid., I:129-30.

Reverend Jacob Duché (1738–1798) A noted religious leader in the colonies prior to the American Revolution, The Reverend Jacob Duché played an integral role in the Continental Congress, serving as that body’s official chaplain from 1774 until he resigned and fled to British lines in 1777. Duché (pronounced “doo-shay”) was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on 31 January 1738, he son of Colonel Jacob Duché, a military officer who also served at one time as the mayor of Philadelphia, and his wife, Mary (née Spence) Duché. An 1874 examination of Parson Duché’s life stated “He was the grandson of Anthony Duché, a French refugee, who came, with his wife, in the same ship, it is said, that brought William Penn to our shores. [1] A family tree shows only that Anthony Duché died in 1762. [2] Jacob Duché’s mother died before he was 10 years old. Jacob Duché may have had a private tutor; he did attend an academy, which in 1755 became the College of Pennsylvania, now the University of Pennsylvania, where he worked as a tutor in Greek and Latin. In 1757 Duché graduated high in his class—one of his fellow students was Francis Hopkinson, whose sister he would later marry—and that July went to work as a clerk in office of Governor William Denny working on a treaty of friendship with local Native American tribes, an agreement known as the Treaty of Easton. Soon after, Duché decided to continue his education, this time in England; and he departed for Britain. The Reverend Edward Duffield Neill wrote in 1878, “Crossing the Atlantic, he became a student at Clare Hall, Cambridge, but in 1759, he had returned to Philadelphia, and

Reverend Jacob Duché (1738–1798)323 was licensed as assistant minister of Christ Church, and its offshoot, Saint Peters, at the corner of Third and Pine Streets, which was begun in 1758, and finished in 1761, at a cost of ₤3310, to accommodate the congregation in that part of the city.” [3] While he had been in England, Duché’s father had informed the Christ Church in Philadelphia, where he had worked as a vestryman, that his son was presently at Cambridge, and that he had “been always designed for the ministry.” Duché was ordained as a deacon by the Bishop of London, but, soon after, returned to the colonies. He was given the position of assistant at Christ Church, although he also officiated at the opening of St. Peter’s in Philadelphia following its completion in 1761. Duché married Elizabeth Hopkinson, the sister of one of his classmates at the academy; Francis Hopkinson would later serve in the Continental Congress, and was a signer of the Declaration of Independence. For the next several years, Jacob Duché was deeply involved in the spiritual upbringing of Philadelphia: he served as the professor of oratory at the College of Philadelphia, and aided in building the library of that institution. He served as one of the leading member of the American Philosophical Society, one of that city’s leading education groups. In an announcement in The Pennsylvania Gazette, 28 February 1765, a “scheme of a lottery for raising” moneys “for the Use of several Churches in the Province of Pennsylvania” was printed, and that “[t]he following Persons are by Law appointed Managers, viz., Henry Harrison and Jacob Duché, Esquires . . . ” [4] Duché remained widely respected among religions circles for many years. It was not until the American Revolution began that he got into trouble which would haunt him for the remainder of his life. Historian Christopher C. Lund explained: [The Continental] Congress had been assembled in the fall of 1774 at Carpenter’s Hall in Philadelphia. On the second day of the convention, Congress heard a request from Thomas Cushing from Boston that the next day’s session be opened with a prayer from a local Anglican minister, the Reverend Jacob Duché. [Delegates] John Jay and John Rutledge objected, arguing that the delegates were too

“divided in religious Sentiments” and thus “could not join in the same Act of Worship.” But the motion passed, and the next day, Duché gave what has come to be known as the first American legislative prayer. Duché opened with several form prayers, then read the thirty-fifth Psalm, and ended with a personal, extemporaneous prayer. Both the Psalm and the extemporaneous prayer related deeply to the events of the day. The Continental Congress had just received word of an attack earlier that week on Boston by the British. As a result, Congress had no trouble identifying with the thirty-fifth Psalm, which asks for divine refuge from the onslaught of foreign powers. This seems to be what Adams meant when he said that it was “as if Heaven had ordained that Psalm to be read on that Morning,” and what Silas Deane meant when he called the readings “accidentally extremely Applicable.” [5] Delegate James Duane of New York, in his “Notes of [the] Proceedings” for 7 September 1774, penned, “The Congress was opend with prayers by the [R]evnd Mr. Dutché, which he Concluded with one suitable to the occasion. He was much admired both for his Eloquence and Composition, and Mr[.] Ward of Rhode Island moved that the thanks of the Congress be given him for his Services, which was unanimously agreed to; and Mr. Cushing and Mr. Ward were appointed a Committee for the purpose. It was then moved that he should be requested to print the prayer: But it being objected that this might possibly expose him to some disadvantages, it was out of Respect to him waived.” [6] Massachusetts delegate John Adams wrote to his wife, Abigail, of the incident that led to the prayer by Duché: When the Congress first met, Mr. Cushing made a motion that it should be opened with prayer. It was opposed by Mr. Jay, of New York, and Mr. Rutledge, of South Carolina, because we were so divided in religious sentiments, some Episcopalians, some Quakers, some Anabaptists, some Presbyterians, and some Congregationalists, that we could not join in the same act of worship. Mr. Samuel Adams arose and said, he was no bigot, and could hear a prayer from a gentleman of piety and virtue, who was at the same time a friend to his country. He was a stranger in Philadelphia, but had heard that Mr. Duché (Dushay they pronounce it) deserved that character, and therefore he moved

324

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

that Mr. Duché, an Episcopal clergyman, might be desired to read prayers to the Congress tomorrow morning. The motion was seconded and passed in the affirmative. Mr. Randolph, our president, waited on Mr. Duch6, and received for answer that if his health would permit he certainly would. Accordingly, next morning he appeared with his clerk and in his pontificals, and read several prayers in the established form; and then read the collect for the seventh day of September, which was the thirty-fifth Psalm. You must remember, this was the next morning after we heard the horrible rumor of the cannonade of Boston. I never saw a greater effect upon an audience. It seemed as if Heaven had ordained that Psalm to be read on that morning. After this, Mr. Duché unexpectedly to every body, struck out into an extemporary prayer, which filled the bosom of every man present. I must confess I never heard a better prayer, or one so well pronounced. Episcopalian as he is, Dr. Cooper himself never prayed with such fervor, such ardor, such earnestness and pathos, and in language so elegant and sublime—for America, for the Congress, for the Province of Massachusetts Bay, and especially the town of Boston. It has had an excellent effect upon every body here. I must beg you to read that Psalm. If there was any faith in the sortes Virgilianæ, or sortes Homericæ, or especially the sortes Biblicæ, it would be thought providential. It will amuse your friends to read this letter and the thirty-fifth Psalm to them. Read it to your father and Mr. Wibird’ I wonder what our Braintree Churchmen would think of this! Mr. Duché is one of the most ingenious men, and best characters, and greatest orators in the Episcopal order, upon this continent; yet a zealous friend of liberty and his country. [7]

delivered before the Continental Congress on 20 July 1775, Duché stated, “If we could retire awhile, my brethren, from the sphere of political tumult, contemplate at leisure, the system of the universe, and look beyond second causes for the springs and principles of motion we should doubtless be able to discern in almost every human event, the marks of Sovereign Wisdom, the energy of Infinite Power and the prevalence of Almightly Goodness; and should thereby be led to acknowledge the immediately influence and operation of the great moral Governor.” [8] When Peyton Randolph, the president of the Continental Congress, died suddenly in October 1775, the delegates called on Reverend Duché to give remarks at his funeral.

An investigation of Duché dictates a need to study his sermons and his religious writings. Duché’s first published sermon, printed by Benjamin Franklin and his printing partner David Hall, appeared in 1763 entitled, “The Life and Death of the Righteous: Preached at Christ Church, Philadelphia, on Sunday, February 13, 1763, at the Funeral of Mr. Evan Morgan, by Jacob Duché, M.A. One of the Assistant Ministers of the United Churches of Christ Church and St. Peter’s, and Chaplain to the Right Honourable, the Earl of Stirling.” For the next 14 years, similar tracts appeared. In one such speech, “The American Vine,”

However, Duché did not see his prayer at the Continental Congress, or his prayers at the funeral of Peyton Randolph, as some sort of approval of that body—at least, his eventual deeds demonstrate that he definitely did not see things that way. Historian Clarke Garrett wrote in 1975: As the crisis deepened in 1775, Duché and the rest of the Anglican clergy were faced with the continuing problem of maintaining their sworn loyalty to the crown without antagonizing their congregations or public opinion generally. Congress placed them in an even more difficult situation when in June it proclaimed a solemn day of fasting, normally a prerogative of the royal government. Richard Peters asked the vestry of Christ Church and St. Peter’s for instructions. They unanimously told him that, if he failed to comply with Congress’s proclamation, “it would give great offence” Peters yielded, but he and the other five Church of England clerics in Philadelphia first sent a letter to the bishop of London explaining their conduct. “We pray that we can be considered among His Majesty’s most dutiful and Loyal subjects in this and every other transaction of our lives,” they wrote. “Would to God that we could become mediators for the Settlement of the unnatural Controversy that now distracts a once happy Empire.” [9] Even though he believed in continuing to side with England, in July 1776, on the eve of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Continental Congress President John Hancock sent a letter to Duché:

Reverend Jacob Duché (1738–1798)325 Sir: It is with the greatest pleasure I inform you that the Congress have been induced, from a consideration of your piety, as well as your uniform and zealous attachment to the rights of America, to appoint you their Chaplain. It is their request, which I am commanded to signify to you, that you will attend on them every morning at nine o’clock. I have the honour to be, sir, with respect, your most obedient and very humble servant, JOHN HANCOCK, President. [10] On 8 October 1777, perhaps confronting a moral dilemma that required him to speak out on his opposition to American independence and his support of England’s right to continue to rule over the colonies, Duché penned what had to have been an excrutiatingly difficult letter to compose, and sent it to General George Washington. The letter was later published as “A Letter Addressed to His Excellency General Washington, On the Declaration of Independence by the Congress of America By the Rev. Jacob Duché, M.A. Rector of ChristChurch and St. Peter’s, Philadelphia. Published in Philadelphia the 8th of October 1777” (Bath, England: Re-printed by B. Cruttwell; and Sold by All the Booksellers, 1777). The missive itself, an open letter to General Washington, goes on for 12 pages, so it is impossible to print it here in its entirety. Let it be said, however, that Duché exposed all of his inner demons that forced him to choose England over his native land: If this letter should find you in council, or in the field, before you read another sentence I beg you to take the first opportunity of retiring and weighing its important contents. You are perfectly acquainted with the part I formerly took in the present unhappy contest. I was, indeed, among the first to bear my public testimony against having any recourse to threats, or indulging a thought of an armed opposition. The current, however, was too strong for my feeble efforts to resist. I wished to follow my countrymen as far only as virtue, and the righteousness of their cause, would permit me. I was, however, prevailed on, among the rest of my clerical brethren in this city, to gratify the pressing desires of my fellow citizens, by preaching a sermon to the second city battalion. I was pressed to publish this sermon, and reluctantly consented . . . My sermon speaks for itself, and wholly disclaims the idea of

Independency. My sentiments were well known to my friends; I communicated them, without reserve, to many respectable members of Congress, who expressed their warm approbation of it then . . . And now, dear Sir, suffer me, in the language of truth and real affection, to address myself to you. All the world must be convinced you are engaged in the service of your country from motives perfectly disinterested. You risked every thing that was dear to you, abandoned the sweets of domestic life, which your affluent fortune can give the uninterrupted enjoyment of. But, had you, could you have had, the least idea of matters being carried to such a dangerous extremity? Your most intimate friends shuddered at the thought of a separation from the mother country, and I took it for granted that your sentiments coincided with theirs. What then can be the consequence of this rash and violent measure and degeneracy of representation, confusion of councils, blunders without number? The most respectable characters have withdrawn themselves, and are succeeded by a great majority of illiberal and violent men. Take an impartial view of the present Congress, and what can you expect from them? Your feelings must be greatly hurt by the representation of your natural province. You have no longer a Randolph, a Bland, or a Braxton, men whose names will ever be revered, whose demands never ran above the first ground on which they set out, and whose truly glorious and virtuous sentiments I have frequently heard with rapture from their own lips.— Oh! my dear Sir, what a sad contrast of characters now present,—others whose friends can ne’er mingle with your own.—Your Harrison alone remains, and he disgusted with the unworthy associates. As to those of my own province, some of them are so obscure, that their very names were never in my ears before, and others have only been distinguished for the weakness of their understandings, and the violence of their tempers. One alone I except from the general charge,—a man of virtue, dragged reluctantly into their measures, and restrained, by some false ideas of honour, from retreating, after having gone too far. You cannot be at a loss to discover whose name answers to this character. . . . After this view of the Congress, turn to the Army.— The whole world knows that its only existence depends upon you; that your death of captivity disperses it in a moment, and that there is not a man on that side the question in America, capable of succeeding you.—As to the army itself, what have you to expect from them.—Have they not frequently abandoned

326

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

you yourself, in the hour of extremity? Can you, have you the least confidence in a set of undisciplined men and officers, many of them have been taken from the lowest of the people, without prinple [sic], without courage; take away them who surround your person, How very few are there you can ask to sit at your table?—As to your little navy, of that little, what is left? Of the Delaware fleet part are taken, the rest must soon surrender—Of those in the other provinces some are taken, one or two at sea, and others lying unmanned and unrigged in your harbours; and now where are your resources? Oh my dear Sir, How sadly have you been abused by a faction void of truth, and void of tenderness to you and your country! . . . A British army, after having passed unmolested thro a vast extent of country, have possessed themselves of the Capital of America. How unequal the contest! How fruitless the expence of blood? Under so many discouraging circumstances, can Virtue, can Honour, can the Love of your Country, prompt you to proceed? Humanity itself, and sure humanity is no stranger to your breast, calls upon you to desist.—Your army must perish for want of common necessaries, or thousands of innocent families must perish to support them; where-ever they encamp, the country must be impoverished; wherever they march, the troops of Britain will pursue, and must complete the destruction which America herself has began; perhaps it may be said, it is better to die than to be made slaves. This indeed is a splendid maxim in theory, and perhaps in some instances may be found experimentally true; but when there is the least probability of an happy accommodations, surely wisdom and humanity call for some sacrifices to be made, to prevent inevitable destruction. You well know there is but one invincible bar to such an accommodation, could this be removed, other obstacles might be removed readily be removed.

left it, and where Lord Howe certainly expected to find it left. Let men of clear and impartial characters, in or out of Congress liberal in their sentiments, heretofore, independent in their fortunes; and some such may be found in America, be appointed to confer with his Majesty’s commissioners. Let them, if they please, prepare, some well-digested constitutional plan, to lay before them at the commencement of the negociation; when they have gone this far, I am confident the usual happy consequences will ensue; unanimity will immediately take place through the different provinces; thousands who are now ardently wishing and praying for such a measure, will step forth, and declare themselves the zealous advocates, for constitutional liberty, and millions will bless the hero that left the field of war, to decide this most important contest with the weapons of wisdom and humanity. Oh! Sir, let no false ideas of worldly honour deter you from engaging in so glorious a task, whatever centuries may be thrown out, by mean illiberal minds, your character will rise in the estimation of the virtuous and noble; it will appear with lustre in the annals of history, and form a glorious contrast, to that of those, who have fought to obtain conquest, and gratify their own ambition by the destruction of their species, and the ruin of their country. Be assured, Sir, that I write not this under the eye of any British officer, or person connected with the British army, or ministry. The sentiments I express, are the real sentiments of my own heart, such as I have long held, and which I should have made known to you by letter before, had I not fully expected an opportunity of a private conference . . . I love my country. I love you; but the love of truth, the love peace, and the love of God, I hope I should be enabled, if called upon to the tryal, to sacrifice every other inferior love. If the arguments made use of in this letter should have so much influence as to engage you in the glorious work, which I have warmly recommended, I shall ever deem my success the highest temporal favour that Providence could grant me. Your interposition and advice, I am confident, would meet a favourable reception from the authority under which you act, if it should not, you have an infallible recourse still left, negociate for your country at the head of your army. After all it may appear presumption as an individual to address himself to you on a subject of such magnitude, or to say what measures would best secure the interest and welfare of a whole continent. The friendly and favourable opinion you have always expressed for me, emboldens me to undertake it, and which has greatly added to the weight of this motive;

It is to you, and you alone, your bleeding country looks and calls aloud for this sacrifice, your arm alone has strength sufficient to remove this bar; may heaven inspire you with this glorious resolution of exerting your strength at this crisis, and immortalizing yourself as friend and guardian to your country; your penetrating eye needs not more explicit language to discern my meaning; with that prudence and delicacy therefore, of which I know you possessed, represent to Congress the indispensible necessity of rescinding the hasty and ill-advised declaration of Independency— Recommend, and you have an undoubted right to recommend, an immediate cessation of hostilities. Let the controversy be taken up where that declaration

Reverend Jacob Duché (1738–1798)327 I have been strongly impressed with a sense of duty upon the occasion, which left my conscience uneasy, and my heart afflicted till I fully discharged it. I am no enthusiast; the cause is new and singular to me, but I could not enjoy one moment’s peace till this letter was written, with the most ardent prayers for your spiritual, as well as temporal welfare. [11] As some writers like to say, Jacob Duché brought the fires of hell down on his head. In a land where the Continental Congress was fleeing to keep ahead of British forces, where Americans were dying in battle, where the fate of what would become the United States hung in the balance, the words of this man who had prayed before the delegates of the Continental Congress, who had led the services of one of its presidents at his funeral, siding with the now-mortal enemy of America, seemed like salt rubbed into open wounds. Historian Barbara Oberg, an editor of the papers of Benjamin Franklin, commented on the Duché letter, “He wrote a long, intemperate letter to George Washington urging Congress to rescind the Declaration of Independence and negotiate a peace. America’s prospects were dismal, he argued; the members of Congress (many of them whom he named) were incompetent; the army was undisciplined and cowardly; the navy was practically nonexistent; the expectation of French aid, fueled by intelligence from Benjamin Franklin, was ‘a fiction from the first.’ Washington was stunned by this ‘ridiculous, illiberal performance’ and forwarded the letter to Congress. It was copied by many members and widely circulated, with versions also appearing in the New York and Philadelphia press.” [12] Washington opened up his feelings to Francis Hopkinson, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and, ironically, Duché’s brotherin-law. The General explained, “I am still willing to suppose that it was rather dictated by his fears than by his real sentiments . . . I never intended to make the letter more public than by laying it before Con. I thought this a duty which I owed to myself.” Hopkinson, it is said, then read Duché’s letter to Washington and was shocked. He quickly sent off a note to his brother-in-law, expressing horrible feelings of foreboding at what the future now held: “I tremble for you, for my good sister, and her little family, I tremble for your personal safety,”

Hopkinson wrote. “Be assured [that] I write this from true brotherly love. Our intimacy has been of a long duration, even from our early youth; long and uninterrupted without even a rub in the way; and so long have the sweetness of your manners and the integrity of your heart fixed my affections.” The hell that came down on him was universal: it got so bad that Duché packed his belongings and fled to England in December 1777, leaving his wife and children behind to fend for themselves. When he arrived in London, Duché discovered through correspondence sent to him that his home and possessions had been seized, and he was considered a traitor to his native land. The Continental Journal of Boston, Massachusetts, penned an open letter to him, although he probably never saw it. “Sir,” the open letter began, “Lest the poison of your precept should mislead the innocent and credulous, or corrupt the honest, I have ventured with much deferred to abler pens, to make a few observations on some of the most remarkable passages in your celebrated letter to His Excellency our Commander-in-Chief. Great pains and many words have been used to palliate your former conduct, and reconcile it with the part you now act: you have found it [to be] an Herculean labour, and it still rests in the same place where you began.” [13] Duché’s wife, through the intervention of her brother Francis Hopkinson, was able to depart for England until spring 1780. Duché installed himself into British society, publishing, in 1779 in two volumes, a work of “Discourses on Various Subjects” (London: Printed by J. Phillips, George-Yard, Lombard-Street, and Sold by T. Cadell, in the Strand; two volumes, 1779). With the end of the revolution in 1783 initiated by the signing of the Peace of Paris between America and England, Duché made inquiries whether or not he could return to the land of his birth. Having cut George Washington with the letter that caused all of his difficulties, Duché once again wrote to the general, claiming that at no time did he intend to dishonor America or the American people with his thoughts, and asked for forgiveness. Nothing came of this outreach, and Duché’s aging father, realizing that he needed to go to see his son if he was to see him again, sailed for England, and lived with his son’s family until his own death in Lambeth,

328

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

near London, in 1788. A year later, Duché’s son Thomas died of broken blood vessel. John Pemberton, a Quaker minister, visited Duché in London soon after the death of his son. He wrote to a friend, “am glad to find my countryman, Jacob Duché, was so sustained under the great trial experienced. My love to him and wife. I wish to see him through all mixtures, and to become truly simple, and open to the instruction of the still small voice.’ This will settle his mind, and give him more true wisdom and instruction than many volumes of books, and dipping into mysterious writings, that may and does tend more to perplex than to edify.” [14]

See also: Reverend George Duffield

In 1792, Duché’s friend, William White, who had been named as a bishop of the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, used his influence to invite Duché to return to America. This occurred in May 1792, when Duché took time to visit with George Washington, now the first president of the United States. Duché remained with his wife in Philadelphia, and he was not prosecuted for his wartime activities. In 1797 his wife died, and Duché quickly lost the will to live. He died in Philadelphia on 3 January 1798, 28 days shy of his 60th birthday, and he was buried in the burial yard of St. Peter’s Episcopal Church. The stone on his grave, up against a wall of the church, is nearly completely worn away and is unintelligible and unreadable. The Gazette of the United States of Philadelphia said upon his passing, “He was a good man, and a good christian [sic]; exemplary in his morals, mild and affectionate in his dispositions, and of universal benevolence. While disease and extreme infirmity clouded the latter years of a life, in its commencement unusually brilliant, they did not disturb that cheerfulness, resignation and equanimity, sounded on the basis of unaffected religion, which he possessed in an uncommon degree.” [15] Duché gave perhaps some insight into the trials and tribulations he faced after the release of his October 1777 letter, when he wrote, “When Julius Cæsar, in disguise, was crossing the sea in a little bark, it was suddenly overtaken by a storm, and well nigh swallowed up in the waves. Observing the pilot’s courage begin to fail, he proudly called out: Why art thou afraid? Know, timid man! that Cæsar is thy passenger!” [16]

[1] “Rev. Jacob Duché,” The American Historical Record, III:27 (March 1874), 98. [2] See the Duché family tree, online at www.geni.com/people/ Reverend-Jacob-Duche-6000000016472704856. [3] Neill, The Rev. Edward Duffield, “Rev. Jacob Duché, the First Chaplain of Congress,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, II:1 (1878), 60. [4] “Scheme of a Lottery,” The Pennsylvania Gazette [Philadelphia], 28 February 1765, 3. [5] Lund, Christopher C., “The Congressional Chaplaincies,” William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, XVII:4 (2009), 1177-78. [6] “James Duane, Notes of Proceedings, Wednesday Morning 9 o Clock[,] September 7th [1774]” in Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), I:15-16. The actual prayer was ordered to be kept out of the official Journals of the Continental Congress; the prayer appears only in a letter from Charles Thomson, the secretary of the Continental Congress, to General George Washington, 25 July 1789, in Paul H. Smith, ed., “Letters of Delegates to Congress, 1774-1789” (Washington, DC: Library of Congress; 26 volumes, 1976-2000), XXV:551-52. [7] John Adams to Abigail Adams, 16 September 1774, in Burnett, “Letters of Members,” I:32-33. The passage “If there was any faith in the sortes Virgilianæ, or sortes Homericæ, or especially the sortes Biblicæ, it would be thought providential” refers to the “sortes,” which is described as “a mode of divination by means of a passage or verse in some poet’s works or in the Bible.” [8] “The American Vine, A Sermon, Preached in Christ Church, Philadelphia, Before the Honourable Continental Congress, July 20th, 1775. Being the Day Recommended by Them for a General Fast Throughout the United English Colonies of America. By The Rev. Jacob Duché, M.A.” (Philadelphia: Printed by James Humphreys, Junior, 1775), 9-10. [9] Garrett, Clarke, “The Spiritual Odyssey of Jacob Duché,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, CXIX:2 (16 April 1975), 147. [10] “Letter from the President of Congress to the Rev. Jacob Duché” in Peter Force, ed., “American Archives: Consisting of a Collection of Authentick Records, State Papers, Debates, and Letters and Other Notices of Publick Affairs, the Whole Forming a Documentary History of the Origin and Progress of the North America Colonies; of the Causes and Accomplishment of the American Revolution; and of the Constitution of Government for the United States, to the Final Ratification Thereof. In Six Series” (Washington, DC: Published by M. St. Clair Clarke and Peter Force; ten volumes, 1837-53), Series 5, I:116-17. [11] A Letter Addressed to His Excellency General Washington, On the Declaration of Independence by the Congress of America By the Rev. Jacob Duché, M.A. Rector of Christ-Church and St. Peter’s, Philadelphia. Published in Philadelphia the 8th of October 1777” (Bath, England: Re-printed by B. Cruttwell; and Sold by All the Booksellers, 1777), 3-6. [12] Leonard W. Labaree, ed.-in-chief, “The Papers of Benjamin Franklin” (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; forty volumes, 1959-), XXXIX:72. [13] “To the Reverend Jacob Duché,” The Continental Journal, and Weekly Advertiser [Boston, Massachusetts], 12 March 1778, 1. [14] Neill, The Rev. Edward Duffield, “Rev. Jacob Duché, the First Chaplain of Congress,” op. cit., 72. [15] “Died,” Gazette of the United States, and Philadelphia Daily Advertiser [Philadelphia], 8 January 1798, 3.

William Duer (c. 1743–1799)329 [16] “An Extract from the Writings of Jacob Duché,” The Evening Fire-Side; or, Weekly Intelligence in the Civil, Natural, Moral, Literary and Religious Worlds, I:32 (2o July 1805), 253-54.

William Duer (c. 1743–1799)

William Duer, a delegate from New York, was born in England, came to America, and made a fortune through land speculation. He aided his adopted nation in business matters after the US Constitution was enacted and served as a delegate to the Continental Congress (1777-78). Duer was born in Devon, in Devonshire, between Somerset and Cornwall on the English Channel, on 18 March 1743 (some sources cite 1747)—the son of John Duer, a wealthy landowner, and his wife Frances (née Frye) Duer. Robert F. Jones, a biographer of William Duer, wrote, “Duer came from the squirearchy of eighteenthcentury England, from a family which had already emigrated once before. During the Civil Wars of the seventeenth century, they had fled to the West Indies to escape the anger of the Lord Protector [Oliver Cromwell]. By the early eighteenth century, they had returned to Devonshire where William was born.” [1] John Duer was a wealthy man, having speculated in land purchases and turning them

into successful plantations in the Caribbean islands of Domenica and Antigua. A 1902 history of famous New York families said of William Duer, “His father was a wealthy British planter, whose estates in Antigua, West Indies, brought him more than a handsome income. The boy, idolized by both father and mother, enjoyed every advantage which wealth could procure.” [2] As noted, William Duer, due to his family’s wealth, was able to gain an education opened to just a privileged few at that time, being taught by private tutors; he then attended Eton, the prestigious British boarding school located near the village of Slough, northwest of London. After completing his education there, Duer joined the British army, and was sent to India, where he was assigned to serve as the secretary of Robert, Lord Clive, the governor-general of the British East-India Company. Duer could not remain in India for long due to the weather, and he quickly returned to Britain. When John Duer died soon after, this left William Duer as a wealthy and powerful man in his native land. Charged with running his father’s land and financial empire, he moved to the islands where these plantations ran, taking on the duty of running them himself. In 1764, the British government contracted him to build masts and rigging for the ships of the British Navy, so to purchase some supplies Duer traveled to New York. Upon landing, Duer saw the potential that the American colonies held, not just for Britain but for his own fortunes. He met with Philip Schuyler, one of New York’s wealthiest men, who urged the British-born Duer to invest in timber lands in what is now the city of Saratoga, on the Hudson River. By 1773, even as tensions between London and the colonies were rising to a fever pitch, Duer made a decision in his mind to turn his back on his native land. He returned to England, settled his financial affairs there, sold his family’s home, and departed back to New York. He never saw his homeland again. Instead, Duer worked his way into New York society, slowly becoming not a British-born merchant or landowner, but, seemingly, a patriot who suddenly resisted all that he had grown up with. By the beginning of the 1770s, William Duer was on his way to becoming an integral part of the makeup of anti-British politics in New York State. Duer biographer Robert F.

330

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Jones, in a 1975 article on Duer, explained, “By 1773 he had become one of the notables himself, presiding over the first court held in newly organized Charlotte County, where his lands lay, in addition to serving on the county’s road commission. Undoubtedly, Duer’s status as an English gentleman and West Indian planter, as well as his access to capital, even borrowed capital, helped considerably in his move into New York’s provincial society.” [3] As Jones noted, Duer seemed to just fit right in New York society. In 1775, he was named as a delegate to the New York Provincial Congress, and, at the same time, was also appointed as deputy adjutant general of the troops of the New York militia, with the rank of colonel. In June 1776, as the Continental Congress was debating the final drafts of what would become the Declaration of Independence, Duer was serving as a delegate to the New York constitutional Convention; later that year, he was elected to a seat in the New York state Senate, the upper body of the new state legislature.

in attendance Mar. 27, as he was appointed on a committee on that day[.] He wrote to Lord Stirling [on] November 6 that he had resigned his seat, and the last record of him in the Journals is November 16. The report of the board of war [is] dated December 2o, 1778, found in the Journals under December 31, in which the members of the board attending are set down as Francis Lightfoot Lee, Duer, [John] Harvie [of Virginia], and Joseph Jones [of Virginia], is, in fact, part of a report of December 20, 1777. Of these four only Lee was at that time in attendance. [4]

On 29 March 1777, Duer was elected by the New York Assembly to a seat in the Continental Congress; he was subsequently reelected on 13 May 1777 and 3 October 1777, and attended sessions from 7 April to 8 September 1777, 17 September to 9 November 1777, 19 November to 31 December 1777, 1 to about 11 January 1778, then from about 27 March to about 16 November 1778. Historian Edmund Cody Burnett explained: Duer’s signature to the resolution of secrecy is accompanied by the date June 5, 1777. He was doubtless absent for a brief period beginning September 9, as his name does not appear among the yeas and nays Sept. 9, 10, 11, [and] 16. He was probably present September 17 and 18, that is, the last days before the adjournment to Lancaster; and lie is again recorded as voting October 3. He was also absent for about a week from November 1o, for his name does not appear in the Journals between November 9 and 19, and [John] Duane mentions, about November 22, that Duer had been absent a few days ‘for the benefit of health’. In his letter of November 9. Duer indicated a purpose of taking leave about November 25; but the Journals show that he was in attendance until the end of the year.” Burnett added about Duer’s second period of service in the Continental Congress, “Duer was probably

Burnett, in his eight-volume collection of letters of members of the Continental Congress, finds several important pieces of correspondence written by Duer during his service; these appear in volumes II and III of the work. The first is from Duer to Abraham Ten Broeck, the president of the New York Convention, dated 17 April 1777: I am extremely sorry to inform you that not with standing the Invasion which threatens this City, a Langour prevails amongst the Inhabitants of almost all Ranks. The Disputes about their Constitution, and a Want of vigilance and Vigour in detecting and defeating the Designs of the disaffected have given the Malignants a dangerous ascendancy. The Depreciation of the Continental Money is astonishingly rapid, and I see with Concern that no attempts are made to check so fatal a Measure. You will observe by the inclosed Resolution of Congress of the 14th and 15th April, that they have been under the necessity of supplying an executive authority in this State. By the Recess of the Supreme Executive Council, there was an absolute Interregnum, and if Congress had not interposed, this State would have fallen an easy prey to a very small Body of the Enemy’s army. It is to be hoped however that the authority now established will exert itself with Vigour, and that a little Quackery will save a powerful State which must have fallen a Sacrifice to a speculative System of politicks. [5] Duer was blunt when he penned to an old friend, Robert R. Livingston, on 28 May 1777: Like an old sinner who has deferred repentance, I should almost be afraid to write to you after so long a silence, if I did not trust that your lenity would be a powerful advocate in my favour-more particularly when I can with truth assure you that my attention has been so engross’d in defeating the designs of a mischevious combination, and in cultivating the

William Duer (c. 1743–1799)331 friendship of the members from the Southern States that I have had little or no time to write to you as fully as I have wished. I have now the pleasure to inform you that in spite of all the arts and influence made use of by the Eastern Delegates in conjunction with Members from New Jersey, we have got General Schuyler’s conduct fully justified, and himself reinstated in the Command in the Northern Department in as extensive a manner as before. There was never I believe a more difficult card to play; Genl. [Horatio] Gates had the address whilst at the place to insinuate himself into the good graces of even the honest part of the House, and the wretchedness to poison the minds of most with prejudices against Genl. Schuyler, which operated so strongly that nothing but time, and great temper and address could have dispelled the mist of error which had clouded the eyes even of those who were friends to the great cause, and to the State of New York. His own merit however which they have had an opportunity of seeing, and the all powerful influence of truth assisted with management at length effected all our wishes, and we carried the question upon his being reinstated in his command in the Northern Department in the following manner. [6] Duer discussed the political scene in the Continental Congress in his next letter, again to Robert R. Livingston: I am sorry to inform you that Col R: H. Lee is returning to Congress crowned with Laurels. His smooth discourse and art of Cabal have blunted the Edge of his countrymen’s resentments and they have loaded him with encomiums on his patriotism and attention to business, which he modestly says, he is conscious of deserving, for particulars I refer you to the Pennsilvania Papers. I suppose he will return here more rivited than ever to his Eastern friends; I assure you they lost in him no contemptible Ally . . . At present there are no very great matters in which our state is particularly interested before Congress; and indeed if they were Mr. [Robert] Morris can supply my place with great advantage to the reputation of the State, as well as his own. His coolness of temper, and happy vein of Irony are qualifications, which would render him a very powerful antagonist to Mr. R[ichard]: H[enry]. Lee. [7] Finally, a letter from Duer to Robert Morris, 5 March 1778, tells of the precarious situation that the Continental Army found itself in at this time:

I should imagine my dear Friend, you can be no Stranger to the present critical Situation of our Army, and the late Embarassment which the Ignorance and Faction of [ ] have thrown in the Way of forming Magazines for the Army. The Consequences will in my Opinion, occasion its Dissolution very Shortly unless both they, and the State of Penna. cease to interfere with the Military Departments. This Circumstance, the Necessity of attending to our Finances, in order to supply the Exegencies of the next Campaign, and the means for bringing a force into the Field, and introducing in it, Discipline, and a Spirit of Enterprise call for the immediate Attention of every Lover of his Country, and particular[1]y of you who (without Flattery which I abhor) possess Talents to serve it at this Juncture, and whose Connection, with a State which is likely to be made a sacrifice of, demand in a peculiar degree all your Exertions. Let me my dear Sir conjure you to attend Congress on the Return of the Committee from Camp. I am sensible private Convenience cannot operate upon your mind at this Crisis, provided you have a Prospect of being useful. Mr. Lee writes me from Congress that several members are daily Expected. Mr. Hancock will be there in a few days, and if my Presence can induce you, I will after I have secured my Baggage at Coryell’s Ferry (for w’h I set out this day) return and stay one month. Perhaps my dear Friend, the Joint Exertions of some [of] us may save our Country, and revive the Expiring Reputation of Congress, at least it is our Duty to try it. [8] After he left the Continental Congress in 1778, Duer returned to his businesses in New York and their expansion into New Jersey. In 1783, Duer moved to New York City, and three years later was elected as a delegate to the New York state Assembly, serving during the 1786 calendar year. During this period, Duer helped to establish the financial institution known as the Bank of New York in 1784. With the passage and ratification of the US Constitution in 1787, a new federal government, initially headquartered in New York City, was established. Duer’s close ties to Robert Morris, who helped to find capital to fund the American Revolution, and Alexander Hamilton, one of the leading financial experts in the early American nation, paid dividends for Duer in the new government structure. With the establishment of the Department of the Treasury, Duer was named as the assistant secretary for the Treasury in 1789. It was at this time that

332

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Duer did one of two things: Either he recklessly speculated on land, utilizing government funds, or, and perhaps even worse, Duer outright stole money from the government, approximately $200,000. A report submitted to the US Senate in 1802 on Duer’s financial role stated:

prices reached their peaks in late January 1792. Prices trended lower in February, fell off sharply in March, bottomed in April and recovered somewhat in May. From peak to trough prices dropped more than 20 percent.” [10] And, by that time, some $200,000 in US government money was gone. All we truly know is that Secretary Hamilton asked for Duer’s resignation, which was refused; however, on 23 March 1792, Duer was arrested for failing to pay his debts. Today, when someone doesn’t pay their bills on time, they might receive letters from credit bureaus or collection agencies; but in 18th century America, to not pay one’s debts led people to be put in debtor’s prison. An 1852 article in the magazine “The Knickerbocker” highlighted the downfall of this once-important man: “Notwithstanding the surrender and sacrifice of his propose, Mr. Duer remained, for a time, not wholly without resources for the support of his family, and the education of his younger children. He still possessed lands in the States of Vermont and Maine, then a part of Massachusetts, not liable to execution by his creditors. He made advantageous sales of these, and secured his wife’s dower [dowery] in the former, by the bond of the purchaser to trustees for his benefit; the interest of which was paid for a few years, when the purchaser, discovering that, by the laws of Vermont, no right of dower vested in a wife, availed himself of the circumstance with success in a plea to a suit brought upon the land.” [11]

[t]hat the petitioner made a contract with the Secretary of the Treasury, dated the 28th day of February, 1799, to supply and issue as many rations of bread or flour, beef or pork, salt, vinegar, soap and candles, at certain fixed prices per ration, as should be required of the United States on the frontiers, from the 1st of January, 1792. He states that he was only the nominal contractor with the Treasury, for and on account of William Duer, and that it was so understood at the Treasury when he made the contract; that he was in no way personally interested in the agency or profits; that he never has furnished any supplies, nor drawn any monies from the Treasury in consequence thereof; but, on the contrary, that William Duer supplied the army, and drew all the advances made by the Treasury, and negotiated the whole of that concern exclusively and independently of him, and that he knows nothing in relation thereto, except what information he has lately obtained of those transactions from the public accounts and documents. That William Duer, in or about the year 1793, was much embarrassed in his circumstances, imprisoned in the jail of the city of New York at the suit of his creditors, and remained in prison until his death, in the spring of the year 1800. That afterwards, on the 5th of September, 1800, a bill in chancery was filed against the petitioner in the circuit court of the district of New York, for a supposed balance claimed by the Treasury of the United States from him of $10,799.29, under the before mentioned contract. [9] What exactly did William Duer do? Historians have speculated during that time over his role in the alleged frauds, if they were done on purpose or were the product of poor oversight. Historian David J. Cowen wrote, “In December 1791 a speculative machination was hatched that would have serious implications for the Bank [of the United States] as well as the country. William Duer, in secret partnership with Alexander Macomb and others, borrowed large sums of money in an attempt to corner the markets in US debt securities as well as the stocks of the Bank of the United States and the Bank of New York. In the ensuing speculation, securities

Biographies of Duer conclude that he was out of prison in April 1799 when his financial problems reached a crescendo. The Times of Alexandria, Virginia, in a bitter piece of newstelling, reported in their edition of 17 April 1799, “The proceedings in the case of the United States versus William Duer, in the District Court of the United States, now sitting in this city, were this morning [halted] in consequence of the death of the Defendant!” The paper then quickly reported next to that, “Col. Wm. Duer, who was dead in all the papers some days ago, is still living.” The report ended with the phrase, “It’s a bad wind that blows nobody good.” [12] Yet while the newspapers may have “confirmed” that Duer was very much alive, in fact he was not. One day after the report appeared in the Alexandria paper, William Duer died in debtor’s prison, 18 April 1799. He was initially interred in the Duer family

Reverend George Duffield (1732–1790)333 vault in the St. Thomas Church in Floral Park, New York; later, his remains were exhurmed and reburied in the Grace Episcopal Churchyard in Queens, New York. The Connecticut Gazette of New London opinionated, “Died, in [a] NewYork prison, Col. WILLIAM DUER, aged 54, of speculating memory.” [13]

[1] Jones, Robert F., “‘The King of the Alley’: William Duer, Politician, Entrepreneur, and Speculator, 1768-1799” (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1992), 1. [2] Arlina-Hamm, Margherita, “Famous Families of New York: Historical and Biographical Sketches of Families which in Successive Generations have been Identified with the Development of the Nation” (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons; two volumes, 1902), I:127-32. [3] Jones, Robert F., “William Duer and the Business of Government in the Era of the American Revolution,” The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, XXXII:3 (July 1975), 395. [4] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), II:lxviii; III:lvi-lvii. [5] Duer to Abraham Ten Broeck, the president of the New York Convention, 17 April 1777, in ibid., II:331-32. Duer writes of a “langour”; what he means is a “languor,” which is defined as “the state or feeling, often pleasant, of tiredness or inertia; a weakness or weariness of the body and/or soul.” [6] Duer to Robert R. Livingston, 28 May 1777, in ibid., II:376-77. [7] Duer to Robert R. Livingston, 9 July 1777, in ibid., II:410. [8] Duer to Robert Morris, 5 March 1778, in ibid., III:108. [9] “Defalcation of an Army Contractor. Communicated to the House of Representatives, March 25, 1802,” in House Report No. 129, 7th Congress, 1st Session (1802) in “American State Papers. Documents, Legislative and Executive, of the Congress of the United States, From the First Session of the First to the Second Session of the Seventeenth Congress, Inclusive: Commencing March 4, 1789, and Ending March 3, 1823. Selected and Edited, Under the Authority of Congress by Walter Lowrie, Secretary of the Senate, and Walter S. Franklin, Clerk of the House of Representatives. Reports Related to Claims” (Washington, DC: Published by Gales and Seaton, 1834), 259-60. [10] Cowen, David J., “The First Bank of the United States and the Securities Market Crash of 1792,” The Journal of Economic History, LX:1 (December 2000), 1043. [11] “Colonel William Duer,” The Knickerbocker, XL:2 (August 1852), 102. [12] The Times; and District of Columbia Daily Advertiser [Alexandria, Virginia], 27 April 1799, 3. [13] “Died,” Connecticut Gazette [New London], 22 May 1799, 3.

Reverend George Duffield (1732–1790) Reverend George Duffield served as a chaplain to the Continental Congress. Duffield was born in the village of Salisbury, in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, the son of George Duffield, an Irish immigrant, and his wife Elizabeth Duffield.

According to one family tree, his father (also George Duffield was born in Ballymena, in Belfast, Ireland (now Northern Ireland) about 1690; he died in Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, in 1774. [1] George Duffield received his education at the Newark Academy in Delaware, which he completed at the College of New Jersey (now Princeton University), from which he graduated in 1752. He majored in theology, which he studied under Dr. Robert Smith, and, following his graduation, worked for two years (1754-56) as a tutor in this city of Princeton. In 1756, Duffield married Elizabeth Blair; however, she died the following year, and Duffield then married Margaret Armstrong, the sister of military leader (and eventual Continental Congress delegate) John Armstrong, in March 1759. Later that year, in September 1759, he was ordained, and sent to work among the Presbyterian dioceses in Carlisle and other western frontier villages in Pennsylvania. Duffield began his religious duties at the church at Meeting House Springs in Carlisle, and remained there until 1772; during this period, he also served the communities of Big Spring and Monaghan. In early 1772 (some sources report the year 1771), Duffield moved to Philadelphia, where he established the famed Old Pine Street Presbyterian Church. Historian Herbert Adams Gibbons wrote of this institution in 1905, “Old Pine Street was built in 1768 by the First Church, owing to the necessity of another Presbyterian church to meet the demands of the growing city, with the intention that the two churches should be under the control of a common committee, but the call of the Rev. George Duffield in 1771, in opposition to the wishes of the First Church, and his forcible settlement as pastor in the succeeding year, caused an early and irrevocable break in the relations between the two churches.” [2] An affidavit produced by Duffield concerns alleged war crimes committed by German Hessian troops against ordinary civilians in the town of Trenton, New Jersey, where a man of the cloth, a Reverend Rosburgh, was set upon and killed: “That as a party of Hessian Jagers marched down the back of the town, after our troops had retreated, they fell in with Mr. Rosburgh, who surrendered himself a prisoner; notwithstanding which one of them struck him on the head with a sword or cutlass and then stabbed him several times with a bayonet; while imploring mercy, and begging his life at their

334

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

hands. That this account was given by a Hessian who said that he had killed him (save only that he did not know of Mr. Rosburgh’s name, but called him a damn’d rebel minister) . . . ” [3]

and establishment of our independence, in the enjoyment of our rights and privileges.” [6]

Duffield would probably have remained as a leading preacher in Philadelphia had not other events intervened to serve to make his name a part of American history. The first chaplain of the Continental Congress, The Reverend Jacob Duché, penned a letter to General George Washington denouncing the members of that body and calling for the rescinding and repudiation of the Declaration of Independence. The backlash against Duché was harsh, and, to be honest, expected. Historian Christopher C. Lund explained, “After word spread of Duché’s treachery, the Continental Congress appointed new chaplains-William White (an Anglican) and George Duffield (a Presbyterian). Like Duché had done, they too offered prayers, delivered sermons, conducted funerals, and acted in general as the Congress’ chaplains. This arrangement was maintained throughout the Continental Congress and the Congress of the Confederation, until the Constitution was ratified and a new Congress selected.” [4] Historian Alexander Mackie added in 1955, “On December 23, 1776, The Continental Congress had elected as the Chaplains of that body, ‘the Reverend Mr. P. Allison and the Reverend Mr. W. White . . . It was therefore ordered that Mr. John Witherspoon, Mr. Samuel Adams and Mr. William Hooper be a committee to inform the said gentlemen of their appointment, and desire their attendance.’ Mr. Allison, however, declined his appointment, and on Wednesday, October 1, 1777, ‘the Rev. Mr. Duffield was appointed in his stead.’ Around the end of the month Duffield was with Congress at Yorktown.” [5] Historians believe that the Duché controversy, which led one single chaplain to embarrass the Continental Congress, caused the members to select two different preachers, in this case Duffield and White. Duffield continued his work at his church in Philadelphia. In 1783, when a peace treaty between the United States and England was signed, he delivered “a Sermon Preached in the Third Presbyterian Church in the city of Philadelphia, on Thursday[,] December 11, 1783[,] the Day Appointed by the United States in Congress Assembled, to be Observed as a day of Thanksgiving, for the Restoration of peace,

George Duffield died in Philadelphia on 3 February 1790 at the age of 57. [7] Duffield was buried in the cemetery of the Old Pine Street Presbyterian Church. Following his death, the magazine The American Museum wrote in praise of Duffield, “As a man, the rev. dr. Duffield possessed a vigorous, active, firm, and benevolent mind. He thought with energy and quickness; and he dreaded not the labour of thinking. In promptitude of conception, and readiness of utterance, few were his equals. These qualities, in early life enabled him to preach with a frequency, of which the instances are rare: and throughout life, they gave him a consequence and utility in deliberative bodies, to which few can attain.” [8] See also: Reverend Jacob Duché

[1] See the Duffield family tree, online at www.geni.com/people/ George-Duffield/60000000042495339. [2] Gibbons, Herbert Adams, “Old Pine Street Church, Philadelphia, in the Revolutionary War,” Journal of Presbyterian History, III:2 (June 1905), 72. [3] “Affidavit of The Rev. George Duffield,” The Connecticut Courant, and Hartford Weekly Intelligencer [Hartford], 16 June 1777, 1. [4] Lund, Christopher C., “The Congressional Chaplaincies,” William & Mary Bill of Rights Journal, XVII:4 (2009), 1182-83. [5] Mackie, Alexander, “George Duffield, Revolutionary Patriot,” Journal of Presbyterian History, XXXIII:1 (March 1955), 21. For the official announcement of Duffield’s selection, see Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789. Edited from the Original Records in the Library of Congress by Worthington Chauncey Ford, Chief, Division of Manuscripts” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; 34 volumes, 1904-37), VIII:756. [6] “A Sermon Preached in the Third Presbyterian Church in the city of Philadelphia, on Thursday December 11, 1783. The day Appointed by the United States in Congress Assembled, to be Observed as a Day of thanksgiving, for the Restoration of Peace, and Establishment of our Independence, in the Enjoyment of our Rights and Privileges. By George Duffield, A.M. Pastor of Said church, and one of the Chaplains of Congress” (Boston: Re-Printed and Sold by T. & J. Fleet, 1784). [7] See an obituary for Duffield in Osborne’s New-Hampshire Spy [Portsmouth], 27 February 1790, 143. [8] “Original Prose: Character of the rev. dr. George Duffield, late pastor of the third presbyterian congregation, in the city of Philadelphia, who died February 2d, 1790,” The American Museum, Or, Universal Magazine, for February, 1790, 66.

John Dunlap (1747–1812) Dunlap was an Irish-born printer, selected by the Continental Congress, to print 200 clean

John Dunlap (1747–1812)335 copies of a proclamation by the delegates of that Congress that they were officially breaking away from the “Mother Country” of England to form a brand new nation. The “proclamation” was the Declaration of Independence. To this day, only a handful of copies of Dunlap’s original printing still exist, and all are known as “Dunlap prints” or “Dunlap broadsides.” In 2009, a researcher examining records in the British National Archives at Kew, south of London, found an intact specimen of a Dunlap print which had remained untouched since the end of the 18th century. This discovery brought the total number of original Dunlap prints to 26. [1] Dunlap was born in the village of Tyrone, in County Strabane, Ireland, now in Northern Ireland, in 1747. According to a will filed in Stabane in 1782, his father was identified as John Dunlap, a “saddler.” The family had originated in Scotland, and Dunlap’s grandparents had emigrated to Ireland where the family established roots. [2] In a history of Irish immigrants to America, it was noted about the village that Dunlap was born in, “Eighteenth-century Strabane was a major west Ulster market town, whose merchants shipped the grain, beef, and linen produced in the Finn and Morne valleys up the Foyle River to Londonderry city for export to Britain or America.” [3] According to several sources, Dunlap learned the printing trade at Gary’s Printery in Strabane, located on the estate of the Earl of Abercorn. A 1967 work by the British National Trust on “Gray’s [sic] Printing Press” called the estate one of the centers of printing in Ireland in the mid-18th century. [4] Apprenticed as a printer, John Dunlap, when he was only 10 years old, was sent on a voyage across the Atlantic Ocean, landing in Philadelphia, where he came under the tutelage of his paternal uncle, William Dunlap, a professional printer in the colony of Pennsylvania. Martin J. Burke, a historian of Irish-American printing in America, wrote, “John Dunlap of Strabane arrived in Philadelphia in 1757. He served as an apprentice and then succeeded to the business of his uncle William Dunlap, an Ulster born printer and bookseller, in 1766. He, too, concentrated on the colonial

printers’ mainstay of newspapers, almanacs, and sermons. In July 1776 the Continental Congress contracted with Dunlap to publish the first copies of the Declaration of Independence.” [5] In 1771, Dunlap set out on his own, and with some funding, established one of the first newspapers in the American colonies: the Pennsylvania Packet. The Packet was soon to become one of the most influential newspapers in the colonies; initially issued as a weekly, in 1784 Dunlap took it to a daily, the first of its kind. From the earliest days of the clashes with Britain over the harsh economic measures enacted by Parliament against the colonies, which began in the mid1760s, until the American Revolution war broke out and the Continental Congress sat in Philadelphia as well as other cities, Dunlap’s paper delivered news and opinions that kept its readers informed in an age when news from Boston to New York took days to arrive. Dunlap’s printing press not only published his newspaper, but books as well, including medical journals, religious tracts, sermons, and other works. His printing shop was located at 48 Market Street in Philadelphia, only several blocks from the State House where the Continental Congress met. Dunlap’s newspaper, and its influence among colonial leaders, may have been the leading reason why, when the Continental Congress looked for a printer to publish official copies of the Declaration of Independence to send around to the colonies for inspection and opinion, they selected John Dunlap. Historians conclude that John Dunlap was the first to announce, in the Pennsylvania Packet, the soon-to-besigned Declaration of Independence. However, recent research shows that Henrich Miller, another Philadelphia printer who ran the German-language newspaper Pennsylvanischer Staatsbote, and himself a close friend of Dunlap’s, was the first to officially print the exact text of the Declaration, even though Dunlap himself printed the official copy sanctioned by the Continental Congress. [6] In 1976 the Library of Congress published a study, conducted by historian Frederick R. Goff, which examined all of the extant copies

336

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

of the “Dunlap Broadside” of the Declaration of Independence. Historian Julian Boyd, in discussing Goff’s work, wrote in 1976:

have been a multiplicity of transcribed copies used or only the single one is not adverted to. The mechanics of developing a final text are not described, only what changes were actually made. When Congress agreed upon a final text, Jefferson prepared a fair copy that was sent to Dunlap the printer, although this would seem to have been the duty of the Secretary and his staff rather than of a member, even a committee chairman. Upon receiving Jefferson’s fair copy, Dunlap for the first time set the text in type. It was proofed and several corrections were made; the copies that were run off became available on July 5. Because the time period for Dunlap’s typesetting was short, it is assumed that this must have been a rush order. [8]

The evidence of haste prevailing in Dunlap’s shop as disclosed in the Goff study is confirmed by the special characteristics of the proof copy which were readily discernible before the study was made and which indeed prompted it. The least apparent of these was the typesetter’s mistake in inserting an indefinite article in the passage asserting the right of the people to alter or abolish and to institute “a new Government.” The “a” clearly had not been present in the manuscript employed as printer’s copy since it appears in no other text. But the most obvious and the most important characteristic of the proof is its inclusion of a series of quotation marks in the two opening paragraphs. Both the inconspicuous “a” and the glaring marks were perceived as errors by the person or persons correcting the proofs and were removed. Their removal caused serious irregularities in spacing between the words and, in the first few lines, the compositor sought to remedy the defect. Then, abandoning the effort in succeeding lines, he left these irregularities of spacing as another testimonial to the prevailing haste. The important question is not the presence of these puzzling quotation marks but their meaning. It is incredible to suppose that a compositor of the competence to be expected in a leading printery such as Dunlap’s would have placed them there if they, or something comparable to them, had not been present in the manuscript used as copy. But what did the anonymous typesetter see and interpret as quotation marks? [7] That Dunlap was selected to print the declaration is in keeping with Dunlap’ ability to fit in, in the country he adopted as his own. Historian Wilfred J. Ritz explained: Scholars traditionally have visualized Congress as proceeding from the here of the handwritten Rough Draft to the there of the Dunlap Broadside by this route: Congress used Jefferson’s single handwritten Rough Draft of the report of the drafting committee, but it is never made clear who actually held it in his hands. Whether it was Secretary Charles Thomson, President John Hancock, Chairman of the Committee of the Whole Benjamin Harrison, or Chairman of the drafting committee Thomas Jefferson. Whether there might

Dunlap, who published the Pennsylvania Packet from 1771 to 1795, was also the official printer of the Continental Congress from 1778 to 1789. Initially, the members of the Continental Congress selected Robert Aitken, a Philadelphia printer, as the “official” printer of Congress, and he carried out that work from 1774 until 1778. Historian Herbert Friedenwald related that: in May, 1778, the committee appointed to superintend the publication of the Journals (whose numbers had been increased by the addition of J.B. Smith on January 16, 1778) were “empowered and instructed to employ Mr. John Dunlap to continue printing the said journals instead of Robert Aitken.” He began his work at once, and with the second volume of the Journal, for which there seems to have been a demand due to the loss of a number of the copies printed by Aitken, and Francis Hopkinson, who had been selected to prepare the index to Aitken’s two volumes, now completed his task; and for the making of as poor and un satisfactory an index as ever saw the light of day he received, on September 17, 1778, the munificent sum of two hundred dollars. As it was printed separately, twenty copies were ordered to be given to the delegates from each State, to go with the copies of the Journal authorized to be distributed as mentioned above. On that same day Samuel Holten was added to the committee on publication of the Journal. [9] By this time, Dunlap had a major enterprise; in one advertisement, he offered “Bonnet and Fullers Pasteboard; Parchment; Writing and Wrapping Paper, to be sold by JOHN Dunlap.” [10] At the same time that he was Congress’

Eliphalet Dyer (1721–1807)337 official printer, Dunlap was also a patriot: his name is listed as being on the roll of members of the Patriotic Association of Philadelphia in 1778. [11] On February 4, 1773, Dunlap married to Elizabeth Hayes Ellison. The couple had many children, many of whom survived into adulthood. John Dunlap remained a leading printer in Philadelphia, most notably for the Continental Congress. In 1787, he published the events involving the Constitutional Convention. Although he had come to America with no money to his name, he built a substantial fortune, but near the end of his life may have been seriously ill or had some problems with his mind. His friend Dr. Benjamin Rush wrote of him, “In his family he was less amiable and respectable than in society. Towards the close of his life he became intemperate so as to fall in the street.” Dunlap died in Philadelphia of apoplexy on 27 November 1812 at age 64 or 65. [12] The Salem Gazette of Massachusetts reported, “Mr. Dunlap was formerly [the] printer to Congress when that body assembled in Philadelphia. He was the original proprietor of The Pennsylvania Packet, which afterwards became a daily paper under the title of The American Daily Advertiser, which name it now bears . . . Mr. Dunlap as a citizen was highly respected. His funeral was attended by a large number of citizens, among whom were most of the printers and commissioned officer of the first brigade of Pennsylvania militia, and by the first troop of Philadelphia cavalry which he formerly commanded.” [13] Dunlap’s gravestone, in the Christ Church Burial Ground in Philadelphia, gives a different age: it reads, “Sacred to the Memory of John Dunlap, Esq. Who Departed This Life, November 27th 1812 Aged 66 Years.”

[1] “Rare Copy of United States Declaration of Independence found in Kew,” The Telegraph [London, United Kingdom], 3 July 2009, online at http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/ northamerica/usa/5727812/Rare-copy-of-United-StatesDeclaration-of-Independence-found-in-Kew.html. [2] There does not appear to be any online, or other, genealogical histories of Dunlap’s family. [3] Kerby A. Miller, ed. et al., “Irish Immigrants in the Land of Canaan: Letters and Memoirs from Colonial and Revolutionary America, 1675-1815” (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2003), 86.

[4] “Gray’s Printing Press, Strabane, Co. Tyrone” (Belfast: National Trust, Committee for Northern Ireland, 1967). [5] Burke, Martin J., “Irish American Publishing” in James H. Murphy, ed., “The Irish Book in English, 1800-1891” (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; four volumes, 2005-11), IV:98. [6] See Karl J.R. Arndt, “The First Translation and Printing in German of the American Declaration of Independence,” Monatshefte, LXXVII:2 (Summer 1985), 138-42. [7] Boyd, Julian P., “The Declaration of Independence: The Mystery of the Lost Original,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, C:4 (October 1976), 454-55. [8] Ritz, Wilfred J., “From the Here of Jefferson’s Handwritten Rough Draft of the Declaration of Independence to the There of the Printed Dunlap Broadside,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, CXVI:4 (October 1992), 501-02. [9] Friedenwald, Herbert, “The Journals and Papers of the Continental Congress,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, XXI:2 (1897), 176-77. [10] See the “e” in The Pennsylvania Packet, Or The General Advertiser [Philadelphia], 15 August 1778, 3. [11] “Roll of Members of the Patriotic Association of Philadelphia, 1778,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, XXIII:3 (1899), 357. [12] “Died, at Philadelphia,” New-York Herald, 5 December 1812, 4. [13] “Died,” Salem Gazette [Massachusetts], 15 December 1812, 4.

Eliphalet Dyer (1721–1807)

A jurist who rose to serve in the Continental Congress (1774-79, 1782-83), Eliphalet Dyer was a longtime official in his native Connecticut. He was born in Windham, Connecticut, on 14 September 1721, the son of Thomas Dyer,

338

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

an official in colonial Connecticut, and his wife Lydia (née Backus) Dyer. Thomas Dyer, a native of Weymouth, Massachusetts, moved to Connecticut about 1715, where he married Lydia, the daughter of John Backus of Windham. Establishing himself in that town, Thomas Dyer served as a deputy to the Connecticut colonial General Assembly, rising to become a major in a Windham County military regiment. The family can be traced back to Eliphalet Dyer’s grandfather, Joseph Dyer. [1] Thomas Dyer (1694-1766), the father of Eliphalet Dyer, was, as mentioned, a respected official in colonial Connecticut. His son Eliphalet was taught “preparatory studies” after which he entered Yale College (now Yale University) in New Haven in 1740. According to his official congressional biography, Dyer served as a town clerk prior to going to Yale. [2] While at Yale, Dyer studied the law, and, after being admitted to the colonial bar, opened a practice in Windham. In May 1745, Dyer married Huldah Bowen, a daughter of Colonel Jacob Bowen of Providence, Rhode Island.

about twenty Years ago . . . ” [4] In 1755, the company called on the Connecticut General Assembly to allow settlers to settle on these lands in question. Unfortunately, because of the outbreak of the French and Indian War, the operations of the company were suspended; Dyer was named to a regiment of Connecticut militia, with the rank of lieutenant colonel, sent to fight French forces at Crown Point. Three years later, Dyer was promoted to the rank of colonel, and dispatched along with British troops to Canada. At the end of the conflict, still working on the Susquehanna River land claim, Dyer journeyed to London to directly air his concerns. Eventually, the British turned down his claims, and that of his company, citing the recently enacted Proclamation Line Act of 1763, which sought to keep the American colonies in set boundaries. In 1906, The Hartford Courant reported that a Journal, penned by Dyer during his trip to Europe in 1763, had just been found in the Connecticut State Library. According to the story, “[i]n 1753, [Dyer] was a member of the committee to buy the title to the land elected for the proposed country at Wyoming, and in 1755 was [an] agent to petition the General Assembly in its behalf. The French and Indian wars interrupted the plans, but in 1763, Colonel Dyer took the trip referred to as [an] agent of the Susquehanna land company, but failed in its effort to obtain from the crown confirmation of the title to the Wyoming region.” [5] The claims persisted even after the establishment of the American nation in 1776; they led, in part, to the Second Pennamite War in 1784. With the conclusion of that conflict, the claims were settled, and those in the Wyoming Valley became a part of Pennsylvania.

In 1745, as he was finishing his legal studies, Dyer served in the Connecticut colonial militia, and, after earning his law degree served as a justice of the peace before opening his own law practice in Windham. Despite chafing under royal rule, Dyer was elected several times to the colonial assembly, serving in the sessions of that body in 1747, 1748, 1752 and 1753, and then continually from 1756 to 1784. [3] This period was extremely difficult for Dyer and his family: In 1749 his second son died at the age of one month, and two years later Dyer’s sister Eunice Dyer Backus died at the age of 24. It was, however, at this time, that Dyer served not in the furtherance of liberty or rebelling against the British crown, but in trying to solve the land dispute between Connecticut and Pennsylvania that involved the Wyoming Valley, next to the Susquehanna River in what is now Luzerne County in Pennsylvania. A report prepared on the claim, published in Philadelphia in 1754, noted, “The notion of extending the Claim of the Colony of Connecticut to Lands Westward as far as the South Sea, thereby including a considerable Part of the Royal Grant of Pennsylvania made to William Penn, Esq; as well as of the western Crown Land yet ungranted, seems to have been first started

In September 1765, in response to the parliamentary action known as The Stamp Act, a meeting of several colonies was held in New York City, loosely known as The Stamp Act Congress; Dyer was named as a delegate from Connecticut to this parley. [6] Most historians of the American Revolution cite The Stamp Act Congress as the progenitor for the First Continental Congress which was held less than a decade later. Back in Connecticut after his service, Dyer was called to a meeting of the Connecticut Council, summoned by Governor Thomas Fitch (1699-1774) of that state, to

Eliphalet Dyer (1721–1807)339 enforce the Stamp Act among Connecticut merchants. Refusing to put the act into motion, Jonathan Trumbull, another delegate to The Stamp Act Congress, resigned from the Council; Dyer, in sympathy with Trumbull, also resigned, leaving the Council without enough members to carry out its duties. Dyer explained his reasoning to a friend in a lengthy letter, concluding: “I immediately arose, took my hat, and declared openly and publicly that the oath about to be administered was in my opinion directly contrary to the oath the Governor and Council had before taken to maintain the rights and privileges of the people. It was an oath I myself could not take, neither could I be present aiding and assisting therein; and then withdrew, the other gentlemen with me.” [7] A colony-wide election in May 1766 drove Fitch and several of his associates from office, confirming that the course that Trumbull and Dyer took was the most popular. For the next eight years, Eliphalet Dyer was deeply involved in the political affairs of the Connecticut colony. In July 1774, when the Connecticut Committee of Correspondence met to discuss which persons would be named as delegates to the First Continental Congress, called to meet in Philadelphia, the group’s first choice was Eliphalet Dyer, and he accepted the honor on that same day, 13 July. Dyer was subsequently reelected to the Continental Congress on November 1774, and attended sessions of that body in Philadelphia from 5 September to 26 October 1774, 10 May to 2 August 1775, and 11 September 1775 to 16 January 1776. [8] There are several pieces of correspondence contained in the collection of “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress,” which have only come to light within the last century, long after Eliphalet Dyer had passed from the scene of history. For instance, in a letter to Joseph Trumbull, brother of Jonathan, Dyer wrote on 18 May 1775: I have Nothing special to acquaint you with only that the Members are all Convened from every Colony Including one from the parish of St Johns in Georgia the same Members as in the last except some additions from some of the Colonies and that Nothing appears at present but there will be a firm Union in all for

our Common defence and that any Hostile attempts on one part will be considered as an attack upon the whole. Indeed they are not all so well prepared with the means as we could wish for . . . as I have but a few Moments to write Mr [John Brown [a delegate to the Continental Congress from Virginia] just leaving the Town I have only to add that Mr Galloway was dismissed from being a Member of the Congress by the Assembly of this Province justly despised and Contemned by all and Doctor [Benjamin] Franklin who is lately arrived from London put in his place who freely took his seat in Congress. [9] To Trumbull Dyer, followed up on 3 June, he wrote: I wrote you some time since by one Mr Brown who was at the taking the fort at Ticonderoga and from this place (as he said) was bound direct to Cambridge. I then had only to Inform you of our progress to this place, and at this time what we are att Liberty to Communicate from the Congress you will from time to time see in the public papers. there is no doubt but the Congress will approve and Support the Measures which have been taken by the New England Colonies and I think we have got New York now Completely taken in. [T]he advice given to New York with respect to the Troops that might be Attempted to be landed there was in Consequence of their strong solicitation to preserve their City from ruin. it was said to be Impossible to prevent their landing and that an Immediate Attack would Induce the Men of Warr to lay the City in ruins, there is Care taken to have Sufficient Batteries in the most Convenient places up along Hudsons river to prevent any Ks Ships or Cutters going up there . . . [W]e have just now received letters from Albany that Guy Johnson has lately been much alarmed is fortifying and Collected a Number of his Irish Roman Catholicks in that County to protect him, and has alarmed all the Indians in that quarter pretending that he has heard the New England people are coming to take him and his family and make him their prisoner but the Magistrates of Schenecteda [sic] and of Albany have had a talk with the Indians assured them of the falsity of that report by which the Indians are quieted and give the strongest assurance they will take no part in the dispute Between great Britain and her Colonies unless their Superintendent Johnson is Molested if he is they must protect him. [10] In a letter to Joseph Trumbull on 17 June 1775, Dyer discussed the selection of George

340

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Washington as the head of the Continental Army. He penned:

from their settlements. they have propagated that Opinion among the Penns [sic] people on the West branch and below Wyoming and that part of the forces raised in Connecticut are for that purpose that our Assembly in this time of distress are making strides into that Country extending their Claim etc. and Indeed they goe farther and trye to possess the minds of Southern Gentn of the Congress that we are a hardy daring enterprising people and if we prove Success full against the Ministerial Army here we shall after that make our way by force into any the Southern Colonies we please. Mr. [John] Dickinson the Pensylvania farmer as he is Called in his Writings is lately most bitter against us and Indeavours [sic] to make every ill Impression upon the Congress against us but I may say he is not very highly Esteemed in Congress. [H]e has taken a part very different from what I believe was expected from the Country in general or from his Constituents. [12]

This is only private, you will hear that Coll [Col.] Washington is Appointed Genll or Commander in Chief over the Continental Army by I dont know but the Universal Voice of the Congress. I believe he will be Very agreable to our officers and Soldiery. [H]e is a Gent. highly Esteemd by those acquainted with him tho I dont believe as to his Military and for real service he knows more than some of ours but so it removes all jealousies, more firmly Cements the Southern to the Northern, and takes away the fear of the former lest an Enterprising eastern New England Genll. proving Successfull, might with his Victorious Army give law to the Southern or Western Gentry. this made it absolutely Necessary in point of prudence, but he is Clever, and if any thing too modest, he seems discreet and Virtuous, no harum Starum ranting Swearing fellow but Sober, steady, and Calm. his Modesty will Induce him I dare say to take and order ever[y] Step with the best advice possible to be obtained in the Army. his allowance for Wages expences and every thing is we think very high not less than £150 law[ful] p[e]r month but it was urged that the largeness of his family, Aide Camps, Secretary, Servts [servants] etc., beside a Constant table for more or less of his officers, daily expresses, dispatches etc must be very expensive. [11] At the same time that Dyer was serving in the Continental Congress, he also continued to work on the Connecticut land claims that he had been deeply involved in. In one instance of this, Dyer penned a letter to one William Judd, 23 July 1775, in which he discussed the issue: I this day heard by Capt[.] Strong that you was on your way to Susqh [sic] and about to settle there and that your design was on the West branch. I am Very glad that a Gentn. of the Capacity and Abilities I esteem you (without flattery) to be possessed of is about to move into that Country as Gent of knowledge and prudence may be of great service there especially at this Critical time when a jarr [sic] between two Colonies may be of allmost fatal Consequence to the whole. I am therefore Oblidged for your prudent Conduct to let you know that the Proprietors their Friends Agents and land Jobbers who have purchased large Tracts in our Country are extremely Jealous least we from Connecticutt take advantage of the times and press upon and Violently remove their people

According to his official congressional biography, Dyer served as a judge of a Connecticut superior court from 1766 to 1793, and as the chief judge of that court from 1789 until 1793, when he left the bench. Although he continued to serve in the Connecticut General Assembly, he served in a series of positions in that state, including as a member of the Connecticut Council of Safety, fashioned like the Committees of Safety in other states, which helped to bridge the vacuum of leadership following the collapse of royal governments in 1775 and 1776. On 10 January 1782, following the refusal of Andrew Adams to serve as a delegate from Connecticut in the Continental Congress, that state’s General Assembly elected Dyer, “untill [sic] the first Monday in November next,” and reelected him to that body on 10 October 1782, “for the year ensuing, to commence on the first Monday in November next.” Dyer then served from 3 June to 11 November 1782. [13] On 19 November 1782, the Journals of the Continental Congress reported: Eliphalet Dyer, William Samuel Johnson, and Jesse Root, esqs. appearing as agents for the state of Connecticut, produced their credentials and powers as they here follow: Be it known, that we, the governor and company of the state of Connecticut, in America, have authorized, constituted and appointed, and by these presents do constitute, authorize and appoint the hon. Eliphalet

Eliphalet Dyer (1721–1807)341 Dyer, William Samuel Johnson, and Jesse Root, esqrs. our agents, procurators and attorneys, in our name and behalf to appear, and us to represent, before the honorable court of commissioners, constituted appointed and commissioned by the Congress of the United States, pursuant to the 9th article of confederation to be holden at Trenton, in New-Jersey, on the 12th day of November inst. and at all times and places where said court may be holden, to hear, judge and determine the controversy subsisting between the state of Pennsylvania and the state of Connecticut, respecting the title, jurisdiction, possession and claim, to a certain territory of country, contained within the bounds and limits of the royal charter and patent of his majesty king Charles the 2d, to the governor and company of the late English colony of Connecticut, claimed by the state of Pennsylvania . . . [14] Following his second service in the Continental Congress, Dyer returned home to Connecticut, and, as noted, remained as a judge until he retired in 1793. He died on 13 May 1807 at the age of 85, and was laid to rest in the Windham Cemetery. His gravestone reads, “In Memory of the Honorable Eliphalet Dyer, Who Died May 13 OS 1807 aged 85 years.” The Litchfield Monitor of Connecticut stated, “Died, [a]t Windham, the Hon. ELIPHALET DYER, in the 87th year of his age. He was distinguished for his useful talents, and the faithful and honourable discharge of his important duties.” [15] The Morning Chronicle of New York said, “He was one of those illustrious patriots (whose name will live in the annals of our nation to all posterity) who signed and assisted in supporting the declaration of independence in

1776, which was the key stone to the ‘wide arch of our rais’d empire.’” [16]

[1] Dyer genealogy forum, online at http://www.geni.com/ people/Eliphalet-Dyer/6000000013546572895. [2] Dyer official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=D000590. [3] Trumbull, J. Hammond, “Eliphalet Dyer,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, III:2 (1879), 174. [4] “An Examination of the Connecticut Claim to Lands in Pennsylvania, With an Appendix, Containing Extracts and Copies Taken from Original Papers” (Philadelphia: Printed by Joseph Crukshank, in Market-Street, 1764), 1-2. [5] “Journal of Colonel Eliphalet Dyer. Story of Trip to England from 1763 of Windham Man,” The Hartford Courant [Connecticut], 17 December 1906, 6. [6] For instance, see “Authentic Account of the Proceedings of the Congress Held at New-York, in MDCCLXV [1765], On the Subject of the American Stamp Act” (London: Printed for J. Almon, [1767]. [7] “Dyer’s Letter” in Stuart, Isaac William, “Life of Jonathan Trumbull, Sen. Gov. of Connecticut” (Boston: Crocker and Brewster, 1859), 91. [8] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), I:xli. [9] Eliphalet Dyer to Joseph Trumbull, 18 May 1775, in ibid., I:93. [10] Eliphalet Dyer to Joseph Trumbull, 3 June 1775, in ibid., I:109. [11] Eliphalet Dyer to Joseph Trumbull, 17 June 1775, in ibid., I:127-28. “£150 law[ful]” was a phrase, confined mostly to New England that showed the difference between British money and “Continental dollars,” which had little to no value. £150 equaled appropriately $500 a month in 1775 dollars. [12] Eliphalet Dyer to William Judd, 23 July 1775, in ibid., I:172-73. [13] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress,” op. cit., VI:xliii. [14] “Journals of the American Congress: From 1774 to 1788. In Four Volumes” (Washington, DC: Printed and Published by Way and Gideon; four volumes, 1823), IV:130. [15] “Died, at Windham,” Litchfield Monitor [Connecticut], 3 June 1807, 3. Another obituary can be found, albeit short, in Connecticut Journal [New Haven], 21 May 1807, 3. [16] “Died, at Windham,” Morning Chronicle [New York], 22 May 1807, 3.

E Pierpont Edwards (1750–1826)

Pierpont Edwards was a noted officeholder in his native Connecticut, which included service in the Continental Congress (1787-88). Born in Northampton, Massachusetts, on 8 April 1750, Pierpont Edwards was the son of Jonathan Edwards, a famed Congregational minister, and his wife Sarah (née Pierpont) Edwards. His father, the Reverend Jonathan Edwards (1703-1758) was a Hartford-born religious figure who played one of the greatest roles of any such personage in early America. [1] Jonathan Edwards’ father, Timothy Edwards (1668-1759), was a minister in East Windsor, a part of Hartford; his mother, Esther Stoddard, was the daughter of the Reverend Solomon Stoddard, who was a leading religious figure in Northampton, Massachusetts, where his great-grandson, Pierpont Edwards, would be born. [2] Jonathan Edwards ushered in the period known as “The Great Awakening.” Edwards’ writings and sermons include “A Faithful Narrative of the Surprising Work of

God” (1741), “Sinners in the Hands of an Angry God” (1741) and “Religious Affections” (1746). Historian Kenneth P. Minkema wrote of Jonathan Edwards, “In 1715 Bernard Bartlett, a member of the church of Northampton, Massachusetts, said that his pastor, Jonathan Edwards, ‘was as Great an Instrument as the Devil Had on this Side [of] Hell to bring Souls to Hell.’ Seven years later, the Reverend David Hall of Sutton, Massachusetts, after a visit from Edwards, wrote in his diary, ‘I thought I had not saw in any man for some years so much of the grace of God causing ye face to shine.’” [3] Pierpont Edwards’ sister, Esther, married Aaron Burr, Sr., and her son, Aaron Burr, Jr., simply known as Aaron Burr, rose to serve as vice president before his incredible fall from power. James Parton, an early biographer of Aaron Burr, wrote in 1893, “Pierpont Edwards, another uncle of Aaron Burr’s, but only six years his senior, was his schoolfellow for a while at Elizabethtown. One of Pierpont’s letters, written when Aaron was seven years old, contained this sentence ‘Aaron Burr is here, is hearty, goes to school, and learns bravely.’ The fact of Pierpont Edwards’ being Burr’s schoolfellow, and one who from his age, talents, and relationship, would be likely to exert great influence upon him, should be noted; for Pierpont Edwards, besides being a great lawyer, was also a remarkably free liver.” [4] Perhaps owing to his family’s wealth and influence, Pierpont Edwards apparently received his early education from private tutors. The Reverend Jonathan Edwards died of smallpox a mere 34 days after taking over as president of the College of New Jersey. Pierpont Edwards and his orphaned siblings, led by his older brother Timothy, moved first back to Massachusetts, and then to Elizabethtown, New Jersey, where they grew up. Pierpont Edwards entered College of New Jersey in 1768. He studied the law, and was admitted to practice by the Connecticut colonial bar in 1771.

Pierpont Edwards (1750–1826)343 In 1769, he married Frances Ogden, and the couple would have eleven children. Edwards and his wife moved to New Haven, Connecticut, where his mother’s family lived. According to his official congressional biography, Edwards “served in the Revolutionary Army,” although it gives no details as to what service he provided, or if he saw any military action. [5] However, historian Stephen R. Grossbart, in one of the few contemporary biographies of Pierpont Edwards, wrote, “His early support for the American Revolution quickly advanced his political status. In 1774 Edwards was a member of the New Haven Committee of Correspondence. He became a member of the Second Company of the Governor’s Footguard in 1775, serving in Cambridge, Massachusetts. Edwards was also at Danbury during the British attack in 1777. In 1777 the freemen of New Haven elected Edwards to the Connecticut House of Representatives. In this election Edwards, along with incumbent patriot Samuel Bishop, defeated men with neutral or proBritish sympathies. This marked the beginning of Edwards’ long association with radical and democratic politics.” [6] Pierpont Edwards was deeply involved in Connecticut state matters during and after the American Revolution. For instance, The Political Magazine, a contemporary publication, reported, that “[a]t a town meeting holden in New Haven, upon the 8th day of March, Anno Dom[ini] 1784, on motion of Pierpont Edwards, Esq. voted, That Pierpont Edwards, John Whiting, David Austin, David Atwater, Samuel Huggins, James Hillhouse, Jonathan Ingersoll, and Jonathan Dickerman, be a Committee to consider of the propriety and expediency of admitting as inhabitants of this town, persons, who in the course of the late war, have adhered to the cause of Great Britain, against these United States, and are of fair character, and will be good and useful members of society, and faithful citizens of this State, and that said Committee report to this meeting.” [7] In another example, the Connecticut Courant and Weekly Intelligencer of Hartford reported on 13 June 1785 that “at the annual meeting of this city [New Haven] . . . the following gentlemen were elected officers,” and then mentioned that Edwards

had been elected as a “Common-Councilman” along with James Hillhouse and Jonathan Ingersoll. [8] In the summer of 1787, delegates met in Philadelphia, the site of most of the meetings of the Continental Congress, to draft what would become the US Constitution. After the document was signed that September, it was sent to the states for ratification; all 13 of the states needed to vote in favor of it in order for it to be in effect. Despite general misgivings—especially about a lack of a Bill of Rights, which was promised to be added later by the backers of the document—by early October it appeared that the states would ratify it. One of Connecticut’s delegates to the Continental Congress, soon to exist under the new US Constitution, which established a bicameral national legislature, was William Samuel Johnson, who was reelected to that body on 10 May 1787. However, having already served three years, he was ineligible for further service, and a successor was needed. On 11 October 1787, the Connecticut legislature elected Edwards to this vacancy, “for the Year ensuing . . . instead of the Honorable William Sam’l Johnson Esquire who had served in Congress for the Term three Years last past and was therefore ineligible.” [9] This is confirmed by a contemporary report in the Connecticut Courant and Weekly Intelligencer, which reported on 12 November, “At a General Assembly of the State of Connecticut, holden at New Haven, on the second Thursday of October, Anno Domini 1787.” The paper reported that among “[t]he Gentlemen nomina[ted] for Delegates in Congress” were James Hillhouse, Stephen M. Mitchel, Jonathan Sturges, Jeremiah Wadsworth, John Chester, Joseph Cook, and Pierpont Edwards. [10] Edwards served in sessions of the Continental Congress from 9 June to 2 July 1788, 10 July to about 6 August 1788, 28 August to 12 September 1788, and from about 10 October to 1 November 1788. The time spent away in Philadelphia may have impacted Edwards; in a letter to fellow delegate Jeremiah Wadsworth, 26 March 1788, he wrote of his difficulties: “I agreed to go to Congress in May, or, for a few Weeks only, at an earlier period, if my

344

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

presence, for particular purposes, should be necessary. These particular purposes cannot now be answered by my going. No money can be had of the State at present, And, to answer your question ‘will you come on or not’, I say I will not untill the begining of May.” [11] Edwards followed this letter up with another dated 31 March 1788, in which he explained, “I wrote you on Wednesday last, in which I informed you that I cou’d not go to New-York till the beginning of May: Since that time I have determined to put my going to Congress upon an issue that will certainly exonerate me from blame. I have therefore written to His Excellency—A Copy of my Letter to him is inclosed—And if the Public will furnish me with money I will be with you in four days after it comes to hand.” [12] These appear to be the only letters that Edwards wrote or received while sitting in the Continental Congress.

to The Connecticut Courant, “I[,] Pierpont Edwards[,] rejoice that Thomas Jefferson is President instead of AARON BURR!!!!” [14]

In November 1788, Edwards was elected to a seat in the Connecticut state House of Representatives, and served during the sessions of 1789 and 1790, rising to serve as Speaker of that body. Alexander Hamilton, in a letter to William Ellery, wrote about a law involving the seizure of brigs, or ships, to collect duties owed to the US government. He explained, “I have consulted with Pierpont Edwards[,] the District Atto. for the District of Connecticut[,] and it is his opinion that if a writ issues within three years next after the penalty was incurred, and is returned non est or neither goods, nor chattels to be found, it is a commencement of the Action or prosecution according to the meaning of the Proviso, and that thereafter writs may be issued against the transgressor until a service shall be made.” [13] By this time, Edwards sided politically not with his nephew, Aaron Burr, but with Burr’s nemesis, Secretary of State Thomas Jefferson. In 1800, Burr ran for president, coming in second to Jefferson; at this time, before the passage of the Eleventh Amendment to the US Constitution, those two men who won the most electoral votes would be elected president and vice president. Edwards exulted in the “defeat” of his nephew, whose dream to be elected president had been dashed. Edwards wrote

The closeness of Jefferson and Edwards can be observed in their thinking, as the president penned the following letter to Edwards from Washington, 21 July 1801: I received in due time your friendly favor of June 18th and profited of the information it contained, as you will have seen by a certain paper inclosed from this place. I was glad the remonstrants of your state took the measure they did. Their attack was on that class of removals which every reasonable man of whatsoever party has approved; I mean those which were made by a preceding administration in their last moments, & with a view either to force their successors to work with thwarting co-operation, or to incur odium by removing them. An opportunity was also wanting to come forward and disavow the sophistical construction on what I had declared on the 4th of March, to declare the justice of some participation by the republicans in the management of public affairs, and the principles on which vacancies would be created. I verily believe there will be a general approbation of what has been avowed in answer to the remonstrance, and that we may now proceed in our duty with a firmer step. I certainly feel more confident since an opportunity has been furnished me of explaining my proceedings. I consider Rho. [I]sl’d, Vermont, Massachusetts, & N. Hampshire as coming in the course of this year. In Congress R. I. is entirely republican, Vermont will probably be three fourths, Massachusetts a majority: N. H. coming fast up: but the nature of your government being a subordination of the civil to the ecclesiastical power, I consider it as desperate for long years to come. Their steady habits exclude the advances of information & they seem exactly where they were when they separated from the Saints of Oliver Cromwell. And there your clergy will always keep them if they can. You will follow the bark of liberty only by the help of a towrope. You will greatly oblige me by continuing your information as to the effects on them produced & to be produced by our measures, and I pray you to be assured of my friendly & high consideration & respect. [15] Perhaps it was Edwards’ support politically over his own family member that led Jefferson in 1806 to appoint the Connecticut jurist

Pierpont Edwards (1750–1826)345 and legislator as a US district judge for the district of Connecticut. Edwards remained on the court until his death. A report from the court of the Connecticut District, filed in the “American State Papers” of a decision rendered by Edwards as a judge, related: “On this day, the 7th of May, in the year of our Lord eighteen hundred and thirteen, personally came before me. Pierpont Edwards, Judge of the district court of the United States, for the district aforesaid, That he was at Bridgetown, in the island of Barbadoes [sic], in the West Indies . . . that on board a British prison ship, at Barbadoes [sic], there were confined about five hundred and twenty-three American prisoners, of the crews of private armed vessels of the United States and merchantmen, captured since the war.” Edwards held, in the case of one of the shipowners, killed in action, that he was “a man of strict integrity” whose deposition could be attached to future lawsuits. [16] In 1818, Edwards served as a delegate to the Connecticut state convention, which framed a new state constitution for Connecticut. Pierpont Edwards died in Bridgeport, Connecticut, on 5 April 1826, three days short of his 76th birthday. The Connecticut Herald, in a eulogy, said of him, “He took an early and efficient part in the councils of this state, in favour of Independence: was repeatedly a member of Congress under the confederation; an able advocate for the Constitution of the United States in the convention held to ratify that instrument; for a long time district attorney of the United States for this district; and at his death judge of the District Court. As a patriot he was ardent and persevering, and his powerful talents were exerted in securing the rights and promoting the welfare of his country. The prime of his life was spent at the bar, where he had to contend with talents of the highest order, both in this and the neighboring states; and public opinion has long since assigned his rank among the great lawyers of our country.” [17] Edwards was laid to rest in Grove Street Cemetery in New Haven, Connecticut. A plaque on his simple tomb states that he indeed served in the Continental Congress, and calls him a “lawyer, legislator, soldier, Mason.” Edwards’ son, Henry Waggaman Edwards (1779-1847),

served as a US senator from Connecticut (182327), as well as the governor of that state (183334, 1835-38).

[1] Marsden, George M., “Jonathan Edwards: A Life” (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2003), 93-95. [2] See the Edward family tree, which begins with The Rev. Jonathan Edwards, Sr., online at www.geni.com/people/RevJonathan-Edwards/6000000002884957019. [3] Minkema, Kenneth P., “Personal Writings” in Stephen J. Stein, ed., “The Cambridge Companion to Jonathan Edwards” (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2007), 39. [4] Parton, James, “The Life and Times of Aaron Burr, Lieutenant-Colonel in the Army of the Revolution, United States Senator, ­Vice-President of the United States, Etc.” (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company; two volumes, 1893), I:53. [5] Edwards official congressional biography, online at http:// bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=E000079. [6] Grossbart, Stephen R., “Pierpont Edwards” in John A. Garraty and Mark C. Carnes, gen. eds., “American National Biography” (New York: Oxford University Press; 24 volumes, 1999), VII:339-40. [7] “Proceedings of the Town of New Haven, in the State of Connecticut (now City of New Haven),” The Political Magazine, and ­Parliamentary, Naval, Military, and Literary Journal, For April 1784 (London: Printed for J. Bew, 1784), 247. [8] “New Haven, June 9,” Connecticut Courant and Weekly Intelligencer [Hartford], 13 June 1785, 3. [9] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie ­Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VIII:lxxxiii. [10] “Hartford, Nov. 12,” Connecticut Courant and Weekly Intelligencer [Hartford], 12 November 1787, 3. Another report on Edwards’ election can be found in The Independent Gazetteer; or The Chronicle of Freedom [Philadelphia], 15 November 1787, 2. [11] Edwards to Jeremiah Wadsworth, 26 March 1788, in Burnett, op. cit., VIII:711. [12] Edwards to Jeremiah Wadsworth, 31 March 1788, in ibid., VIII:711-12. [13] Alexander Hamilton to William Ellery, December 1793, in Harold C. Syrett, ed., “The Papers of Alexander Hamilton” (New York: Columbia University Press; 27 volumes, 1961-87), XV:435. [14] “Communication,” The Connecticut Courant [Hartford], 9 February 1803, 3. [15] Thomas Jefferson to Pierpont Edwards, 21 July 1801, in Paul Leicester Ford, coll. and ed., “The Works of Thomas Jefferson: Federal Edition. Published in Twelve Volumes” (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons; 12 volumes, 1904), IX:278-80. [16] “Connecticut District, 7 May 1813” in “American State Papers. Documents, Legislative and Executive, of the Congress of the United States, From the First Session of the First to the Second Session of the Seventeenth Congress, Inclusive: Commencing March 4, 1789, and Ending March 3, 1823. Selected and Edited, Under the Authority of Congress by Walter Lowrie, Secretary of the Senate, and Walter S. Franklin, Clerk of the House of Representatives. Reports Related to Claims” (Washington, DC: Published by Gales and Seaton, 1834), Class V [Military Affairs], I:342. [17] “Died,” Connecticut Herald [New Haven], 11 April 1826, 3.

346

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Samuel Elbert (c. 1740–1788)

governmental affairs after royal rule collapsed. In 1776, Elbert was appointed as a Lieutenant Colonel initially, and, later that same year, was prompted to full colonel of a battalion of troops in the Continental Army. Two years later, on 19 April 1778, Elbert sent a letter to Maj. Gen. Robert Howe, at Savannah, in which he wrote, “I Have the happiness to inform you, that about 10 o’clock this afternoon, the Brigantine Honchenbrooke, the sloop Rebecca, and a prize brig, all struck the British Tyrant’s colours, and surrendered to the American arms. Having received intelligence, that the above vessels were at this place, I put about 300 men, by detachment from the troops under my command at Fort Howe, on board the three gallies, the Washington, Capt. Hardy, the Lee, Capt. Braddock, and the Bullock, Capt. Haches and a detachment of artillery with two field peices [sic], under Capt. Young, I put on board a boat.” [6]

Orphaned as a young child, Samuel Elbert spent much of his short life in the military, serving his nation during a time of war; in 1784 he was elected to a seat in the Continental Congress, but he ultimately declined to serve. The son of William Elbert, a Baptist minister, and his wife Sarah (née Greenfield) Elbert, Samuel Elbert was born somewhere in Prince William Parish, South Carolina; the date is given almost universally as 1740. [1] The place of Elbert’s birth is also in doubt; he was born in either the “accepted” place, Prince William Parish, South Carolina, or in Savannah, Georgia. [2] William Elbert, the father of Samuel, was born in 1720 and died in 1759; his wife, Sarah, was born in 1716 and died in 1754. [3] Even Elbert’s biographer, Charles C. Jones, Jr., wrote in 1887, “Born in the province of South Carolina seven years after Oglethorpe had planted his colony upon Yamacraw Bluff [4], and of English parentage, his youth was spent in the Parish of Prince William, where his father, a Baptist clergyman, had charge of a congregation. Of the early life of Samuel Elbert but little is known. While still a lad he was deprived by death of both his parents.” [5] Thus, by 1759, Samuel Elbert was an orphan, although how he survived is a matter of question. He apparently moved to Savannah at about the age of 20 and became a merchant; his education is unknown. Elbert married Elizabeth Rae, and the couple had six children, according to Elbert’s biography, held by The Morgan Library. In the years leading up to the American Revolution, the merchant’s business in Savannah, a port city in the South, was quite important, and it appears that Samuel Elbert cashed in well on this burgeoning trade with England and the islands of what is now the Caribbean. However, in 1774, when the growing anger between London and the American colonies exploded into warfare at Lexington and Concord, Samuel Elbert threw his lot in with the patriot cause and enlisted in the colonial militia, rising to the rank of captain of a grenedier company. The next year, he was elected as a delegate to the South Carolina Council of Safety, which took over control of

It was in this role as a commander of troops that Elbert saw action in one of the lesser-known, but more important, clashes of the war between England and America: the battle of Briar Creek, South Carolina, on 3 March 1779. Although some sites and some sources call the place “Brier Creek,” its true name is “Briar Creek.” Elbert led a brigade of troops under the overall command of General John Ashe. There, they clashed with a small British force commanded by Lieutenant Colonel James Mark Prevost. Although badly outnumbered, the British were able to deliver a decisive defeat to the American militia. Historian David Heidler explained: The shattering of the army that had defended Savannah was the grimmest spectacle and the hardest to overcome immediately. The militia had characteristically run away, and the Georgia Continentals had disastrously stood their ground. Samuel Elbert, the Georgia Continental commander, had demonstrated with his men so much courage that the situation had developed around them, threatening to cut off any line of retreat. Much of this w ­ ell-trained, dependable brigade–already depleted by an abortive spring expedition against East Florida–fell dead in the rice fields while heavy fire from higher positions slashed at their running retreat. Still more drowned in the desperate attempt to cross bloated Musgrove Creek, the only chance for escape, where Elbert had

Samuel Elbert (c. 1740–1788)347 led them. Still more were captured, and a very lucky few got away. Elbert escaped to South Carolina where General Benjamin Lincoln, who had replaced the failed Howe as commander of the Southern Department, ordered him to upper South Carolina. Elbert was there to cross over the river, take command of some 150 Continental troops in Augusta, and join the Georgia militia’s resistance to Campbell’s advance. [7] Historian Joshua Howard added, “The battle of Briar Creek was a stunning victory for the British. Although one in a series of American defeats, Briar Creek’s singular importance is easily recognizable. The day after the battle, [South Carolina Royal Governor William] Campbell proclaimed Georgia conquered, and exclaimed that he had ‘ripped one star and one stripe from the rebel flag.’ Perhaps Ashe had correctly summed up American efforts in Georgia during the summer of 1779 when he had concluded that times did indeed ‘wear a melancholy appearance.’” [8] Elbert was among those taken prisoner by the British at Briar’s Creek; however, he was soon exchanged, and apparently saw additional military action. According to his official congressional biography, Elbert was at Yorktown in 1781 when the British under Lord Cornwallis surrendered, ending the military portion of the revolution. Elbert stayed in the service of his nation, promoted to the rank of brigadier general in 1783. [9] On 9 January 1784, Elbert was elected by the Georgia Assembly to a seat in the Continental Congress, but, according to all sources, he declined to serve. [10] There is no record why he refused the honor, although it could not have been for military reasons, as the war had ended three years earlier. It also appears that Elbert was not indifferent to serving in a political office: in March 1785, the General Assembly of Georgia elected Elbert as the governor of the state “for the ensuing year.” [11] Elbert only served as governor of Georgia for a short period, only through the calendar year of 1785. Historian James F. Cook wrote, “Perhaps Elbert’s most important accomplishment as governor was the passage of an act chartering the state university. The act of 24 January 1785 established ‘The Senatus Academicus

of the University of Georgia,’ which was to provide general supervision over all educational activities in the state, from the university down to the academies and lower schools.” [12] After he finished his service as governor, Elbert was elected to a seat in the Georgia state General Assembly. In December 1787, he was elected as the sheriff of Chatham County, where he served until the following September, when ill health forced his premature retirement. Less than two months later on 1 November 1788, Elbert died in Savannah, Georgia, at the age of 47 or 48. He was survived by his wife and six children. The Independent Gazetteer; or The Chronicle of Freedom said in eulogy, “His death was announced by the discharge of minute guns and the colours of Fort Wayne, and the vessels in the harbour, being displayed half mast high. An early and warm attachment to the cause of his country, stimulated him to exert those natural talents he possessed for a military life throughout the late glorious and successful contest, with ability and general approbation, for which he was prompted to the rank of Brigadier-General in the army of the United States.” [13] Elbert was buried in the Colonial Park Cemetery in Savannah, Georgia. The inscription on his tomb reads: Samuel Elbert. Brigadier General in Continental Army, Major General Georgia Militia Governor of Georgia. Past Grand Master of Masons A Founder of the Society of the Cincinnati in the State of Georgia Sheriff Chatham County Born 1740, Prince William Parish, S.C. Died November 1 1788, Savannah Georgia Removed from Rae’s Hall. Elbert County, in northeastern Georgia, is named in his honor.

[1] Elbert family tree, online at www.geni.com/people/BrigGeneral-Samuel-Elbert-Governor/6000000015648923383.

348

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

[2] See James F. Cook, “The Governors of Georgia” (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 2005), 54. [3] Elbert family tree, op. cit. [4] James Oglethorpe founded the colony of Georgia in 1733, so seven years later would be 1740. [5] Jones, Charles C., Jr., “The Life and Services of the Honorable Maj. Gen. Samuel Elbert of Georgia” (Savannah: The Georgia ­Historical Society, 1887), 6. [6] “Copy of a letter from Col. Elbert to Major General Howe, at Savannah,” Thomas’s Massachusetts Spy, Or, American Oracle of ­Liberty [Worcester], 25 June 1778, 3. [7] Heidler, David S, “The American Defeat at Briar Creek, 3 March 1779,” The Georgia Historical Quarterly, LXVI:3 (Fall 1982), 317-18. [8] Howard, Joshua B., “‘Things Here Wear a Melancholy Appearance’: The American Defeat at Briar Creek,” The Georgia Historical Quarterly, LXXXVIII:4 (Winter 2004), 498. [9] Elbert official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=E000101. [10] This is confirmed both by Elbert’s official congressional biography, as well as Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VII:lxvi. [11] See The Maryland Journal and Baltimore Advertiser, 22 March 1785, 3. [12] Cook, James F., “The Governors of Georgia,” op. cit., 57. [13] “Savannah, November 6,” The Independent Gazetteer; or The Chronicle of Freedom [Philadelphia], 8 December 1788, 2. Another, but shorter, obituary appears in The New York Packet, 12 December 1788, 3.

Declaration of Independence. A merchant in his native Rhode Island who came from a family of merchants, Ellery served in several political offices in that state, most notably as a delegate to the Continental Congress (1776-85), where he signed the Declaration of Independence.

William Ellery (1727–1820)

When he died in 1820, William Ellery was one of the final four living signers of the

He was born in Newport, Rhode Island, on 22 December 1727, the son of William Ellery, Sr., a merchant and judge in the Rhode Island colony, and his wife Elizabeth (née Almy) Ellery. The Ellery family originated in England, with ties found back to the earlyto-mid 17th century. Benjamin Ellery, the father of the senior Ellery, left Gloucester, Massachusetts, sometime in the late 17th century and made his way to Rhode Island. [1] In Newport, he would open his own trading business, and also serve as a judge and as an assistant to the colony itself. His son, William Ellery, followed in his father’s footsteps, working in the family trading business and also serving as a judge and a Rhode Island colonial official. The elder Ellery was a leading citizen of the Rhode Island colony; however, because the junior Ellery has always been known simply as “William Ellery,” to distinguish the two men the son is simply known as “The Signer.” Elizabeth Almy Ellery was born in Portsmouth, Rhode Island, in August 1703, and died in Newport in 1783, just shy of her 80th birthday. William Ellery was taught in large part by his own father, from whom he received his initial education. He entered Harvard College (now Harvard University) and graduated from that institution in 1747 when he was just 20 years of age. [2] When he was in his early 80s, Ellery had a chance to reminisce about his life; of this period, he penned, “As to [the] employment of time, I have experienced such instruction and delight in reading, and investigating truth, that I mean, as long as my mind is capable of bearing it, to keep it in exercise and doze as little as possible.” He immediately went to work in his family’s trading business in Newport, and he later served as the collector of customs for that city, studying the law and being admitted to the Rhode Island colonial bar.

William Ellery (1727–1820)349 A biography of Ellery, which appeared in 1846, noted, “Mr. Ellery pursued the practice of the law for about twenty years, devoting himself to it, during that period, with great zeal. Few particulars, however of this part of his life have descended to us, lost as they have been in the lapse of time, or obscured by subsequent events of more general interest than the details of domestic duties.” [3] In 1750, Ellery married Ann Remington, the daughter of Jonathan Remington, a justice of the Superior Court of Massachusetts. She would die in 1764 at the age of 39. In 1767 he remarried, to Abigail Cary of Bristol. She died in 1793. It appears that almost from the start of the controversies between England and the American colonies that Ellery sided wholly with the patriot cause. In 1859, a letter was found from Ellery to an unknown correspondent, dated 27 March 1775, in which he makes clear his belief in the patriot cause against Great Britain: Put that question to such persons as you think proper; and find out what persons it will be proper, in the several towns in Providence County, to send proxies to. I know you have a good deal of business to engage your attention; but some of your time you may give to your country. You must exert yourself. To be ruled by Tories, when we may be ruled by [S]ons of Liberty? How debasing! Connecticut turned out Governor Fitch? one of her first politicians, and who had done her the greatest services? Because he favored the Stamp Act. In [the] Massachusetts, there are not more than two Tory representatives. You must rouse up all that is Roman in Providence. There is liberty and fire enough: it only requires the application of the bellows. Blow, then, a blast that will shake the county. Talk of peace!? There shall be no peace, saith my soul, to the wicked. Talk of union!? Do the Tories want to see us united? I had rather see the ship in a hurricane, and hazard an escape, than to have her any longer piloted by an enemy to liberty. Throw something into the press to convince the people, where you are, of the danger we are in from a Tory administration, and don’t be afraid of seasoning it highly. People who have weak appetites must be warmed. [4] Ellery continued to express these feelings in a more involved letter to his brother Benjamin, penned on 10 July 1776, just about the time he was placing his name—and his safety and future—

on the face of the Declaration of Independence. He wrote: I am extremely obliged to you for your repeated Favours and am glad to find that amidt [sic] your Misfortunes, and our common Calamities you preserve so much Fortitude of Mind. We have lived to see a Period which a few years ago no human forecast could have imagined. We have lived to see these Colonies shake of, or rather declare themselves independent of a State which they once gloried to call their Parent. I said declare themselves independent; for it is One Thing for Colonies to declare themselves independent, and another to establish themselves in Independancy. For this Establishment the Congress are exerting every Nerve, and I rejoice to see this as well as the other American States ready to execute their Measures. Six hundred of the Associators of this State have already marched and Thousands are pre paring to march to the Jersey. The Lower Counties are ready to send forth the Troops they can spare to oppose the Army under Geni. Howe, and Maryland will soon furnish its Quota of the Flying Camp. I wish it may be feasible to attack the British Forces before the Reinforcement or rather the Army shall arrive. By the best Accts We can get, 20,000 Troops may be daily expected. A great Stroke will be struck in a short Time. The Events of War are uncertain. God send the Victory. [5] On 4 May 1776, Ellery was elected by the Rhode Island General Assembly to a seat in the Continental Congress, to fill the vacancy left by the death of Samuel Ward; Ellery would attend sessions from about 14 May to 4 July 1776, when he signed the Declaration of Independence and departed back to Rhode Island. Historian Edmund Cody Burnett explained, “The Rhode Island credentials were presented May 14, and it is possible that Ellery attended on that day, although he is not personally mentioned in the Journals until June 5. Hopkins says in a letter of 15 May: ‘I am very glad you have given me a colleague, and am well pleased with the gentleman whom you have appointed,’ but this is not necessarily evidence that Ellery had arrived.” [6] The election of Ellery is confirmed by a contemporary source: a small report in The Pennsylvania Evening Post, from 25 May 1776: “William Ellery, Esq; is chosen a Delegate for this colony, to attend

350

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

the Continental Congress in the place of the Hon. Samuel Ward, Esq; deceased.” [7]

expected the Inns on that Road, as Congress had adjourned, and were on their way to Philadelphia, were crowded. Lodged at McLaughan’s, about 2½ Miles from the Ferry. The house is very indifferent; but the housekeeping was very good. He is a staunch Irish true blue Presbyterian. There is a large Parish of that Denomination of Christians in this Quarter, and a very decent Meeting-house, and they are all warm Whigs. [10]

In discussing the service in the Continental Congress of the various members who signed the Declaration of Independence, historian Caroline Robbins wrote, “William Ellery was an infrequent speaker but excellent on committees.” [8] One of Ellery’s descendants, Henrietta Ellery, had in her possession a diary of William Ellery, written in October and November 1777 during trips to and from the sessions of the Continental Congress. At this time, that body was sitting not in Philadelphia but in York, Pennsylvania. Ellery explained: Breakfasted at Cary’s and rode 12 miles to Easton where we bated. We passed the Delaware [River] with Gen1 Fermoy without making ourselves known to him. From Easton we rode in the Rain to Bethlehem for the Sake of good Accommodation, and were visited by Mr. Edwine [sic; should be John Ettwein][,] one of the Ministers of the Moravian Society who had been so kind as to show me the public Buildings when I was at Bethlehem the last June. When Congress were here in their Way to York, they ordered that the House of the single Women should not be occupied by the Soldiery or in any Way put to the use of the Army; and that as little Disturbance as possible should be given to this peaceful Society, which Mr. Edwine took Notice of with great gratitude. A Number of sick and wounded were here, a considerable Quantity of Baggage and Guards; And a Number of Light horse were at Nazareth, feeding on the Hay and Grain of the Society, which I found was disagreeable. [9] In a further portion of that same diary, written in June and July 1778, Ellery writes of his travails from Pennsylvania back home to Rhode Island: Sat out from Yorktown June 28th, 1778, for Philadelphia in my way to Dighton, in Company, with the Honble [John] Houston, [Elbridge] Gerry, [and] [Francis] Dana, Delegates of Massachusetts Bay [to the Continental Congress]. Dined at Major Finnies about 15 miles from Yorktown, very well. From thence to McCall’s Ferry on Susquahanna is about 9 miles. We took this route because the road was better than through Lancaster, and because we

During his service in the Continental Congress, which lasted until 1785, a period of nine years, Ellery not only debated on the issues of the day, but, like the other delegates, had to serve on various committees. In Ellery’s case, he served on the Board of Admiralty, which oversaw naval matters, including the Continental Navy. Historian Elmer James Ferguson, in a note regarding one of the letters of Robert Morris, explained, “The Board of Admiralty was established on 28 October 1779, ‘to superintend the naval and marine’ affairs of Congress. It superseded the Marine Committee, which had exercised similar jurisdiction since January 1776, and in whose business Robert Morris had been a moving force before his retirement from Congress in 1778. The new board, which never reached its full complement of five members, organized itself in December 1779. Its membership fluctuated thereafter, but by the end of 1780 Francis Lewis of New York, William Ellery of Rhode Island, two of the original members, and its Secretary, John Brown, formerly Secretary of the Marine Committee, conducted virtually all of its transactions.” [11] In 1836, noted historian Jared Sparks wrote of the life of Ellery, discussing that moment when the Rhode Islander entered the realm of history by signing that famed document. Sparks wrote: The personal responsibility of this measure was as clear to his mind, as if the hand of the King’s officer were already upon him for the treason. But it may be said of him as truly as of any man, that, however his temper might be softened or his opinions modified by time and religion, he never changed with his condition or duties. He looked at them fully and distinctly; he knew that he had pledged himself to a great and doubtful question; and he sustained himself equally, and always moved with a firm and

William Ellery (1727–1820)351 cheerful spirit. He placed himself by the side of Charles Thomson, the Secretary, and observed the expression and manner of each member, as he came up to sign the Declaration. He used to describe this scene with great spirit. Its interest as wholly moral. Nothing could be less indebted to show or ceremony. He looked on silently, and with a feeling that the men were equal to the crisis. [12] Ellery related this story to many people including his grandchildren; however, it is probably apocryphal, as many of the delegates who signed the declaration did so over a period of time—not all at once, as Ellery related—and this scene has never been corroborated by any other of the signers or historians of the declaration. Historian Thomas Higginson wrote in 1878, “On leaving Congress at the end of 1785, he found his house burned by the British soldiers, his business destroyed, and his native town almost ruined. He was sixty years of age, and had to begin life anew. During the following year, Congress appointed him Commissioner of the Continental Loan Office for Rhode Island; and, on the adoption of the Federal Constitution by that State in 1790, he became Collector of Customs for the Newport District.” [13] The damage from the British attack had left him penniless; one author, historian William Morgan Fowler, Jr., notes that the costs were approximately ₤124,798. The entire city of Newport was sacked; “five hundred buildings had been burns and considerable property and all the town records had been carried off. To Ellery it was a depressing sight: ‘All the destructible property I had there was virtually destroyed. The warm attachment I had shown to the rights of my country asked better treatment from men who had boasted of their regard to justice and humanity.’” [14] In the years after his Continental Congress service, Ellery worked with several others, including Rufus King of Massachusetts, to try to get slavery outlawed in the United States, all to no avail. In 1790, President George Washington named him as the Collector of the Customs for the port of Newport, a position he retained for the remainder of his life. On 4 July 1817, the 41st anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence,

celebrations were held across the United States. Newspapers all took note that of the men who had signed that document, at that time only four were still alive; John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Thomas Willing, and William Ellery. [15] In December 1819, Ellery turned 92, an occasion for festivities and remembrances among his fellow countrymen. The Connecticut Courant noted that “[t]he venerable William Ellery, Collector of the port of Newport (R.I.) and one of the four surviving patriots who signed the Declaration of Independence. Entered his 93rd year on the 22d inst. He still enjoys uninterrupted health and attends to the duties of his office.” [16] A month later, on 15 February 1820, according to contemporary sources, Ellery was at home in Newport, reading his favorite author, Cicero, when he suddenly collapsed out of his chair onto the floor and was dead before anyone could help him. Ellery was 92. Newspapers across the land heralded him, his lengthy life, and his services to his country. The Manufacturers’ and Farmers’ Journal of Providence, Rhode Island, stated, “The departure, in a good old age and full of honour of WILLIAM ELLERY, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, was noticed in the last Journal . . . The Newport Mercury of Saturday contains the following tribute to his memory . . .  ‘That memory is beyond the reach of accident and can never be obliterated from the page of history. But by dwelling often on those achievements which have entailed so many blessings on us, we at least vindicate ourselves from the charge of ingratitude.’” [17] Ellery was buried in the Common Burying Ground in Newport, Rhode Island. His grandchildren included the famed author Richard Henry Dana, who wrote “Two Years Before the Mast,” as well as Edward Channing, a professor at Harvard who was one of William Ellery’s earliest biographers. William Ellery destroyed most of his correspondence during his life, and asked that his contemporaries do the same. Henry Robinson Palmer wrote in 1913 of Ellery’s few remaining diaries, “His diaries . . . are full of the agreeable quality of the man. He was a keen student of his fellows, the possessor of a natural

352

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

cheerfulness and wit that could sharpen into irony upon occasion. In Congress he was wont to be called upon in debate when the exigency demanded the exercise of this deliberative talent.” [18]

Oliver Ellsworth (1745–1807)

[1] Ellery family tree, online at www.geni.com/people/WilliamEllery-signer-of-the-Declaration-of-Independence/ 6000000009006390830. [2] Sources on this fact vary: Some state that Ellery entered Harvard when he was 15, while others claim that he graduated at the age of 15. For the latter, see Nicole Mitchell, “Ellery, William” in Gregory Frémont-Barnes, ed., “Encyclopedia of the Age of Political Revolutions and New Ideologies, 1760-1815” (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press; two volumes, 2007), I:213. [3] Conrad, Robert T., ed., “Sanderson’s Biography of the Signers to the Declaration of Independence” (Philadelphia: Thomas, Cowperthwait & Co., 1846), 146. [4] “October Meeting. Letter of William Ellery,” Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, IV (October 1859), 381-83. [5] “Letter of William Ellery,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, X:3 (October 1886), 320-21. [6] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), I:lxi-ii. [7] “Providence, May 11,” The Pennsylvania Evening Post [Philadelphia], 25 May 1776, 263. [8] Robbins, Caroline, “Decision in ‘76: Reflections on the 56 Signers,” Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Third Series, LXXXIX (1977), 80. [9] “Diary of the Hon. William Ellery, of Rhode Island: October 20 to November 15, 1777,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, XI:3 (October 1887), 324-25. [10] “Diary of the Hon. William Ellery, of Rhode Island, June 28-July 23, 1778,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, XI:4 (January 1888), 476. [11] Note 4, in Elmer James Ferguson, ed., “The Papers of Robert Morris” (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press; nine volumes, 1973- ), I:30. [12] Sparks, Jared, “Lives of William Pinckney, William Ellery, and Cotton Mather” (Boston: Hilliard, Grey, and Co., 1836), 107. [13] Higginson, Thomas Wentworth, “William Ellery. Signer of the Declaration of Independence,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, II:4 (1878), 434. [14] Fowler, William M., Jr., “William Ellery: A Rhode Island Politico and Lord of Admiralty” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Notre Dame, 1971), 191-92. [15] For instance, see the story of the celebrations in RhodeIsland American, and General Advertiser [Providence], 4 July 1817, 3. [16] See the Connecticut Courant [Hartford], 4 January 1820, 3. [17] “Died,” Manufacturers’ and Farmers’ Journal, Providence and Pawtucket Advertiser [Rhode Island], 21 February 1820, 3. Smaller obituaries can be found in the Providence Gazette [Rhode Island], 17 February 1820, 3, and the Providence Patriot [Rhode Island], 19 February 1820, 3. [18] Palmer, Henry Robinson, “William Ellery” in “The Rhode Island Signers of the Declaration of Independence” (Providence: Published by the Rhode Island Society of the Sons of the American Revolution, 1913), 31-32.

Remembered for his service as the fourth chief justice of the US Supreme Court (1796-1800), Oliver Ellsworth also served in the Continental Congress from 1778 to 1783 and in the US Senate (1789-96), a position he gave up for a judicial appointment in Connecticut. The son of Captain David Ellsworth and his wife Jemima (née Leavitt) Ellsworth, Oliver Ellsworth was born in Windsor, Connecticut, on 7 April 1745. The family originated in Yorkshire, England, in a small village known, over the centuries, as Elswort, Elsworth, and Aylesworth, because of the eels found in the river nearby. Genealogists have traced the Ellsworths back to Sir John Ellsworth, a knight in the time of King Edward III. His descendant, Sargeant Josias Ellsworth, emigrated to the New World, settling in the colony of Connecticut about 1646, and purchasing a home in Windsor, where his great-grandson Oliver Ellsworth would be born a century later. [1] Historian Maeva Marcus wrote, “His father, David Ellsworth (17091782), a Windsor selectman, owned a mediumsized farm not far from the town. His mother,

Oliver Ellsworth (1745–1807)353 Jemima (Leavitt) Ellsworth (1722-1790), was born near Windsor in the village of Suffield. David Ellsworth wanted his son to be trained for the ministry, so he placed his son in the care of Reverend Joseph Bellamy. A well-known disciple of Jonathan Edwards, Bellamy taught promising young theologians at his home in Bethlehem, Connecticut.” [2] Biographer William Garrott Brown wrote in 1905, “It is necessary to be brief with his childhood and boyhood, for little or nothing is known of his life in this early period. A farmer’s boy in a provincial country town, he was doubtless accustomed to frugal fare, simple amusements, and hard, wholesome tasks. Beyond question he was from his childhood made familiar with the doctrine and observance of the Congregational church, the established church of the colony. Since Connecticut from a very early period had maintained an excellent school system, supported by taxation, and since Windsor was an old town of considerable wealth, we are also reasonably sure that his early schooling was as good as could be had anywhere in the colonies. But what sort of pupil he was, or indeed what sort of boy he was, we do not know.” [3] What is known is that Ellsworth entered Yale College (now Yale University) in New Haven, and, after transferring to the College of New Jersey (now Princeton University), he graduated in 1766. Ellsworth studied the law, and was admitted to the Connecticut colonial bar in 1771. He opened a practice in his hometown of Windsor. In 1775, he moved the practice to Hartford. All of the sources on Ellsworth’s life agree that he sided with the patriot cause from its earliest days, although none can point to one action he may have taken prior to 1773 that caused him problems with the British. In that year, Ellsworth was elected to a seat in the Connecticut General Assembly, where he sat until 1776. He had married Abigail Wolcott, herself of the famed Wolcott family (one its members, Oliver Wolcott, would sign the Declaration of Independence, and his son, Oliver Wolcott, Jr., would serve as the secretary of the treasury from 1795 to 1800); together, the couple had four children, with all but their son, Oliver Ellsworth, Jr. (1781-1805), living well into the 19th century.

By the time of the American Revolution, Oliver Ellsworth was a leading politician in Connecticut: Soon after fighting broke out in Massachusetts between British troops and so-called “Minute Men,” Connecticut established a Committee of the Pay Table, which would oversee all expenses caused by the onrushing war with England; Ellsworth was named as one of the commissioners to this five-man group. As part of his duties, in 1776 he was dispatched to meet with General Washington, then in Cambridge, to push to have the Continental Congress reimburse Connecticut for expenditures laid out to fund the Continental Army in the early days of the war. That same year, Ellsworth was sent on a similar mission, this time to meet with General Philip Schuyler to try to recompense payments made to troops under Schuyler who were sent to fight in Canada. In 1777, he was appointed as the State Attorney. On 11 October 1777, Ellsworth was elected to a seat in the Continental Congress in Philadelphia, but, according to historian Edmund Cody Burnett, he did not attend any sessions that year. [4] However, on 21 October 1778, the Connecticut General Assembly reelected Ellsworth to the seat, and he did attend sessions of the body from 8 October to 31 December 1778. [5] The day after he took his seat in the Congress, Ellsworth was named to the influential Committee on Marine Affairs, which, without a Department of the Navy, oversaw all naval matters of the new nation. He was also named to the Committee on Appeals, which heard appeals from admiralty courts from around the country; Ellsworth sat on the appeal of one Gideon Olmstead in his fight with the British sloop Active. In 1780, Ellsworth was named to a committee that examined ways to provide the Continental Army with specific materiel received from the various states. Ellsworth was very close to Governor Jonathan Trumbull of Connecticut; much of Ellsworth’s surviving correspondence is in the collections of Trumbull. On 4 June 1783, following the establishment of a coalition between Lord North and Charles James Fox to form a new British government, Ellsworth wrote, “The Packet [mail] . . . brings a list of the new

354

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

British Ministry established the 2d of April, which I take the liberty to inclose. From the strange coalition of which it is formed, there is little reason to doubt but that another change, of a partial nature, will follow as soon as the present convulsed state of that nation shall have subsided. Lord North, who is the fixed favorite of his sovereign and a man of the most system, business and address, will easily find means to lay aside Mr Fox and his coadjutors when he can well do without them, as he has already done with regard to one set of opponents whom he let come forward to perish in the odium of executing measures which himself had rendered necessary.” [6]

As an intimate of Gov. Trumbull, Ellsworth served, from 1780 to 1785, as a member of the Governor’s Council, a deliberative body that offered advice to the state’s leader. Ellsworth served as a judge on the Connecticut Superior Court from 1785 to 1789.

In 1783, Ellsworth was offered another term in the Continental Congress, but he refused the honor. He explained his reasoning in another letter to Trumbull: How long Congress will remain here is uncertain. They will hardly return to Philadelphia without some assurances of protection, or even then with intention to stay longer than till accommodations shall be elsewhere prepared for a fixed residence. But, Sir, it will soon be of very little consequence where Congress go, if they are not made respectable as well as responsible, which can never be done without giving them a power to perform engagements as well as make them. It was indeed intended to have given them this power in the confederation, by declaring their contracts and requisitions for the common defence sacredly binding on the States; but in practice it amounts to nothing. Most of the States recognize these contracts and comply with the requisitions so far only as suits their particular opinion and convenience; and they are the more disposed at present to go on in this way from the inequalities it has already produced, and a mistaken idea that the danger is over; not duly reflecting on the calamities of a disunion and anarchy, or their rapid approach to such a state. There must, Sir, be a revenue somehow established that can be relied on and applied for national purposes as the exigencies arise, independant of the will or views of a single State, or it will be impossible to support national faith or national existance. The powers of Congress should be defined, but their means must be adequate to the purposes of their institution. It is possible there may be abuses and misapplications; still it is better to hazard something than to hazard all. [7]

In 1787, leaders of the 13 states sent delegates to Philadelphia to try to formulate a constitution, to replace the moribund Articles of Confederation Connecticut sent as part of its delegation to the parley three men: Roger Sherman, William S. Johnson, and Oliver Ellsworth. It is impossible to write a complete history of the contributions of Oliver Ellsworth at the Constitutional Convention. “A new set of ideas seemed to have crept in since the articles of Confederation [sic] were established. Conventions of the people, or with power derived expressly from the people, were not then thought of,” Ellsworth said of the Philadelphia convention. In one instance, according to the debates of the Constitutional Convention, “Mr. Ellsworth hoped the proposition would be withdrawn. It entered too much into detail. As frations [sic] cannot be regarded in apportioning the number of Representatives, the rule will be unjust, until an actual census shall be made. After that, taxation may be precisely proportional, according to the principle established to the number of inhabitants.” [8] Returning home to Connecticut, Ellsworth played a key role in getting the newly drawn US Constitution ratified by the state’s General Assembly. In September 1788, Ellsworth signed, along with other Connecticut leaders including Eliphalet Dyer and Roger Sherman, among others, a letter calling attention to “[o] fficers, Solders and Seamen belonging to this State, disabled in the service of the United States, or of this State, in the late War, who have not obtained Certificates of their being Invalids, pursuant to a Resolve of the General Assembly, passed in October, 1786, and who to avail themselves of an act of the said Assembly, passed for their relief in May last, may apply in the respective counties in which they live to the subscribers at any session of the Supreme Court therein, within the time limited in said act.” [9]

Oliver Ellsworth (1745–1807)355 Under the Constitution, ratified by all of the states, a new bicameral national legislature was established, with each state entitled to elect two US senators. The General Assembly, which sent them to Philadelphia to serve as delegates in the Constitutional Convention, now elected Oliver Ellsworth and William Samuel Johnson as its first two US senators. During his short service in that body—4 March 1789 to 8 March 1796, when he resigned— Ellsworth authored the Judiciary Act of 1789, which established the US Supreme Court and a series of appeals courts around the county that would expand as the nation grew. Ellsworth was also responsible for introducing the Bill of Rights, the first twelve amendments to the US Constitution, in the Senate; introducing the bill that admitted North Carolina as a state; and authoring the bill that established the US Consular Service. [10] He left the Senate when President George Washington named him as chief justice of the US Supreme Court to replace William Cushing, who had declined the honor. The Norwich Packet of Connecticut announced on 17 March 1796, “The Hon. Oliver Ellsworth, is appointed Chief Justice of the United States, vice William Cushing, Esq: declined.” [11] Ellsworth served as chief justice from March 1796 until 1800, when he resigned to accept a foreign mission on behalf of President John Adams. When Ellsworth sat in the US Senate and on the Supreme Court, these bodies at that time were not in Washington, DC, but in Philadelphia. Prior to the passage of the Judiciary Act of 1870, the Appeals Courts had to be staffed by those who sat on the US Supreme Court; those justices would have to “ride circuit,” in carriages, through rough roads and stay in various towns to hear cases being appealed. It did not make for a happy life, which is why a seat on the US Supreme Court was not seen prior to 1870 as something that attorneys aspired to. One of Ellsworth’s earliest biographers, Henry Flanders, wrote in 1881, that in 1796 Ellsworth sailed for Savannah to hold court there. “The Duke de Liancourt was a passenger on board the same ship. ‘One of my fellow-passengers,’ says the Duke, ‘was Mr. Ellsworth, of Connecticut, recently appointed Chief Justice of the United

States. All the Americans who were with us, and they were almost all young people, showed him no more regard than if he had been one of the negroes; though he be, next after the President, the first person in the United States or perhaps, indeed, the very first. Disrespect to their seniors, and to persons in public office seems to be strongly affected among the Americans; such, at least, is the humor of the rude and ill-bred among them.’” [12] However, historian Richard E. Ellis wrote, “He held the post for a little over three years and did not have much of an impact on the Court’s development. Illness forced him to curtail his activities and then a decision to accept a diplomatic assignment, while remaining chief justice, further limited his participation in the business of the Court.” [13] From about 1792, Ellsworth believed that France, and not England, presented a longterm threat to the United States, and he became a rabid francophobe. However, in 1799, President John Adams named him as the envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to France to negotiate a treaty of amity to prevent future conflict between the two nations. The mission came on the heels of a diplomatic row between previous commissioners that included, ironically, Ellsworth’s successor as Chief Justice, John Marshall, which became the notorious XYZ Affair. Nevertheless, he worked carefully on an agreement that was highly controversial. The Philadelphia Gazette reported on “The French Treaty.” The paper stated: The avidity with which this public document has been perused by every description of citizens, is a proof that the subject is of high importance to the nation. Considered either as the revival of political harmony between France and the United States, or as the commencement of a new commercial arrangement it equally deserves and has met universal condemnation. Unlike that which was concluded in [17]93 with Great-Britain, this treaty comes into our country, upheld by the prepossessions and prejudices of a large proportion of the community. To render it objectionable it must possess deep and incurable defects. It is not for us, nor have we any authority to anticipate such an event. We are convinced, however that the Senate, acting upon principles of universal equity, will view the subject

356

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

unincumbered with predilection and prejudice. They will neither precipitately concur, nor unadvisedly reject. [14]

country, proofs if the clearest intelligence and of the utmost purity and integrity of character.” Ellsworth’s son, William Wolcott Ellsworth (1791-1868), was a professor of law at Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut, served as an anti-Jacksonian member of the US House of Representatives from Connecticut (1829-34), and as governor of Connecticut (1838-42) before finishing his career as a judge on the Connecticut state Supreme Court (1847-61).

The Gazette of the United States reported on 25 December 1800, “The Honorable Oliver Ellsworth has arrived in England from France, and has been presented to the King by the American Minister. He was also present at the presentation of the sword to Lord Nelson by the city of London. The treaty is scarcely spoken of in the London papers.” [15] Ellsworth returned to the United States in 1801; the treaty that he worked on was ultimately supported by the US Senate where he used to serve. Historian Frank G. Carpenter stated, “He was a very efficient foreign minister, and he made one of the ablest of our Chief Justices. His greatness was largely the result of hard work. He was once asked as to the secret of his intellectual power, and he replied that early in his life he discovered that he had no imagination. He analyzed his mind and found that its qualities were such that he was greatly disappointed and discouraged. He determined to study one subject at a time, and not to abandon it until it was fully mastered. He said that his success in his profession came, he thought, from his having given his attention to the main points of a case and leaving the minor ones to shift for themselves.” [16] In his final duty to his state, he served again as a member of the Governor’s Council from 1801 to 1807. The Republican Farmer of Danbury, Connecticut, reported on 14 November 1804, “At the last session of the Legislature of this State the following gentlemen were chosen Electors of [sic] President and Vice-President of the United States, viz. His Excellency Jonathan Trumbull, the Honorable John Treadwell, Hon. Oliver Ellsworth, David Doggett, Joshua Huntington Lewis B. Sturges, David Smith, Asher Miller, and Sylvester Gilbert, Esquires.” [17] Oliver Ellsworth died in Windsor, Connecticut, on 26 November 1807 at the age of 62 and was buried in Palisado Cemetery in Windsor. Daniel Webster said of him in the US Senate that Ellsworth “was a gentleman who had left behind him, on the records of the government of his

[1] There are a myriad of sources on Ellsworth genealogy. See Donna Hall Semiatkoski, “The Ancestors and Descendants of Chief Justice Oliver Ellsworth and his Wife, Abigail Wolcott and the Story of Elmwood, Their Homestead” (Hartford: Sponsored by the Ellsworth Memorial Association and the Connecticut Daughters of the American Revolution, 1911; reprint, Baltimore, Maryland: Gateway Press, 1992), 1-20. See also the Ellsworth family tree, online at http://www.geni.com/people/ Oliver-Ellsworth-U-S-Senator-3rd-Chief-Justice-of-the-UnitedStates/6000000011623760329. [2] “Oliver Ellsworth: Appointment as Chief Justice in 1796” in Maeva Marcus, ed., “The Documentary History the Supreme Court of the United States, 1789- 1800” (New York: Columbia University Press; eight volumes, 1985-2007), I:115. [3] Brown, William Garrott, “The Early Life of Oliver Ellsworth, ” The American Historical Review, X:3 (April 1905), 540-41. [4] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), II:xxxix. [5] Ibid., III:liii. [6] Oliver Ellsworth to Jonathan Trumbull, 4 June 1783, Jonathan Trumbull, Sr., Papers, Series I, Box 4, Folder 8, Connecticut Historical Society, Hartford, Connecticut. [7] Ellsworth to Trumbull, 10 July 1783, in ibid., Series I, Box 4, Folder 8. [8] Scott, E.H., ed., “Journal of the Constitutional Convention, Kept by James Madison” (Chicago: Scott, Foreman and Company, 1893), 341. [9] The Connecticut Journal [New Haven], 17 September 1788, 3. [10] Casto, William R., “Oliver Ellsworth and the Creation of the Federal Republic” (New York: Second Circuit Committee on History and Commemorative Events, 1997). [11] The Norwich Packet [Connecticut], 17 March 1796, 3. [12] Flanders, Henry, “The Lives and Times of the Chief Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States” (Philadelphia: T. & J.W. Johnson & Co.; two volumes, 1881), II:188. [13] Ellis, Richard E., “Oliver Ellsworth” in Kermit l.. Hall, ed., “The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court of the United States” (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2005), 292. [14] “The French Treaty,” The Philadelphia Gazette & Daily Advertiser, 22 December 1800, 3. [15] Gazette of the United States [Philadelphia], 25 December 1800, 3. [16] Carpenter, Frank G., “Our Chief Justices Off the Bench,” The North American Review, CXLVII:381 (August 1888), 211. [17] Republican Farmer [Danbury, Connecticut], 14 November 1804, 2.

Jonathan Elmer (1745–1817)357

Jonathan Elmer (1745–1817)

A physician and jurist, he served his nation during its time of need, including three different times in the Continental Congress (1777-78, 1781-83, and 1787-88), and then in the US Senate (1789-91), completing his career as a judge in his native New Jersey. Born in Cedarville, New Jersey, on 29 November 1745, one of four children—three sons and one daughter—of Daniel Elmer and his wife Abigail (née Lawrence) Elmer. Jonathan’s older brother was Ebenezer Elmer (1752-1843), a noted physician in his own right who would serve in the US House of Representatives as a Republican from New Jersey (1801-07); Ebenezer’s son, Lucius Quintius Cincinnatus Elmer (1793-1883), also served in the US House of Representatives, but as a Democrat (1843-45), as well as serving as attorney general of New Jersey (1850-52). Daniel Elmer was originally from Springfield, Massachusetts, emigrating to New Jersey; his father, the Reverend Daniel Elmer, was himself born in East Windsor, Connecticut. The family can be traced back to Jonathan Elmer’s greatgrandfather, Edward Elmer, possibly born in England about 1632. [1] According to several sources, Jonathan Elmer was of poor health as a child, so his parents had him tutored privately. He learned

several languages, including French and Latin, but by 17, when he was 20, he began the study of medicine, taking classes at the College of Philadelphia (now the University of Pennsylvania), receiving his Bachelor of Medicine degree from that institution in 1768. Four years later, he became a lifelong member of the American Philosophical Society. That same year, 1772, he also became a member of the New Jersey Medical Society, and in 1787, rose to become the group’s president. He opened several medical practices, but he also decided to enter the political arena by becoming the sheriff of Cumberland County, New Jersey, in 1772. He married Mary Seeley, and together the couple had five children. In 1774, Jonathan Elmer joined the patriot cause against Great Britain, not because of his own beliefs, but because of a situation involving his brother, Ebenezer. In 1774, Ebenezer Elmer was accused by British forces in New Jersey of being a part of a group that seized tea from the brig Greyhound in protest of what was happening in Boston and burning the tea. Elmer and his group were arrested and tried, but because the grand jury hearing the case was composed of locals, one of the members was Daniel Elmer (Jonathan’s and Ebenezer’s brother), Daniel Elmer (as jury foreman) was able to get the grand jury to dismiss the case, and nothing ever came of it. [2] The incident stirred Jonathan Elmer into action. In May 1775 he was elected to the New Jersey Provisional Congress, here he served until that October, succeeded in his seat by his uncle, Theophilus Elmer. He served as the head of his local militia, rising from captain to major of an infantry company. In 1776, he removed himself from military matters to serve as the clerk of Cumberland County, holding the position until 1779; he also served in that capacity in 1781 and again from 1786 to 1789. [3] On 30 November 1776, Elmer was elected to a seat in the Continental Congress; he was subsequently reelected on 20 November 1777, and served from about 3 January to 14 February 1777, about 7 April to about 18 September 1777, and about 14 October to 21 November 1777. Historian Edmund Cody Burnett wrote:

358

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

There is no mention in the Journals of Elmer’s attendance prior to 3 January 1777, when he was appointed on a committee. Some time during the month of January he signed the resolution of secrecy, for his name follows that of Charles Carroll (Barrister) and precedes that of Mann Page, who did not attend until 30 January. Elmer obtained leave of absence [on] 14 February, and from that time until 8 August there are only scattering evidences of his attendance. [On] 7 April the medical committee, of which he was a member, was authorized to appoint any of its members to inspect the medical departments, and he may have been present at that time. More definitely suggesting his presence is an order, 11 April, for payment of a bill. [On] 18 April he was appointed on a committee consisting of one from each state, indicating at least the probability of his presence. That he was in attendance in May and June when the Schuyler and Vermont affairs were under discussion . . . During the summer he was evidently occupied for some time, as a member of the medical committee, in visiting the hospitals, the expense bill for which was paid 13 August. His name is in the first record of yeas and nays, [on] 8 August, and those of 13, 22, 25, and 27 August and 16 September, but is missing from those of 9 September . . . This may mean that he was absent from 28 August to 15 September . . . The date of his retirement is fixed by the letter of 20 November: “As my term of delegation expires in a few days and business of importance requires my attendance elsewhere, I propose leaving Congress tomorrow. The state of New Jersey will then be unrepresented.” [4]

It was natural that veterans of 1774 should suspect a decline in the quality as well as bulk of Congress when men as able as Patrick Henry, Christopher Gadsden and William Livingston preferred to serve their states. It was obvious that no newcomers could ever fill the shoes of such departed giants as Washington, Dr. Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. Yet some of the delegates who took their seats early in 1777 would also give a good account of themselves Lovell of Massachusetts, Elmer of New Jersey, Burke of North Carolina. The number of physicians in the Continental Congress has been remarked by every chronicler. Rush, Elmer, Bartlett, Brownson, Wolcott, Hall, Jones, Thornton and Burke had appeared up to this time, and seventeen more active practitioners were to be elected after 1777. [6]

Only one letter appears to have been written by Elmer during his Continental Congress service: that to William Maxwell, dated 18 November 1777: “Your Letter to Dr. Witherspoon came to my hands after he left Congress. As I was informed of the Contents of it I opened it and laid Col: Dayton’s case before Congress. Though they seem fully sensible of the merit and services of Col: Dayton yet the many application[s] of a similar nature from Officers of the Army made them hesitate about allowing him a Horse. The affair however was referred to the Board of War. Should I not leave Congress soon I will use my influence to obtain the Consent of that Board to the measure?” [5] Historian Lynn Montross wrote in her work on the delegates of the Continental Congress titled “Reluctant Rebels:”

The Pennsylvania Evening Post of Philadelphia reported on 3 January 1778, “The legislature of New-Jersey have appointed John Witherspoon, Abraham Clark, Jonathan Elmer, Nathaniel Souder, and Elias Boudinot to represent them in Congress.” However, according to Burnett, that date cannot be confirmed. [7] In addition, a report from Trenton on 28 November 1781 stated that “at a joint meeting of the legislative council and assembly, the honourable Abraham Clark, William Ch[urchill]. Houston, Jonathan Elmer and Elias Boudinot, esqrs. and Silas Condict, esq. were elected delegates to represent this state in congress [sic] the ensuing year.” [8] Again, these dates cannot be verified by the official record. Elmer resigned in September 1778 because he complained that the pay was inadequate to support his travels from New Jersey to Philadelphia, Baltimore, and the other cities where the Continental Congress held sessions. He returned to New Jersey, where he remained a consistent supporter of the revolution and its goals. He served on the New Jersey State Council in 1780, and was a member of the Congress of the Confederation from 1781 to 1784. He again served as a member of the State Council in 1784. According to a short biography written by his nephew, Lucius Quintius Cincinnatus Elmer, in 1877, Jonathan Elmer served as a judge of the surrogate court of New Jersey from 1784 to 1792. “After this he was for many years [the] presiding judge of the Court of Common Pleas of [Cumberland] County. He was a warm supporter of the

Espionage Tactics by the Continental Congress359 administrations of Washington and Adams. During the later years of his life he was an elder of the Presbyterian church [sic], and a frequent and influential member of the judicatories of that denomination of Christians.” [9] Elmer also served as a trustee of the College of New Jersey (now Princeton University) from 1782 to 1795. Although he resigned from the bench in 1804 to retire, in 1813 he received an additional appointment as a judge, but, in February 1814, as his health declined, he refused to serve any further. Jonathan Elmer died in Bridgeton, New Jersey, on 3 September 1817 at the age of 71. His body was laid to rest in the Old Presbyterian Cemetery, now called the Old Broad Street Presbyterian Church Cemetery in Bridgeton, in Cumberland County, New Jersey, in the southern part of the state near the border with Delaware. [10] A huge stone on his grave reads, “Here rests in hope of glorious resurrection the body of Jonathan Elmer, M.D., and fellow of the American Philosophical Society. An eminent Physician and Civilian[,] a distinguished Christian who departed this life[,] Sept. 3, 1817 in the 72[nd] year of his age.” Elmer appears to have also been a member of the American Bible Society; two years after his death, one newspaper reported that the “legacy of Dr. Jonathan Elmer, deceased, late of Bridgetown West, New-Jersey, to the American Bible Society ‘to be added to their fund for circulating the Holy Scriptures,’ paid by Isaac Snowden, Esq. on account of Dr. William Elmer, Executor.” [11]

[1] Elmer family tree, online at www.geni.com/people/JonathanElmer-U-S-Senator/6000000011494508763. [2] Walter Lincoln Whittlesey, “Jonathan Elmer” in Allen Johnson, et al., “Dictionary of American Biography” (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons; eleven volumes and five supplements, 1958-77), VI:116-17. [3] Elmer official congressional biography, online at http:// bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=E000155. [4] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), II:liv-lv. [5] Jonathan Elmer to William Maxwell, 18 November 1777, in ibid., II:558. [6] Montross, Lynn, “The Reluctant Rebels: The Story of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789” (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1950), 199-200. [7] The Pennsylvania Evening Post [Philadelphia], 3 January 1778, 2.

[8] The Pennsylvania Packet and General Advertiser [Philadelphia], 4 December 1781, 2. [9] Elmer, Lucius Quintius Cincinnatus, “Jonathan Elmer,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, I:4 (1877), 443-45. [10] New-Jersey Journal [Elizabeth-Town], 9 September 1817 3. See an additional obituary in Poulson’s American Daily Advertiser [Philadelphia], 12 September 1817, 3. [11] “American Bible Society,” Boston Commercial Gazette [Massachusetts], 9 December 1819, 1.

Espionage Tactics by the Continental Congress During time of war, spying on your enemy, either by introducing spies, or enlisting persons to turn against their own is common practice. During the American Revolution, the British used both paid spies, such as the famed John André, who was captured and hanged, as well as Loyalists, Americans who lived in the colonies and sided secretly with England. In 2014, the television series “Turn,” while fictionalized, concentrated its historical examination on the spy ring led by Benjamin Tallmadge, a military officer who secretly ran the “Culpeper spy ring” in New York State. This same group was also the subject of the 2014 work by Brian Kilmeade and Don Yaeger, “George Washington’s Secret Six: The Spy Ring That Saved the American Revolution.” These espionage efforts, however, were directed by General Washington himself. The Continental Congress, on the other hand, worked behind the scenes to employ similar tactics. The First Continental Congress, which met from September to October 1774, did not take any time to work on efforts to spy on British troops in America. It was not until the Second Continental Congress, in early 1775, that the delegates to that body decided that there was a need for spying. There are two moves that the body made late that year to add espionage to the slate of issues it would address. On 18 September 1775, a “secret committee” was established to disseminate money and other funds to parties involved in distributing gunpowder, ammunition, and other materiél to those fighting the British. Contracts for the purchase and creation of such materials, which had been handled by the colonies or even by individual members of the Continental

360

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Congress, were now to be controlled exclusively by the “secret committee.” Nine delegates were named to the committee, including Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania; Samuel Ward, of Rhode Island, was named as the “committee” chairman, although his role was limited and ended when he died from smallpox in March 1776. Additional members included John Alsop of New York, Silas Deane of Connecticut, John Dickinson of Pennsylvania, John Langdon of New Hampshire, Philip Livingston of New York, Thomas McKean of Delaware, and Thomas Willing of Pennsylvania. When Dickinson resigned, he was replaced by Dr. Josiah Bartlett of New Hampshire; further added to the group were Archibald Bulloch of Georgia and Francis Lewis of New York, the latter an important merchant. In December 1775, Robert Morris of Pennsylvania replaced Willing, who was his business partner. [1] The committee was given wide powers and large sums of money to obtain military supplies in secret, and was charged with distributing the supplies and selling gunpowder to privateers chartered by the Continental Congress. The committee also took over and administered on a uniform basis the secret contracts for arms and gunpowder previously negotiated by certain members of the Congress without the formal sanction of that body. The committee kept its transactions secret, and destroyed many of its records to assure the confidentiality of its work.

shall suffer death, according to the law and usage of nations, by sentence of a court martial, or such other punishment as such court martial may direct.” [2]

Charges of spying against some Americans in support of the British moved the Continental Congress to enact legislation, the first of its kind, to outlaw such activities. In November 1775, the first action against espionage was passed, which mandated a death sentence for anyone caught spying against America. In June 1776, Sergeant Thomas Hickey, who was a guard for General George Washington, was caught aiding a potential Loyalist rebellion in New York; he was tried, found guilty, and hanged. Because of the Hickey arrest, on 21 August 1776 the Continental Congress passed an act, which stated “[t]hat all persons not members of, nor owing allegiance to, any of the United States, as described in a resolution to the Congress of the 29th of June last, who shall be found lurking as spies in or about the fortification of encampments of the armies of the United States, or of any of them,

On 29 November 1775, the Continental Congress resolved that a Committee of Correspondence was needed to correspond in the colonies with those secretly sympathetic with the American cause who were trusted by the British. The delegates “[r]esolved, That a committee of five would be appointed for the sole purpose of corresponding with our friends in Great Britain, and other parts of the world, and that they lay their correspondence before Congress when directed; That this Congress will make provision to defray all such expenses as they may arise by carrying on such correspondence, and for the payment of such agents as the said Committee may send on this service.” The five men chosen to sit on the committee were Benjamin Franklin of Pennsylvania, Benjamin Harrison of Virginia, Thomas Johnson of Maryland, John Jay of New York, and John Dickinson of Pennsylvania. [3] Later, James Lovell, of Massachusetts, was added to the committee; Lovell, who had been arrested by the British soon after the battle of Bunker Hill on charges of espionage but exchanged for a British prisoner and then elected to the Continental Congress, was in fact a spy who was an expert in codes and espionage, making him the first to use cryptanalysis, the study of codes and ciphers, in American history. In addition to spying in the colonies, the Committee of Correspondence was tasked with gaining intelligence from overseas, negotiating secret shipments of arms, ammunition, and other materiél to the American military and gaining reconnaissance and infiltration into British military matters. The leader on the committee was Benjamin Franklin, who mined his extensive contacts amongst European circles with ties to England. However, Franklin did not know that he had a British spy in his midst: historian Michael J. Sulick wrote, “During the Revolutionary War, the British routinely exchanged information through dead drops in Paris with Edward Bancroft, a spy who worked as an aide to Benjamin Franklin, then the colonial liaison to France.” [4]

Espionage Tactics by the Continental Congress361 While Franklin may have had a spy in his own midst, he worked studiously to try to bring allies to America’s side. On 12 December 1775 he wrote to Don Gabriel Antonio de Bourbon, a member of the Spanish royal family and a close friend: I am extreamly [sic] sensible of the honor done me, and beg you would accept my thankful acknowledgements. I wish I could send from hence any American Literary Production worthy of your perusal; but as yet the Muses have scarcely visited these remote Regions. Perhaps however the Proceedings of our American Congress, just published, may be a subject of some Curiosity at your Court. I therefore take the Liberty of sending your Highness a Copy, with some other Papers which contain Accounts of the successes wherewith Providence has lately favoured [sic] us. Therein your wise Politicians may contemplate the first efforts of a rising State, which seems likely soon to act a part of some Importance on the stage of human affairs, and furnish materials for a future Sallust. I am very old and can scarce hope to see the event of this great Contest: but looking forward I think I see a powerful Dominion growing up here, whose interest it will be to form a close and firm alliance with Spain (their Territories bordering), and who being united, will be able, not only to preserve their own people in peace, but to repel the Force of all the other powers in Europe. It seems therefore prudent on both sides to cultivate a good understanding, that may hereafter be so useful to both; towards which a fair Foundation is already laid in our minds, by the well founded popular Opinion entertained here of Spanish Integrity and Honour. I hope my presumption in hinting this will be pardoned. If in any thing [sic] on this side the Globe I can render either service or pleasure to your Royal Highness, your commands will make me happy. [5] While Franklin and the committee as well as others–including Arthur Lee in France–were working to aid the colonies from the outside, espionage continued on the inside. In December 1775 a secret French agent was employed by the Continental Congress, who was given a new identity, and secreted into Philadelphia disguised as a merchant from Belgium who stealthily worked with Britons in the city who sympathized with the American cause. On 17 April 1777, the Continental Congress renamed the Committee of Secret Correspondence

the Committee of Foreign Affairs, expanding its mandate to include all foreign relations with American partners and potential allies. For the next nearly four years, this panel was overseen by the Continental Congress as a whole. On 10 January 1781, the committee became the Department of Foreign Affairs, the immediate forerunner of the US Department of State. While these several committees were working on espionage activities, an even more secret committee, “The Committee on Spies,” was established on 5 June 1776 just as the body was contemplating a declaration of independence from England. Delegates John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Robert Livingston, Edward Rutledge, and James Wilson were named to the panel “to consider what is proper to be done with persons giving intelligence to the enemy or supplying them with provisions.” [6] This was just one of the myriad of committees that Jefferson sat on. Historian Stephen Knott notes that “[i]n August 1776, the Continental Congress responded to the committee’s proposals and enacted the nation’s first espionage act.” [7] This action, on August 21, 1776, was included in the Committee’s report and was enacted by the whole Congress: “Resolved, That all persons not members of, nor owing allegiance to, any of the United States of America, as described in a resolution to the Congress of the 29th of June last, who shall be found lurking as spies in or about the fortification or encampments of the armies of the United States, or of any of them, shall suffer death, according to the law and usage of nations, by sentence of a court martial, or such ether punishment as such court martial may direct.” Ironically, soon after, an American spy, Nathan Hale, sent personally by Washington behind enemy lines in New York to scout the British army, was caught, and, on 22 September 1776, was hanged in the city, at what is now the corner of Third Avenue and Sixty-sixth Street. Hale, who had been posing as a school teacher when caught, told his captors before he was executed, “I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.” To replace Hale, Washington recruited an army officer, Benjamin Tallmadge, to hire a number of agents inside and outside New York City; this became the infamous “Culpeper Ring.”

362

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

The greatest accomplishment of this group, at least publicly, was the exposure of Major John André, a British spy, who was captured and hanged on 2 October 1780.

representing America in France, was trying to profit personally through his work for the American government, and Paine took files from the committee and released them to expose Deane. In doing so, he exposed the secret that France had been aiding America, which had been unknown even in England. France’s minister to the United States, Conrad Alexandre Gérard, protested to the Continental Congress that Paine’s exposures had harmed the relationship with America. He wrote, “The minister plenipotentiary of France can not forbear to submit to the Congress of the United States the passages underscored in the two gazettes annexed, under date of the 3d and 5th of this month. He has no doubt of the indignation of Congress at the indiscreet assertions contained in these passages, which equally bring into question the dignity and reputation of the king, my master, and that of the United States. These assertions will become, in the hands of the enemies of the common cause, a weapon the more powerful and dangerous as the author is an officer of Congress, and as he takes advantage of his situation to give credit to his opinions and to his affirmations.” [9] Paine was dismissed from the committee for this single breach of the secrecy oath, although he was not prosecuted.

On 27 February 1778, the Continental Congress voted to expand the espionage law to include those “inhabitants of these states” who worked to aid the enemy in any way. While the delegates of the Continental Congress were working to enlist spies for their cause and to defeat those from the other side, it also addressed potential spying amongst its own members, employing an oath of secrecy that bound the delegates by their word to keep the matters in the Congress confidential. On 9 November 1775, an oath of secrecy was adopted, stating that “every member of this Congress considers himself under the ties of virtue, honour and love of his country, not to divulge, directly or indirectly, any matter or thing agitated or debated in Congress, before the same shaft have been determined, without the leave of the Congress: nor any matter or thing determined in Congress, which a majority of the Congress shall order to be kept secret, And that if any member shall violate this agreement, he shall be expelled this Congress, and deemed an enemy to the liberties of America, and liable to be treated as such, and that every member signify his consent to this agreement by signing the same.” [8] With the establishment of the United States under the Declaration of Independence, a new oath was required for members of the new “federal” government: On 12 June 1776, the Congress enacted this new pledge, which read, “I do solemnly swear, that I will not directly or indirectly divulge any manner or thing which shall come to my knowledge as [position] of the [office] for the United Colonies . . . So help me God.” Incredibly, it was not a member of the Continental Congress who breached this secrecy, causing a tumult between America and her new ally, France. Thomas Paine, a British-born pamphleteer whose incendiary works had led to the enactment of the Declaration of Independence in 1776, had been named the following year as secretary to the Committee for Foreign Affairs. Through this work, Paine believed that Silas Deane,

While the Continental Congress worked to spy on the British, and used its powers to root out spying against American interests, it also dabbled in intercepting and translating British documents through ciphers and codes. Committees led by various delegates used their powers to keep various agents apprised of matters that the British thought were held in close secret on their side. Like the Enigma machine during the Second World War, this congressional committee worked assiduously to spread the word of the translation of documents that fell into American hands. Post offices were used to intercept mail intended for Loyalists, which also included nuggets of information. In 1776, seeing the value of this, the delegates resolved that “the contents of the intercepted letters this day [are] read, and the steps which Congress may take in consequence of said intelligence thereby given, be kept secret until further orders.” However, it is unknown what information, if any, was

The Essex Principles, also known as The Essex Result363 utilized and what effect it had on the war’s ultimate outcome. Although not directed by the Continental Congress, individual states established “Commissions for Detecting and Defeating Conspiracies,” which worked to ferret out British spies and sympathizers in state governments. One of the largest of this type of group was in New York State, which published its findings and hearings. [10]

[1] Sanders, Jennings B., “Evolution of Executive Departments of the Continental Congress, 1774–1789” (Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1935), 78. [2] Hastedt, Glenn P., “Spies, Wiretaps, and Secret Operations: An Encyclopedia of American Espionage” (Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-Clio; two volumes, 2011), I:192. [3] United States, Continental Congress, “Journals of Congress. Containing the proceedings from January 1, 1776, to January 1, 1777. Published by order of Congress. Volume II” (York-Town: Printed by John Dunlap, 1778), 272-73. [4] Sulick, Michael J., “American Spies: Espionage against the United States from the Cold War to the Present” (Washington, DC: Georgetown University Press, 2013), 10. [5] Benjamin Franklin to Don Gabriel Antonio de Bourbon, 12 December 1775, in William B. Willcox, ed., et al., “The Papers of Benjamin Franklin” (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; 40 volumes, 1959- ), XXII:298-99. [6] Force, Peter, ed., “American Archives: Consisting of a Collection of Authentick Records, State Papers, Debates, and Letters and Other Notices of Publick Affairs, the Whole Forming a Documentary History of the Origin and Progress of the North America Colonies; of the Causes and Accomplishment of the American Revolution; and of the Constitution of Government for the United States, to the Final Ratification Thereof. In Six Series” (Washington, DC: Published by M. St. Clair Clarke and Peter Force; ten volumes, 1837-53), IV:6:1696. See “Journals of the American Congress: From 1774 to 1788. In Four Volumes” (Washington, DC: Printed and Published by Way and Gideon; four volumes, 1823), I:365. [7] Knott, Stephen F., “Secret and Sanctioned: Covert Operations and the American Presidency” (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1996), 63. [8] “Secret Journals of the Acts and Proceedings of Congress, From the First Meeting Thereof to the Dissolution of the Confederation, by the Adoption of the Constitution of the United States” (Boston: Printed and Published by Thomas S. Wait; four volumes, 1821), I:34. [9] Conrad Alexandre Gérard to John Jay, President of the Continental Congress, 5 January 1779, in Wharton, “The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence,” op. cit., III:11-12. See also Chalmers, George, “The Life of Thomas Pain [sic], the Author of Rights of men [sic]. With a Defence of his Writings. By Francis Oldys, A.M. of the University of Pennsylvania” (London: Printed for John Stockdale, 1791). [10] New York State, Commission for Detecting and Defeating Conspiracies (Victor Hugo Paltsits, ed.), “Minutes of the Commissioners for Detecting and Defeating Conspiracies in the State of New York: Albany County Sessions, 1778-1781” (Albany, NY: Published by the State of New York; two volumes, 1909-10).

The Essex Principles, also known as The Essex Result This set of fundamental beliefs, also known as a result, was issued by the citizens of Essex, Massachusetts, in response to a call for ideas to be brought forward for a new state constitution to be promulgated in 1778. Historians believe that this set of principles marks the simplest expressions of true democracy, and espoused beliefs that truly embraced the ultimate goals of the American Revolution. Only two years earlier, the Continental Congress had enacted the Declaration of Independence, declaring the 13 American colonies to be independent entities of the “Mother Country,” Great Britain. Now, in 1778, the Massachusetts General Court put together a potential new constitution for the state, and submitted to the people for their approval. That document was rejected almost universally by the citizens of Massachusetts. [1] On 29 April 1778, as a result of both the moves of the Massachusetts General Court, as well as their own beliefs that they felt needed to be addressed, a total of twelve towns and villages in Essex County met to protest the proposed constitution. Meeting in the village of Ipswich, lengthy debate ironed out the myriad reasons for the ultimate defeat of the proposed constitution. A convention had been called to address the deficiencies of the proposed constitution, and the citizens of these twelve towns and villages elected delegates to that parley. The Massachusetts legislature, instead of forcing an unpopular constitution on the people, realized that their plan had been rejected for a reason, and they issued a call for every city and town to send male delegates to a convention to draft a new constitution, without the input of the legislature. [2] One of the leaders of this group was a young attorney, Theophilus Parsons (1750-1813), who would later play a key role in the formation and foundation of Massachusetts law. Parsons, of the town of Newburyport, put together a report, whose long title is “The Result of the Convention of Delegates holden at Ipswich, in the County of Essex, who were Deputed to take into Consideration the Constitution

364

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

and Form of Government Proposed by the Convention of the State of Massachusetts Bay.” It’s shortened name, for which it is better known by historians, is “The Essex Result” (1778), which documented his ideas on the formation of a good government, utilizing the ideas of John Adams, a Massachusetts revolutionary whose “Thoughts on Government” (1776), were written before he assisted in the drafting of the Declaration of Independence. In that work, Adams explained thoughts that he had originally put in a letter “from a gentleman to his friend”: “If there is a form of government, then, whose principle and foundation is virtue, will not every sober man acknowledge it better calculated to promote the general happiness than any other form?” [3]

one of the delegates, Richard Frothingham, Jr., said, “I know of no early document which is so remarkable in its character as is that report— known as the Essex Result.” [5]

Parsons expanded on these thoughts in a letter to fellow Continental Congress delegate Richard Henry Lee: “A constitution founded on these principles introduces knowledge among the people and inspires them with a conscious dignity becoming freemen; a general emulation takes place, which causes good honor, sociability, good manners, and good morals to be general. That elevation of sentiment inspired by such a government, makes the common people brave and enterprising. That ambition which is inspired makes them sober, industrious, and frugal.” [4] The convention met and drafted a new constitution, based on the principles laid out by Parsons, and was submitted to the people needing two-thirds approval. This was the first such case in America where a convention of ordinary people came to a meeting place to put together a founding document, a concept which would guide those who would establish the Constitutional Convention in 1787 to draft the US Constitution. Few historians take note of the Essex Result, or the Essex Principles, which played such a vital role not only in Massachusetts history but in American history as well. The following selection, directly from the debates over the initial state constitution which was defeated, illustrates the principle of “local government,” which became a hallmark of the American political process. In 1853, at another constitutional convention in Massachusetts,

The Essex Result In Convention of Delegates from the several towns of Lynn, Salem, Danvers, Wenham, Manchester, Gloucester, Ipswich, NewburyPort, Salisbury, Methuen, Boxford, and Topsfield, holden by adjournment at Ipswich, on the twenty-ninth day of April, one thousand seven hundred and seventy-eight. Peter Coffin Esq; in the Chair. The Constitution and form of Government framed by the Convention of this State, was read paragraph by paragraph, and after debate, the following votes were passed. 1. That the present situation of this State renders it best, that the framing of a Constitution therefor[e], should be postponed ‘till the public affairs are in a more peaceable and settled condition. 2. That a bill of rights, clearly ascertaining and defining the rights of conscience, and that security of person and property, which every member in the State hath a right to expect from the supreme power thereof, ought to be settled and established, previous to the ratification of any constitution for the State. 3. That the executive power in any State, ought not to have any share or voice in the legislative power in framing the laws, and therefore, that the second article of the Constitution is liable to exception. 4. That any man who is chosen Governor, ought to be properly qualified in point of property— that the qualification therefor, mentioned in the third article of the Constitution, is not sufficient—nor is the same qualification directed to be ascertained on fixed principles, as it ought to be, on account of the fluctuation of the nominal value of money, and of property. 5. That in every free Republican Government, where the legislative power is rested in an house or houses of representatives, all the members of the State ought to be equally represented.

The Essex Principles, also known as The Essex Result365 6. That the mode of representation proposed in the sixth article of the constitution, is not so equal a representation as can reasonably be devised. 7. That therefore the mode of representation in said sixth article is exceptionable. 8. That the representation proposed in said article is also exceptionable, as it will produce an unwieldy assembly. 9. That the mode of election of Senators pointed out in the Constitution is exceptionable. 10. That the rights of conscience, and the security of person and property each member of the State is entitled to, are not ascertained and defined in the Constitution, with a precision sufficient to limit the legislative power—and therefore, that the thirteenth article of the constitution is exceptionable. 11. That the fifteenth article is exceptionable, because the numbers that constitute a quorum in the House of Representatives and Senate, are too small. 12. That the seventeenth article of the constitution is exceptionable, because the supreme executive officer is not vested with proper authority—and because an independence between the executive and legislative body is not preserved. 13. That the nineteenth article is exceptionable, because a due independence is not kept up between the supreme legislative, judicial, and executive powers, nor between any two of them. 14. That the twentieth article is exceptionable, because the supreme executive officer hath a voice, and must be present in that Court, which alone hath authority to try impeachments. 15. That the twenty second article is exceptionable, because the supreme executive power is not preserved distinct from, and independent of, the supreme legislative power. 16. That the twenty third article is exceptionable, because the power of granting pardons is not solely vested in the supreme executive power of the State. 17. That the twenty eighth article is exceptionable, because the delegates for the Continental

Congress may be elected by the House of Representatives, when all the Senators may vote against the election of those who are delegated. 18. That the thirty fourth article is exceptionable, because the rights of conscience are not therein clearly defined and ascertained; and further, because the free exercise and enjoyment of religious worship is there said to be allowed to all the protestants in the State, when in fact, that free exercise and enjoyment is the natural and uncontroulable right of every member of the State. A committee was then appointed to attempt the ascertaining of the true principles of government, applicable to the territory of the Massachusetts-Bay; to state the nonconformity of the constitution proposed by the Convention of this State to those principles, and to delineate the general outlines of a constitution conformable thereto; and to report the same to this Body. This Convention was then adjourned to the twelfth day of May next, to be holden at Ipswich. The Convention met pursuant to adjournment, and their committee presented the following report. The committee appointed by this Convention at their last adjournment, have proceeded upon the service assigned them. With diffidence have they undertaken the several parts of their duty, and the manner in which they have executed them, they submit to the candor of this Body. When they considered of what vast consequence, the forming of a Constitution is to the members of this State, the length of time that is necessary to canvass and digest any proposed plan of government, before the establishment of it, and the consummate coolness, and solemn deliberation which should attend, not only those gentlemen who have, reposed in them, the important trust of delineating the several lines in which the various powers of government are to move, but also all those, who are to form an opinion of the execution of that trust, your committee must be excused when they express a surprise and regret, that so short a time is allowed the freemen inhabiting the territory of the Massachusetts-Bay, to revise and comprehend

366

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

the form of government proposed to them by the convention of this State, to compare it with those principles on which every free government ought to be founded, and to ascertain it’s conformity or non-conformity thereto. All this is necessary to be done, before a true opinion of its merit or demerit can be formed. This opinion is to be certified within a time which, in our apprehension, is much too short for this purpose, and to be certified by a people, who, during that time, have had and will have their minds perplexed and oppressed with a variety of public cares. The committee also beg leave to observe, that the constitution proposed for public approbation, was formed by gentlemen, who, at the same time, had a large share in conducting an important war, and who were employed in carrying into execution almost all the various powers of government.

submissive to the haughty will of an imperious tyrant, whose savage passions are not bounded by the laws of reason, religion, honor, or a regard to his subjects, and the point to which all his movements center, is the gratification of a brutal appetite. As in a state of nature much happiness cannot be enjoyed by individuals, so it has been conformable to the inclinations of almost all men, to enter into a political society so constituted, as to remove the inconveniences they were obliged to submit to in their former state, and, at the same time, to retain all those natural rights, the enjoyment of which would be consistent with the nature of a free government, and the necessary subordination to the supreme power of the state.

The committee however proceeded in attempting the task assigned them, and the success of that attempt is now reported. The reason and understanding of mankind, as well as the experience of all ages, confirm the truth of this proposition, that the benefits resulting to individuals from a free government, conduce much more to their happiness, than the retaining of all their natural rights in a state of nature. These benefits are greater or less, as the form of government, and the mode of exercising the supreme power of the State, are more or less conformable to those principles of equal impartial liberty, which is the property of all men from their birth as the gift of their Creator, compared with the manners and genius of the people, their occupations, customs, modes of thinking, situation, extent of country, and numbers. If the constitution and form of government are wholly repugnant to those principles, wretched are the subjects of that State. They have surrendered a portion of their natural rights, the enjoyment of which was in some degree a blessing, and the consequence is, they find themselves stripped of the remainder. As an anodyne to compose the spirits of these slaves, and to lull them into a passively obedient state, they are told, that tyranny is preferable to no government at all; a proposition which is to be doubted, unless considered under some limitation. Surely a state of nature is more excellent than that, in which men are meanly

To determine what form of government, in any given case, will produce the greatest possible happiness to the subject, is an arduous task, not to be compassed perhaps by any human powers. Some of the greatest geniuses and most learned philosophers of all ages, impelled by their sollicitude to promote the happiness of mankind, have nobly dared to attempt it: and their labours have crowned them with immortality. A Solon, a Lycurgus of Greece, a Numa of Rome are remembered with honor, when the wide extended empires of succeeding tyrants, are hardly important enough to be faintly sketched out on the map, while their superb thrones have long since crumbled into dust. The man who alone undertakes to form a constitution, ought to be an unimpassioned being; one enlightened mind; biassed neither by the lust of power, the allurements of pleasure, nor the glitter of wealth; perfectly acquainted with all the alienable and unalienable rights of mankind; possessed of this grand truth, that all men are born equally free, and that no man ought to surrender any part of his natural rights, without receiving the greatest possible equivalent; and influenced by the impartial principles of rectitude and justice, without partiality for, or prejudice against the interest or professions of any individuals or class of men. He ought also to be master of the histories of all the empires and states which are now existing, and all those which have figured in antiquity, and thereby able to collect and blend their respective excellencies, and avoid those defects which experience hath pointed

The Essex Principles, also known as The Essex Result367 out. Rousseau, a learned foreigner, a citizen of Geneva, sensible of the importance and difficulty of the subject, thought it impossible for any body of people, to form a free and equal constitution for themselves, in which, every individual should have equal justice done him, and be permitted to enjoy a share of power in the state, equal to what should be enjoyed by any other. Each individual, said he, will struggle, not only to retain all his own natural rights, but to acquire a controul over those of others. Fraud, circumvention, and an union of interest of some classes of people, combined with an inattention to the rights of posterity, will prevail over the principles of equity, justice, and good policy. The Genevans, perhaps the most virtuous republicans now existing, thought like Rousseau. They called the celebrated Calvin to their assistance. He came, and, by their gratitude, have they embalmed his memory. The freemen inhabiting the territory of the Massachusetts-Bay are now forming a political society for themselves. Perhaps their situation is more favorable in some respects, for erecting a free government, than any other people were ever favored with. That attachment to old forms, which usually embarrasses, has not place amongst them. They have the history and experience of all States before them. Mankind have been toiling through ages for their information; and the philosophers and learned men of antiquity have trimmed their midnight lamps, to transmit to them instruction. We live also in an age, when the principles of political liberty, and the foundation of governments, have been freely canvassed, and fairly settled. Yet some difficulties we have to encounter. Not content with removing our attachment to the old government, perhaps we have contracted a prejudice against some part of it without foundation. The idea of liberty has been held up in so dazzling colours, that some of us may not be willing to submit to that subordination necessary in the freest States. Perhaps we may say further, that we do not consider ourselves united as brothers, with an united interest, but have fancied a clashing of interests amongst the various classes of men, and have acquired a thirst of power, and a wish of domination, over some of the community.

We are contending for freedom—Let us all be equally free—It is possible, and it is just. Our interests when candidly considered are one. Let us have a constitution founded, not upon party or prejudice—not one for to-day or to-morrow—but for posterity. Let Esto perpetua be its motto. If it is founded in good policy; it will be founded in justice and honesty. Let all ambitious and interested views be discarded, and let regard be had only to the good of the whole, in which the situation and rights of posterity must be considered: and let equal justice be done to all the members of the community; and we thereby imitate our common father, who at our births, dispersed his favors, not only with a liberal, but with an equal hand. Was it asked, what is the best form of government for the people of the Massachusetts-Bay? We confess it would be a question of infinite importance: and the man who could truly answer it, would merit a statue of gold to his memory, and his fame would be recorded in the annals of late posterity, with unrivalled lustre. The question, however, must be answered, and let it have the best answer we can possibly give it. Was a man to mention a despotic government, his life would be a just forfeit to the resentments of an affronted people. Was he to hint monarchy, he would deservedly be hissed off the stage, and consigned to infamy. A republican form is the only one consonant to the feelings of the generous and brave Americans. Let us now attend to those principles, upon which all republican governments, who boast any degree of political liberty, are founded, and which must enter into the spirit of a FREE republican constitution. For all republics are not Free. All men are born equally free. The rights they possess at their births are equal, and of the same kind. Some of those rights are alienable, and may be parted with for an equivalent. Others are unalienable and inherent, and of that importance, that no equivalent can be received in exchange. Sometimes we shall mention the surrendering of a power to controul our natural rights, which perhaps is speaking with more precision, than when we use the expression of parting with natural rights—but the same thing is intended. Those rights which are unalienable, and of that

368

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

importance, are called the rights of conscience. We have duties, for the discharge of which we are accountable to our Creator and benefactor, which no human power can cancel. What those duties are, is determinable by right reason, which may be, and is called, a well informed conscience. What this conscience dictates as our duty, is so; and that power which assumes a controul over it, is an usurper; for no consent can be pleaded to justify the controul, as any consent in this case is void. The alienation of some rights, in themselves alienable, may be also void, if the bargain is of that nature, that no equivalent can be received. Thus, if a man surrender all his alienable rights, without reserving a controul over the supreme power, or a right to resume in certain cases, the surrender is void, for he becomes a slave; and a slave can receive no equivalent. Common equity would set aside this bargain.

HE HAS GIVEN HIS CONSENT. This definition is in unison with the feelings of a free people. But to return—If a fundamental principle on which each individual enters into society is, that he shall be bound by no laws but those to which he has consented, he cannot be considered as consenting to any law enacted by a minority: for he parts with the power of controuling his natural rights, only when the good of the whole requires it; and of this there can be but one absolute judge in the State. If the minority can assume the right of judging, there may then be two judges; for however large the minority may be, there must be another body still larger, who have the same claim, if not a better, to the right of absolute determination. If therefore the supreme power should be so modelled and exerted, that a law may be enacted by a minority, the inforcing of that law upon an individual who is opposed to it, is an act of tyranny. Further, as every individual, in entering into the society, parted with a power of controuling his natural rights equal to that parted with by any other, or in other words, as all the members of the society contributed an equal portion of their natural rights, towards the forming of the supreme power, so every member ought to receive equal benefit from, have equal influence in forming, and retain an equal controul over, the supreme power.

When men form themselves into society, and erect a body politic or State, they are to be considered as one moral whole, which is in possession of the supreme power of the State. This supreme power is composed of the powers of each individual collected together, and VOLUNTARILY parted with by him. No individual, in this case, parts with his unalienable rights, the supreme power therefore cannot controul them. Each individual also surrenders the power of controuling his natural alienable rights, ONLY WHEN THE GOOD OF THE WHOLE REQUIRES it. The supreme power therefore can do nothing but what is for the good of the whole; and when it goes beyond this line, it is a power usurped. If the individual receives an equivalent for the right of controul he has parted with, the surrender of that right is valid; if he receives no equivalent, the surrender is void, and the supreme power as it respects him is an usurper. If the supreme power is so directed and executed that he does not enjoy political liberty, it is an illegal power, and he is not bound to obey. Political liberty is by some defined, a liberty of doing whatever is not prohibited by law. The definition is erroneous. A tyrant may govern by laws. The republics of Venice and Holland govern by laws, yet those republics have degenerated into insupportable tyrannies. Let it be thus defined; political liberty is the right every man in the state has, to do whatever is not prohibited by laws, TO WHICH

It has been observed, that each individual parts with the power of controuling his natural alienable rights, only when the good of the whole requires it, he therefore has remaining, after entering into political society, all his unalienable natural rights, and a part also of his alienable natural rights, provided the good of the whole does not require the sacrifice of them. Over the class of unalienable rights the supreme power hath no controul, and they ought to be clearly defined and ascertained in a BILL OF RIGHTS, previous to the ratification of any constitution. The bill of rights should also contain the equivalent every man receives, as a consideration for the rights he has surrendered. This equivalent consists principally in the security of his person and property, and is also unassailable by the supreme power: for if the equivalent is taken back, those natural rights which were parted with to purchase it, return to the original proprietor, as nothing is more

The Essex Principles, also known as The Essex Result369 true, than that Allegiance and protection are reciprocal. The committee also proceeded to consider upon what principles, and in what manner, the supreme power of the state thus composed of the powers of the several individuals thereof, may be formed, modelled, and exerted in a republic, so that every member of the state may enjoy political liberty. This is called by some, the ascertaining of the political law of the state. Let it now be called the forming of a constitution. The reason why the supreme governor of the world is a rightful and just governor, and entitled to the allegiance of the universe is, because he is infinitely good, wise, and powerful. His goodness prompts him to the best measures, his wisdom qualifies him to discern them, and his power to effect them. In a state likewise, the supreme power is best disposed of, when it is so modelled and balanced, and rested in such hands, that it has the greatest share of goodness, wisdom, and power, which is consistent with the lot of humanity. That state, (other things being equal) which has reposed the supreme power in the hands of one or a small number of persons, is the most powerful state. A union, expedition, secrecy and dispatch are to be found only here. Where power is to be executed by a large number, there will not probably be either of the requisites just mentioned. Many men have various opinions: and each one will be tenacious of his own, as he thinks it preferable to any other; for when he thinks otherwise, it will cease to be his opinion. From this diversity of opinions results disunion; from disunion, a want of expedition and dispatch. And the larger the number to whom a secret is entrusted, the greater is the probability of its disclosure. This inconvenience more fully strikes us when we consider that want of secrecy may prevent the successful execution of any measures, however excellently formed and digested. But from a single person, or a very small number, we are not to expect that political honesty, and upright regard to the interest of the body of the people, and the civil rights of each individual, which are essential to a good and free constitution. For these qualities we

are to go to the body of the people. The voice of the people is said to be the voice of God. No man will be so hardy and presumptuous, as to affirm the truth of that proposition in its fullest extent. But if this is considered as the intent of it, that the people have always a disposition to promote their own happiness, and that when they have time to be informed, and the necessary means of information given them, they will be able to determine upon the necessary measures therefor, no man, of a tolerable acquaintance with mankind, will deny the truth of it. The inconvenience and difficulty in forming any free permanent constitution are, that such is the lot of humanity, the bulk of the people, whose happiness is principally to be consulted in forming a constitution, and in legislation, (as they include the majority) are so situated in life, and such are their laudable occupations, that they cannot have time for, nor the means of furnishing themselves with proper information, but must be indebted to some of their fellow subjects for the communication. Happy is the man, and blessings will attend his memory, who shall improve his leisure, and those abilities which heaven has indulged him with, in communicating that true information, and impartial knowledge, to his fellow subjects, which will insure their happiness. But the artful demagogue, who to gratify his ambition or avarice, shall, with the gloss of false patriotism, mislead his countrymen, and meanly snatch from them the golden glorious opportunity of forming a system of political and civil liberty, fraught with blessings for themselves, and remote posterity, what language can paint his demerit? The execrations of ages will be a punishment inadequate; and his name, though ever blackening as it rolls down the stream of time, will not catch its proper hue. Yet, when we are forming a Constitution, by deductions that follow from established principles, (which is the only good method of forming one for futurity,) we are to look further than to the bulk of the people, for the greatest wisdom, firmness, consistency, and perseverance. These qualities will most probably be found amongst men of education and fortune. From such men we are to expect genius cultivated by reading, and all the

370

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

various advantages and assistances, which art, and a liberal education aided by wealth, can furnish. From these result learning, a thorough knowledge of the interests of their country, when considered abstractedly, when compared with the neighbouring States, and when with those more remote, and an acquaintance with its produce and manufacture, and it’s exports and imports. All these are necessary to be known, in order to determine what is the true interest of any state; and without that interest is ascertained, impossible will it be to discover, whether a variety of certain laws may be beneficial or hurtful. From gentlemen whose private affairs compel them to take care of their own household, and deprive them of leisure, these qualifications are not to be generally expected, whatever class of men they are enrolled in.

and a regard to the interest of the whole, of which they compose the majority. That wisdom and firmness are not sufficient without good intentions, nor the latter without the former. The conclusion is, let the legislative body unite them all. The former are called the excellencies that result from an aristocracy; the latter, those that result from a democracy.

Let all these respective excellencies be united. Let the supreme power be so disposed and ballanced, that the laws may have in view the interest of the whole; let them be wisely and consistently framed for that end, and firmly adhered to; and let them be executed with vigour and dispatch. Before we proceed further, it must be again considered, and kept always in view, that we are not attempting to form a temporary constitution, one adjusted only to our present circumstances. We wish for one founded upon such principles as will secure to us freedom and happiness, however our circumstances may vary. One that will smile amidst the declensions of European and Asiatic empires, and survive the rude storms of time. It is not therefore to be understood, that all the men of fortune of the present day, are men of wisdom and learning, or that they are not. Nor that the bulk of the people, the farmers, the merchants, the tradesmen, and labourers, are all honest and upright, with single views to the public good, or that they are not. In each of the classes there are undoubtedly exceptions, as the rules laid down are general. The proposition is only this. That among gentlemen of education, fortune and leisure, we shall find the largest number of men, possessed of wisdom, learning, and a firmness and consistency of character. That among the bulk of the people, we shall find the greatest share of political honesty, probity,

The supreme power is considered as including the legislative, judicial, and executive powers. The nature and employment of these several powers deserve a distinct attention. The legislative power is employed in making laws, or prescribing such rules of action to every individual in the state, as the good of the whole requires, to be conformed to by him in his conduct to the governors and governed, with respect both to their persons and property, according to the several relations he stands in. What rules of action the good of the whole requires, can be ascertained only by the majority, for a reason formerly mentioned. Therefore the legislative power must be so formed and exerted, that in prescribing any rule of action, or, in other words, enacting any law, the majority must consent. This may be more evident, when the fundamental condition on which every man enters into society, is considered. No man consented that his natural alienable rights should be wantonly controuled: they were controulable, only when that controul should be subservient to the good of the whole; and that subserviency, from the very nature of government, can be determined but by one absolute judge. The minority cannot be that judge, because then there may be two judges opposed to each other, so that this subserviency remains undetermined. Now the enacting of a law, is only the exercise of this controul over the natural alienable rights of each member of the state; and therefore this law must have the consent of the majority, or be invalid, as being contrary to the fundamental condition of the original social contract. In a state of nature, every man had the sovereign controul over his own person. He might also have, in that state, a qualified property. Whatever lands or chattels he had acquired the peaceable possession of, were exclusively his, by right of occupancy or possession. For while they were

The Essex Principles, also known as The Essex Result371 unpossessed he had a right to them equally with any other man, and therefore could not be disturbed in his possession, without being injured; for no man could lawfully dispossess him, without having a better right, which no man had. Over this qualified property every man in a state of nature had also a sovereign controul. And in entering into political society, he surrendered this right of controul over his person and property, (with an exception to the rights of conscience) to the supreme legislative power, to be exercised by that power, when the good of the whole demanded it. This was all the right he could surrender, being all the alienable right of which he was possessed. The only objects of legislation therefore, are the person and property of the individuals which compose the state. If the law affects only the persons of the members, the consent of a majority of any members is sufficient. If the law affects the property only, the consent of those who hold a majority of the property is enough. If it affects, (as it will very frequently, if not always,) both the person and property, the consent of a majority of the members, and of those members also, who hold a majority of the property is necessary. If the consent of the latter is not obtained, their interest is taken from them against their consent, and their boasted security of property is vanished. Those who make the law, in this case give and grant what is not theirs. The law, in its principles, becomes a second stamp act. Lord Chatham very finely ridiculed the British house of commons upon that principle. ‘You can give and grant, said he, only your own. Here you give and grant, what? The property of the Americans.’ The people of the Masssachusetts-Bay then thought his Lordship’s ridicule well pointed. And would they be willing to merit the same? Certainly they will agree in the principle, should they mistake the application. The laws of the province of Massachusetts-Bay adopted the same principle, and very happily applied it. As the votes of proprietors of common and undivided lands in their meetings, can affect only their property, therefore it is enacted, that in ascertaining the majority, the votes shall be collected according to the respective interests of the proprietors. If each member, without regard to his property, has equal influence

in legislation with any other, it follows, that some members enjoy greater benefits and powers in legislation than others, when these benefits and powers are compared with the rights parted with to purchase them. For the property-holder parts with the controul over his person, as well as he who hath no property, and the former also parts with the controul over his property, of which the latter is destitute. Therefore to constitute a perfect law in a free state, affecting the persons and property of the members, it is necessary that the law be for the good of the whole, which is to be determined by a majority of the members, and that majority should include those, who possess a major part of the property in the state. The judicial power follows next after the legislative power; for it cannot act, until after laws are prescribed. Every wise legislator annexes a sanction to his laws, which is most commonly penal, (that is) a punishment either corporal or pecuniary, to be inflicted on the member who shall infringe them. It is the part of the judicial power (which in this territory has always been, and always ought to be, a court and jury) to ascertain the member who hath broken the law. Every man is to be presumed innocent, until the judicial power hath determined him guilty. When that decision is known, the law annexes the punishment, and the offender is turned over to the executive arm, by whom it is inflicted on him. The judicial power hath also to determine what legal contracts have been broken, and what member hath been injured by a violation of the law, to consider the damages that have been sustained, and to ascertain the recompense. The executive power takes care that this recompense is paid. The executive power is sometimes divided into the external executive, and internal executive. The former comprehends war, peace, the sending and receiving ambassadors, and whatever concerns the transactions of the state with any other independent state. The confederation of the United States of America hath lopped off this branch of the executive, and placed it in Congress. We have therefore only to consider the internal executive power, which is employed in the peace, security and protection of the subject and his property,

372

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

and in the defence of the state. The executive power is to marshal and command her militia and armies for her defence, to enforce the law, and to carry into execution all the orders of the legislative powers.

legislative powers, and the government there is absolute.

A little attention to the subject will convince us, that these three powers ought to be in different hands, and independent of one another, and so ballanced, and each having that check upon the other, that their independence shall be preserved—If the three powers are united, the government will be absolute, whether these powers are in the hands of one or a large number. The same party will be the legislator, accuser, judge and executioner; and what probability will an accused person have of an acquittal, however innocent he may be, when his judge will be also a party. If the legislative and judicial powers are united, the maker of the law will also interpret it; and the law may then speak a language, dictated by the whims, the caprice, or the prejudice of the judge, with impunity to him—And what people are so unhappy as those, whose laws are uncertain. It will also be in the breast of the judge, when grasping after his prey, to make a retrospective law, which shall bring the unhappy offender within it; and this also he can do with impunity—The subject can have no peaceable remedy—The judge will try himself, and an acquittal is the certain consequence. He has it also in his power to enact any law, which may shelter him from deserved vengeance. Should the executive and legislative powers be united, mischiefs the most terrible would follow. The executive would enact those laws it pleased to execute, and no others—The judicial power would be set aside as inconvenient and tardy—The security and protection of the subject would be a shadow—The executive power would make itself absolute, and the government end in a tyranny—Lewis the eleventh of France, by cunning and treachery compleated the union of the executive and legislative powers of that kingdom, and upon that union established a system of tyranny. France was formerly under a free government. The assembly or representatives of the united states of Holland, exercise the executive and

Should the executive and judicial powers be united, the subject would then have no permanent security of his person and property. The executive power would interpret the laws and bend them to his will; and, as he is the judge, he may leap over them by artful constructions, and gratify, with impunity, the most rapacious passions. Perhaps no cause in any state has contributed more to promote internal convulsions, and to stain the scaffold with its best blood, than this unhappy union. And it is an union which the executive power in all states, hath attempted to form: if that could not be compassed, to make the judicial power dependent upon it. Indeed the dependence of any of these powers upon either of the others, which in all states has always been attempted by one or the other of them, has so often been productive of such calamities, and of the shedding of such oceans of blood, that the page of history seems to be one continued tale of human wretchedness. The following principles now seem to be established. 1. That the supreme power is limited, and cannot controul the unalienable rights of mankind, nor resume the equivalent (that is, the security of person and property) which each individual receives, as a consideration for the alienable rights he parted with in entering into political society. 2. That these unalienable rights, and this equivalent, are to be clearly defined and ascertained in a BILL OF RIGHTS, previous to the ratification of any constitution. 3. That the supreme power should be so formed and modelled, as to exert the greatest possible power, wisdom, and goodness. 4. That the legislative, judicial, and executive powers, are to be lodged in different hands, that each branch is to be independent, and further, to be so balanced, and be able to exert such checks upon the others, as will preserve it from a dependence on, or an union with them. 5. That government can exert the greatest power when its supreme authority is vested in the hands of one or a few.

Nicholas Eveleigh (c. 1748–1791)373 6. That the laws will be made with the greatest wisdom, and best intentions, when men, of all the several classes in the state concur in the enacting of them.

Nicholas Eveleigh (c. 1748–1791)

7. That a government which is so constituted, that it cannot afford a degree of political liberty nearly equal to all its members, is not founded upon principles of freedom and justice, and where any member enjoys no degree of political liberty, the government, so far as it respects him, is a tyranny, for he is controuled by laws to which he has never consented. 8. That the legislative power of a state hath no authority to controul the natural rights of any of its members, unless the good of the whole requires it. 9. That a majority of the state is the only judge when the general good does require it. 10. That where the legislative power of the state is so formed, that a law may be enacted by the minority, each member of the state does not enjoy political liberty. And 11. That in a free government, a law affecting the person and property of its members, is not valid, unless it has the consent of a majority of the members, which majority should include those, who hold a major part of the property in the state. [6]

[1] Parsons, Theophilus, “Memoir of Theophilus Parsons, Chief Justice of the Supreme Judicial Court of Massachusetts, with Notice of Some of his Contemporaries. By his Son, Theophilus Parsons” (Boston: Ticknor and Fields, 1859), 46-47. [2] “Prelude: The Rejected Constitution of 1778” in Stephen L Schechter, ed., “Roots of the Republic: American Founding Documents Interpreted” (Oxford, UK: Madison House, 1990), 188-89. [3] “Thoughts on Government, in a Letter From a Gentleman to a Friend” in Adams, Charles Francis, ed., “Letters of John Adams, Addressed to his Wife” (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown; two volumes, 1841), I:277. [4] Judson, L. Carroll, “The Sages and Heroes of the American Revolution, in Two Parts. Including the Signers of the Declaration of Independence. Two Hundred and Forty Three of the Sages and Heroes are Presented in Due Form, and Many Others are Named Incidentally” (Boston: Lee and Shepard, 1875), 17-18. [5] Frothingham quoted in Harry A. Cushing, “History of the Transition from Provincial to Commonwealth Government in Massachusetts” in “Studies in History Economics and Public Law” (New York: Columbia University Press, 1896), 226. [6] Handlin, Oscar, and Handlin, Mary, eds. “The Popular Sources of Political Authority: Documents on the Massachusetts Constitution of 1780” (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1966), 324-40.

Nicholas Eveleigh was a leader in his native South Carolina, serving that state in the Continental Congress (1781-82), and as a military official during the fighting against England. He later became the First Comptroller of the United States (1789-91), before his untimely death. He was born about 1748 in Charleston, South Carolina. According to a family history compiled in 1945, Eveleigh was the son of Samuel Eveleigh and his wife, also his cousin, Elizabeth (née Eveleigh) Eveleigh. As the genealogy stated, “This Samuel Eveleigh lived for many years in Charles Town, but in 1755 moved to Bristol, England. In his will, signed 20 June 1764, he left bequests to his sons George and Nicholas, and also provided ‘executors’ for them until they reached the age of twenty-one. While their father did not give any clue as to their exact age, it is obvious they were born after 1743, if they were still minors in 1764.” [1] Nicholas Eveleigh received his education in England, and in 1774, or thereabouts, Nicholas Eveleigh returned to the American colonies, settling in his native Charles Town, South Carolina. On 5 May 1774, Eveleigh married Mary Shubrick; she survived him upon his death; the couple had

374

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

no children. After Eveleigh died, his widow married Edward Rutledge, who had also served as a delegate to the Continental Congress, and was a signer of the Declaration of Independence. He died in 1800, and his widow survived until her death in 1837, having had no children of her own. [2]

Place and Ninety Six, have pillaged the Country of Numbers of Horses, and have since, as ‘tis said, Crossed the River Savannah in their Way to Florida. There have been Parties out hunting them, I do not hear with what Success; I hope however I shall have the Pleasure of meeting some of them at Ninety Six, as none of them can be brought in Time enough for this Court.39 Col N. Eveligh40 left this Place in good Health on Sunday last.” [6]

With the outbreak of the American Revolution in 1775, Eveleigh sided with the patriot cause and enlisted in the Continental Army. He was appointed on 17 June 1775 as a Captain in the Second South Carolina Regiment of Continentals. Historian David Ramsay, one of the most important chroniclers of the American Revolution, wrote in 1775, “[I]t was resolved to raise two regiments of foot, and a regiment of rangers, and to put the town and province in a respectable posture of defence. These resolutions were deliberately agreed to, after counting the cot. Estimates of expenses were laid before the provincial Congress, by which it appeared that the measures adopted would cost the province, the first year one hundred and forty thousand pounds sterling.” The first and second regiments of foot were then established, with Charles Cotesworth Pinckney as its captain, and, listed 11th on the list of officers, Nicholas Eveleigh. [3] According to his official congressional biography, Eveleigh “engaged in the battle with the British fleet and forces at Fort Moultrie on 28 June 1776, [and] was promoted to colonel and appointed deputy adjutant general for South Carolina and Georgia on 3 April 1778.” [4] A military order book from the 1st Regiment of the South Carolina Continentals reports that on 3 April 1778, “Head Quarters Charles Town April 3d. 78. Gene. Orders Parole York Town. Nicholas Eveleigh Esqr, is appointed by the Honoura1, Continental Congress Deputy Adjutant General in the Continental Service with the Rank of Colo1 for the States of South Carolina & Georgia is to be Respected and obeyed as such. Henry Purcell Esqr is also appointed Deputy Judge advocate for the States of South Carolina & Georgia with the Rank of Lt. Colo.– and is therefore to be Respected and obeyed according.” [5] Just days later, on 7 April 1778, Thomas Pinckney, a leading South Carolina politician, wrote, in part, “[A] [s]et of Banditti have lately collected together between this

On 24 August 1778, Eveleigh resigned his commission. John Faucheraud Grimké, a Lieutenant Colonel of South Carolina Artillery, wrote in his diary on that date, “Colo. Nicholas Eveleigh having resigned his commission as Dep. Adj. Gen. for the State of South Carolina & Georgia & is no longer to be considered and Obeyed as a Continental Officer.” [7] For a time after leaving the military, Eveleigh worked on what is called “agricultural pursuits”—more than likely overseeing plantations where certain native crops were grown and harvested. However, in 1779, as the military situation in South Carolina became worse, and the threat of a Britain invasion and takeover of the state became a potential reality, Eveleigh was pressed into service for his state again. Needing troops and matériel to survive and stave off the British troops, Governor John Rutledge called on Eveleigh and another South Carolinian, Daniel Huger, to try to raise armies from surrounding states. Historian James Haw explained: Governor Rutledge persisted. He had already decided to send Nicholas Eveleigh and Daniel Huger to the governors of North Carolina and Virginia to explain the urgent need “that a number of Troops should be marched hither with the utmost expedition.” Huger proceeded on to Philadelphia in March to plead with Congress for help. Rutledge continued to bombard North Carolina Governor Richard Caswell with pleas for speedy aid. By the middle of March? about the time that Huger reached Philadelphia ? Rutledge was beside himself with anxiety. A British fleet with 5000 more soldiers was reportedly on the way to Georgia. That would give the British 10,000 men for an invasion of South Carolina. Rutledge’s mood was revealed in a letter to South Carolina’s delegates to Congress on March 18. “We presume . . . that Measures have been

Nicholas Eveleigh (c. 1748–1791)375 adopted [to help us] . . . which We yet know not, for it is scarcely credible, that neither the Confederacy of the States, or their Allies can furnish a Ship, a Man, or a Musket.” Surely distance and “the fear of weakening” Washington’s army were not sufficient reason for Congress’s inaction. “Strange indeed that the No. Carolina Continentals should be kept for the defence of the middle States!”[8] Eveleigh’s mission to Virginia was also fruitless; that state could not send troops for the near future. In 1781, Eveleigh was elected to a seat in the South Carolina state House of Representatives. According to all available sources, that body elected Eveleigh to a seat in the Continental Congress that same year. However, history Edmund Cody Burnett discovered that Eveleigh was elected to the Continental Congress on 27 May 1780—before he won his state House seat. According to Burnett, Eveleigh did not attend sessions of the Continental Congress until 25 April 1781, which may add to the confusion over exactly when he was elected to that body. But Eveleigh was not elected by the state legislature—instead, as Burnett states, “Eveleigh and [Isaac] Motte were appointed by Governor Rutledge under a general ordinance ‘for the better security and defence of this State,’ and the appointments were ‘to continue until ten days after the next Meeting and Sitting of the General Assembly.’” [9] Eveleigh was reelected to the Continental Congress on 4 October 1781, ultimately serving from 25 April 1781 until about 22 March 1782. [10] Only one piece of correspondence from Eveleigh could be found relating to his service in the Continental Congress: a letter to John Mathews from Philadelphia, dated 22 January 1782, in which Eveleigh takes sides in the matter over Silas Deane, the American agent in France, accused of corruption: “Mr. Deane has fully proved himself to be a traytor [sic] to his Country. two letters of his one to his Brother, the other to another person in Connecticut have lately fallen into our hands, from these there is no reason to doubt that the letters before printed under his signature were genuine, the ministry of Great Britain have certainly f[ound] his price and given it him. He has been [cautious?] in his correspondence and has

taken care to make it very general in order that the poison may be more generally diffused and be the more generally mischievous, proper means will be taken respecting him.” [11] The Journals of the Continental Congress report that on 15 March 1782, “The Committee of the Week [William Floyd, Nicholas Eveleigh, George Partridge] report, That the memorial of Jonathan Gostelowe[,] late Commissary of Military Stores, complaining of being dismissed from office and requesting that he may be paid for past services and that his depreciations may be made up, be referred to the Secretary of War.” [12] Eveleigh returned home to South Carolina following his service in the Continental Congress. He seems to have been a firm supporter of the right to own slaves. Examinations of South Carolina newspapers from the period show up with his name attached to slave auctions: for instance, in one such sale, slaves were “to be sold by auction, at the sale of the late Colonel Isaac Hayne’s Negroes,” and the sale is being handled by no less a personage than former Continental Congress delegate Nicholas Eveleigh. [13] Several weeks later, the same paper also shows Eveleigh, again selling items, but this time it is land on a rice plantation, “distant from Jacksonburgh, about 4 miles in St. Bartholomew’s Parish . . .” [14] Eveleigh served as a member of the South Carolina State Legislative Council in 1783. Under the new US Constitution, signed in 1787 and ratified by the states the following year, a new federal government was established; General George Washington was elected as the first president of the United States under this new Constitution. On 11 September 1789, Washington named Eveleigh as the first Comptroller of the United States Treasury, headquartered in Philadelphia prior to moving to the new capital of Washington, D.C. Eveleigh served less than two years in this position, despite being a young man when named to fill it. On 16 April 1791, Eveleigh suddenly died in Philadelphia, either 42 or 43 years of age. His burial place is unknown, although it is speculated that he was buried in Philadelphia. Obituaries for him were short; many spent more time speculating on who would replace

376

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

him at the Department of the Treasury than to the services he rendered in his lifetime to his country. [15]

[6] Cross, Jack L., “Letters of Thomas Pinckney, 1775-1780,” The South Carolina Historical Magazine, LVIII:3 (July 1957), 148-49. [7] “Order Book of John Faucheraud Grimké. August 1778 to May 1780,” ‘The South Carolina Historical and Genealogical Magazine, XIII:1 (January 1912), 44. [8] Haw, James, “A Broken Compact: Insecurity, Union, and the Proposed Surrender of Charleston, 1779,” The South Carolina Historical Magazine, XCVI:1 (January 1995), 40. [9] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), V:lxiii. [10] Burnett, “Letters of Members,” op. cit., VI:li. [11] Eveleigh to John Mathews 22 January 1782, in ibid., VI:296. [12] “Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789. Edited from the Original Records in the Library of Congress by Worthington Chauncey Ford, Chief, Division of Manuscripts” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; 34 volumes, 1904-37), XXII:136. [13] See “To be Sold at Auction,” South Carolina Gazette, and General Advertiser [Charleston], 8-10 January 1784, 2. [14] Also see “To be Sold at Auction,” South Carolina Gazette, and General Advertiser [Charleston], 29-31 January 1784, supplement, 1. [15] Additional obituaries on Eveleigh appear, for instance, in “The American Museum, Or, Universal Magazine, for June, 1791,” 327, as well as “The Universal Asylum, and Columbian Magazine, for April 1791,” 206.

[1] Mears, Neal F., comp., “A History of the Heverly Family, Including the Spellings Hever, Heverle, Heverley, Everle, Everley, Everleigh, Eveleigh, Evelegh, Eveley, Everly, and Eveleth” (Chicago: Printed by the Bates Printing Co., 1945), 199. The will of Samuel Eveleigh can be found in Lothrop Withington, “South Carolina Gleanings in England,” The South Carolina Historical and Genealogical Magazine, XI:2 (April 1910), 129-32, at 131. [2] Webber, Mabel, “Dr. John Rutledge and His Descendants,” The South Carolina Historical and Genealogical Magazine, XXX1:1 (January 1930), 23-24. [3] Ramsay, David, “The History of the Revolution of South-­ Carolina, From a British Province to an Independent State” (Trenton, NJ: Printed by Isaac Collins; two volumes, 1775), I:34-37. [4] Eveleigh official congressional biography, online at http:// bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=E000263. [5] “An Order Book of the 1st. Regt., S. C. Line, Continental Establishment,” The South Carolina Historical and Genealogical Magazine, VIII:2 (April 1907), 81.

F The Fairfax County Resolves

This attitude would change over the next two years.

Written in July 1774, this document rejected England’s claim of supreme authority over the American colonies.

On the following day, 18 July 1774, Washington, minus George Mason, but joined by Robert Harrison, the Clerk of a meeting of the “Freeholders” of Fairfax County, read the document.

Historian Jim Ferling explained: That spring, in May, the House of Burgesses had declared a fast day to protest London’s Coercive Acts, harsh measures imposed on Massachusetts in reprisal for the Boston Tea Party. The governor, Lord Dunmore, responded by proroguing the assembly, but it met anyway in defiance of the royal governor and pledged to act in concert with other colonies to aid Massachusetts. Washington supported the burgesses’ defiant actions, and in August, when the assembly, calling itself the Virginia Convention, insolently defied the governor by meeting again, Washington was present. In the interim between the two meetings of the legislators, he had served on a Fairfax County committee that prepared a series of resolutions on parliamentary policies. George Mason likely drafted the county’s statement of protest, but there can be no doubt that Washington endorsed it wholeheartedly. Mason spent the night prior to the adoption of the resolves at Mount Vernon, and Washington probably contributed to the editing of the document. [1] Meeting at his estate, Mount Vernon, in Virginia, George Washington sat down with his fellow Virginian, George Mason, and penned these resolves on 17 July 1774. In essence, this document was the first true expression of American independence to ever be written. Historian A.E. Dick Howard, in a 1968 law review article, wrote, “In 1774, [George] Mason had written the Fairfax County Resolves, which had decried the destruction of ‘our ancient laws and liberty, and the loss of all that is dear to British subjects and freemen’ and had resolved to form a militia company in Fairfax County to defend ‘the principles of the English Constitution.’” [2] Notice, from just these selected words from the resolves, that while Mason and, by extension, Washington, denounced the actions of the British government, nevertheless they still held out the belief that they were still British subjects.

The document reads: 1. Resolved, that this Colony and Dominion of Virginia can not be considered as a conquered Country; and if it was, that the present Inhabitants are the Descendants not of the Conquered, but of the Conquerors. That the same was not setled at the national Expence of England, but at the private Expence of the Adventurers, our Ancestors, by solemn Compact with, and under the Auspices and Protection of the British Crown; upon which we are in every Respect as dependant, as the People of Great Britain, and in the same Manner subject to all his Majesty’s just, legal, and constitutional Prerogatives. That our Ancestors, when they left their native Land, and setled in America, brought with them (even if the same had not been confirmed by Charters) the Civil-Constitution and Form of Government of the Country they came from; and were by the Laws of Nature and Nations, entitiled to all it’s Privileges, Immunities and Advantages; which have descended to us their Posterity, and ought of Right to be as fully enjoyed, as if we had still continued within the Realm of England. 2. Resolved, that the most important and valuable Part of the British Constitution, upon which it’s very Existence depends, is the fundamental Principle of the People’s being governed by no Laws, to which they have not given their Consent, by Representatives freely chosen by themselves; who are affected by the Laws they enact equally with their Constituents; to whom they are accountable, and whose Burthens they share; in which consists the Safety and Happiness of the Community: for if this Part of the Constitution was taken away, or materially altered, the Government must degenerate either into an absolute and despotic Monarchy, or a tyrannical Aristocracy, and the Freedom of the People be annihilated. 3. Resolved, therefore, as the Inhabitants of the american Colonies are not, and from their Situation can

378

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

not be represented in the British Parliament, that the legislative Power here can of Right be exercised only by (our) own Provincial Assemblys or Parliaments, subject to the Assent or Negative of the British Crown, to be declared within some proper limited Time. But as it was thought just and reasonable that the People of Great Britain shou’d reap Advantages from these Colonies adequate to the Protection they afforded them, the British Parliament have claimed and exercised the Power of regulating our Trade and Commerce, so as to restrain our importing from foreign Countrys, such Articles as they cou’d furnish us with, of their own Growth or Manufacture, or exporting to foreign Countrys such Articles and Portions of our Produce, as Great Britain stood in Need of, for her own Consumption or Manufactures. Such a Power directed with Wisdom and Moderation, seems necessary for the general Good of that great Body-politic of which we are a Part; altho’ in some Degree repugnant to the Principles of the Constitution. Under this Idea our Ancestors submitted to it: the Experience of more than a Century, during the government of his Majesty’s Royal Predecessors, hath proved it’s Utility, and the reciprocal Benefits flowing from it produced mutual uninterrupted Harmony and Good-Will, between the Inhabitants of Great Britain and her Colonies; who during that long Period, always considered themselves as one and the same People: and tho’ such a Power is capable of Abuse, and in some Instances hath been stretched beyond the original Design and Institution. Yet to avoid Strife and Contention with our fellowSubjects, and strongly impressed with the Experience of mutual Benefits, we always Chearfully acquiesced in it, while the entire Regulation of our internal Policy, and giving and granting our own Money were preserved to our own provincial Legislatures.

5. Resolved, that the Claim lately assumed and exercised by the British Parliament, of making all such Laws as they think fit, to govern the People of these Colonies, and to extort from us our Money with out our Consent, is not only diametrically contrary to the first Principles of the Constitution, and the original Compacts by which we are dependant upon the British Crown and Government; but is totally incompatible with the Privileges of a free People, and the natural Rights of Mankind; will render our own Legislatures merely nominal and nugatory, and is calculated to reduce us from a State of Freedom and Happiness to Slavery and Misery.

4. Resolved, that it is the Duty of these Colonies, on all Emergencies, to contribute, in Proportion to their Abilities, Situation and Circumstances, to the necessary Charge of supporting and defending the British Empire, of which they are Part; that while we are treated upon an equal Footing with our fellow Subjects, the Motives of Self-Interest and Preservation will be a sufficient Obligation; as was evident thro’ the Course of the last War; and that no Argument can be fairly applyed to the British Parliament’s taxing us, upon a Presumption that we shou’d refuse a just and reasonable Contribution, but will equally operate in Justification of the Executive-Power taxing the People of England, upon a Supposition of their Representatives refusing to grant the necessary Supplies.

6. Resolved, that Taxation and Representation are in their Nature inseperable; that the Right of withholding, or of giving and granting their own Money is the only effectual Security to a free People, against the Incroachments of Despotism and Tyranny; and that whenever they yield the One, they must quickly fall Prey to the other. 7. Resolved, that the Powers over the People of America now claimed by the British House of Commons, in whose Election we have no Share, on whose Determinations we can have no Influence, whose Information must be always defective and often false, who in many Instances may have a seperate, and in some an opposite Interest to ours, and who are removed from those Impressions of tenderness and compassion arising from personal intercourse and Connections, which soften the Rigours of the most despotic Governments, must if continued, establish the most grievous and intollerable Species of Tyranny and Oppression, that ever was inflicted upon Mankind. 8. Resolved, that it is our greatest Wish and Inclination, as well as Interest, to continue our Connection with, and Dependance upon the British Government; but tho’ we are it’s Subjects, we will use every Means which Heaven hath given us to prevent our becoming it’s Slaves. 9. Resolved, that there is a premeditated Design and System, formed and pursued by the British Ministry, to introduce an arbitrary Government into his Majesty’s American Dominions; to which End they are artfully prejudicing our Sovereign, and inflaming the Minds of our fellow-Subjects in Great Britain, by propagating the most malevolent Falsehoods; particularly that there is an Intention in the American Colonies to set up for independant States; endeavouring at the same Time, by various Acts of Violence and Oppression, by sudden and repeated Dissolutions of our Assemblies, whenever they presume to examine the Illegality of

The Fairfax County Resolves379 ministerial Mandates, or deliberate on the violated Rights of their Constituents, and by breaking in upon the American Charters, to reduce us to a State of Desperation, and dissolve the original Compacts by which our Ancestors bound themselves and their Posterity to remain dependant upon the British Crown: which Measures, unless effectually counteracted, will end in the Ruin both of Great Britain and her Colonies. 10. Resolved, that the several Acts of Parliament for raising a Revenue upon the People of America without their Consent, the creating new and dangerous Jurisdictions here, the taking away our Trials by Jurys, the ordering Persons upon Criminal Accusations, to be tried in another Country than that in which the Fact is charged to have been committed, the Act inflicting ministerial Vengeance upon the Town of Boston, and the two Bills lately brought into Parliament for abrogating the Charter of the Province of Massachusetts Bay, and for the Protection and Encouragement of Murderers in the said Province, are Part of the above mentioned iniquitous System. That the Inhabitants of the Town of Boston are now suffering in the common Cause of all British America, and are justly entitled to it’s Support and Assistance; and therefore that a Subscription ought imediatly to be opened, and proper Persons appointed, in every County of this Colony to purchase Provisions, and consign them to some Gentleman of Character in Boston, to be distributed among the poorer Sort of People there. 11. Resolved, that we will cordially join with our Friends and Brethren of this and the other Colonies, in such Measures as shall be judged most effectual for procuring Redress of our Grievances, and that upon obtaining such Redress if the Destruction of the Tea at Boston be regarded as an Invasion of private Property, we shall be willing to contribute towards paying the East India Company the Value: but as we consider the said Company as the Tools and Instrument of Oppression in the Hands of Government and the Cause of our present Distress, it is the Opinion of this Meeting that the People of these Colonies shou’d forbear all further Dealings with them, by refusing to purchase their Merchandize, until that Peace Safety and Good-order, which they have disturbed, be perfectly restored. And that all Tea now in this Colony, or which shall be imported into it shiped before the first Day of September next, shou’d be deposited in some Store-house to be appointed by the respective Committees of each County, until a sufficient Sum of Money be raised by Subscription to reimburse the Owners the Value, and then to be publickly burn’d and destroyed; and if the same is not paid for and

destroyed as aforesaid, that it remain in the Custody of the said Committees, at the Risque of the Owners, until the Act of Parliament imposing a Duty upon Tea for raising a Revenue in America be repealed; and imediatly afterwards be delivered unto the several Proprietors thereof, their Agents or Attorneys. 12. Resolved, that Nothing will so much contribute to defeat the pernicious Designs of the common Enemies of Great Britain and her Colonies as a firm Union of the latter; who ought to regard every Act of Violence or Oppression inflicted upon any one of them, as aimed at all; and to effect this desireable Purpose, that a Congress shou’d be appointed, to consist of Deputies from all the Colonies, to concert a general and uniform Plan for the Defence and Preservation of our common Rights, and continueing the Connection and Dependance of the said Colonies upon Great Britain under a just, lenient, permanent, and constitutional Form of Government. 13. Resolved, that our most sincere and cordial Thanks be given to the Patrons and Friends of Liberty in Great Britain, for their spirited and patriotick Conduct in Support of our constitutional Rights and Privledges, and their generous Efforts to prevent the present Distress and Calamity of America. 14. Resolved, that every little jarring Interest and Dispute, which has ever happened between these Colonies, shou’d be buried in eternal Oblivion; that all Manner of Luxury and Extravagance ought imediatly to be laid aside, as totally inconsistent with the threatening and gloomy Prospect before us; that it is the indispensable Duty of all the Gentlemen and Men of Fortune to set Examples of Temperance, Fortitude, Frugality and Industry; and give every Encouragement in their Power, particulary by Subscriptions and Premiums, to the Improvement of Arts and Manufactures in America; that great Care and Attention shou’d be had to the Cultivation of Flax, Cotton, and other Materials for Manufactures; and we recommend it to such of the Inhabitants who have large Stocks of Sheep, to sell to their Neighbors at a moderate Price, as the most certain Means of speedily increasing our Breed of Sheep, and Quantity of Wool. 15. Resolved, that until American Grievances be redressed, by Restoration of our just Rights and Privileges, no Goods or Merchandize whatsoever ought to be imported into this Colony, which shall be shiped from Great Britain or Ireland after the first Day of September next, except Linnens not exceeding fifteen Pence [per] yard, (German Oznabrigs) coarse woolen Cloth, not exceeding two Shillings sterling

380

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

[per] Yard, Nails Wire, and Wire-Cards, Needles & Pins, Paper, Salt Petre, and Medicines; which [three Articles only] may be imported until the first Day of September, one thousand seven hundred and seventy six; and if any Goods or Merchandize, othe[r] than those hereby excepted, shou’d be ship’d from Great Britain, [or Ireland] after the time aforesaid, to this Colony, that the same, immediately upon their Arrival, shou’d either be sent back again, by the Owners their Agents or Attorn[ey]s, or stored and deposited in some Ware-house, to be appointed by the Committee for each respective County, and there kept, at the Risque and Charge of the Owners, to be delivered to them, when a free Importation of Goods hither shall again take Place. And that the Merchants and Venders of Goods and Merchandize within this Colony ought not to take Advantage of our present Distress b[u]t continue to sell the Goods and Merchandize which they now have, or which may be shiped to them before the first Day of September next, at the same Rates and Prices they have been accustomed to do, within one Year last past; and if any Person shall sell such Goods on any other Terms than above expressed, that no Inhabitant of this Colony shou’d at any time, for ever thereafter, deal with him, his Agent, Factor, or Store keepers for any Commodity whatsoever.

declaring our most earnest Wishes to see an entire Stop for ever put to such a wicked cruel and unnatural Trade.

16. Resolved, that it is the Opinion of this Meeting, that the Merchants and Venders of Goods and Merchandize within this Colony shou’d take an Oath, not to sell or dispose of any Goods or Merchandize whatsoever, which may be shiped from Great Britain {or Ireland} after the first Day of September next as afoes, except the (three) Articles before excepted, and that they will, upon Receipt of such prohibited Goods, either send the same back again by the first Opportunity, or deliver them to the Committees in the respective Countys, to be deposited in some Warehouse, at the Risque and Charge of the Owners, until they, their Agents or Factors be permitted to take them away by the said Committees: the Names of those who refuse to take such Oath to be advertized by the respective Committees in the Countys wherein they reside. And to the End that the Inhabitants of this Colony may know what Merchants, and Venders of Goods and Merchandize have taken such Oath, that the respective Committees shou’d grant a Certificate thereof to every such Person who shall take the same. 17. Resolved, that it is the Opinion of this Meeting, that during our present Difficulties and Distress, no Slaves ought to be imported into any of the British Colonies on this Continent; and we take this Opportunity of

18. Resolved, that no kind of Lumber shou’d be exported from this Colony to the West Indies, until America be restored to her constitutional Rights and Liberties if the other Colonies will accede to a like Resolution; and that it be recommended to the general Congress to appoint as early a Day as possible for stopping such Export. 19. Resolved, that it is the Opinion of this Meeting, if American Grievances be not redressed before the first Day of November one thousand seven hundred and seventy five, that all Exports of Produce from the several Colonies to Great Britain {or Ireland} shou’d cease; and to carry the said Resolution more effectually into Execution, that we will not plant or cultivate any Tobacco, after the Crop now growing; provided the same Measure shall be adopted by the other Colonies on this Continent, as well those who have heretofore made Tobacco, as those who have n[o]t. And it is our Opinion also, if the Congress of Deputies from the several Colonies shall adopt the Measure of Non-exportation to Great Britain, as the People will be thereby disabled from paying their Debts, that no Judgements shou’d be rendered by the Courts in the said Colonies for any Debt, after Information of the said Measure’s being determined upon. 20. Resolved, that it is the Opinion of this Meeting that a solemn Covenant and Association shou’d be entered into by the Inhabitants of all the Colonies upon Oath, that they will not, after the Times which shall be respectively agreed on at the general Congress, export any Manner of Lumber to the West Indies, nor any of their Produce to Great Britain {or Ireland}, or sell or dispose of the same to any Person who shall not have entered into the said Covenant and Association; and also that they will no import or receive any Goods or Merchandize which shall be ship’d from Great Britain {or Ireland} after the first Day of September next, other than the before enumerated Articles, nor buy or purchase any Goods, except as before excepted, of any Person whatsoever, who shall not have taken the Oath herein before recommended to be taken by the Merchants and Venders of Goods nor buy or purchase any Slaves hereafter imported into any Part of this Continent until a free Exportation and Importation be again resolved on by a Majority of the Representatives or Deputies of the Colonies. And that the respective Committees of the Countys, in each Colony so soon as the Covenant and Association becomes general,

John Fell (1721–1798)381 publish by Advertisements in their several Counties {and Gazettes of their Colonies}, a List of the Names of those (if any such there be) who will not accede thereto; that such Traitors to their Country may be publickly known and detested. 21. Resolved, that it is the Opinion of this Meeting, that this and the other associating Colonies shou’d break off all Trade, Intercourse, and Dealings, with that Colony Province or Town which shall decline or refuse to agree to the Plan which shall be adopted by the general Congress. 22. Resolved, that shou’d the Town of Boston be forced to submit to the late cruel and oppressive Measures of Government, that we shall not hold the same to be binding upon us, but will, notwithstanding, religiously maintain, and inviolably adhere to such Measures as shall be concerted by the general Congress, for the preservation of our Lives, Liberties and Fortunes. 23. Resolved, that it be recommended to the Deputies of the general Congress to draw up and transmit an humble and dutiful Petition and Remonstrance to his Majesty, asserting with decent Firmness our just and constitutional Rights and Privileg[es,] lamenting the fatal Necessity of being compelled to enter into Measur[es] disgusting to his Majesty and his Parliament, or injurious to our fellow Subjects in Great Britain; declaring, in the strongest Terms, ou[r] Duty and Affection to his Majesty’s Person, Family [an]d Government, and our Desire to continue our Dependance upon Great Bri[tai]n; and most humbly conjuring and besecching his Majesty, not to reduce his faithful Subjects of America to a State of desperation, and to reflect, that from our Sovereign there can be but one Appeal. And it is the Opinion of this Meeting, that after such Petition and Remonstrance shall have been presented to his Majesty, the same shou’d be printed in the public Papers, in all the principal Towns in Great Britain.

The draft, from which the following resolves are printed, I find among Washington’s papers in the handwriting of George Mason, by whom they were probably drawn up; yet as they were adopted by the committee of which Washington was [the] chairman, and reported by him as [the] moderator of the meeting, they may be presumed to express his opinions, formed on a perfect knowledge of the subject, and after cool deliberation. This may indeed be inferred from his letter to Mr. Bryan Fairfax, in which he intimates a doubt only as to the article favoring the idea of a further petition to the King. He was opposed to such a step, believing enough had been done in this way already; but he yielded the point in tenderness to the more wavering resolution of his associates. [3]

[1] Ferling, Jim, “The Ascent of George Washington: The Hidden Political Genius of an American Icon” (New York: Bloomsbury Press, 2009), 74. [2] Howard, A.E. Dick, “‘For the Common Benefit’: Constitutional History in Virginia as a Casebook for the Modern ConstitutionMaker,” Virginia Law Review, LIV:5 (June 1968), 822. [3] Sparks, Jared, ed., “The Writings of George Washington: Being His Correspondence, Addresses, Messages, and Other Papers, Official and Private, Selected and Published from the Original Manuscripts; With a Life of the Author, Notes, and Illustrations” (Boston: Russell, Odiorne, and Metcalf, and Hilliard, Gray, and Co.; twelve volumes, 1834-37), II:468.

John Fell (1721–1798)

24. Resolved, that George Washington Esquire, and George Broadwater Gent. lately elected our Representatives to serve in the general Assembly, be appointed to attend the Convention at Williamsburg on the first Day of August next, and present these Resolves, as the Sense of the People of this County, upon the Measures proper to be taken in the present alarming and dangerous Situation of America. Historian Jared Sparks, one of Washington’s biographers who collected his papers in the 19th century, wrote as an introduction to the Fairfax County Resolves:

A delegate from New Jersey, John Fell is best known for his “diary” which documented his

382

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

travels from home to attend the 1778-80 sessions of the Continental Congress in which he served. A longtime politician in his adopted state of New Jersey, Fell served in the American Revolution and was taken prisoner by the British, spending nine months as a prisoner of war.

1774, at a meeting of citizens of Bergen County who signed a resolution at the Hackensack Court House, Fell was one of them, and was named as chairman of the County committee that eventually morphed into the Standing Committee of Correspondence and the Council of Safety. [3] This, in turn, led to the meeting of the First Provisional Congress, held in Trenton beginning on 23 May 1775, where Fell exercised his growing power in the region by ordering the arrest of those who sympathized with England, known as either Tories or Loyalists. In fact, Stephen Kemble, a well-known New Jersey military leader, in his Journal of April 1777, called Fell “a great Tory Hunter.”

He was born in New York City, on 5 February 1721 and, according to family genealogist Sarah M. Fell, “The Fells derive their name from the district of Furness Fells, the general name for High Furness in England. The Fells of Redman Hall, had been known to have been there for nineteen generations . . . John Fell of Dane Ghyll Flan Haw, near Furness Abbey, is of the same family as the Fells of Swarthmoor Hall.” Judge Thomas Fell, or his cousin John Fell, was the first ancestor to emigrate to the American colonies, just before the start of the 17th century. [1] According to his official congressional biography, John Fell attended the public schools of New York City, after which he engaged in merchant work, opening companies that established commercial and agricultural pursuits such as establishing farms and experimental land estates. [2] On 2 December 1749, Fell married Susanna Marschalk McIntosh or Mackintosh, the widow of one Charles McIntosh, a merchant in New York. Fell himself was a merchant in New York: he was one of the members of the firm of John Fell and Company, which conducted commerce outside of the colonies from about 1758 or 1759. He was also a partner in the firm of Fell and Graham, which did commerce along the Hackensack and Passaic Rivers in New Jersey. Fell and his wife had two children, a boy and a girl. The daughter, Elizabeth, married the son of New York lieutenant governor Cadwalader Colden. Because of his growing wealth, Fell purchased some 220 acres of land in what is now the town of Paramus, in Bergen County, New Jersey. Despite being a native New Yorker, Fell moved his home to Paramus, New Jersey. By 1765, he was an integral member of the New Jersey political community; the following year, he was either elected or appointed as a judge of the Court of Common Pleas for Bergen County, where he served from 1766 to 1774, and again from 1776 to 1780. Fell inserted himself into the patriot movement in New Jersey. On 25 June

Fell’s life—and his fortunes—changed on 22 April 1777. He wrote the next day in his diary of this time: “Last night I was taken prisoner from my home by twenty-five armed men who brought me down to Colonel [Thomas Van] Buskirk’s at Bergen Point, and from him I was sent to General [Sir Robert] Pigot at New York, who sent me with Captain [William] Van Allen to the Provost Jail.” Historian Adrian Leiby, in relating this diary entry, added, “Fell . . . was fortunate in having a daughter m[ar]ried to a prominent loyalist, who arranged to have food and clothing sent in to him; he was fortunate to be treated as an officer and given a room with only nine other prisoners in Provost Jail, where an ordinary civilian or private soldier might have been thrown into an empty warehouse with hundreds; and he was more than fortunate to have a strong constitution, for dozens of his fellow prisoners died in his sight from British neglect as spring, summer, and fall went by and the terrible winter cold set in.” [4] The Pennsylvania Evening Post of Philadelphia reported on 6 May 1777 that “[w]e hear that John Fell, Esq; and Captain Wyant Van Zandt, have lately been taken by the Tories in New-Jersey, and carried into NewYork.” [5] However, despite what historian Leiby stated, Fell was, indeed, harshly treated by his British captors. His imprisonment lasted from 23 April 1777 until sometime in January 1778, when he was either exchanged for a British soldier and/or officer, or he was simply released (which did not officially occur until 11 May); either way, he endured terrible conditions during the brutally cold winter months that he was held.

John Fell (1721–1798)383 Fell was elected on 6 November 1778, and, again on 17 November 1779, to a seat in the Continental Congress, “from the first day of December next, until the first day of December in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and eighty, unless a new appointment shall sooner take place.” Fell attended sessions of that body from 5 to 31 December 1778, 1 July to 17 August 1779, and from 30 August to 31 December 1779. [6] For some information, The Pennsylvania Packet and General Advertiser reported on 13 May 1778 that “[t]he Council and Assembly in joint meeting have appointed the Honorable John Witherspoon, Nathaniel Scudder, John Fell, Frederick Frelinghuysen, and Elias Dayton, Esquires, [as] Delegates in Congress for the ensuing year.” [7]

5th. Saturday was Introduced to Congress.

More than anything, correspondence, especially during the persons’ service in the Continental Congress, serves as an important barometer to their ideas and feelings as they served. However, in the case of John Fell, more than any other delegate to have served with the exception of John Adams, the thoughts of Fell are well known: He kept a detailed diary of his travels, of his time in the Continental Congress and in Philadelphia, and the events occurring around him. His diary, entitled “Journal Kept by Judge John Fell, while a Member of Congress for the State of New Jersey 1778,” and published in numerous parts in Edmund Cody Burnett’s collection of the letters of the delegates of the Continental Congress starting in volume three of that series, begins on 29 November 1778, when he wrote:

Although diaries such as this, which dwell on the tiny facts and miniscule events that one encounters in their ordinary daily lives, can quickly become tedious to the average reader, they are important chroniclers of history.

29th. Sunday. Left Petersfield. Dined at Aquackina. Lay at Newark. 3oth. Monday. Dined 5 Mile[s] from Elizabethtown. Lay at Mr. Marrinors at Brunswick. (Coll. Nelson told me, he declined going to Congress.) Decen’r 1st. Tuesday. Dined at Princeton. Spent the Evening with Governor Levingston at Trenton. 2d. Wednesday. Dined at Trenton. Received from the Secretary of New Jersey my Credentials to Congress. Lay at Bristol. 3d. Thursday. Dined at Frankford. Lay at Philadelphia. (At Mr. Whiteheads.) 4th. Fryday. at Do. Peter R Fell Returned home.

6th. Sunday Dined with Mr. Isaac Moses. 7th. Hon’ble John Jay Esqr. took his seat in Congress 8th. John Temple Esqr. Dined at Mr. Whiteheads[.] [8] Continuing on 9 December, Fell’s diary also covers internal Continental Congress events: 9. Wednesday[.] Hon’ble Henry Laurens Esqr. Resign’d his Chair as President of Congress[.] 1778, Decr. 1oth. Thursday. Hon’ble John Jay Esqr. was Elected President in the Room of Mr. Laurens Resign’d[;] for Mr. Jay[,] 8 States, Mr. Laurens 4 [states]. Virginia not Represented. Dined with Mr. Laurens[.] [9]

1778, Dec. 17th. Thursday. Sieur Gerrard requested to Ship 6ooo Cask of Rice, Reccomended to the State of So. Carolina to allow it; Letter read from Genl. Washington at Middle Brook, Relating to the disappointment of the Commissioners, who went to Amboy to meet the British Commissioners to setle an Exchange of Prisoners. Committee appointed to answer the General, Mr. Laurens, Burk, Smith and Morris. Motion for Purchasing Horses in Virginia, Postponed to consult with the General. Motion on fineance for the Bills to be cancelld by the first of June, for Weatherspoon, Duane, Geary, Ellsworth, agst. Smith and Burk. Dined with President Jay. Commercial Committee appointed vizt. Mesrs. Laurens, Smith, Lewis, Searle and Fell. 18th. Fryday [sic]. Letter from General Lee, Requesting the minutes of all the Proceedings relating to him; Do. from Mr Marlbon, Rhode Island, requesting to bring his Effects from Jamaica[.] [10] After leaving the Continental Congress in 1780, Fell returned to New Jersey, where he served as a member of that state’s Council in 1782 and 1783. Fell returned to New York, where he lived with his son and his son’s family. He died on 15 May 1798 at the age of 77; Fell was buried in the Colden Cemetery in Coldenham.

384

[1] Fell, Sarah M., comp., “Genealogy of the Fell Family in America, Descended from Joseph Fell, Who Settled in Bucks County, Pennsylvania, 1705; With Some Account of the Family Remaining in England, &C.” (Pennsylvania]: Published by An Association of the Fell Family in Western Pennsylvania, 1891), 13-14. [2] Fell official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=F000065. [3] See Smith, William Peartree, Nathaniel Appleton, Stephen Crane, John De Hart, et al. “Minutes of the Provincial Congress and the Council of Safety of the State of New Jersey” (Trenton, NJ: Printed by Naar, Day & Naar, 1879). [4] Leiby, Adrian C., “The Revolutionary War in the Hackensack Valley: The Jersey Dutch and the Neutral Ground” (New Brunswick, NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1962), 119. [5] The Pennsylvania Evening Post [Philadelphia], 6 May 1777, 249. [6] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie ­Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), III:lvi; IV:lvi. [7] “Trenton, Dec. 16.” The Pennsylvania Packet and General Advertiser [Philadelphia], 13 May 1778, 3. [8] John Fell, Diary, 5-8 December 1778, in Burnett, “Letters of Members,” op. cit., III:519. [9] John Fell, Diary, 9-10 December 1778, in ibid., III:528. [10] John Fell Diary, 17 December 1778, in ibid., III:539-40.

William Few, Jr. (1748–1828)

William Few was a statesman and banker from Georgia, a delegate to the Continental Congress (1780-82, 1786-88), and signer of the US Constitution in 1787. He later served as a US

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses senator from Georgia (1789-93) and judge of the Circuit Court of Georgia (1794-97). The son of William Few, Sr., a failed tobacco farmer, and his wife Mary (née Wheeler) Few, the junior Few was born in Baltimore, Maryland, on 8 June 1748. According to family genealogist Florence Knight Fruth, “The Few family in America may be traced to England almost three hundred years ago. In the seventeenth century the Church of England was the established religion and Charles II, the reigning monarch, did not look kindly on those who were nonconformists. Particularly stubborn were members of the Society of Friends or Quakers. A mild and gentle people, they believed each individual was worthy of the same respect and reverence accorded to anyone else. Therefore they would not remove their hats to even the king himself. For their unorthodox behavior they were often punished, flogged in the streets by the king’s officers. When Quaker leader William Penn came into possession of a large tract of land in the New World he resolved to remove the Quakers to a place more favorable to the practice of their faith.” Fruth traced the family back to Richard Few, born in the village of Market Lavington, in Wilshire, about 1625. He emigrated to the American colonies, and setted in Chester Township, in Chester County, Pennsylvania, where he died in 1688. He came with his son, Isaac, who was the grandfather of William Few, Jr. [1] The elder Few moved as a young man from where his family had settled in Pennsylvania to Maryland, where he married Mary Wheeler, a Catholic. She was the daughter of Benjamin Wheeler, from whom she had inherited a large piece of land in Maryland. Because he could not succeed at tobacco planting in Maryland, in 1758 the elder Few moved his entire family— including six children and several slaves—to North Carolina, where the chances to grow tobacco were somewhat improved. The family settled initially in what is now Orange County, near the town of Hillsboro. However, the Few children had to find proper schools in the frontier in which they moved, and it was not easy. According to biographical sources on his life, William Few was taught by “itinerant” teachers, usually tutors who travelled from school to school teaching as many children as possible. Moving into Hillsboro gave William Few the

William Few, Jr. (1748–1828)385 opportunity to have access to books and other reading materials, and he self-taught himself. But, the family was destined to have to move from North Carolina, following a series of events that struck the Fews harshly. A conflict began in North Carolina known as “The Regulator War.” Some historians also call it “The Moderator War.” The “regulators” were a group of North Carolinians who opposed the heavy taxation imposed by colonial officials in the late 1760s—in effect, it was the first sign of what would blossom into the movement for American independence less than a decade later. Famed historian John Spencer Bassett wrote in the “Annual Report of the American Historical Association” for 1894: The Regulation was not attempted as a revolution. It was rather a peasants’ rising, a popular upheaval. This is a chief new point which, it seems, a study of the records should reveal. A revolution involves a change of the form or principles of government. It is constitutional in its significance. A peasants’ rising aims at a change of agents who administer, or of the manner of administering, affairs under principles or forms that remain intact. It is a matter of party, chiefly. A revolution may embrace a popular rising, and a popular rising may run into, or in a manner partake of the nature of, a revolution; but we may always find the general difference just mentioned. Could it have had any other fate than it did have, the Regulation might possibly have run into revolution; but at the time when it was crushed it had not reached that stage. [2] While William Few was not involved in the Regulator War, his older brother James sided with the Regulators, and saw action in one of the most important battles of that conflict, the battle of Alamance (16 May 1771). James Few, just 24 or 25 years old, was one of the leaders of those forces fighting against the Crown. The famed historian George Bancroft wrote, “Nine of the [K]ing’s troops were killed and sixty-one wounded. Of the regulators, above twenty fell in battle, besides the wounded. Some prisoners were taken in the pursuit . . . The next day, James Few, one of the prisoners, was, by the governor’s order, hanged on a tree as an outlaw; and his parents were ruined by the destruction of their estate.” [3] Prior to his death, William Few, Jr., wrote out his official “autobiography.” Strangely, however,

he does not mention the circumstances of his brother’s death—in fact, Few never mentions his brother at all. He does intimate that other issues, and not the destruction of their property or the death of their son, drove the Few family from North Carolina: “My father had unfortunately got entangled in [the] law; he had been security for two or three persons who deceived him. Several lawsuits had been commenced against him and judgment had been obtained, with which his property was embarrassed; although there was property more than sufficient to meet all demands, there was difficulty in converting it into cash. Under these circumstances, my father thought it most advisable to remove with his family to Georgia and place the whole management of his affairs in my hands, with full powers to sell his property, receive the debts due to him, and pay his debts, and finally settle all his business.” [4] The Few family relocated to St. Paul’s Parish, Georgia, near the city of Wrightsboro, while William remained in North Carolina to, as he explained, complete his family’s affairs; he rejoined them in Georgia in 1776. When he arrived, the American Revolution had begun across the colonies, and another older brother, Benjamin Few, was a colonel of a company of Georgia militia. William was named as a lieutenant colonel of militia, while yet another brother, Ignatius, was a captain and later a brevet major of Dragoons. At the same time, according to his official congressional biography, William Few studied the law and was admitted to the Georgia state bar, opening a practice in the city of Augusta in 1776. He was also elected to the Georgia state House of Representatives and served terms in 1777, 1779, 1783, and, much later, in 1793. In addition, he served as a member of the Georgia state Executive Council in 1777 and 1778, and, in that latter year, Few was “engaged in the expedition for the subjugation of east Florida . . .” [5] Other sources discuss the sending of troops to east Florida in the 1778 expedition. For instance, the minutes of the Executive Council of Georgia, for 26 June 1778, stated, “Whereas by a resolution of the honorable House of Assembly pass’d the fourth day of May last his honor the Governor is empower’d to draught [draft] or cause to be draughted from the Confiscated and Sequestered Estates a number not exceeding two hundred able male Slaves for the use of the Continental Army

386

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

now employed or that at hereafter be employed on the on the expedition against East Florida to act as pioneers.” [6] Historian Abiel Holmes wrote in 1813 that the east Florida mission came about due to British incursions into the area. “These incursions were succeeded by an expedition of the Americans for the reduction of St. Augustine and the province of East Florida. This enterprize was conducted by [G]eneral Robert Howe with about two thousand men, a few hundred of whom were continental troops, and the remainder, militia of South Carolina and Georgia.” [7] In 1778, either before or after his military service, Few served as the presiding judge of the court of Richmond County, as well as Surveyor General of the state of Georgia. The following year, Few served in the Richmond County militia, with the rank of lieutenant colonel.

and, finally, on 7 November 1787 for what was the final months of the Continental Congress. Few did not attend any sessions in 1785; he did attend from 8 May 1786 to 4 December 1786, from 17 January to 12 May 1787, from 5 July to 3 August 1787, from 20 September to 10 November 1787, and then from 26 May to 18 September 1788. [11] In a letter to an unknown correspondent, dated 4 September 1788, Few wrote about the potential position for a new national capital:

On 11 January 1780, the South Carolina General Assembly elected Few to a seat in the Continental Congress; he only attended sessions from 15 May 1780 until 28 February 1781. [8] There appears to be no correspondence to or from Few during this first tenure in the Continental Congress. If we consult the Journals of the Continental Congress, we find on 2 March 1781, when the Articles of Confederation were announced as ratified the previous day, a roll call of delegates present, potentially showing who voted for that document, shows William Few in attendance as a member of the Georgia delegation. That same journal volume, in the entry for 1 May 1782, reported that “Mr. William Few, a delegate for the state of Georgia, attended and produced credentials under the great seal of the state, by which it appears that the honourable Edward Telfair, Noble Wimberly Jones, and William Few, are appointed delegates in the Congress of the United States of America, to continue in office until the first Tuesday in January, one thousand seven hundred and eighty three.” [9] After leaving the Continental Congress, Few was elected to the General Assembly in 1783. On 13 February 1784, that same body elected Few for a second time to the Continental Congress; his term was not specified, but he declined the honor for unknown reasons. [10] On 5 May 1785, Few again was elected to the Continental Congress; this time he accepted the office. He was subsequently reelected on 10 February 1786 “until the first Monday in November next,” again on 1 April 1786,

Congress have not yet agreed on the place for the first meeting of the Legislature under the new Constitution. . . . Several places have been proposed among which are Anappolis, Baltimore and Lancaster, but the competition at present lies between Philadelphia and New York, and on this question there is a diversity of opinion; it is said by the advocates for Philadelphia that it is more central and possess other advantages in an equal degree and ought therefore to be the place of residence of the National Government. To this it is objected and said that the National Legislature ought not to reside in a large Commercial City where the members would be subject to the undue influence of the local policy of the place, and that such large City would derive such advantages as would be injurious to the equal rights and priviledges [sic] of the other members of the union, contrary to the genius and principles of Republican Government and will evidently tend to facilitate the growth of that Aristocrasy or Monarchy, so hatefull to Americans, and to which there is too much reason to apprehend the New government will have a tendancy. That the place for the parmanent [sic] Residence of the New Congress is an object of much importance, and highly interesting to those States which are so Situate as to stand in competition for that advantage and they will be induced by their own Interest to make advantageous offers to the United States to establish the federal Town in their respective limits, if Congress in the first instance does not give any partial advantage, and therefore they say the first Congress under the New Constitution ought to meet in New York where all the Officers and documents of Government are and from whence the new Legislature may with more impartiality determine where the parmanent [sic] Residence of the National Legislature ought to be. [12] The necessity for a new federal constitution, to supersede the archaic Articles of Confederation, became more and more apparent, especially in the years after the end of the war in 1783. By 1787, the need for a new federal government became

William Few, Jr. (1748–1828)387 such that a Constitutional Convention was called to be held in Philadelphia starting in early 1787. The Georgia legislature elected William Few and Abraham Baldwin as well as four others as their state’s delegates to this meeting. The Maryland Journal and Baltimore Advertiser reported on 17 March 1786 from Savannah that “[t]he House of Assembly have made the choice of John Houston, Esq; as Chief-Justice, Nathaniel Pendleton, Esq; Attorney-General, and John Wereat, AuditorGeneral, of this State. Thay have also chosen William Houston, William Few, and Henry Osborne, Esqrs, Delegates to Congress for the present Year.” [13] In fact, Few had been elected not to the Continental Congress, an event that had occurred earlier in that year, but as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention. Few and Baldwin spent their entire time in the convention, and both men signed the document in September 1787. [14] Few served as a delegate to the state ratifying convention that ratified the document. The ratification of the US Constitution established a bicameral legislature, unlike the single house of the Continental Congress. Elections for that new legislature, consisting of a US Senate and a US House of Representatives, came off in November 1788. The state legislatures elected the members of the upper house. William Few, along with Abraham Baldwin, with whom he served in the Constitutional Convention, were elected and they took their seats on 4 March 1789; Few would serve until he resigned on 3 March 1793. Although he returned to Georgia to take up his law practice, in 1795 Few attempted to win back his US Senate seat, but he was unsuccessful. The previous year, Few had been named as a judge of the Circuit Court of Georgia, where he served from 1794 until 1797. In 1799, Few moved from Georgia to New York state, settling in New York City. As he had in Georgia, he injected himself into local political, serving in the New York state Assembly from 1802 to 1805. Historian Marion Letcher wrote in 1907, “[f]from this time [un]til his retirement from participation in active affairs in 1816, Mr. Few held several public offices, among which were Commissioner of Loans, Inspector of the State Prison, and Alderman of the city of New York. In addition to these public offices, Mr.

Few was a director of the Manhattan Bank from 1804 to 1814, and president of the City Bank from 1814 to 1816.” [15] In 1809, the National Intelligencer of Washington, DC, reported that “[a]t a meeting of the Republican Citizens of the City and County of New-York, for the purpose of expressing their sen[t]iments on the measures of the General Government,” that they named “Colonel Few” as the group’s secretary. [16] On 8 June 1828, his 80th birthday, Few became one of the last survivors who signed the US Constitution. On 16 July, Few died at the home of his son-in-law, Major Albert Chrystie, in the village of Fishkill-on-the-Hudson. The Augusta Chronicle and Georgia Advertiser said, “Of irreproachable morals and strict integrity, he carried into private, the virtues and the activity which he had displayed in public life. His charity was extensive and enlightened; and, during ten years, he displayed, with great zeal, the duties of inspector of the State Prison, applying all his faculties to the improvement of the Penitentiary system, and to the reform of the culprits. But what affords the greatest consolation to his afflicted family is, that he lived and died a humble and sincere believer in the Divine truths of the Christian faith.” [17] Few’s body was initially buried in New York; however, in 1976, his remains were exhumed and returned to Georgia, and he was reburied in the Saint Paul’s Episcopal Church Cemetery in Augusta, in Richmond County, Georgia. His gravestone, a large obelisk, reads, “Colonel William Few, Jr. 1748-1828. Soldier. Patriot. Statesman. Banker. Historian.” Buried next to Few is his wife, Catherine Nicholson Few, whom Few married about 1786; she died in 1824.

[1] Fruth, Florence Knight, “Some Descendants of Richard Few of Chester County, Pennsylvania, and Allied Lines, 1682-1976” (Parsons, WA: McClain Printing Co., 1977), 1-20. See also the Few family tree, online at http://www.geni.com/people/William-FewJr-Signer-of-the-US-Constitution/5084299441180081882. [2] Bassett, John Spencer, “The Regulators of North Carolina (1765-1771),” in “Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1894” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1895), 142. [3] Bancroft, George, “History of the United States of America, From the Discovery of the Continent” (New York: D. Appleton and Company; six volumes, 1888), III:401. [4] “Autobiography of Col. William Few of Georgia,” Magazine of American History, VII (1881), 345.

388

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

[5] Few official congressional biography, online at http:// bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=F000100. [6] “Savannah, June 26, 1778” in “The Revolutionary Records of the State of Georgia. Minutes of the Executive Council, from January 14, 1778, to January 6, 1785, and Journal of the Land Court, from April 6 to May 26, 1784. Compiled and Published Under Authority of The Legislature by Allen D. Candler” (Atlanta: The Franklin-Turner Company, Printers, Publishers, Binders; three volumes, 1908), II:77. [7] Holmes, Abiel, “American Annals; Or, a Chronological History of America, From its Discovery in 1492 to 1806. With Additions and Corrections by the Author, and Maps of North and South America” (London: Reprinted for Sherwood, Neely, and Jones; two volumes, 1813), II:334. [8] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), V:lvi. [9] “Journals of Congress, and of the United States in Congress Assembled. For the Year 1781. Published by Order of Congress” (Philadelphia: Printed by David C. Claypoole, 1782), VII:49-50; 360. [10] Burnett, “Letters of Members of Congress,” op. cit., VII:lxvi. [11] Ibid., VIII:lxxxv. [12] William Few to [unknown], 4 September 1788, in Paul H. Smith, ed., “Letters of Delegates to Congress, 1774-1789” (Washington, DC: Library of Congress; 26 volumes, 1976-2000), XXV:339. [13] “Savannah, Feb. 16,” The Maryland Journal and Baltimore Advertiser, 17 March 1786, 2. [14] For instance, see The Pennsylvania Packet and Daily Advertiser [Philadelphia], 19 September 1787, 1-4. [15] Letcher, Marion, “William Few, Jr.” in William J. Northen, ed., “Men of Mark in Georgia. A Complete and Elaborate History of the State from its Settlement to the Present Time, Chiefly Told in Biographies and Autobiographies of the Most Eminent Men of Each Period of Georgia’s Progress and Development” (Atlanta: A.B. Caldwell, Publisher; six volumes, 1907-12), I:90. [16] “At a meeting,” National Intelligencer [Washington, DC], 25 January 1809, 1. [17] “Died, on the 16th instant,” Augusta Chronicle and Georgia Advertiser, 2 August 1828, 351. See also the obituary for Few in the Salem Gazette [Massachusetts], 25 July 1828, 3.

move: “Resolved, That this Congress be, for the present, adjourned to the town of Baltimore, in the state of Maryland, to meet on the 20th instant, unless a sufficient number to make a Congress shall be there sooner assembled; and that, until the Congress shall otherwise order and direct all things relative to the department, and to the operations of war. That the several matters to this day referred, be postponed to the day to which the Congress is adjourned.” [1]

The Henry Fite House Located in Baltimore, Maryland, where the Continental Congress fled to in December 1776 to avoid capture by British forces invading Pennsylvania, the Henry Fite House became the headquarters of the Continental Congress from 20 December 1776 until 27 February 1777. Histories of the US Department of State list the Henry Fite House as one of the first homes of the forerunner of that government department, known as the Department of Foreign Affairs. On 12 December 1776, just months after declaring the American colonies to be an independent nation from England, the Continental Congress met and, with British troops threatening all of eastern Pennsylvania, voted to adjourn from Philadelphia and move their proceedings from that city to Baltimore. The Journals of the Continental Congress reflect the decision to

Delegate Matthew Thornton of New Hampshire, in a letter written in Baltimore to Meshech Weare, the Governor of that state, described the urgency of having the Congress move from Philadelphia: “The near Approach of the Enemy to Philadelphia, the slowness of the Militia, and the advice of Friends indus’d [sic; should be induced] Congress, to adjourn to this Town, which is about 1o Miles Southwest from Philadelphia. By our last advices the Militia are joining our army in great numbers, from which we have great hopes that G[eneral]. How[e] and his army will soon be in our power, or Return to New York. The Congress have encourag[em] ent of Assistance by the Spring. Nothing will be wanting on their part, to Support independence, Defeat the Enemy, and Render the united States [sic], Great Honorable and Happy.” [2] Once in Baltimore, the Congress quickly assembled in a structure that could handle all of the responsibilities of the delegates and their committees. John Adams, in his diary, noted on 6 February 1777 that the Congress opened in the old Court House “in the last house at the west and of Market Street, on the south side of the street; [a] long chamber with two fireplaces, two large closets and two doors.” [3] This house belonged to Henry Fite, the owner who rented it to the Continental Congress for a period of three months at the cost of ₤60. A contemporary report later said of the structure, “‘Congress Hall,’ as it was afterwards called, was a spacious three-story and dormered attic brick building—10 windows long, with 3 doors, and 4 windows deep with a center Duer on the short side. It stood on the corner of Liberty and Baltimore Street, as Market Street is now named . . . ‘Congress Hall’ was destroyed by fire on 4 September 1860, but a bronze tablet marks the approximate site of the building.” [4]

William Fitzhugh (1741–1809)389 Historian John Clark Ridpath said of Baltimore at the time, “At the beginning of the Revolution, Baltimore is said to have contained 564 houses and a population of 5934, an average of more than ten persons to a house: evidently tenement buildings were increasing. In 1776, owing to a menace against Philadelphia by the British, the Continental Congress removed from that city to Baltimore, and occupied a building on the corner of Baltimore and Liberty Streets. The house was known as Jacob Fite’s building . . .” [5]

[6] Burnett, Edmund Cody, “The Continental Congress” (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1941), 232-33. [7] “Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789. Edited from the Original Records in the Library of Congress by Worthington Chauncey Ford, Chief, Division of Manuscripts” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; 34 volumes, 1904-37), VII:168.

William Fitzhugh (1741–1809)

The two months that the Continental Congress was in Baltimore were not happy times for the delegates. Historian Edmund Cody Burnett wrote in 1941 that “the town was exceedingly expensive, and exceedingly dirty, that at times members could make their way to the assembly hall only on horseback, through deep mud.” Despite these problems, delegate Samuel Adams stated that “[w]e have done more important business in three weeks than we had done, and I believe should have done, at Philadelphia, in six months.” [6] By the middle of February 1777, conditions had changed militarily which gave impetus for the delegates to consider returning to Philadelphia. On 27 February, the Continental Congress resolved “that when Congress adjourns this evening, it be adjourned to meet at Philadelphia, on Wednesday next.” [7] The announcement was that simple and straightforward: On 4 March 1777, only a few days later, the delegates assembled at the State House in Philadelphia, and returned to their business.

[1] Resolution of 12 December 1776, in “Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789. Edited from the Original Records in the Library of Congress by Worthington Chauncey Ford, Chief, Division of Manuscripts” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; 34 volumes, 1904-37), VI:1027. [2] Matthew Thornton to Meshech Weare, the president of New Hampshire, 25 December 1776, in Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), II:188. [3] Adams, Charles Francis, “The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States: With a Life of the Author, Note and Illustrations” (Boston: Little, Brown and Company; two volumes, 1856), II:433. [4] See Fortenbaugh, Robert, “The Nine Capitals of the United States” (York, PA: The Maple Press, 1948), 22. [5] Ridpath, John Clark, “The New Complete History of the United States of America” (Washington, DC: Ridpath History Company; twelve volumes, 1905-07), IV:1712.

William Fitzhugh served in the Continental Congress for less than a year in 1779, and in several state offices during and after the American Revolution. He was born in Eagle’s Nest, in King George County, Virginia, on 24 August 1741, the son of Henry Fitzhugh, a Virginia colonial military leader, and his wife Lucy (née Carter) Fitzhugh Harrison, who remarried after her husband’s death. Considered a scion of one of early Virginia’s “colonial families,” Henry Fitzhugh was profiled by the Virginia Historical Society, which wrote of him, “[f]ollowing in the family tradition, the colonel’s public service already included command in the county militia that carried a title. He is shown by John Hesselius to be a man of intelligence, refinement, and confidence, keenly aware of both his heritage and his capabilities.” [1] The family has been traced back

390

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

to Norman and French ancestors, most likely Richard Fitzhugh who died in 1223 AD. William Fitzhugh’s great-grandfather, William Fitzhugh (1651-1701), was born in Bedford, England, and emigrated to what is now Westmoreland County, Virginia, where he established the Fitzhugh clan as one of the leaders of the colony. [2] Known as “Colonel Fitzhugh,” he served in the Virginia House of Delegates from 1677 to 1684; he also served as the Queen’s Counsel for the colony, as well as a Lieutenant Colonel in the colonial militia. A tobacco farmer, he also became a leading landowner in Virginia, purchasing some 54,000 acres prior to 1701. [3] According to genealogical research of the family, Lucy Carter, the mother of William Fitzhugh, was the daughter of “Hon. Robert Carter,” and, after her husband Henry died in 1742, she married Col. Nathaniel Harrison, of Prince George County. She had 13 children from her first marriage, and none from her second. [4]

year beginning in November, does not appear to have been presented at any time. It is as follows: “[That] Gabriel Jones, Edmund Randolph, James Mercer, Patrick Henry, William Fitzhugh, Meriwether Smith, and Cyrus Griffin Esquires [be appointed], delegates to represent this commonwealth in Congress for one year from the first Monday in November next.” In other words, the same four who were chosen to fill vacancies were also chosen for the full succeeding year (although in a different order), with the re-election of two of the present incumbents, Smith and Griffin, and the addition of Patrick Henry. Although Fitzhugh signed the delegation letter of 2 November, he appears to have ceased attendance (as did also James Mercer) promptly at the expiration of the first (short) term for which he was chosen.” However, Fitzhugh only served in sessions from 13 September to 30 October 1779. [6]

Owing to his family’s wealth, William Fitzhugh did not attend school but was taught by private tutors in the “classical studies”—the study of languages such as French, mathematics, literature, and music. He then ran his family’s tobacco estates in Virginia and engaged in “agricultural pursuits.” Fitzhugh did not get involved in local Virginia politics until 1776, when he was 35 years old. In that year, he was elected to a seat in the Virginia state House of Delegates, the lower house of the Virginia legislature, and served in 1776 and 1777. [5] In May 1779, Virginia delegates to the Continental Congress Thomas Adams, Francis Lightfoot Lee, Richard Henry Lee, and Thomas Nelson, Jr., all resigned; in their stead, Edmund Randolph, Gabriel Jones, James Mercer, and Fitzhugh were elected to the vacancies on 18 June 1779. Fitzhugh’s election was “until the first Monday in November next.” Historian Edmund Cody Burnett explained: There were two elections June 17, the result being enacted in a single resolve [on] 28 June. The first election was to fill the places of the four who had resigned, the second, for the choice of seven delegates for the succeeding delegation year. The credentials presented by Edmund Randolph, [on] 22 July, embodied only the first section of the resolve, that is, the filling of the four vacancies. The second section, pertaining to the appointment of delegates for the

There is only one piece of correspondence from Fitzhugh during his Continental Congress service: a letter that he signed, alongside fellow delegates Cyrus Griffin and James Mercer, and dated 2 November 1779, to Benjamin Harrison, the Speaker of the House of Delegates: Our Collegue Mr. Smith having charged himself with the Copies of the Petitions of the Indiana and Vandalia Companies then before Congress to lay before the House of Delegates of Virginia It falls to our Lot to hand the enclosed to you for the further and full Information of your House as to the progress of that business A Business which we conceive may in Consequences greatly affect the Interest of Virginia in the first place, and ultimately injure the Rights of all the States in the Union. Your Hon’ble House may be assured that no pains were spared by the Virginia Delegates to defend the Rights of the State and to prevent Congress from establishing a Precedent so dangerous to the common Rights of the United States, but to how little purpose may be readily discovered, when you are informed that tho’ the Committee determined this Case privately and without Notice to any of the Virginia Delegates, and tho’ their Report was so expressly counter to the Instruction of Congress, Yet 8 States to 3 were against recommitting the Report. We must however observe that we understood on that Occasion that some of the Voters agt. the recommitment were agt. the Jurisdiction of Congress, upon Information of the facts laid before the Committee which were read in Congress and not denyed. But we are sorry we are obliged to say, that Congress were

Thomas Fitzsimons (c. 1741–1811)391 so determined to proceed upon this business agt. the Rights of Virga. that on the next day, tho’ the business of Indiana and Vandalia was an order of the Day, and we had no Doubts the said Petitions wou’d be rejected, we discovered the Members for this business had changed their Ground and not only declined proceeding on the Resolution of the Committee, thereby meaning to retain that pretence for interfereing in this Business, But were also pleased to pass the Resolution of the 3oth a Copy of which is now subjoined to the other Proceedings. You’ll please observe that the ostensiable Motives for this Resolution expressed in the preamble by the words much Mischiefs were understood to be the Clamours of Maryland and the discontented States of Jersey and Delaware, and the general Inconvenience of weakening the United States by encourageing Emigrations to parts remote from the defence agt. the common Enemy. the later assertion being thought improper for the public knowledge, was avoided and thought to be sufficiently expressed in the words before alluded to. We have been thus particular in the detail of this business that your House being fully informed may consider this business on its true Principles without regard to the misconduct of Congress, and adopt such Resolutions thereupon as they may think consistant with the Interest of Virginia and the united States [sic]. We have the Honour to be, Sir[,] Yr. most obedt. and very huble Servts.,

age of 67. He was initially buried in the private cemetery on the grounds of “Ravensworth”; however, his remains were later exhumed and buried in the Pohick Episcopal Church Cemetery in Lorton, also in Fairfax County, Virginia.

[1] “Virginia’s Colonial Dynasties: Colonel Henry Fitzhugh,” courtesy of the Virginia Historical Society, online at http://www. vahistorical.org/dynasties/colonelhenryfitzhugh.htm. [2] Davis, Richard Beale, “William Fitzhugh & His Chesapeake World 1676-1701: The Fitzhugh Letters and Other Documents” (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press for the Virginia Historical Society, 1963), 10-11. See also Davis, Richard Beale, “Chesapeake Pattern and Pole-Star: William Fitzhugh in His Plantation World, 1676-1701,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, CV:6 (15 December 1961), 525-29. [3] Fitzhugh family genealogy, online at http://www. geni.com/people/William-Fitzhugh-of-Chatham-Virginia/6000000003615940385. [4] “Genealogy. Fitzhugh Family. (Continued.),” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, VII:4 (April 1900), 425-27. [5] Fitzhugh official congressional biography, online at http:// bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=F000173. [6] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), IV:lxiv. [7] The Virginia Delegates to the Speaker of the House of Delegates, Benjamin Harrison, 2 November 1779, in ibid., IV:504-05. [8] Katheder, Thomas, “The Baylors of Newmarket: The Decline and Fall of a Virginia Planter Family” (Bloomington, IN: iUniverse, 2009), 25.

Thomas Fitzsimons (c. 1741–1811)

C. Griffin Js. Mercer W. Fitzhugh [7] Returning home to Virginia, Fitzhugh was once again back in the midst of state politics, elected once again to the state House of Delegates in 1780, 1781, 1787, and 1788. He also made his estate in Virginia as a center of his economic power. Historian Thomas Katheder said, “[s] statesman and planter William Fitzhugh (17411809) built a magnificent Georgian mansion in 1768-69 on the banks of the Rappahannock [river] across from Fredricksburg, which he named Chatham in honor of William Pitt the Elder, [the] first Earl of Chatham, who advocated repeal of the Stamp Act.” [8] In 1781, Fitzhugh was elected to the Virginia state Senate, where he served until 1785. William Fitzhugh died at “Ravensworth,” his estate in Fairfax County, Virginia, on 6 June 1809 at the

Irish-born Thomas Fitzsimons came to the American colonies before he turned 20 years

392

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

old. He served in the Continental Congress (1782-83), helped to found the Bank of North America in 1781 and served as its first director. He also helped to write the US Constitution (1787), which he also signed, and served in the US House of Representatives (1789-95).

the management of the affairs of the said corporation for the ensuing year. When the following gentlemen were appointed[:] Thomas willing, James Wilson, John M. Nesbit, William Bingham, Thomas Fitzsimons, Henry Hill, Samuel Meredith, Cadwallader Morris, Andrew Caldwell, Samuel Osgood, Samuel Inglis, and George Haynes.” [3] Three days after this was reported, Fitzsimons was elected to a seat in the Continental Congress, although no specific term was specified. He attended sessions of that body from 28 November to 31 December 1782. [4] Historian Edmund Cody Burnett, the collector of the correspondence of the members of the Continental Congress, does not list any such documents, either to or from Fitzsimons, during his service.

He was born in 1741; historian Martin I.J. Griffin, in 1887, said, “Where was Thomas Fitzsimons born? Col. George Meade, whose great-grand-aunt, Catharine Meade, married Mr. Fitzsimons, gives me Belfast, 1741, though he cannot give me the source of his information. Miss Charity Robeson gives me traditional information that Wicklow, Ireland, was the place, and Mr. Maitland strengthens this by writing me: ‘It had been learned that the residence of the Maitland in Ireland was at Tubber, County Wicklow. The probabilities are that Thomas Fitzsimons was born in that neighborhood.” [1] A 1887 work by John O’Hart on “Irish Landed Gentry” shows a listing for a Richard Fitzsimons and a Thomas Fitzsimons in the Barony of Newcastle and Uppercross, both of Ballymadraught in Ireland. [2] Thomas Fitzsimons emigrated to the American colonies in 1760. He settled in Philadelphia and got work in a counting house, defined as a “building, room, or office used for keeping books and transacting business.” Fitzsimons married Catherine Meade in about 1761 and partnered with her brother, George Meade, a noted merchant in Philadelphia who owned ships and controlled a number of businesses in that city. Through his connection to Meade, Fitzsimons was able to earn a good living. By the time of the American Revolution, Fitzsimons was fully on board in support of the patriot cause. He personally raised a militia company that he led into action in 1776 against British forces. At the same time, Fitzsimons served as a member of Pennsylvania’s Council of Safety, and, as a member of the Navy Board, he aided the state in raising funds to purchase ships. On 9 November of 1782, The Independent Gazetteer; or The Chronicle of Freedom of Philadelphia reported that “[o]n Monday last, the stockholders of the bank of North America met for the purpose of electing directors, for

After returning to Pennsylvania, he resumed his work as a merchant. A report in The Freeman’s Journal of Philadelphia in December 1783 reported that “[t]he following ADDRESS was yesterday presented to his Excellency General Washington, by a Committee of the merchants of this city,” and it was signed by Charles Pettit, John Nixon, John Ross, and Thomas Fitzsimons, among others. [5] Fitzsimons served in the Pennsylvania state General Assembly in 1786 and 1787. In the latter year, he served as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, where he signed the document on behalf of Pennsylvania. With the ratification of the US Constitution, which mandated national elections for a US House of Representatives and a US Senate, Fitzsimons was elected to the First Congress (1789-91). In the House, Fitzsimons allied himself with the Federalist Party. He was re-elected to the Second Congress (1791-93), and remained in the US House of Representatives until 3 March 1795. After leaving Congress, Fitzsimons served as the president of the Philadelphia Chamber of Commerce, and as the founder and director of the Bank of North America. At a national nominating convention for president, the first ever held, which took place in 1808, Charles Willing Hare, a leading Pennsylvania Federalist, in a letter to Harrison Gray Otis, explained, “I immediately took measures for convening a few of our most

William Fleming (1736–1824)393 active firm and discreet friends. A meeting of about a dozen was held yesterday-at which your objects and reasoning were stated-and so far as regards the propriety of the proposed convention, immediately and without hesitation acquiesced in. A Committee consisting of Messrs Fitzsimons[,] R Waln Latimer[,] Morgan and myself, were appointed to correspond with you and in obedience to your suggestion to ‘organise for the South.’ We shall immediately write to some of our friends in Maryland and Delaware, and after having heard from them I shall again address you.” [6] Deeply involved in philanthropic moves in Philadelphia, Fitzsimons died in that city on 26 August 1811, his exact age unknown. He was laid to rest in Saint Mary’s Catholic Churchyard; his wife, Catherine, died the year before he did, and was buried next to him. The Federal Republican of Philadelphia said, “Few such men have lived or died in any country. He was justly considered one of the most enlightened and intelligent merchants in the United States, and his opinion upon all questions connected with commerce, was always regarded with respect, and even homage, by the mercantile part of the community. He filled many important stations, both in the general and state governments, with great reputation during the revolutionary war. In private life he was eminently useful. Hundreds in various occupations owe their establishment to his advice and good offices.” [7] Historian Charlene Bangs Bickford, an expert on the US Constitution and the Constitutional Convention, wrote (with William C. diGiacomantonio) in 1998, “A strong Federalist, Fitzsimons was one of the workhorses of the first House. His numerous committee assignments reflect his expertise in commerce and revenue, and his knowledge resulted in bills affecting tonnage, impost, collection, the coasting trade, lighthouses, and liability of ship owners, and the regulation of merchant seamen. A fellow Pennsylvanian maintained that Fitzsimons always acted in the dual capacity of public servant and merchant, and that the latter was uppermost. He had both the motive and the credibility to assume an important role in the First Session debates on the revenue system. He also successfully introduced the principle

of discriminatory duties on teas imported from India and China in foreign ships.” [8]

[1] Griffin, Martin I.J., “Thomas Fitzsimons, Pennsylvania’s Catholic Signer of the Constitution,” Records of the American Catholic Historical Society of Philadelphia, II (1886-88), 47. [2] O’Hart, John, “Irish Landed Gentry When Cromwell Came to Ireland” (Dublin: James Duffy and Sons, 1887), 249. [3] The Independent Gazetteer; or The Chronicle of Freedom [Philadelphia], 9 November 1782, 3. [4] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VI:L. [5] “The following ADDRESS,” The Freeman’s Journal: Or, The North-American Intelligencer [Philadelphia], 10 December 1783, 3. [6] Morison, Samuel E., “The First National Nominating Convention, 1808,” The American Historical Review, XVII:4 (July 1912), 751. [7] “Died on Monday,” Federal Republican & Commercial Gazette [Philadelphia], 3 September 1811, 3. [8] Bickford, Charlene Bangs, “Personality Profiles from the First Federal Congress,” OAH Magazine of History, XII:4, Congressional History (Summer 1998), 67.

William Fleming (1736–1824)

A lawyer and judge in his native Virginia, William Fleming served for less than a year in 1779 in the Continental Congress.

394

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

He was born at Cobbs, in Henrico County, Virginia, on 6 July 1736, the son of John Fleming, and his wife Mary Mercy (née Bolling) Fleming. One can trace the family back to Sir Tarleton Fleming, the son of the Colonel Charles Fleming, the Earl of Wigton in Scotland, who emigrated to the American colonies in 1616 when he landed at Jamestown. Granted a land grant in Virginia, he passed it on to subsequent generations. [1] Historians Robert Cole and Marguerite Parrish documented “the will of William Fleming,” the Sheriff of Hanover County, Virginia, in 1935. [2]

on 14 December 1778. He ultimately attended sessions from 28 April to 28 September 1779. Historian Edmund Cody Burnett explained, “Banister’s term, which Fleming was originally chosen to fill, expired 11 August 1779; however, by the act of the assembly in May, Fleming was continued in office until the first Monday in November. Meanwhile, however, he had offered his resignation.” [3]

Fleming entered the College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia, and graduated from that institution in 1763. He then studied the law under Patrick Henry, later noted for his speeches on behalf of freedom for the American colonies, and was admitted to the Virginia colonial bar about 1764. He opened a practice, probably in either Henrico or Cumberland County in Virginia. For several years, Fleming worked closely with Henry, assisting him in purchasing lands and recording the deeds that arose from the sales. The decade of the 1770s began with William Fleming as a gentleman attorney practicing among his neighbors and friends. In 1772, however, he entered the political arena and ran for a seat in the Provincial House of Burgesses, established as the royal government was attacked in the months leading up to the shooting war that began in Massachusetts in April 1774. Fleming served in the House of Burgesses until 1775, serving in both that year and the next as a delegate to a series of conventions that installed democratic government over that which had been led from London. In 1776, Fleming was named as a member of the Cumberland County committee, which oversaw political and government infrastructure in that area of the state. That same year, he was elected to the new House of Delegates, and remained in that body until 1778. Fleming married Elizabeth Champe, and together the couple had four children, two sons and two daughters. After Continental Congress delegate John Banister resigned his seat, the Virginia General Assembly elected Fleming to fill the vacancy

There are several pieces of correspondence from Fleming, all to fellow Virginian Thomas Jefferson. In the first, dated 10 May 1779, Fleming writes of matters inside the Continental Congress that he cannot write about: I wish it were in my power to write you satisfactorily on the state of our public affairs. My residence here is of too short a date to enable [me] to form a proper judgment of them. There are matters of great concern now before congress, of which I am not at liberty to speak freely, tho’ I am of opinion we may have peace on honorable and advantageous terms, in the course of the ensuing winter. I beg I may not be put in nomination at the ensuing election of delegates to serve in Congress as I find it next to impossible for me to serve longer than til August, should my country be disposed to continue me here; for besides my own loss of time, and the long separation from my family, my expences are so enormous that I find my fortune quite insufficient to support them. I am in private lodgings, with only a servant and two horses, which are in the continental stable, and I live as frugal as possible, notwithstanding which it costs me, at least, 25 £ a week, over and above my wages. If our assembly do not determine to support their delegates in congress, they will shortly find that none of those of small fortunes will be able to continue here long enough to make themselves acquainted with the business they come to transact, so as to render them essential service; for I think I already discover men here who have local views highly detrimental to the general good of the union. [4] Fleming came to the Continental Congress at a time of great division and confusion. New Jersey ratified the Articles of Confederation in November 1778, and the hopes for a full confederation of all of the states seemed at hand—until Maryland’s delegates arrived to announce that that state would refuse to ratify the Articles of Confederation and not join the United States unless certain changes were

William Fleming (1736–1824)395 made to the document. The Virginia delegates, including Fleming, received word from their state on 20 May 1779 that they should push for a confederation without Maryland. When the Maryland delegates laid before Congress their state’s reasons for refusing to join the confederation, Fleming exploded. In a letter to Jefferson, Fleming penned, “It is of the utmost consequence that the confederation be speedily ratified. It would in a great degree give force and energy to the proceedings of congress, and defeat the hope our enemy entertains of dividing us. Maryland is the only state that now refuses to accede tho’ many of the states have acceded on condition that all the rest come into the confederation. The Maryland delegates, a few days ago, delivered in, to congress, an instruction from their assembly on the subject; and a very extraordinary, indecent performance it is: a copy will be sent by the express to our assembly for their consideration, and I hope we shall be favoured with a proper comment upon it.” [5] Things seemed to calm down, as illustrated by the remarks made by Fleming in this missive to Jefferson, dated 22 June 1779: That peace and the independance of the thirteen states are within our power is a point not well established; but thus much I think myself at liberty to say, that Congress, long before my arrival here, were called on to declare on what terms they would consent to a peace [?] and to fix their ultimatum. They have been debating the matter ever since, and have not yet come to a point, tho’ I think there is now a prospect of that necessary business being shortly finished. The difficulties have mostly arisen in the East, but have been supported from the south side of Powtomack; tho’ much of that support is now withdrawn. The extreme delay in this business necessarily gives great uneasiness to the French minister, but that he was about to return to his own country in disgust is not true. This climate is very unfavourable to his constitution, and he had it much at heart to leave it before the hot season came on, and now only waits the determination of Congress on this important business. [6] After he left the Continental Congress, Fleming returned to Virginia, where he took up his law practice. In 1788, he was named as a judge on the state General Court, at that time the highest judicial body in the state. A year later, he was

elected as a member of the state Supreme Court when it was established, and he remained on that court until his death. In 1809, he rose to become the president of that court. [7] In March 1823, the Baltimore Patriot & Mercantile Advertiser reported “[f]from a letter of Judge William Fleming, the President of the Virginia Court of Appeals, we learn that he is in the eighty-seventh year of his age. He says he has not had a fever for five years past, has a good appetite for food, and sleeps well.” [8] William Fleming was one of the longest-living former members of the Continental Congress. He died at his country home, “Summerville,” in Chesterfield County, Virginia, on 15 February 1824 at the age of 87. He was laid to rest in the Fleming Family Cemetery, now called the Summerville Plantation, located in Midlothian, in Chesterfield County. The Richmond Enquirer said, “We pay the melancholy duty we owe to a pure, revolutionary patriot, a most venerable citizen, an upright judge, in recording the death of William Fleming, Esquire, Presiding Judge of the Court of Appeals of Virginia. He was descended to the tomb, full of years and accompanied by the universal respect of his fellow-citizens. The life of such a man calls for something more than a hasty paragraph in a newspaper.” [9]

[1] Fleming family tree, online at http://www.geni.com/people/ Judge-William-Fleming/6000000002314533766. See also Brand, Franklin Marion, “The William Fleming Family (a Genealogy) with a Brief Account of Some Other Flemings of Delaware” (Charleston, WV: Mathews Ptg. & Litho Co., 1941). [2] Cole, Robert F., and Marguerite S. Parrish, “Will of William Fleming Sheriff of Hanover County, Virginia, 1727-1728,” The William and Mary Quarterly, Second Series, XV:4 (October 1935), 424-27. [3] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the ­Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the ­Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), IV:lxiv. [4] Fleming to Thomas Jefferson, 10 May 1779, in Burnett, ­“Letters of Members,” op. cit., IV:205-06. [5] Fleming to Thomas Jefferson, 22 May 1779, in ibid., IV:226. [6] Fleming to Thomas Jefferson, 22 June 1779, in ibid., IV:281. [7] Mays, David John, “Sketch of William Fleming, the Third President of the Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia” (Richmond, VA: Richmond Press, Inc., Printers, 1928). [8] Baltimore Patriot & Mercantile Advertiser, 20 March 1823, 2. [9] Richmond Enquirer, 19 February 1824, 3.

396

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

William Floyd (1734–1821)

Hannah Jones; the couple would have three children. Building his plantation and merchant business, Floyd became one of the wealthiest men in the New York colony—so much so, that when Connecticut needed a loan, the colonial governor, Jonathan Trumbull, went not to a bank but to Floyd to lend money to the government. Unlike many northerners, especially those who believed in freedom, Floyd owned slaves; by 1793, he owned at least eleven.

One of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence, William Floyd was a two-time delegate to the Continental Congress (1774-76, 1779-83) from his native New York, as well as a well-known merchant and landowner. The eldest son of Nicoll and Tabitha (née Smith) Floyd, he was born in Brookhaven, on New York’s Long Island, on 17 December 1734. Nicoll Floyd was a wealthy landowner; according to a family tree, his grandfather, Richard Floyd, had emigrated from Brenochshire (now Brecknockshire), Wales, in the southern part of that country, to Massachusetts about 1650, eventually moving on to Brookhaven, New York, where he invested in land and became prosperous. Richard Floyd founded the village of Setauket on Long Island. His son Nicoll continued the investments, building the estate known as “Mastic” in the decade before his son William was born. [1] William Floyd was the eldest of eight children, and his father’s prosperous business allowed him to gain an education few people at the time could afford. However, he turned all of this down to run his father’s estate, which he was given control of in 1755 when he was 21. Five years later, he married

By the early 1770s, Floyd was deeply involved in the movement to fight the series of harsh economic policies enacted by the British Parliament, legislation that forced more colonists to demand an end to the policies or push for a full break from London. On 5 September 1775, Floyd threw his lot in with the latter group, and that same year he was named as a colonel in the New York militia. The opening shots of a war for American independence had come the previous year in Massachusetts, at Lexington and Concord. A collection of biographies of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence from 1846 stated, “Mr. Floyd had been appointed to the command of the militia of the county of Suffolk, and upon his return [from the Continental Congress] he found Long Island menaced with an invasion from a naval force assembled in Gardiner’s Bay, the avowed object of gathering supplies. When the landing of the enemy was reported to him he promptly assembled the force under his command, and marched to the point of attack. It was, perhaps, fortunate for his little army, composed of raw and undisciplined militia, that the terror of their approach left nothing for their arms to accomplish.” [2] On or about 11 August 1774, to address a call for delegates from all 13 American colonies to meet in Philadelphia to address the war that had exploded, as well as the overall response to continued aggression by Britain, the New York General Assembly elected Floyd as one of the delegates to represent New York. He arrived in Philadelphia on 5 September 1774 for the first day of the meeting which would become the First Continental Congress; he would eventually attend sessions of the body from that date until 26 October 1774, from about 10 May to about 17 July 1775, from about 12 September to about 21 September 1775, from about 3 November 1775 to about 11 February 1776, an then from about 23 April to 4 July 1776. Floyd

William Floyd (1734–1821)397 was reelected to that body on 22 April 1775, and he remained in Philadelphia long enough to join his 55 brethren in signing the Declaration of Independence. Historian Edmund Cody Burnett wrote, “Floyd’s election in 1774 was by and for the county of Suffolk. The date of the election is assumed to have been the same as that of the notification sent the New York committee of correspondence . . . Although Floyd is not recorded in the Journals until 24 June 1775, his name is signed to a delegation letter of 18 May.” [3] While there are several pieces of correspondence from Floyd during his Continental Congress service, none are of vital importance. However, there are eyewitness accounts of him. Delegate Silas Deane of Connecticut, in a letter to his wife in early September 1774, wrote, “Thursday. Col. Floyd and my brother arrived. The city is full of people from abroad and all the lodgings in town [are] full, or engaged.” [4] As well, the Journals of the Continental Congress do show him to be present, but he did not participate in many of the important debates of the Continental Congress, and as such his impact was brief at best. The ultimate dates of his service are confirmed by contemporary accounts: The New-York Journal reported on 19 January 1775, “The following Address from the Committee of Correspondence of the Township of Jamaica in Queen’s County, Long-Island, was lately presented to the Delegates who represented this province in the late general Congress: Gentlemen, We cheerfully embrace this opportunity of publicly acknowledging in behalf of ourselves and our constituents, our most grateful sense of the arduous, faithful and important services you have rendered your country in the present most alarming conjuncture of affairs.” [5] The Norwich Packet of Connecticut reported on 11 May 1775, “A provincial convention met here last Thursday, and next day we hear, the following gentlemen were chosen to represent this province at the continental congress [sic] to be held at Philadelphia the 10th of May next, viz.,” and then stated “For Suffolk county [sic], Col. William Floyd, Esq.” [6] Six days later, The Massachusetts Spy reported that a number of delegates to the Continental Congress had arrived in New York City; these included John Adams, Samuel Adams, Silas Deane, and Roger Sherman, among others, and that “[o]n Monday morning the above

gentlemen, with Philip Livingston, James Duane, John Alsop, and Francis Lewis, Esqrs. Delegates for this city; Col. William Floyd, for Suffolk, and Simon Boerum, for King’s county [sic], in this province set out for Philadelphia, attended by a great train to the North-River Ferry, where two or three sloops and a number of other vessels were provided, and it is said about 500 Gentlemen crossed the ferry with them, among whom were two hundred of the militia under arms.” [7] A delegate to the Continental Congress from South Carolina, in meeting all of the members of the New York delegation, wrote to John Jay, “Recollect the manner in which your Colony is at this time represented. [George] Clinton has Abilities but is silent in general and wants (when he does speak) that Influence to which he is entitled. Floyd, [Henry] Wisner, [Frances] Lewis and [John] Alsop[,] tho’ good men, never quit their chairs.” While he sat in the Continental Congress, on 17 August 1776, the British attacked the American troops in the battle of Long Island, winning a decisive victory and leaving the entire area under British control. Rumors of estates being plundered and burned reached Floyd in Philadelphia; he wrote, “[I]s New York to be Evacuated as well as Long Island with out fighting, or will our army like the Romans of old Consider the Invaluable prize for which they are Contending and with their fortitude Attack the Enemy were Ever such they can find them[?]” Floyd’s family, while they were still alive, were harassed by British forces near his home, and were forced to flee for their lives to safety in Connecticut; he joined them there, and he returned to Long Island in 1777 after it had been recaptured. In 1781, because of the strain of the entire crisis, Hannah Floyd died; in 1784, the year after the end of the war, Floyd married Joanna Strong, and she and Floyd had two children, both girls. In 1778, Floyd, in the middle of the fight in New York state, was again elected to the Continental Congress. According to another collection of biographies of the men who signed the Declaration of Independence, “[f]rom this time, until the expiration of the congress [in 1789], under the federal constitution, General Floyd was either a member of the national assembly [the Continental Congress], or a member of the Senate of New-York [state].” [8] Under the new US Constitution, elections for a new federal Congress were established

398

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

for November 1788; Floyd was at that time elected to the First Congress (1789-91), but was unsuccessful in being reelected to the Second Congress (1791-93). In 1795, Floyd was a candidate for lieutenant governor of New York state, opposed by Stephen Van Renssalaer in an unsuccessful try. In his last public offices, in 1801 he served as a delegate to the New York state Constitutional Convention, and, finally, in 1808, he served a single term as a state senator.

home, on the National Register of Historic Places, this one in 1971. [12]

By the end of the second decade of the 19th century, Floyd was hailed as one of the handful of surviving signers of the Declaration of Independence. When, in June 1818, a Baltimore newspaper published a list of Declaration survivors without mentioning that Floyd was still among that group, other papers stepped in to “scold” the Baltimore paper for the missing information. [9]. On 4 August 1821, Floyd died at his home in Westernville, New York. Newspapers hailed this patriot, this man who had suffered the loss of his wife and fortune to side against England. The American Mercury said, “Thus, another patriot of the Revolution is gone! He was one of the remaining four, viz: John Adams, Thomas Jefferson, Charles Carroll, and William Floyd, who signed the Declaration of our Independence.” [10] A biography of Floyd by historian William Quentin Maxwell states, “[f]rank and independent, Floyd was noted for decorous deportment which, though it discouraged intimacy, never cost him popular favor. Floyd, however, fell short of the British gentlemanly ideal. The son of a wealthy freeholder, he should have had a sounder classical education. His concerns lay too much with business.” [11] But this is far too simplistic: William Floyd was not just a businessman—he, like his fellow signers of the Declaration of Independence, like his fellow delegates to the Continental Congress, all put their lives on the line, their fortunes, their reputations, their health, in jeopardy. Although he died in western New York state, Floyd’s home on Long Island, today called The William Floyd Estate, is part of the Fire Island National Seashore. The estate was listed on the National Register of Historic Places in October 1980. The home that he died in, in Westernville, New York, is privately owned, but is called The General William Floyd House, listed, like Floyd’s other

[1] See the Floyd political family tree online at www.politicalfamilytree. com/samples%20content/members/signers/Floyd-NY-1.pdf. [2] Conrad, Robert T., ed., “Sanderson’s Biography of the Signers to the Declaration of Independence” (Philadelphia: Thomas, Cowperthwait & Co., 1846), 194. [3] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), I:liii. [4] Silas Deane to Mrs. Deane, 1-3 September 1774, in ibid., I:4. [5] “New-York,” The New-York Journal, 19 January 1775, 2. [6] “New-York, May 4,” The Norwich Packet [Connecticut], 11 May 1775, 2. [7] Goodrich, The Rev. Charles, “Lives of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence” (Hartford, CT: R.G.H. Huntington, 1842), 185. [8] “New-York, May 11,” The Massachusetts Spy, Or American Oracle of Liberty [Worcester], 17 May 1775, 3. [9] For instance, see “Declaration of Independence,” Franklin Gazette [Philadelphia], 2 July 1818, 2. [10] “The Late Gen. William Floyd,” American Mercury [Hartford, Connecticut], 21 August 1821, 2. See also the obituary for Floyd in the Connecticut Herald, 21 August 1821, 3. [11] Maxwell, William Q., “A Portrait of William Floyd, Long Islander” (Setauket, Long Island: Society for the Preservation of Long Island Antiquities, 1956), 5. [12] Torres-Reyes, Ricardo, “The William Floyd Estate, Fire Island National Seashore, New York” (Denver: Denver Service Center, Historic Preservation Team, National Park Service, US Department of the Interior, 1974).

Nathaniel Folsom (1726–1790)

A delegate from New Hampshire to the Continental Congress (1774, 1777-80), Nathaniel Folsom was more of a soldier than a politician,

Nathaniel Folsom (1726–1790)399 lending his service in the French and Indian War as well as the American Revolution. He later served in several New Hampshire state offices. The son of Jonathan and Anna (née Ladd) Folsom, he was born in Exeter, in Rockingham County, New Hampshire, on 18 September 1726, descended from John Foulsham of Hingham in Suffolk. In an address delivered in 1903 by historian Henry M. Baker, Baker noted, “The Folsom family was of good English stock. John Folsom, an ancestor of Gen. Nathaniel Folsom and the first of this family to settle in America, came on the ship Dilligent of Ipswich, England, in 1638, and found a home in Hingham, Massachusetts. Less than two years before, he had married Mary Gilman. Thus, even while in the mother country, the families of the Folsoms and the Gilmans, so distinguished in New Hampshire, were associated. He removed to Exeter . . . in 1653.” [1] Another Folsom biographer, historian William A. Robinson, stated, “Letters during his official career would indicate, by their grammar and spelling, that he enjoyed few educational advantages.” [2] Following the conclusion of the education he did receive, Folsom spent nearly the remainder of his life in the military. Starting about 1755, as a Captain in the English regiment commanded by Colonel Joseph Blanchard, Folsom saw action in the French and Indian War; during the fight against the French at Crown Point, a fortification built by the French in 1731, and he gained distinction with his command of the New Hampshire armies, as well as his services in the fight against the French led by Major General Jean-Armand Baron de Dieskau at Lake George, also near Lake Champlain in the Finger Lakes in upstate New York. [3] Folsom then rose through the military ranks, prompted to major, lieutenant colonel, and, finally, colonel, the latter rank gained as a member of the Fourth Regiment of the New Hampshire militia. He was still in command of this militia unit when the American Revolution began in 1774. Upon the beginning of that conflict, Folsom served as the commander of New Hampshire troops sent to fight the British siege of the city of Boston, Massachusetts. He was then given the rank of major general, and, as stated in his official congressional biography, “planned the details of troops sent from New Hampshire to [Fort] Ticonderoga.” [4]

In 1774, Folsom entered the political arena. The New-Hampshire Gazette reported on 15 April of that year, from Portsmouth, that among several other men, “Nathaniel Folsom, Esq.,” was chosen and returned to represent their respective Towns in the General Assembly conven’d at Portsmouth the 7th Instant.” Folsom was sent representing the city of Exeter. [5] In July 1774, when the New Hampshire colonial legislature met to decide on electing delegates to a meeting of all of the colonies in Philadelphia that September, Folsom was elected on 21 July 1774. He ultimately attended sessions from 5 September 1774, the first day of the Continental Congress, to 26 October 1774. [6] On 19 June 1775, The Norwhich Packet published an “extract of a letter from a Member of the Continental Congress,” in which this person penned, “‘The Congress are as firm as a Rock; they are firmly united in all their resolutions.’ It has been reported, that the honorable the continental congress have voted seventy thousand men for the common defence of the just rights and libertie [sic] of the American colonies—Also, the sum of three millions of lawful money toward their support. The 2000 men, voted to be raised by the NewHampshire congress, are all enlisted, and many of them have already joined the American army. They are commanded by General Nathaniel Folsom.” [7] While there are no letters from Folsom during this period of his first service in the Continental Congress, there is a piece of correspondence from Folsom’s fellow New Hampshire delegate Josiah Bartlett to Folsom, dated 6 June 1776, “The affair of Declaring these Colonies Independant States and absolved from all allegience to the Crown of Brittain [sic] must soon be Decided whatever may be the opinion of the Delegates of Newhampshire [sic] on that matter. They think it their Duty to act agreable to the minds of their Constituents and in an affair of that Magnitude Desire the Explicit Directions of the Legislature of the Colony and that it may be forwarded to us as soon as possible.” [8] After leaving the Continental Congress, Folsom continued his military career; however, on 1 April 1777, he was again elected to a seat in the Continental Congress, “for northeast year next

400

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

ensuing.” He arrived in Philadelphia on 20 July and took his seat the following day, and then served until 31 December 1777. [9] As opposed to his first time in Philadelphia, during this service in the Continental Congress Folsom wrote several letters on his service. In the first, Folsom wrote to Meshech Weare, the president of New Hampshire, on 26 July 1777:

Folsom wrote of his support for the Articles of Confederation: “Inclosed I send you a Copy of the Articles of confederation [sic] as far as agreed to by Congress. The 9th article is, ‘That the proportion of public expense incurred by the United States for their common defense and general welfare, to be paid by each State into the Treasury, be ascertained by the value of all lands within each state granted to or surveyed for any person, as such land and the buildings and improvements thereon, shall be estimated according to such mode as Congress shall from time to time direct.’ This article was opposed by all the New England Delegates and we are yet in hopes of having it re-considered.” [12]

I arrived here in good Health the 2oth. being stopt [sic] two days on the Road by foul wather [sic]: I Performed the journey in 12 Days. on my joining the Congress I found them worried with Petitions from a grate [sic] Number of French gentlemen for commissions to serve in our army to be made generals and none less then Colonels and that our agents in france [sic] and general Washington in the camp were not less troubled with them. The first oppurtunity we had we presented the Petition of Mr. Phillbrook and that of our State to the Consideration of Congress which was referred to the treasury board and this morning we are to have a hearing before them. By what we Can learn from the members and the exhausted state of the Treasury, at this Time we despair of success on the Petition of the State, tho it seems to be the wish of Congress that the same thing which is asked by us might be done with each of the thirteen United States. However if we should fail now we shall embrace the first favourable oppurtunity to try them again and do every thing in our Power to accomplish so desirable an end. I am not without hopes of obtaining a grant for Mr. Phillbrook as at Present I have heard no objection to it. [10] On 12 “agust” 1777, Folsom wrote to Josiah Bartlett on the battle for Fort Ticonderoga, “I Recd. your Kind feavover [sic] of the first Instant in which you have Represented the Effect and Consequence that have taken Place with the People at Large by the Loss of that important fortrise [sic] tyconderoga [sic], and I find them the Same that wase [sic] Expected by all the Newengland [sic] Dellegates [sic], and mad use of in thaire arguements [sic] in Congress for the Recalling of the Generals Schyler and Sat Clare and for an inquirey [sic] in to thaire [sic] conduct for three Days togather abought Eighteen Days agoe [sic], which wase most voilently [sic] aposed [sic] by the New york and Some of the Southern members, but at last Carried by a Large majorety [sic], and a Committe appointed.” [11] In a letter to Meshech Weare, the president of New Hampshire,

After his second term in the Continental Congress, Folsom returned to New Hampshire, where he became a part of that state’s electoral process. Having been elected as an Executive Councilor in 1778, in 1783 he was elected as a delegate to the New Hampshire state constitutional convention, and served as the convention’s president. Prior to his death, Folsom served in a final office, as a justice on the Court of Common Pleas in Exeter. Nathaniel Folsom died in Exeter on 26 May 1790 at the age of 73. [13] He was buried in that city’s Winter Street Burial Ground. His tombstone merely reads, “Honorable Nathaniel Folsom Esqr. 1790.” Folsom had been married twice: His first wife, Dorothy Smith, died in 1776; he then married a widow, Mary Sprague Fisher. Folsom had one child, a son, Arthur, who died as an infant in 1766.

[1] Baker, Henry Moore, “General Nathaniel Folsom; An Address Delivered April 8, 1903, Before the New Hampshire Historical Society.” [Concord, New Hampshire[?]: No Publisher, 1904[?]), 1. For additional genealogical information, see Folsom, Nathaniel Smith, “Descendants of the First John Folsom: Through Dea[con] John, Lieut. Peter, and Ephraim Folsom” (Boston: For Private Distribution, 1876). [2] “Folsom, Nathaniel” in Allen Johnson, et al., “Dictionary of American Biography” (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons; eleven volumes and five supplements, 1958-77), VI:494. [3] See Winthrop Sargent, ed., “The History of an Expedition Against Fort Du Quesne, in 1755; Under Major General Edward Braddock, Gernealissimo of H.R.M. Forces in America” (Philadelphia: Lippincott, Grambo & Co., 1855). [4] Folsom official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=F000244. [5] “Portsmouth,” The New-Hampshire Gazette, and Historical Chronicle [Portsmouth],15 April 1774, 2.

James Forbes (c. 1731–1780)401 [5] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), I:xlix. [6] Josiah Bartlett to Nathaniel Folsom, 6 June 1776, in ibid., I:475-76. [7] “Extract of a Letter from a Member of the Continental Congress,” The Norwhcih Packet and Weekly Advertiser [Connecticut], 19 June 1775, 2. [8] Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress,” op. cit., II:liii. [9] Nathaniel Folsom to Meshech Weare, the president of New Hampshire, 26 July 1777, in ibid., II:426. [10] Nathaniel Folsom to Meshech Weare, 27 October 1777, in ibid., II:535. [11] Folsom to Josiah Bartlett, 12 August 1777, in ibid., II:449. [12] Folsom to Meshech Weare, 27 October 1777, in ibid., II:535. [13] See the rather short obituary for Folsom in The Salem Gazette [Massachusetts],1 June 1790, 3.

James Forbes (c. 1731–1780)

James Forbes, who served in the Continental Congress from Maryland from 1778 to 1780, was a justice of the peace in his native state, rising to serve in the Maryland state General Assembly as well. Forbes was born near Benedict, in Charles County, Maryland. In the early years of the decade of the 1770s, while the 13 American colonies wrestled first with their individual response to a series of harsh economic measures enacted by the British Parliament on the colonies, most notably Massachusetts, leaders in all of these colonies stepped up, either to support Massachusetts or to demand an end

to royal rule in their respective colony. And while a number of colonial leaders in Maryland stood forward, histories of the period show that James Forbes was not among them. In fact, an 1849 work on the events in Baltimore and in Maryland overall do not even have a mention of Forbes. [1] And, because there is no central work on his life, and few biographical resources about him, it is impossible to say exactly what role Forbes did play. What can be said of Forbes, at least as his official congressional biography relates, is that he was appointed a justice of the peace for Charles County, Maryland, on 1 April 1777, and, that same year, he was named as the tax commissioner for that same county as well as being elected to the state General Assembly. On 22 December 1777, Forbes was elected by the members of the General Assembly to serve as a delegate to the Continental Congress. He was subsequently reelected on 13 November 1778, and attended sessions of that body from 17 January to 17 April 1778, and from 13 July to about 2 October 1778. [2] Two pieces of correspondence—both from Forbes to Thomas Johnson, the governor of Maryland—exist in the collection of letters collected by historian Edmund Cody Burnett. In the first, dated 13 February 1778, and written not from Philadelphia but from York, Pennsylvania, where the Continental Congress had fled, Forbes writes: I should have don my self the honour to have wrote you before now, had I any thing worth communicating. This is to inform you that the appointment of Commershall agents in France has been moved for in Congress, in consequence of Mr. Wm. Lee’s being appointed, a Commissioner, to the Courts of Vienna and Berlin, and of a Letter from Mr. Robt. Morris, recommending Mr. Jno. Ross, to suckseed [sic] his Brother. I put Mr. Joshua Johnson in the nomination, and I believe, had Congress made the appointment, he would have been chosen, but they resolved that the Commissioners in France shoud appoint them, and they are wrote to on the 9th Instt, for that purpose. had I known how to have directed to your Brother, I would have wrote him on the Subject . . .Ten States only, are represented in Congress, and one half of them, by one member only Masechusits [sic], New York and Virginia have noe representation. I shall doe my self the honour of writing you when any thing offers worth communicating and am very respectfully Sir. [3]

402

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

In the second letter, also from York and dated 24 March 1778, Forbes makes comments on the state of the housing in that city, along with other matters:

[5] Burnett, “Letters of Members,” op. cit., IV:lii. [6] Ibid., V:lvii.

Mr. [Samuel] Chase [a delegate from Maryland] is just arrived, but seems to be determined to make but a short stay, on Account of the very bad accommodations this place affords . . .Your Lettr to Genl. [Horatio] Gates on the Subject of an Embargoe [sic] and the Virga. Frigate was committed and a report ready but it has not yet been taken up in Congress I apprehend an Embargoe [sic] on provisions will take place, but am affraid [sic] a general one will not be agreed to’ when any thing material occurs shall do my self the honour of writing you . . .Virga. and N. York only, have agreed on form to the ratification of the Confederation most of the other States have proposed amendments, but the Members say they are instructed to ratefy, if the amendments cant be obtained. noe [sic] time fixt [sic] for taking up this matter in Congress. [4] Reelected to the Continental Congress on 13 November 1778, Forbes continued to sit in that body, attending further sessions from 12 July to 31 December 1779; credentials for additional service were not presented to the Continental Congress until 14 June 1780. [5] Reelected on 22 December 1779, he continued to attend sessions, from 1 January to about 10 March 1780. On 25 March 1780, Forbes died suddenly in Philadelphia while attending his duties in the Continental Congress. [6] Forbes was laid to rest in the burial ground of the Christ Church in Philadelphia, where fellow Continental Congress delegates such as Joseph Hewes of North Carolina, Francis Hopkinson of Pennsylvania, and George Ross of Pennsylvania are all buried.

[1] Purviance, Robert, “A Narrative of Events which Occurred in Baltimore Town During the Revolutionary War: To Which are Appended, Various Documents and Letters, the Greater Part of Which Have Never Been Heretofore Published” (Baltimore: Printd [sic] by J. Robinson, 1849). [2] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), III:liii. [3] James Forbes to the Governor of Maryland, Thomas Johnson, Jr., 13 February 1778, in ibid., III:84-85. [4] James Forbes to the Governor of Maryland, Thomas Johnson, Jr., 24 March 1778, in ibid., III:142-43. The “confederation” that Forbes writes about is the proposed Articles of Confederation, which would not be enacted until later in 1778 and sent to the states for ratification.

The Department of Foreign Affairs Today, the US Department of State handles all foreign relations of the United States. In the first years of the nation’s existence, however, there was no physical department, but committees in the Continental Congress attended to by a series of delegates. Later, there was a secretary, and an office (“of” instead of “for”) Foreign Affairs. Once the US Constitution was signed in 1787, leading to national elections in November 1788, President George Washington, established a “Department of State” in March 1789. From the very start of the Continental Congress, foreign affairs were controlled by specific committees of that body. Organized on 5 September 1774, one of the first acts of the Continental Congress, on the 25th day of the next month, was the formulation of a letter addressed to King George III, in which case the delegates resolved that it “be enclosed in a letter to the several colony agents, in order that the same may be by them presented to His Majesty.” The letter was signed by Henry Middleton as the president of the Continental Congress, and was addressed to “Paul Wentworth, Esq., Doctr. Benj. Franklin, William Bollen, Esq., Doctr. Arthur Lee, Thomas Life, Esq., and Charles Garth, Esq.” The letter specifically said that the delegates “commit the enclosed Paper to your care. We desire you will deliver the Petition into the Hands of his Majesty, and after it has been presented we wish it may be made public through the Press, together with the List of Grievances.” In effect, this was the first use of foreign relations utilized by the delegates of the Continental Congress. The Continental Congress, for all of its abilities to shape policy, build up a Continental Army that took on the forces of the British Empire, to rally support for a declaration of independence taking America from 13 colonies to a nation on the world stage, still found itself woefully unable to conduct foreign policy. Complaints about how poorly the committees handled foreign relations included missing reports, unanswered correspondence, and slow deliberations on important matters. Historian E.R. Johnson wrote in 1898:

The Department of Foreign Affairs403 There being no separate executive branch of the government, the exercise of these and the other executive functions was controlled by Congress, either directly or through committees. The officials the United States sent abroad were appointed partly by Congress and partly by its committees. The three committees that exercised control over foreign affairs were those respectively on secret correspondence, on commerce and on the marine. The first of these was established by Congress [on] November 29, 1775, its name being changed in April, 1777, to “the committee of foreign affairs.” This body conducted the greater part of the correspondence with the American agents and commissioners abroad until, experience having demonstrated the inability of a committee of five men to administer the foreign affairs of the government with success, Congress organized a department of foreign affairs, under the charge of a salaried secretary, and gave the work to that official. [1] The first true objective of the Continental Congress when it formed in its second incarnation in 1775 was, in fact, the ultimate independence of the American colonies from Great Britain. Foreign affairs remained the bailiwick of the men who came on and then left the various committees that controlled the issue, weaving with their likes and dislikes and degrees of attention paid to any single matter. It was not until 10 January 1781, as authorized by the Articles of Confederation, that the Continental Congress took control of foreign affairs and all other matters that it entails, and placed it in a separate “department of foreign affairs.” Shortly after the Congress approved this measure, the delegates voted to have Robert R. Livingston, a delegate from New York, to serve as the first secretary for foreign affairs on 10 August 1781, instead of him being named the secretary of foreign affairs. The selection had initially come from William Floyd, delegate from New York. Despite this selection, the records of the Journals of the Continental Congress of that date show that the entire Congress was still voting on matters that were coming before the Committee of Foreign Affairs; that “the committee . . . transmit to the Minister Plenipotentiary of these United States at the Court of Madrid, such information relative to the surrender of Pensacola, and the subsequent arrival of the garrison at New York, as they can obtain, to the end that he may make such representation thereon as shall appear to him to be proper.” [2]

Historian Brett F. Woods explained, “Livingston took the oath of office on 20 October 1781, entered upon his duties the same day, and continued in office until the Congress accepted his resignation on 4 June 1783. Livingston’s staff, when it became fully organized, consisted of two under secretaries, Lewis Richard Morris and Pierre Etienne DuPonceau, a translator of French and a clerk. On 22 February 1782, Congress adopted new regulations for the Department of Foreign Affairs, and therein the Secretary was styled the ‘Secretary to the United States of America, for the department of foreign affairs.” [3] To illustrate the sea change that had come about—the handling of foreign affairs by one man leading a department rather than a committee in the Continental Congress—Livingston wrote to the French Foreign Minister, the Comte de Vergennes: “Congress,” he penned, “having thought it expedient to dissolve the committee of their own body, by whom their foreign affairs had hitherto been conducted, and to submit the general direction of them (under their inspection) to a Secretary for Foreign Affairs I do myself the honour to inform Your Excellency that they have been pleased to appoint me to that Department, and to direct me to correspond in that capacity with the Ministers of Foreign Powers.” Livingston was now faced with an incredible challenge: he had to control as well as carry out official congressional policy regarding all foreign relations for the infant nation, one that was still at war. However, he found that the system of record-keeping prior to his coming on board was abysmal at best and indecipherable at worst. He immediately began starting record books, and kept a listing of correspondence to and from the office. Congress made his job harder by not defining his office’s responsibilities, while at the same time using the committee that oversaw the department to oversee his every move. On 25 January 1782, Livingston penned a letter which laid out what he saw as the ultimate problems in carrying out his mandate: In the first organization of a new Department[,] some things are frequently omitted, which experience will shew [sic], ought to be inserted, and many inserted which ought to be omitted; it becomes the duty of those who are placed at the head of such department to mention the difficulties that may arise from these

404

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

causes, and leave it to the Wisdom of Congress to alter them, or to Judge whether they can be changed without introducing greater inconveniences. Upon this principle[,] Sir[,] I am induced to offer the following Observations.

It is true the power of explaining his reports given by the Ordinance seems to imply a permission to offer his sentiments, when they are under consideration, but as I do not wish to assume a liberty, which is not explicitly given, I must beg the Sentiments of Congress on this subject.

The Secretary for Foreign Affairs is to correspond with the Ministers of the United States at foreign Courts, and with the Ministers of foreign Powers. This Correspondence must necessarily detail such Sentiments as the Sovereign wish to have known and lead to such inquiries as they chuse to make. An intimate knowledge of their sentiments is therefore absolutely necessary to a discharge of this duty, and we accordingly find that the Minister for Foreign Affairs is in monarchical governments considered as the most confidential servant of the Crown. In Republics it is much more difficult to execute this task, the Sentiments of the Sovereign sometimes changes with the Members of the body which compose the Sovereignty, it is more frequently unknown no occasion offering on which to call it forth. It is never perfectly expressed but by some publick Act, waiting for this time, and the advantages of embracing a favorable opportunity are frequently lost. There are numberless minutiae upon which no act is formed, and about which notwithstanding their Sentiments should be known to their Ministers. There are even occasions in which their Secretary should speak a Sentiment which it would be improper for them to declare by a publick Act. Congress sensible of the inconvenience that the officer entrusted with the management of their foreign Affairs must labor under in the execution of his duty without a more perfect knowledge of their Sentiments than can be obtained from their publick Acts, have been pleased to admit him to attend Congress that (as the Ordinance expresses it) he may be better informed of the affairs of the United States, and have an opportunity of explaining his reports respecting his department. But here it stops short and does not show in what manner he is to gain the sentiments of Congress when he does himself the honour to attend upon them. It is true they may in part be collected from an attention to the Debates, but it often so happens that the debate does not take the turn that he would wish in order to satisfy a doubt, and he goes away after hearing a subject largely distressed, ignorant perhaps of the only point upon which he wishes to be informed, when perhaps by a single question his doubt might be removed, or by a word of information which he has the best means of acquiring, a debate might be shortened.

The Ordinance is also deficient in not affording a power to the Secretary for foreign affairs to take order upon the application either of Foreigners or Subjects relative to matters not of sufficient moment to engage the Attention of Congress—as for instance, application for aid in procuring the release of an American taken under particular circumstances in English ships, and confined in the french West Indies or elsewhere claims upon Prizes carried into the french [sic] Islands &c. which cases occur every day and are attended with long Memorials which would take up much of the time and attention of Congress. As I have hitherto taken the Liberty to transact Business of this kind with the Minister of his most Christian Majesty, and the Governors or Generals of the french [sic] Islands, I wish to be justified in so doing by the orders of Congress—As a check upon myself I keep a Book (tho it is attended with much labour) in which all such applications, and the steps taken in consequence thereof are inserted at length. The organization of this office will too I presume render some alterations necessary in matters of form and Ceremony as heretofore settled by Congress, in conformity to the practice of other Nations, and to enable us to avail ourselves of the advantage they sometimes afford in creating usefull [sic] delays, and concealing for political Reasons the views of the Sovereign. Congress having vested me with the power of appointing clerks[,] I have appointed two Gentlemen is whose integrity and Abilities I can confide, these are barely sufficient to do the running business of the office which is much greater than I imagined it would be, five copies besides the draft being necessary of every foreign Letter or paper transmitted. To copy all the Letters which have hitherto been received, with the Secret Journals, and other extracts from the Books and files of Congress, tho’ absolutely necessary both for order and security will be impossible without farther aid for at least one year. Congress have not indeed limited the number I may employ nor have they fixed their salaries, upon both of which points I could wish for their directions. An Interpreter is so necessary both for this department, and the Admiralty, that I cannot but recommend to Congress the appointment of one from whom, if a man in whom I could confide, I might receive assistance as a Secretary when hurried with business. It may possibly be expected that I

The Department of Foreign Affairs405 should close this long letter by a report on the matters it contains, but as it is a delicate subject to point out a mode for extending my own powers, I only beg leave to recommend the enclosed Resolve. I have, etc., R.R. Livingston [4] Under Livingston, several leading luminaries of the United States, including some who had served or were serving as delegates to the Continental Congress, took posts as envoys to foreign lands, including John Jay in Spain, Thomas Jefferson in France, and John Adams in the Netherlands. Historian Robert Joseph Taylor, in a collection of the papers of John Adams, explained: Adams’correspondence provides a clear, comprehensive record of his diplomacy in the Netherlands. Particularly important are the letters he exchanged with the newly appointed secretary for foreign affairs, Robert R. Livingston. Livingston’s first letter of 23 October 1781 signaled a decisive change in the conduct of American foreign policy. The new secretary was determined to be an active participant in the formulation and execution of foreign policy and to closely supervise the effort of American diplomats in Europe. Livingston’s appointment meant that, for the first time, Adams received regular acknowledgments of his letters together with suggested courses of action. Livingston’s criticism of Adams’ seemingly unorthodox diplomacy prompted Adams to mount a spirited defense. From that defense is derived the sometime pejorative term “militia diplomacy,” for Adams declared that “Your Veterans in Diplomaticks and in Affairs of State consider Us as a kind of Militia.” [5]

haphazard collection of papers, books, boxes of materials, and other items that even they could not find through a system that was easily understood. Based on the recommendations of the committee, the Continental Congress enacted on 22 February 1781 a brand new resolution, giving the secretary full powers to organize his office and order assistants to categorize the papers and books of the department. These two assistants were to be hired at a salary of $800 and $700 per year, and they were to be hired in place of a mere clerk, whose hiring had been instructed in the original resolution. The Continental Congress then appointed a committee, composed of George Clymer, Ralph Izard, James Madison, and John Witherspoon, to investigate the proceedings of the department up to that point. The report of the Committees Relating to [the] Department of Foreign Affairs, reported that “[u]pon the whole the committee report that the business of this Department appears to have been conducted with much industry, attention and utility; and without any errors or defects worthy of being taken notice of to Congress. Such improvements and alterations in the general plan of the business as were judged by the committee proper they have taken the liberty of suggesting to the Secretary in the course of their inquiry. As far as their suggestions can be of use, the committee have no doubt that they will be attended to.”

This centralization of the powers of foreign affairs in one man led to such tension. However, wrote historian Francis Wharton, “[T]he foreign correspondence from that time went through the hands of the Secretary. As the responsibility thus devolved on a single individual, instead of being divided among several, the business of the Department was afterwards executed with much more promptness and efficiency.” [6]

A history of the department stated in 1917, “On the 25th of January, 1782, the Continental Congress passed an act authorizing and directing Dr. [Benjamin] Franklin to conclude a Consular Convention with France on the basis of a scheme which was submitted to that body. Dr. Franklin concluded a very different convention which [John] Jay, the Secretary for Foreign Affairs, and Congress did not approve. Franklin having returned to America, the negotiations then fell upon Jefferson, who concluded the Convention in 1788. This was laid before the Senate by President Washington on the 11th of June, 1789.” [7]

The task of forming a brand new governmental agency took its toll on Livingston. As soon as his letter on the duties of the office had been sent around, the Continental Congress assembled a committee composed of Nicholas Eveleigh, Edmund Randolph, and William Ellery, to assist Livingston in compiling a listing of the agency’s books and other articles. They discovered a

Livingston ultimately served for only a little more than a year and a half; plagued by increasing frustration because of the infirmity and powerlessness of the office, brought on by the weakness of the Articles of Confederation, he complained constantly about the strictures of the office. In a letter to Robert Morris, 7 June 1782, his dissatisfaction with the position is

406

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

made crystal clear: “I am sorry to trouble you on my account when you have so many other importunate demands that you find it difficult to satisfy. You will judge whether I can dispense with it. I have expended since I have been in office 3000 dollars more than I have received from the public for the loan of ₤500 of which I have been indebted to the friendship of Mr. Holker. From my own estate I have drawn little or nothing . . . in the mean while I must task your friendship to take order for my receiving the inadequate allowance which Congress have granted.” [8]

the date, Livingston had a minor impact on the office that today is the Department of State. Historian Francis Wharton, in his collection of the correspondence relating to foreign affairs during the American Revolution, wrote of Livingston:

Following a vote of no confidence, the ministry of British Prime Minister Lord North collapsed on 20 March 1782. This development, combined with the ascension of his successor, Charles WatsonWentworth, the Marquis of Rockingham, brought a new sense of urgency to Livingston and to the Continental Congress as a whole. Rockingham realized that the British war in America was a losing cause, and he instructed negotiators in Paris to find a way to extricate Britain from the conflict and end the war as quickly as possible. When Rockingham died suddenly on 1 July 1782, it threw Livingston and the American negotiators in Paris into sudden turmoil. Now, they had to deal with a third British government in less than six months, this one headed by William Fitzmaurice, the Earl of Shelburne. Unable to actually make policy rather than carrying out the policies of others, particularly those in the Continental Congress, Livingston chafed while remaining in office. He offered his resignation several times; for instance, on 3 December 1782, the Journals of the Continental Congress reflect the following exchange: “The secretary for foreign affairs[,] having assigned to Congress satisfactory reasons for relinquishing his office, and having requested permission to resign: Resolved, That Thursday, the 19th inst. be assigned for electing another person to fill the office of secretary for foreign affairs; and that Mr. Livingston be informed that Congress do approve of his proposal of continuing to perform the duties of the office until a person shall be appointed to succeed him.” [9] Although many sources agree on 3 December 1782 as the date of Livingston’s resignation, records of the US Department of State and of the Continental Congress state June 1783. Whatever

Livingston, though a much younger man than [Benjamin] Franklin, possessed, in his dispassionateness and his many-sidedness, not a few of Franklin’s characteristics. From his prior administrative experience as royalist recorder of New York he had at least some acquaintance with practical government in America; his thorough studies as scholar and jurist gave him a knowledge of administrative politics in other spheres. As secretary of foreign affairs in 1781-83, he did more than any one in the home government in shaping its foreign policy. But the system he indicated was, as will be seen, not the “militia” system of unsophisticated impulse, but that which the law of nations had at the time sanctioned as the best mode of conducting international affairs. His course as secretary was based on the law of nations as thus understood by him . . . It may be here added that while adhering to the “constructive” or merely “expulsive” or “liberative,” he belonged to the liberal wing of constructionism. He wanted, it is true, not simply to abolish the British system, but to establish a better system in its place. But the new system he strove for, and which he was instrumental in introducing, was to be a system of liberalism construing the Constitution of the United States, which he advocated, on all doubtful points in favor of that view which leaves to government only such power as the people can not exercise for themselves.” [10] Livingston went on to have a successful career, serving as the US minister to France, and, in 1803, in this capacity, he negotiated the Louisiana Purchase. The Continental Congress named first Elias Boudinot of New Jersey as the secretary of foreign affairs ad interim, serving from June 1783 to November 1783, then Thomas Mifflin of Pennsylvania, again in an ad interim position, from 3 November 1783 until 21 December 1784. Secretaries of Foreign Affairs under the Articles of Confederation, 1781-89 • Robert R. Livingston (New York): Served 20 October 1781-June 1783. • Elias Boudinot (New Jersey): Served June 1783-November 1783. [a]

The Department of Foreign Affairs407 • T  homas Mifflin (Pennsylvania): Served 3 November 1783-21 December 1784 [b] • John Jay (New York): Served 7 May 1784-4 March 1789. [c] ____________________________ [a] Boudinot, as the president of the Continental Congress, served unofficially as the secretary ad interim from the time of Livingston’s resignation until the end of that specific session of Congress. [b] As with Boudinot, Mifflin was the president of the Continental Congress during this period; since no successor to Livingston could be found, Mifflin served during this time in an ad interim position. [c] Jay was selected by the Continental Congress on 7 May 1784, but did not take office until 21 December 1784. He remained at his post through the remainder of the Continental Congress; when the US Constitution came into effect on 4 March 1789, President George Washington asked Jay to remain until 21 March 1790, despite having been named by Washington on 26 September 1789 as the chief justice of the United States Supreme Court. Source: “Register of the Department of State. In Four Parts. Corrected to March 1, 1874” (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office, 1874), 53.

____________________________ Historians tend to pass over Robert Livingston’s tenure as the secretary of foreign affairs, and concentrate more on his “permanent” successor, John Jay of New York. Jay, who served his nation through the Continental Congress years, as well as the governor of New York and chief justice of the US Supreme Court, was not a natural choice to succeed Livingston as the conductor of American foreign relations, although he did have experience in representing America overseas as the minister to France. After Benjamin Franklin wrote to the Continental Congress that Jay intended to leave France in April 1784, Elbridge Gerry nominated Jay to succeed Livingston on 7 May 1784, and he was elected that same day. Jay did not arrive back in the United States until that September, and he did not take the oath of office until 21 September. On 23 January 1785, Jay wrote to Henry Middleton, the president of the Continental Congress, “I have some reason, Sir, to apprehend that I have come into the office

of Secretary for foreign affairs with Ideas of its Duties & Rights somewhat different from those which seem to be entertained by Congress.” [11] One of the resolutions of 22 February 1782 gave the department the power to hire translators, particularly in French, to translate diplomatic documents. James Madison wrote to fellow Virginian James Monroe on 21 March 1785: I do not wonder at the paragraph which you have copied from Mr. Jay’s letter to Congress. His feelings are such as every one must possess who is worthy of the station which he holds. If the Office of foreign affairs be a proper one, and properly filled, a reference of all foreign despatches to it in the first instance is so obvious a course that any other disposition of them by Congress seems to condemn their own establishment, to affront the Minister in office, and to put on him a label of caution against that respect and confidence of the Ministers of foreign powers which are essential to his usefulness. I have always conceived the several ministerial departments of Congress to be provisions for aiding their counsels as well as executing their resolutions, and that consequently, whilst they retain the right of rejecting the advice which may come from either of them, they ought not to renounce the opportunity of making use of it. The foreign department is, I am sensible, in several respects the most difficult to be regulated but I cannot think the question arising on Mr. Jay’s letter is to be numbered among the difficulties. The practice of Congress during the administration of his predecessor was never fixed, and frequently improper and I always suspected that his indifference to the place resulted, in part at least, from the mortifications to which this unsteadiness subjected him. [12] Under his tutelage, Jay oversaw the signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1783 that formally ended the American Revolution as well as British occupation of American soil. After this spectacular development, much of his work within the department dealt with signing treaties of friendship and commerce with the nations of the world, accepting ministers and ambassadors from the lands to the United States, and, in a likewise move, sending ministerial agents from the United States to these lands. The US Constitution, promulgated in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 and ratified by the 13 states by the following year, mandated that a “Department of State” would be established

408

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

as a full-functioning department lodged in the Executive Branch of the new US government. The United States Department of State, in a short biography of Jay, wrote, “Following the organization of the government under the Constitution, 4 March 1789, Jay continued in charge of foreign relations, informally supervising the Department of Foreign Affairs upon its creation, 27 July 1789, and the Department of State from the adoption of that name for the Department (effective 15 September 1789) until Jefferson took office as Secretary of State [on] 22 March 1790. Jay had meanwhile (26 September 1789) been appointed Chief Justice.” [13]

[10] Wharton, “The Revolutionary Correspondence,” op. cit., I:594. [11] Short, Lloyd M., “The Development of National Administrative Organization in the United States” (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins Press, 1923), 60. [12] Madison to James Monroe, 21 March 1785, in [Madison, James], “Letters and Other Writings of James Madison, Fourth President of the United States. In Four Volumes. Published by Order of Congress” (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott & Co.; four volumes, 1865), I:141-42. [13] Biography of John Jay, courtesy of the United States Department of State, online at http://history.state.gov/departmenthistory/people/jay-john.

Uriah Forrest (1756–1805)

Under the new US Constitution, on 4 March 1789, the Department of Foreign Affairs officially became the United States Department of State. Former Continental Congress delegate Thomas Jefferson of Virginia, who had penned the Declaration of Independence, became the first secretary of state. See also: John Jay; Robert R. Livingston

[1] Johnson, E.R., “The Consular Service, 1776-1792,” Political Science Quarterly, XIII:1 (March 1898), 20-21. [2] Entry for 10 August 1781 in Ford, Worthington C., ed., “Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789. Edited from the Original Records in the Library of Congress by Worthington Chauncey Ford, Chief, Division of Manuscripts” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; 34 volumes, 1904-37), XXI:854. [3] Woods, Brett F., ed. and annotator, “Letters from France: The Private Correspondence of Benjamin Franklin, 1776-1785” (New York: Algora Publishing, 2006), 65. [4] “The Department of State of the United States: Its History and Functions” (Washington, DC: The Department of State, 1893), 20-23. [5] Taylor, Robert Joseph, “Introduction,” in Robert Joseph Taylor, Gregg L. Lint, Richard Allen Ryerson, Anne Decker Cecere, eds., et al., “The Adams Papers: Papers of John Adams” (Cambridge, MA: The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press; sixteen volumes, 1977), XII:xvi. [6] “Advertisement to the First Edition” in Francis Wharton, ed., “The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States. Edited Under Direction of Congress” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; six volumes, 1889), I:iv. [7] “Documents Relating to the Controversy over Neutral Rights Between the United States and France, 1797-1800” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace, 1917), 1. [8] Robert R. Livingston to Robert Morris, 7 June 1782, in E. James Ferguson, ed., “The Papers of Robert Morris” (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press; seven volumes, 1973- ), V:366. [9] Entry for 3 December 1782, in “Journals of The American Congress: From 1774 to 1788. In Four Volumes” (Washington, DC: Printed and Published by Way and Gideon; four volumes, 1823), IV:110.

A noted military officer who was a close friend of General George Washington, Uriah Forrest fought in the American Revolution and lost a leg at the battle of Brandywine (11 September 1777). He later served as a delegate from his native Maryland to the Continental Congress (1787), and, under the new US Constitution, in the US House of Representatives (1793-94). Born in his family’s estate, “Forrest Hall,” near Leonardtown, in St. Mary’s County, Maryland, Forrest was the son, and one of four sons, of Thomas Forrest and his wife Henrietta (née Raley) Forrest. According to family histories, Uriah

Uriah Forrest (1756–1805)409 Forrest was descended from Patrick Forrest and his wife Margaret Fox Forrest, who were marred in St. Giles in the Field, Holbourn, England, in June 1605. Patrick and Henrietta emigrated to the American colonies, settling in Jamestown, Virginia, in 1608. Patrick Forrest “was one of the financiers of the Virginia Company of London.” [1] According to his official congressional biography, Uriah Forrest received “limited schooling.” He married Rebecca Plater, the daughter of George Plater (1735-1792), a noted Maryland politician in his own right, who served his state as a delegate to the Continental Congress (1778-80) and as the third governor of the state (1791-92). [2] Rebecca’s brother, Thomas Plater (1769-1830), later served in the US House of Representatives during the Seventh and Eighth Congresses (180105). Together, Uriah Forrest and his wife would have three children, two boys and a girl. Starting in 1776, when he was about 20 years of age, Uriah Forrest began a military career that saw him rise to the echelons of power in what would become the Continental Army. First commissioned as a first lieutenant in what was called Grunby’s Independent Maryland Company, he rose to serve in the Third Maryland Battalion, then as a major in the Third Maryland Regiment. Even after he saw action against British forces in a number of engagements, he remained with his state’s forces, and by 1781 he was given the rank of lieutenant colonel. [3] He was a key leader in the defense of St. George’s Island, the first such battle on Maryland soil in the American Revolution. The clash that changed Forrest’s life, however, was the one that took place in September 1777 at Brandywine Creek. In an attempt to destroy the continental forces under General George Washington, the British under General Sir William Howe and General Charles Cornwallis launched an attack on American force near Chadds Ford, Pennsylvania, at Brandywine Creek. The Americans were soon overwhelmed, and they retreated, leaving the British free to advance on Philadelphia and ultimately forcing the delegates sitting in the Continental Congress to flee to York, Pennsylvania. In the battle, the Americans lost more than 1,100 killed or wounded, while the British lost between 600 and 700 killed. During the attack, in which he led Maryland troops into combat, Forrest was struck

in one of his thighs with a musket shot, breaking the thigh bone. In an attempt to put a halt to the British advance, American forces assailed the British at Germantown, near Philadelphia, on 4 October 1777. While the Americans suffered additional losses, the full weight of the British forward movement was halted. For Uriah Forrest, the loss had deeper meaning: Injured further during this second clash, his badly injured leg would not heal, gangrene set in, and the leg had to be amputated. [4] Unable to continue with his military career, Forrest returned home to Maryland. His inestimable loss to his state’s military forces can be seen in this letter from Colonel John Hoskins Stone (1750-1804), who later served as governor of Maryland, to General George Washington, 22 January 1778: “Having no field officer to my Regiment who can do duty myself & the Lt Colo. (Forrest) being wounded and the Major having resigned it will be some time before either of us will be fit to take command, and being very anxious to complete and put my Regiment in the best order against the ensuing Campaign—by the consent and desire of Lt Colo. Smith I take the liberty to beg of your Excellency to permit Colo. Smith to take command in my Regiment until either myself or the Lt Colo. are fit for the field—this will keep the Regiment properly together and will be very agreeable to all.” [5] Forrest was rewarded for his tireless service to his state by receiving a series of plum state positions, including commissioner of Confiscated British Property, seized from Loyalists who either fled to England or simply had their homes and businesses taken by the states. In 1781, he was elected to the first of two one-year terms in the Maryland House of Delegates, representing St. Mary’s County. Forming his own merchant company with fellow Marylanders Benjamin Stoddert and Colonel John Murdock, the men specialized in shipping tobacco from the United States to points around the world. In 1783, the same year that the firm was established, Forrest traveled to London to negotiate tobacco sales in the United Kingdom. In 1786, he was again elected to the Maryland House of Delegates, where he sat until 1788.

410

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

On 2 December 1786, as he sat in the House of Delegates, Forrest’s fellow legislators elected him to serve as a delegate in the Continental Congress, “for one whole year from the second Monday of this instant December.” He ultimately attended sessions of that body only from 15 February to 8 March 1787. [6]

were removed in 1883 and reburied next to her husband.

Forrest became interested in having one city named as a national capital. While New York, Philadelphia and Baltimore were considered, they were ultimately dismissed for various reasons. Following his Continental Congress service, Forrest moved to what is now Georgetown, a part of Washington, DC. Possibly believing that this small area on the Potomac River might be selected as that national capital, he began to invest in the region. In 1789, he was elected to the Maryland House of Delegates, this time representing Montgomery County, where Georgetown sat at that time, and remained in that body until 1791. In that latter year, he was named as a member of Maryland’s Executive Council, where he sat until 1792. In that year, he was elected the mayor of Georgetown, then an independent city. [7]

[1] “The Family in England: A Tentative Reconstruction” in Robert W. Barnes, “Colonial Families of Maryland: Bound and Determined to Succeed” (Baltimore: Printed for Clearfield Company by the Genealogical Publishing Co., 2007), 86. [2] See Mary Cooley Bassett, Historian General, “Lineage Book. National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution. Volume XXXIV” (Washington, DC: Daughters of the American Revolution, 1900), 244. [3] Forrest official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=F000282. [4] Heyl, Rev. Francis, “The Battle of Germantown. Written for The City History Society of Philadelphia, and Read at the Meeting of October 2, 1902” (Philadelphia: Printed for the Society, 1908). [5] Colonel John Hoskins Stone to General George Washington, 22 January 1778, courtesy of The National Archives, online at http:// founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-13-02-0277. [6] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VIII:lxxxvi. [7] Denboer, Gordon, ed., “Documentary History of the First Federal Elections, 1788-1790” (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press; four volumes, 1976), II:237.

Abiel Foster (1735–1806)

Under the new US Constitution, signed in Philadelphia in 1787 and ratified by the 13 states the following year, national elections for a bicameral legislature, composed of a US House of Representatives and a US Senate were mandated. And while Forrest did not initially participate in these elections, in 1792 he won a seat in the US House as a “pro-Administration” candidate, one who supported the policies of President George Washington. Forrest served during the Third Congress (1793-95), from 4 March 1793 until he resigned 8 November 1794 for personal reasons. In his final years, Forrest served in a military and civilian capacity. In 1795, he was commissioned a major general in the Maryland militia, and, from 1800 until his death, he served as a clerk of the Circuit Court for the District of Columbia, which became the national capital Forrest had worked for. He died at his home, “Rosedale,” near Georgetown, on 6 July 1805, and he was laid to rest in the Oak Hill Cemetery in Washington, DC. His gravestone reads simply, “LT. COL. URIAH FORREST. MD. REGT. REV. WAR.” His widow, Rebecca Plater Forrest, lived until 1843; initially buried in another cemetery, her remains

A longtime member of New Hampshire’s political offices, including service as a judge on

Abiel Foster (1735–1806)411 the state’s Court of Common Pleas, Abiel Foster served his state in the Continental Congress (1783-85), in the US House of Representatives under the US Constitution (1789-91, 1795-1803), and in the New Hampshire state Senate (179194), rising to serve as president of that body. The son of Asa Foster and his wife Elizabeth (née Abbott) Foster, Abiel Foster was born in Andover, Massachusetts, on 8 August 1735. Asa Foster (1710-1787) is a patriot of the American Revolution. [1] His grandfather, William Foster, Senior (1633-1713), was born in Exeter, in Devon, England. A published work on the Foster clan documents the family to the elder Foster and goes three generations back. William was “a yeoman . . .” who married and had nine children. [2] A biography of Foster, penned in 1857, said of his father, “[He] was commissioned under Thomas Pownall (Captain General and Vice Admiral of the Massachusetts Province under George II) as a captain, in Col. Ebenezer Nichol’s Regiment raised for the invasion of Canada.” [3] Abiel Foster entered Harvard College (now Harvard University) and graduated from that institution in 1756. Having studied theology, Foster was ordained as a minister and began working as a pastor in the village of Canterbury, New Hampshire, in 1761, and served in this capacity until 1779, throughout most of the American Revolution. [4] In 1775, Foster entered the political arena, serving as a deputy to the Provisional Congress held at Exeter that same year. He then returned to his parish. The biography written of him noted, “During the period of his ministry, he was chosen a Deputy to the Provisional Congress called to meet at Exeter in 1775, and during 1779, 1780 and 1781 he represented the town in the General Court. In 1782 amend 1783 he was appointed [a] Special Justice of the Superior Court of Judicature on two occasions, for which services he was paid during 1787, by authorized legislative action. He also served, after his dismissal from the ministry, as [a] Justice of the Peace and of the Quorum throughout the state, until as late as 1791.” [5] The Independent Chronicle, and Universal Advertiser of Boston, Massachusetts, reported in its edition of 16 January 1783, “[t]he following

is the number of the right, the proprietor’s name, number of acres, the value, and the pay,” and then listed Abiel Foster as owning lot number  55. [6] One month later, on 18 February 1783, the New Hampshire General Assembly elected Foster to a seat in the Continental Congress, “for the term of one year fr0m the date unless sooner relieved or recalled.” He ultimately attended sessions of that body from 29 July to 4 November 183, from 13 to 31 December 1783, from 1 January to 3 June 1784, and 2 to 24 December 1784. [7] There are many letters from Foster to New Hampshire politicians during his Continental Congress service. In one of the most important, Foster, in a missive to Meshech Weare, the president of New Hampshire, 17 December 1783, writes of why he is so late in arriving in Philadelphia to pick up his duties: “After being detained at Philadelphia more than three weeks by the small pox, which went favourably with me, I set out for this City, and arrived here on the twelfth Instant; on the thirteenth there were a sufficient number of States represented barely to make a Congress, for the first time in this place. I am this moment informed that Mr. Dow is appointed to be my Colleague, and hope he may be far on his way, altho’ I have no information whither he is, as yet, set out; I am the more anxious for his arrival as I have been dependent on my friends for Cash from my leaving Philadelphia, and must continue so to be till I receive some from the State.” [8] In the middle of an important debate in the Continental Congress, Foster wrote to Weare on 3 August 1783, “The report of a Committee on your Letter respecting loan Office certificates, was this day taken up, and largely debated in Congress: this report stands perfectly agreeable to the wish of New Hampshire, and extends to the United States at large. I hoped it would have passed without opposition, and that I should have been able by this days Post, to have forwarded the resolution on the subject; but the representation being small and some opposition made to it; suggested the probability of loosing the Question on the report, and induced the advocates of the measure, to move for postponing, to adjourn, without calling for the vote thereon.” [9]

412

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

In another piece of evidence that the travels— and the travails—of attending the Continental Congress took on the myriad of delegates, Abiel Foster depicts a prime example, in a letter to Josiah Bartlett, a former New Hampshire delegate who signed the Declaration of Independence, this time from Princeton, New Jersey:

89 votes.” [12] Foster entered the First Congress, and remained in that body until his resignation on 3 March 1791, at the close of that congress.

I arrived here on the 27th Ultimo after a very uncomfortable Journey in a most severe heat, from the ill effects of which I am now recovered to a good State of health, and have been able to attend Congress every day one only excepted. The Representation from the States is small, there being seldom more than eight present, and often not more than seven. I have taken the liberty to write to the Hon’ble President, and to suggest the propriety of furnishing a representation from New Hampshire, in case Mr. [John] Langdon declines to come on, sooner than the time to which the General Court stands adjourned; this I have done not only from my own Opinion on the subject; but from the general Opinion of the other Deligates [sic], who conceive it, at this time, very important to have a full representation. [10] After leaving the Continental Congress, Foster returned to New Hampshire, where he served as a judge of the Court of Common Pleas for Rockingham County, from 1785 to 1788. On 25 February 1789, The New-Hampshire Gazette reported that “[o]n Saturday last, the President and Council of this state, met at Exeter, for the purpose of counting and sorting the votes returned for the three persons to represent this State in the Congress of the United States. Upon opening the votes, there appeared to be, for the Hon. Benjamin West, Esq. 2733, Samuel Livermore, Esq. 2116, Nicholas Gilman, Esq. 1619, and Abiel F0ster, Esq. 1612. So the three gentlemen first mentioned, were declared duly elected, and are to fill that important station.” [11] Although Foster’s official congressional biography states that he entered the First Congress (1789-91) on 4 March 1789, this is in fact untrue, as this newspaper account so testifies. However, five months after Foster lost this election, The Freeman’s Oracle of Exeter, New Hampshire, reported that “[y]esterday being the day appointed for choosing a Federal Representative for this State, to the Congress of the United States, instead of Benjamin West, Esq. who has resigned, the inhabitants of this town met at the Court House for that purpose when in closing the poll, there appeared for Abiel Foster,

Foster returned again to New Hampshire, where he again entered the state political scene. On 11 June 1791, the newspaper The New-Hampshire Spy announced that “[t]he Hon. Abiel Foster Esq. is elected a Senator for the county of Rockingham, in the room of the Hon. John Taylor Gilman, appointed Treasurer.” [13] Foster remained in the state Senate until 1794, rising to become that body’s president in 1793. In 1794, Foster was once again elected to a seat in the US House of Representatives, this time as a Federalist, and he served from the Fourth Congress (1795-97) through the Seventh Congress (1801-03). At the end of the Seventh Congress, Foster left national politics and returned home to New Hampshire. Just three years later, on 6 February 1806, Foster died at his home in Canterbury, New Hampshire, at the age of 70. Many newspapers, simply noted that he was “a former member of Congress.” Married twice, Foster was laid to rest with both of his wives and his two daughters in Canterbury Village Cemetery in that city.

[1] Foster family tree, online at http://www.geni.com/people/ Abiel-Foster/6000000013669040284. [2] Derby, Perley, “The Foster Family. One Line of the Descendants of William Foster, Son of Reginald Foster, of Ipswich, Mass.” (Boston: Privately Printed for John Foster by David Clapp & Son,, 1872), 11-18. [3] “Hon. Abiel Foster of Canterbury, New Hampshire” (Chicago: Gunthorp-Warren Printing Co., 1957), 3. [4] Foster official congressional biography, online at http:// bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=F000297. [5] “Hon. Abiel Foster of Canterbury, New Hampshire,” op. cit., 7. [6] The Independent Chronicle, and Universal Advertiser [Boston, Massachusetts], 16 January 1783, 4. [7] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VII:lxix. [8] Abiel Foster to Meshech Weare, the president of New Hampshire, 17 December 1783, in ibid., VII:392. Foster refers to the election of a “Mr. Dow”; however, it appears that this person, identified as Moses Dow, never attended the Continental Congress, as there is no record of him on the “Biographical Directly of the United States Congress” website. [9] Abiel Foster to Meshech Weare, 3 August 1783, in ibid., VII:250. [10] Abiel Foster to Josiah Bartlett, 23 August 1783, in ibid., VI:274-75. [11] The New-Hampshire Gazette, and the General Advertiser [Portsmouth], 25 January 1789, 3.

Relations with France413 [12] The Freeman’s Oracle: Or, New-Hampshire Advertiser [Portsmouth], 23 June 1789, 3. [13] Osborne’s New-Hampshire Spy [Portsmouth], 11 June 1791, 55.

Relations with France Few can argue that when France took the side of the colonists against England, it played a vital and integral role both militarily and diplomatically in the American Revolution. As the American Revolution began in 1774, the 13 American colonies were faced with the potential of taking on the greatest military power in the world at the time—Great Britain— all by themselves. Even in the best of situations, such an endeavor is exceptionally difficult: With thirteen disparate colonies, with different attitudes on how to the conduct the war, if at all (some had Loyalists sympathetic to England in major positions of power), the situation went from bad to worse. The biggest challenge was the ability to actually pay for arms, for uniforms, even for the troops who would do the fighting. At first, many of the units that fought English forces were “Minute Men” (so named because they could react “in a minute”) or colonial reserve forces, and neither group could be expected to fight indefinitely. Troops, units, divisions, and regiments could be raised, but it would take money—hard cash—to win the revolution. Almost from the start of the war, American representatives reached out to France as a potential source for financing through loans. The Americans knew that England and France were historic enemies, and that the French would be more than willing to supply money, arms, and even materiel, if they thought that such aid would ultimately harm England. One of the key moments of the entire Franco-American relationship came in 1774, not with the start of the American Revolution, but with the accession to the French throne of Louis XVI. The grandson of Louis XV, known as “The Sun King,” Louis took command of France at a time of great economic upheaval in Europe. At the same time, Louis surrounded himself with ministers who gave him a more worldly view. Historian Ralph Ketcham explained: His foreign minister, the wily and capable [Charles Gravier, Comte de] Vergennes, seeking to take advantage

of England’s difficulties, soon sought to persuade his colleagues and the King that France could profit mightily by encouraging the likes of Patrick Henry and Sam Adams. Over the objections of [Anne-Robert-Jacques Turgot, Baron de Laune, who served as the Comptroller General of France, 1774-76], who feared the economic strain of warlike actions in support of the colonies, and an increasingly strong party centering around the redoubtable Madame [Marie Anne de Vichy-Chamrond, Marquise] du Deffant, which “in the name of monarchy re- fused to countenance insurgents,” Vergennes, aided by [Pierre-Augustin Caron de] Beaumarchais [a noted French playwright and diplomat], convinced the reluctant Louis that the opportunity to recoup French prestige was too propitious to miss. [1] The Continental Congress, meeting in Philadelphia, established the Secret Committee of Correspondence to surreptitiously contact French authorities and ask for aid and assistance. One key member of this effort was Benjamin Franklin, a delegate from Pennsylvania, who used his numerous contacts in France and in the rest of Europe to rally support for the patriot cause. The editors of the papers of Silas Deane, who would later play a key role in the Franco-American alliance, wrote in 1887, “In the Committee of Secrecy, organized on 18 September 1775, [Deane] had among his colleagues Robert Morris. The object of this Committee was to purchase arms and munitions abroad. Deane accepted a contract for this purpose, and in December he learned from Morris, who was also a member of the Committee of Secret Correspondence, which was, virtually, the Department of State of the Congress, that the merchants of the Committee of Secrecy had recommended him to Franklin and the other members of the Committee of Secret Correspondence, and that he would new asked to make the voyage to France, on a diplomatic as well as a commercial errand.” [2] Historian Charles Andrews explained in 1928, “A most incongruous lot of men were brought together in Paris at the beginning of our War for Independence, to conduct diplomatic negotiations of great importance to the young Republic. Beaumarchais, a volatile, sanguine Frenchman, full of the fantasies of the playwright and entirely lacking in business capacity or experience; Franklin, philosophical, tactful, shrewd, disliking ledgers but loving men; Deane,

414

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

a Yankee merchant, serious, businesslike, and skilful at a bargain; and Arthur Lee, a proud Virginian, jealous and ambitious, prejudiced and at times even malignant in hounding those who crossed his path. Lee had been in London for some time as a secret agent and correspondent of the Continental Congress, with instructions to gather information but in no way to make commitments with any foreign power. While there he had conversations with Beaumarchais, who had come over from Paris, and reported to Congress that the French King was ready to furnish money and supplies as a gift to America, for which he expected no payment in return.” [3]

was conducted during the American Revolution is extremely important, even 125 years after its initial publication. Errors found in earlier works, especially that of historian Jared Sparks, had to be changed or restored, and the series was not completed until 1893, although its official publication date is 1889.

At the same time that Louis XVI and France saw their involvement in the war in America as a way to harm England militarily, there was also an economic factor to French thinking and considerations as well. Until the war began, the colonies had been a rich source of timber for the British navy to utilize for masts; with the start of the conflict, that supply was instantly cut off. Historian Paul Bamford wrote, “The American Revolution, however, abruptly ended Britain’s monopoly of American masts. The rebellious colonists halted British imports and opened the splendid pine forests of New Hampshire, Massachusetts, and Maine to French naval exploitation. The British navy’s loss was a great potential gain for France. The process of buying and importing naval stores from the Baltic market was, for the French, a highly distasteful and often a very difficult affair. The depletion of northern European forests during the eighteenth century coupled with the growth of maritime activity in western Europe intensified buyer competition for the highly esteemed Baltic Masts and greatly increased their price.” [4] With Franklin, Deane, and Lee in Paris to gain loans and arms for the colonial cause, a steady stream of secret correspondence was filed back to the specific committees of the Continental Congress. It was not until 1888 that Congress authorized the publication of these documents, published under the sponsorship and editorship of Francis Wharton (1820-1889), a professor of English history and literature at Kenyon College in Gambier, Ohio. A well-respected authority on English and international law, Wharton seemed a natural choice to head up the editor’s duties, despite his age. Although he died as the first volumes were going to press, Wharton’s contributions to the study of how diplomacy

In the first chapter of the first volume of the series, Wharton laid out his definition of diplomacy, one which dictated Franco-American relations: “The history of the diplomacy of a country involves the history of its finances and of its wars. Diplomacy can not be carried on without money to back it, or without resting on war as its final process of enforcement; and when war comes, diplomacy does not cease. Then neutral sovereigns intervene on questions of neutral rights and of mediation; and then unofficial intermediaries flit through belligerent territory with functions not the less important because [they are] secret. In such times every tax laid, every battle fought, is a diplomatic argument.” [5] One of the lesser-studied aspects of FrancoAmerican relations is the role of Gilbert du Motier, the Marquis de Lafayette. Seeing the potential for freedom for the American people from England, Lafayette went to the Americans in Paris and offered his services. Historian John Bassett Moore noted, “In a joint letter of Franklin and Deane to the Committee of Foreign Affairs, of 25 May 1777, this subject is introduced in the following terms: ‘He has left a beautiful young wife[,] big with child, and for her sake particularly we hope that his bravery and ardent desire to distinguish himself will be a little restrained by the General’s prudence, so as not to permit his being hazarded much, but on some important occasion.’” [6] This Frenchman lent his hand not only in friendship to America, becoming a trusted aide to General George Washington and to other military leaders, rising to become a major general in the Continental Army, seeing action at the battle of Brandywine (1777) and spending time with American forces at Valley Forge during the winter of 1777. Following the end of the war, he remained a close confidante of Washington’s, until the latter’s death in 1799. In the end, he served as an important conduit between the United States and France, during and after

Benjamin Franklin (1706–1790)415 the war. Congress, under the US Constitution, paid him a total of $200,000 for “services rendered” during the war for independence. In August 2002, the US Congress conferred on him honorary citizenship as an American citizen, an honor that can only be bestowed by the US Congress. Historian Charles Stillé wrote of Lafayette in 1895, “There are few men who have been so differently judged as La Fayette [sic] in this country, ever since he, as a boy of nineteen years, offered himself to Mr. Deane, in 1776, to serve ‘the United States with all possible zeal, without any pension or particular allowance,’ down through a most stormy career to a period when, fifty years later, he made, as the nation’s guest, a triumphal progress through the country, his career built up a reputation as bright and unsullied as that of any man in our history.” [7] It was through the machinations of men like Franklin, Deane, Lee, and John Adams, working closely with the French government and men like Lafayette, that both a Treaty of Alliance, as well as a Treaty of Amity and Commerce, were signed between the United States and France on 6 February 1778. The key leader on French side was the Foreign Minister, the Comte de Vergennes. These treaties paved the way for additional loans and arms shipments. However, despite this assistance, it aided the colonial cause only slightly, as the American forces were still woefully unprepared to fight England. When Spain, in an attempt to regain Spanish possessions in the Americas, entered the war against England on 21 June 1779, this forced France’s hand—they knew that to regain any areas lost to England in the French and Indian War, they would have to themselves intervene militarily. Under the initial tutelage of Lafayette, French land and sea units were dispatched to fight England, making the war in the Americas a more balanced affair. In one important instance, French ships fighting the British off of the Virginia coast gave important military cover to General George Washington, conducting operations in that state. Ultimately, it was because of French assistance that the British lost at Yorktown in 1781, leading to the end of the conflict. France continued to play an important role in the war, as Paris was used as a center of diplomatic negotiations between the United States and England. In 1783, the Treaty of Paris formally ended the war.

See also: Silas Deane; Benjamin Franklin; The Treaty of Paris (1783)

[1] Ketcham, Ralph L., “France and American Politics, 1763-1793,” Political Science Quarterly, LXXVIII:2 (June 1963), 200-01. [2] “The Deane Papers” in “Collections of the New York Historical Society for the Year 1890. Publication Fund Series” (New York: Printed for the Society, 1891), V:x. [3] Andrews, Charles M., “A Note on the Franklin-Deane Mission to France,” The Yale University Library Gazette, II:4 (April 1928), 55. [4] Bamford, Paul, “France and the American Market in Naval Timber and Masts, 1776-1786,” The Journal of Economic History, XII:1 (Winter 1952), 22. [5] Wharton, Francis, ed., “The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States. Edited Under Direction of Congress” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; six volumes, 1889), I:251. [6] Moore, John Bassett, “The Diplomatic Correspondence of the American Revolution,” Political Science Quarterly, VIII:1 (March 1893), 41. [7] Stillé, Charles J., “The Marquis de La Fayette in the American Revolution,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, XIX:1 (1895), 1.

Benjamin Franklin (1706–1790)

Few men have had the impact on the founding of our nation than Benjamin Franklin. Writer, pamphleteer, leading diplomat, influential scientist, politician, and elder statesman, he

416

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

is remembered as “the man with the kite” who allegedly “harnessed” electricity, and cherished for his honest opinions, as expressed in his numerous publications, including “Poor Richard’s Almanack.” The $100 bill, which has his picture on it, the only bill to have the image of a man who never served as the president of the United States. At 70, he was the oldest of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, and he also signed the US Constitution.

or 39.) After a period of time, he moved, first to Philadelphia, where he continued to learn the printing trade, and, finally, to London, where he completed his education. He returned to the American colonies, settling not in Boston, but in Philadelphia, a city that he would be identified with for the remainder of his life. In 1728, at the age of 22, Franklin founded the newspaper The Philadelphia Gazette, which would become one of the most important chroniclers of the news in the colonies before and leading up to the events that would precipitate the American Revolution. Historian R.V. Jones wrote in 1977:

He was born in Boston, Massachusetts on 17 January 1706, the tenth and youngest son of Josiah Franklin, a British-born printer, and his second wife, Abiah (née Folger) Franklin. In his autobiography, published soon after his death in 1790, Franklin explained that he utilized his travels abroad to look into his family background: “I have amused myself with collecting some little anecdotes of my family. You may remember the enquiries I made, when you were with me in England among such of our relatives as were then living and the journey I understand for that purpose. To be acquainted with the particulars of my parentage and life many of which are unknown to you; I flatter myself, will afford the same pleasure to you as to me.” [1] Josiah Franklin, born in the village of Ecton, in Northamptonshire, England, in 1657, where his family had lived since at least 1555, married in Ecton to his first wife, Anne Child, in 1677 (some sources report the date as 1675), and emigrated to the American colonies six years later. Anne Franklin died soon after while giving birth to her seventh child, and Josiah married Abiah Folger, the daughter of a miller. In addition to serving as a printer, Josiah Franklin was also a tallow chandler, a person who made candles. [2] The youngest child in a large family, Benjamin Franklin attended the prestigious Boston Latin School in that city, an institution that still exists today. However, after a single year, he left the school and received the remainder of his education from private tutors who also worked in Josiah Franklin’s tallow chandlery. Not interested in making candles, the young Benjamin Franklin instead desired to follow his father’s footsteps in the printing trade, learning both from his father and among other printers in Boston. (His brother, James Franklin (1696/71735), was also a leading printer in the American colonies prior to his early death at the age of 38

After nineteen months in London, Franklin returned to Philadelphia in 1726 and within two years he set up a press that over the next decade became the most flourishing in the Colonies. With his lively outlook and a press at his disposal, he began to write his own material; and by 1732 he had produced his first edition of Poor Richard’s Almanack, which made his fortune. He became public printer to the State of Pennsylvania, married, and started to publish his own political studies such as “A Modest Enquiry into the Nature and Necessity of a Paper Currency” (1 729). Over the years he cultivated a reputation for diligent respectability: “In order to secure my credit and character . . . I took care not only to be in reality industrious and frugal but to avoid all appearance to the contrary. I dressed plainly: I was seen at no place of idle diversions. I never went out fishing or shooting . . .” [3] Had he never done anything further with his life, Benjamin Franklin would have earned his place in early American history for his publication, Poor Richard’s Almanack, an almost advisory publication that became the reading necessity for its time. Historian Esmond Wright said of it, “From 1748, in Poor Richard Improved, he added literary and fugitive pieces and doubled its size. In the Almanack he printed commonsense observations and wise saws, culled mainly from [François] Rebelais and [Jonathan] Swift, [Laurence] Sterne and Lord Halifax. He drew on particular sources for specific years—on James Lovell’s Lexicon Tetraglotton (London: 1660), from 1734 to 1742, and on Thomas Fuller’s Gnomologia (London; 1732) from 1745 to 1751.” Franklin wrote, “Why should I give my Readers bad lines of my own, when good ones of other People’s are so plenty?” [4] In addition, Franklin also based his newspaper’s editorial

Benjamin Franklin (1706–1790)417 content on several other papers of note; he wrote that after some extensive examinations, he “try’d to compleat the papers Again . . . Then I compared my Spectator with the original, discovered some of my faults, and corrected them.” [5] This “second period” of Franklin’s life lasted from the time of his establishment of the newspaper and Poor Richard’s Almanack to his time in the Continental Congress, which lasts from about 1728 to about 1776. (The first period of his life is considered to have lasted from birth to 1728.) Historian Herman V. Ames wrote: Before Franklin was fifty years of age he had become the first citizen of Pennsylvania, having been elected to many important offices in both the government of the City of Philadelphia and the Province of Pennsylvania. He was responsible for the carrying out of a comprehensive program of municipal improvements in Philadelphia, which led to the establishment of a regular police system, a volunteer fire department and later for paving and cleaning the streets. In the field of education and science he was instrumental in establishing the first library in the colonies, The Library Company of Philadelphia, he planned The Academy, which subsequently developed into The University of Pennsylvania. He founded The Junto, which after a few years became The American Philosophical Society, the oldest learned society in the United States. He promoted the establishment of The Pennsylvania Hospital, the first hospital in the Country. At a later period he established the first fire insurance company in the Country and devised the terms according to which the first life insurance company was formed. It has been truly said that “he furnished the impulse to nearly every measure or project which contemplated the welfare and prosperity of the city in which he lived. [6] Franklin wrote of his goals in putting together both the newspaper as well as Poor Richard’s Almanack: “[I]n terms of modest diffidence[,] never using . . . the words certainly, undoubtedly, . . . but rather say, I conceive or apprehend, . . .  or, it is so, if I am not mistaken. This habit, I believe, has been of great advantage to me when I have had occasion to inculcate my opinions.” [7] Even before a thought arose that the American colonies might someday even attempt to break away from London and strike out for independence, Benjamin Franklin agitated on

issues that would have to, one day, be confronted, both in colonial America as well as a new United States of America. For instance, in 1728 he wrote a draft of “Articles of Belief and Arts of Religion.” In it, he listed thirteen virtues: Temperance, Silence, Order, Resolution, Frugality, Industry, Sincerity, Justice, Moderation, Cleanliness, Tranquillity, Chastity, and Humility. Of this work, Franklin later wrote, “I had some years composed a little liturgy, or form of prayer, for my own private use . . . I returned to the use of this, and went no more to the public assemblies. My conduct might be blameless. But I leave it without attempting further to excuse it; my present purpose being to relate facts, and not to make apologies for them.” [8] After this, many historians have come to believe that Franklin wrestled with his own Christian beliefs, and that he either dismissed them, or simply learned to live without their being a guiding light in his life. Religion, as we will see, would come to play an important part in the maturation and coming together of the new American nation. During this period, Franklin also worked as the Pennsylvania colonial printer, as the clerk of the Pennsylvania General Assembly (1736-50), and as the postmaster for Philadelphia (1737). In 1744, he was elected as a member of the Pennsylvania provincial assembly, serving until 1754. Deeply involved in science and scientific study and education, in 1753 he was elected a member of the Royal Society, of the leading groups at the time which collected papers and initiated investigations into the advancement of science. Benjamin Franklin’s interest in science aside, his most notable contribution to early American commerce was his establishment of postal routes in the colonies. In 1753, he had been named as the deputy postmaster general or all of British North America, and in an age where it took a great deal of effort for news to go from Boston to Savannah or other cities around the colonies, a system was needed to try to get mail deliveries done in as timely and accurate way as was possible. In one of the earliest biographies of Franklin to appear, from 1836, historian Samuel Griswold Goodrich wrote, “The American [post] office had before this time never paid any thing to that of Great Britain; and the new postmasters were to have six hundred pounds between them if they make that sum out of the profits of the office.” [9] In

418

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

his “autobiography,” Franklin biographer H.A. Davidson explained, “He at once undertook to reform and improve the service. At the end of three years not only had he received no salary, but he had paid out ₤678 7s. 2d. more than the total receipts. In the fourth year the deficit was more than ₤265 additional. Later, Franklin and his colleague were able to repay themselves and at the end of more than eight years a remittance of ₤49 44s. 8d profit, above all expenses, as sent to the home office in London. These remittances continued to the great surprise of the PostmasterGeneral in England who informed the Lord of the Treasury that ‘the Posts in America were under the management of persons of acknowledged ability.’” [10] When the Declaration of Independence was signed, establishing the United States as a sovereign nation, the Continental Congress turned to Benjamin Franklin, a name they had come to trust, to handle the postmaster business of the new nation.

similar lack of concern was noticed by colonial agents and observers. Possibly Franklin’s was amongst the happiest of sojourns in the British Isles. He made many friends and gained influence enough to secure the governorship of New Jersey for his son, William. Yet with rising controversy in the ‘60s and his explanations of the American position, he was harassed and abruptly dismissed from office. [11]

In 1757, the colony of Pennsylvania named Benjamin Franklin as its official agent in London, to handle business transactions as well as other matters before the British Crown and the ministry of the British Prime Minister. He served in this position until 1762, and, then, after a two-year hiatus, resumed his work as an agent from 1764 until 1775. Franklin’s period of service in London was not happy; his tenure came at a time when tensions were increasing between Britain and the colonies, specifically over a series of harsh economic measures that the British Parliament had passed, including the Sugar Act (1764), the Stamp Act (1765), and the Boston Port Bill (1774), all of which pushed many in the colonies to urge the establishment of a Continental Congress to address these concerns. All the while, Franklin was in London, but many believe that he was fundamentally “abused,” if one could use that word, in his dealings with the British government. Historian Caroline Robbins wrote: Personal humiliation was often experienced by students and travelers in Britain as the result of the patronizing manner and intolerable haughtiness of Englishmen. Almost as irritating were the ignorance and indifference encountered even in a household like that of Charles Watson-Wentworth (1730-1782), second Marquis of Rockingham, repealer of the Stamp Act, in which [Richard] Stockton briefly stayed. A

In 1774, Franklin, in a letter, summed up what he did as an agent of his native land: “I industriously, on all Occasions, in my Letters to America, represented the Measures that were grievous to them, as being neither royal nor National Measures, but the Schemes of an Administration, which wished to recommend itself for the Ingenuity in Finance, or to avail itself of new Revenues in creating, by Places and Pensions, new Dependencies, for that the king was a good and gracious Prince, and the People of Britain their real Friends. And on this side of the Water, I represented the People of America as fond of Britain, concern’d for its Interests and its Glory, and without the least Desire of a Separation from it.” [12] As a printer of a newspaper and magazine in the colonies, Franklin had to confront threats back home over the Stamp Act, a 1765 action that placed heavy taxation on paper products, including those used in publishing. Writing from London on 9 August 1765 to David Hall, Franklin commented on the act and its potential effects on his printing business: I have wrote my Mind fully to you in former Letters relating to the Stamp Act, so that I have but little to add, except what you desire to know about the 2/one Advertisements. It is undoubtedly to be paid every Time the Advertisement is inserted. As to the Paper sent over, I did it for the best, having at that time Expectations given me that we might have had it stampt there, in which case you would have had great Advantage of the other Printers, since if they were not provided with such Paper, they must have either printed but a half sheet common Demi, or paid for two Stamps on each sheet. The Plan was afterwards alter’d notwithstanding all I could do, it being alledged that Scotland & every Colony would expect the same Indulgence if it was granted to us. The Paper must now be sent back again. But I hope you will excuse what I did in Good Will, tho’ it hap pen’d Wrong.—The Molds I still think you should

Benjamin Franklin (1706–1790)419 have, as you see that Paper from hence is much dearer than we can make it, with all the Charge of Carriage, but that I hope to get off. [13]

signed the Declaration of Independence in July 1776, and eventually drafted his ideas for what would become the Articles of Confederation.

Even after the Continental Congress was formed and met in Philadelphia, Franklin remained in London, carrying out his duties until he was finally dismissed by the British authorities and sent home on 20 March 1775. Following the sending of a petition from the Continental Congress to King George III, Franklin penned a letter from London to Charles Thomson, the secretary of the Continental Congress which, until 1904, was considered missing. Franklin wrote, “I have some Thoughts of going with [Captain] Osborne [the printer of the newspaper The Pennsylvania Packet]; but as I may be disappointed in that, I write a few Lines, to acquaint you, that the Petition of the Congress has lain upon the Table of both Houses [of Parliament] ever since it was sent down to them among the Papers that accompany’d it from above, and has had no particular Notice taken of it; our Petition to be heard in support of it, having been as I wrote you before, rejected with Scorn in the [House of] Commons; which must satisfy the future Congress that nothing is to be expected here from that Mode of Application.” [14]

Because he wrote extensive amounts of correspondence, much of which survived him, Franklin’s letters during his service in the Continental Congress are numerous and went to a variety of persons, on numerous subjects. In one instance, he penned a letter on 7 July 1775 to Joseph Priestly, the scientist, about events in the Continental Congress and in America as a whole:

On 6 May 1775, now back in Philadelphia, Benjamin Franklin was elected to a seat in the Continental Congress, and was subsequently reelected on 4 November 1775; he attended sessions from 10 May to 2 August 1776, and from about 5 September 1775 to 4 July 1776. Historian Edmund Cody Burnett wrote of his service, “From 3 October to 2 November 1775, Franklin was absent, with [Thomas] Lynch [of South Carolina] and [Benjamin] Harrison [of Virginia], on a committee to the camp. As one of the commissioners to Canada, with [Samuel] Chase [of Maryland] and [Charles] Carroll [of Carrollton, of Maryland], he left Philadelphia [on] 25 March 1776. Franklin returned [on] 31 May, and was appointed on a committee [on] 5 June. Chase and Carroll arrived [on] 11 June. Franklin was for a time a member of the Pennsylvania assembly and also of the [C]ommittee of [S]afety, as well as of Congress. [On] 26 February 1776 he asked to be excused from the duties pertaining to the two offices first mentioned.” [15] In addition to his service on these committees and regarding the mission to Canada, Franklin also

The Congress met at a time when all minds were so exasperated by the perfidy of General Gage, and his attack on the country people, that propositions of attempting an accommodation were not much relished; and it has been with difficulty that we have carried another humble petition to the crown, to give Britain one more chance, one opportunity more, of recovering the friendship of the colonies; which, however, I think she has not sense enough to embrace, and so I conclude she has lost them forever . . . We have not yet applied to any foreign power for assistance, nor offered our commerce for their friendship. Perhaps we never may; yet it is natural to think of it, if we are pressed. We have now an Army on our establishment, which still holds yours besieged. My time was never more fully employed. In the morning at six, I am at the Committee of Safety, appointed by the Assembly to put the province in a state of defence; which committee holds till near nine, when I am at the Congress, and that sits till after four in the afternoon. Both these bodies proceed with the greatest unanimity, and their meetings are well attended. It will scarce be credited in Britain, that men can be as diligent with us from zeal for the public good, as with you for thousands per annum. Such is the difference between uncorrupted new states, and corrupted old ones . . . [16] In an attempt to fight the boycott of English trade with the colonies, Franklin introduced a resolution in the Continental Congress, on about 26 February 1776, which stated: Resolved, That from and after the 2oth of July 1776 being one full Year after the Day appointed by a late Act of the Parliament of G[reat] B[ritain] for restraining the Trade of the Confederate Colonies, all the Custom Houses in the said Colonies shall be shut up and all the Officers of the same be discharged from the Execution of their several Functions, and all

420

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

the Ports of the said Colonies are hereby declared to be thenceforth open [to] the Ships of every state in Europe that will admit our Commerce and protect it, who may bring in and expose to Sale free of all Duties, their respective Produce and Manufactures, and every kind of Merchandize, excepting Teas, and the Merchandize of Great Britain, Ireland, and the British West India Islands. Resolved, That we will to the utmost of our Power, maintain and support this Freedom of Commerce for two Year’s certain after its Commencement, and as much longer [as] the late Acts of Parliament for restraining the Commerce and Fisher[ies], and altering the Laws and Charters of any of the Colonies shall continue unrepealed. [17]

Company almost ever since you left us, so that I know little of what has pass’d there, except that a Declaration of Independence is preparing.” [19]

The desire to make a stable government for the new American nation weighed heavily on Franklin; as stated, he drafted ideas for what eventually became the Articles of Confederation. And while the Articles gave the United States a weak central government without a firm national legislature, nevertheless for its time it was a good starting document. Franklin with wrote of his concerns to Josiah Quincy on 15 April 1776: “You ask, ‘When is the Continental Congress by general consent to be formed into a supreme legislature; alliances, defensive and offensive, formed; our ports opened; and a formidable naval force established at the public charge?’ I can only answer at present, that nothing seems wanting but that ‘general consent.’ The novelty of the thing deters some he doubts of success, others, the vain hope of reconciliation, many. But our enemies take continually every proper measure to remove these obstacles, and their endeavours are attended with success, since every day furnishes us with new causes of increasing enmity, and new reasons for wishing an eternal separation; so that there is a rapid increase of the formerly small party, who were for an independent government.” [18] Franklin worked on the committee that drafted ideas for a declaration of independence, but in the end most of the work was done by delegate Thomas Jefferson of Virginia. Even as he prepared to sign the Declaration of Independence, Franklin, at 70 years of age and the oldest of the signers, showed how age and ill health impacted his decisions. In a short letter to General George Washington, Franklin explained, “I am just recovering a severe Fit of the Gout, which has kept me from Congress and

Just prior to his signing the Declaration, in May 1776, Franklin was named, along with John Adams and Edward Rutledge, to a three-man commission to greet and hear the proposal for peace presented by a British group led by Lord Richard Howe; the two groups met on New York’s Staten Island in September 1776. The proposal of the British entailed that America remain colonies of England, although some degree of sovereignty would be provided. However, even though they had little authority behind them, the three Americans demanded that the British accept the declaration of independence signed that past July. While the meeting was cordial— Franklin and Howe had known each other in England—the parley broke up after just three hours. Having signed the Declaration, Franklin was elected to a Pennsylvania state convention, where he was elected as president. That September, the Continental Congress named Franklin to another committee of three, this time including Jefferson and Silas Deane (following Jefferson’s declination of the honor because of his wife’s illness, Arthur Lee was named to the commission), sent to France to negotiate a treaty of friendship with that country. Due to his age, Franklin was loathe to go, but he was being called for duty by his nation, and he could not resist such a call. He told his friend Dr. Benjamin Rush, “I am old and good for nothing; but, as the store keepers say of their remnants of cloth ‘I am but a fag end, and you may have me for what you please.’” [20] Before leaving on this latest mission, Franklin went into his personal accounts and gave the Continental Congress a sum of ₤3000 to ₤4000 to keep the nation going—this was his entire savings. Franklin sailed for Paris, arriving in that city on 4 December 1776. After a short stay in the French capital, he retired to the small village of Passy, just outside Paris, where he would remain for the entire length of his stay in France. He was welcomed by the French people and government; after all, he was known to them, whereas his counterparts, Silas Deane and Arthur Lee, were strangers. Edward Everett Hale, who wrote of Franklin’s trip to France in

Benjamin Franklin (1706–1790)421 1887, wrote, “[Franklin] had a good working knowledge of the French language, which he had studied as early as . . . 1733, although he did not yet speak it with ease. He had made two visits to Paris before this time—one in the year 1767, and one in 1769. These two visits have generally been passed lightly over by his biographers, and there is perhaps a certain reticence with regard to the in his own correspondence.” [21] Franklin lived in the Hotel de Valentinois, spending his entire nine years in France there. Although representing the United States as one of its diplomats abroad, he wore simple dress, sometimes even his classic fur cap. John Adams, who replaced Silas Deane as one of the three commissioners who worked with British commissioners to iron out a peace treaty to end the war in America, wrote of him, “His reputation was more universal than that of [Gottried Wilhelm] Leibnitz or [Isaac] Newton, Frederick or Voltaire, and his character more beloved and esteemed than any or all of them . . . His name was familiar to government and people . . . to such a degree that there was scarcely a peasant or a citizen, a valet de chambre, coachman or footman, a lady’s chambermaid or a scullion in a kitchen who was not familiar with it, and who did not consider him as a friend to human kind. When they spoke of him, they seemed to think he was to restore the Golden Age.” [22] In addition to working on a peace treaty with England, Franklin and his fellow commissioners assembled a treaty of commerce with France, which would aid in the selling of American goods, once dependent on the British market, to mainland Europe. The three Americans made promises that if France got into the war to aid America, no separate peace treaty with England or Spain, intending to harm France, would be signed. The French Foreign Minister, Charles Gravier, Comte de Vergennes, was agreeable to such an arrangement, but he had to wait until the matter was accepted by the French monarch, King Louis XVI. [23] At the same time, Franklin reached out to his associates in England, and asked for one-on-one negotiations with the British government. They dispatched David Hartley (1731-1813), a critic of the British war in America, and a future member of the House of Commons (1774-80, 1782-84), to Paris to negotiate for England. Although Hartley opposed the war,

he was unable to offer a treaty of peace without the American negotiators agreeing to undo the Declaration of Independence, which they would not do. The failure of the Hartley mission gave rising importance to the ongoing talks with Vergennes over French action in the American conflict. The battle of Saratoga (SeptemberOctober 1777), in which the Continental Army won two crucial victories against the British, led the French to conclude that the Americans could win the war, and that France should quickly get into the fight against the British. [24] The treaties with France were signed on 6 February 1778, and, from all outward appearances the American commissioners involved got along well. In fact, they did not. Arthur Lee sent word back to the Continental Congress that Silas Deane, and, by association, Franklin, had been involved in some shady dealings. The charges would stick against Deane (the controversy would destroy his career), but any implication that labeled Benjamin Franklin as being “on the take” was considered preposterous and was dismissed. Lee also accused Franklin of incompetence, another charge that was not held against the elder statesman with the delegates back in Philadelphia. [25] The problem was not just Arthur Lee—it was a clash of personalities: John Adams, the brash Massachusetts firebrand; Lee, who saw conspiracies everywhere; and the dominating presence of Benjamin Franklin. In an attempt to solve this issue, the Continental Congress named Franklin as the head of the group, giving him the title and office of “Minister Plenipotentiary” to France on 21 October 1778. This gave Franklin the imprimatur of being the person who wholly represented the United States before the French government. Opening the American embassy in Paris, Franklin purchased a printing press to print passports and other official documents. At the same time, as the official representative of America, Franklin was able to borrow monies for the patriot cause; in one early loan, he borrowed some three million lires to purchase guns, ammunition, and other war supplies. Even though the Continental Congress had chosen Franklin over John Adams, Adams continued to try to work with Vergennes, until, finally,

422

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

the French Foreign minister complained to Franklin. The two men then clashed, their relationship never to heal.

his own autobiography, which was completed before his death but not published until after he had died. Historian John William Ward wrote in 1963:

In June 1781, the Continental Congress named Franklin, along with John Adams, John Jay, Thomas Jefferson, and Henry Laurens, as commissioners to negotiate a final peace treaty with England. When the men assembled in Paris for the talks, there was still a chance that England would continue to demand that the Declaration of Independence be abrogated for peace to occur; however, the surrender of General Charles Cornwallis, Lord Cornwallis, at Yorktown on 19 October 1781 made the British arguments moot. The following year, Charles Watson Wentworth, the 2nd Marquess of Rockingham, ascended to the British prime ministership, and he ordered immediate peace talks to end the war in America once and for all. He named Richard Oswald (17051784), a Scottish merchant who had known Franklin for many years, to lead talks for the British side. The talks dragged on, even as the sea war between England, France, and America continued. Oswald returned to Paris in September 1782 with fewer conditions, and the treaty was signed on 30 November 1782, ending the war and making the United States an independent nation. Several details needed to be worked out, but a final treaty was signed by Franklin, Adams, Jay, and Oswald on 3 September 1783. Although in Paris, Franklin had continued as a delegate to the Continental Congress; by 1781, he desired to leave. Believing that the charges of Arthur Lee would be the impetus to remove him from his seat, he was shocked when the Pennsylvania General Assembly reelected him. He wrote, “I must . . . buckle again to Business, and thank God my Health & Spirits are of late improved . . . I call this Continuance an Honour . . . greater than my first Appointment, when I consider that all the Interest of my Enemies, united with my own Request, were not sufficient to prevent it.” In 1785, as he neared his 80th birthday, Franklin left Paris for the last time to return home for the retirement he felt that he deserved. On his voyage home, he worked on a series of manuscripts that had been advanced ahead of

The Autobiography was written in four parts. The first part, addressed by Franklin to his son, William, was begun during some few weeks in July and August, 1771, while Franklin was visiting with his friend, Jonathan Shipley, the Bishop of St. Asaph, in Hampshire, England. Franklin was then sixty-five years old. As he wrote the first part he also carefully made a list of topics he would subsequently treat. Somehow the manuscript and list fell into the hands of one Abel James who eleven years later wrote Franklin, returning to him the list of topics but not the first part of the manuscript, urging him to take up his story once again. This was in 1782, or possibly early in January, 1783. Franklin was in France as one of the peace commissioners. He wrote the second part in France in 1784, after the achievement of peace, indicating the beginning and the ending of this short second part in the manuscript itself. In 1785, Franklin returned to America, promising to work on the manuscript during the voyage. Instead he wrote three of his utilitarian essays: on navigation, on how to avoid smoky streetlamp chimneys, and on his famous stove. He did not return to his life’s story until 1788. Then, after retiring from the presidency of the state of Pennsylvania in the spring, Franklin, quite sick, made his will and put his house in order before turning again to his own history. This was in August, 1788. Franklin was eighty-three years old, in pain, and preparing for death. The third part is the longest part of the autobiography, less interesting than the first two, and for many years was thought to conclude the manuscript. [26] Franklin arrived back in Philadelphia on 14 September 1785, having been gone nearly a decade. He was given a hero’s welcome, and his name was proclaimed in the streets for his unselfish service to the people. He appreciated the affection, but he was happy just to be home. He wrote “I am now in the bosom of my family, and find four new little prattlers who cling about the knees of their grandpapa, and afford me great pleasure. I am surrounded by my friends, and have an affectionate, good daughter and son-in-law to take care of me. I have got into my niche, a very good house which I built twenty-four years ago and out of which I have been ever since kept by foreign employments.”

Benjamin Franklin (1706–1790)423 Despite his age, Franklin had one last contribution to make to his country. By 1787, the Articles of Confederation which had established a weak central government had become unworkable; the American government, free of the responsibility of war, was nearly moribund and impossible to get to address the concerns of the nation. A new governmental structure was needed; to this end, delegates to a Constitutional Convention, held in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787. Pennsylvania elected Benjamin Franklin, at 81 years of age, as one of the delegates to this convention. Franklin would play an integral role at this meeting; of this there is no doubt, from the historical record. However, his ability to keep up with far younger men sapped his strength. Historian Gaillard Hunt wrote, “Benjamin Franklin’s speeches . . . were written out by Franklin and read by his colleague [James] Wilson, the fatigue of delivery being too great for the aged Franklin.” [27] In one of his most important speeches, Franklin spoke out on “the proportion of representation” for the new bicameral legislature embodied in the document that would become the US Constitution. Franklin stated, “It has given me great Pleasure to observe till this Point, the Proportion of Representation, came before us, our Debates were carry’d on with great Coolness and Temper. If anything of a contrary kind has, on this Occasion, appeared, I hope it will not be repeated; for we are sent hither to consult, not to contend, with each other; and Declaration of a fix’d Opinion, and of determined Resolutions never to change it, neither enlighten nor convince us.” [28] When Franklin signed the US Constitution, he became one of only a handful of people to sign the Declaration of Independence, the Articles of Confederation, and the US Constitution. His service in the Constitutional Convention was his last; he realized soon after that his mortality was rapidly advancing on him. He did not fear death; speaking with a friend, he said, “Death is as necessary to the constitution as sleep: we shall rise refreshed in the morning. The course of nature must soon put a period to my present mode of existence. This I shall submit to with the less regret, as having seen, during a long life, a good deal of this world, I feel a growing

curiousity to become acquainted with some other; and can cheerfully, with filial confidence, resign my spirit to the conduct of that great and good Parent of mankind, who created it, and who has so graciously protected and preserved me from my birth to the present hour.” On 17 April 1790, at the age of 84, Franklin died at his home in Philadelphia. Universal sadness for this statesman, this son of America who spent so much of his life in defense of it, broke out across America. Newspapers announced his death with black borders around the stories and editorials, indicating a period of national mourning. Franklin was laid to rest in the Christ Church Burial Ground in Philadelphia. The Independent Gazetteer; or, The Chronicle of Freedom of Philadelphia stated, “Near the place of interment in Arch-street, 85 minute guns were discharged in the most regular manner by Captain Sommers’s company of the militia regiment of artillery; and the vessels in the port from the various foreign nations, as well as our own, hoisted their colours, in the usual order, on the mournful occasion. In short, every possible mark of respect was paid to the manes of this venerable and illustrious citizen and philosopher.” [29] The Gazette of the United States, also of Philadelphia, reported on the actions of the US House of Representatives: “The house [sic] being informed of the decease of Benjamin Franklin, a citizen whose native genius was not more an ornament to human nature, than his various exertions of it have been precious to science, to freedom, and to his country, do resolve, as a mark of veneration due to his memory, that the members wear the customary badge of mourning for one month.” [30] See also: The Articles of Confederation; The “Dickinson Draft” of the Articles of Confederation; The “Franklin Draft” of the Articles of Confederation

[1] Franklin, Benjamin, “The Life of Dr. Benjamin Franklin. Written by Himself” (Philadelphia: Printed for Benjamin Johnson, No. 147, High-Street, 1794), 5. The odd nature of this passage is because it was penned as a letter from Franklin to his son, William Franklin, the colonial Governor of New Jersey, a Loyalist who vehemently disagreed with his father’s stand with the patriot cause, leading the younger Franklin to flee to England, where he died, never speaking to his father again. [2] For information on Josiah Franklin, see Nian-Sheng Huang, “Franklin’s Father Josiah: Life of a Colonial Boston Tallow

424

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Chandler, 1657-1745” (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 2000). For more on Franklin’s youth, see David M. Larson, “Benjamin Franklin’s Youth, His Biographers, and the ‘Autobiography, “The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, CXIX;3 (July 1995), 203-23. [3] Jones, R.V., “Benjamin Franklin,” Notes and Records of the Royal Society of London, XXXI:2 (January 1977), 202. [4] Wright, Esmond, “Franklin of Philadelphia” (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, 1986), 53. [5] Smyth, Albert Henry, ed., “Writings of Benjamin Franklin: Collected and Edited with a Life and Introduction” (New York: The Macmillan Company; ten volumes, 1905-07). I:241. [6] Ames, Herman V., “The Public Career of Benjamin Franklin: A Life of Service,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, LV:3 (1931), 195. [7] Smyth, “Writings of Benjamin Franklin,” op. cit., I:244, I:338. [8] Franklin, William Temple, ed., “Memoirs of the Life and Writings of Benjamin Franklin, LL.D. F.R.S. &c. Minister Plenipotentiary from the United States of America, at the Court of France and for the Treaty of Peace and Independent with Great Britain. &c. &c. Written by Himself to a Late Period, and Continued to the Time of His Death by His Grandson, William Temple Franklin, Now First Published from the Original MSS. Comprising the Private Correspondence and Public Negotiations of Dr. Franklin, and a Selection from His Political, Philosophical, and Miscellaneous Works” (London: Printed for Henry Colburn, British and Foreign Public Library, 1818), 67. [9] Goodrich, Samuel Griswold, “The Life of Benjamin Franklin. Illustrated by Tales, Sketches, and Anecdotes” (Philadelphia: Desilver, Thomas & Co., 1836), 97. [10] Davidson, H.A., ed., “Autobiography of Benjamin Franklin, With Selections From His Other Writings. Edited, with Comments, Notes, Bibliography, and Topics for Study” (Boston: D.C. Heath and Company, Publishers, 1908), 377. Franklin’s ledger as postmaster general was published as “The Ledger of Doctor Benjamin Franklin, Postmaster General, 1776. A Facsimile of the Original Manuscript, Now on File on the Records of the Post Office Department of the United States” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1865). [11] Robbins, Caroline, “Decision in ‘76: Reflections on the 56 Signers,” Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Third Series, LXXXIX (1977), 81. [12] Smyth, “Writings of Benjamin Franklin, “op. cit., VI:261-62. [13] “Letter of Benjamin Franklin to David Hall, 1765,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, XXVI:3 (1902), 389. [14] “A Letter of Benjamin Franklin, 1775,” The American Historical Review, IX:3 (April 1904), 524. [15] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), I:lix. [16] Benjamin Franklin to Joseph Priestley, 7 July 1775, in ibid., I:156. [17] “Benjamin Franklin, Proposed Resolve,” 26 February [1776?], in ibid., I:364. [18] Benjamin Franklin to Josiah Quincy, 15 April 1776, in ibid., I:422. [19] Benjamin Franklin to George Washington, 21 June 1776, in ibid., I:500. [20] Bruce, William Cabell, “Benjamin Franklin Self-Revealed: A Biographical and Critical Study Based Mainly on His Own Writings” (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons; two volumes, 1917), I:334. [21] Hale, Edward Everett, “Franklin in France. From Original Documents, Most of Which are Now Published for the First Time” (Boston: Roberts Brothers, 1887), 2. [22] Adams, Charles Francis, “The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States: With a Life of the

Author, Note and Illustrations” (Boston: Little, Brown and Company; two volumes, 1856), I:660. [23] See Francis Wharton, ed., “The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States. Edited Under Direction of Congress” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; six volumes, 1889), II:248. [24] See Orville T. Murphy, “Charles Gravier, Comte de Vergennes. French Diplomacy in the Age of Napoleon, 17191787” (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1982). [25] A series of letters from Arthur Lee to the Committee of Correspondence of the Continental Congress can be seen in Richard Henry Lee, “Life of Arthur Lee, LL.D. Joint Commissioner of the United States to the Court of France, and Sole Commissioner to the Courts of Spain and Prussia, During the Revolutionary War. With His Political and Literary Correspondence and His Papers on Diplomatic and Political Objects, and the Affairs of the United States During the Same Period” (Boston: Published by Wells and Lilly, Court Street; two volumes, 1829), II:47-52. [26] Ward, John William, “Who Was Benjamin Franklin?,” The American Scholar, XXXII:4 (Autumn 1963), 542-43. [27] Hunt, Gaillard, ed., “The Writings of James Madison. Comprising His Public Papers and his Private Correspondence, Including Numerous Letters and Documents Now for the First Time Printed” (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons; three volumes, 1902), III:x. [28] “Speech in a Committee of the Convention; on the Proportion of Representation and Votes,” in Smyth, “The Writings of Benjamin Franklin,” op. cit., IX:595-96. [29] “Philadelphia, April 24,” The Independent Gazetteer; or, The Chronicle of Freedom [Philadelphia], 24 April 1790, 3. [30] The Gazette of the United States [Philadelphia], 24 April 1790, 14, 16. For a further work in memory of Franklin, see “An Exercise, Performed at the Public Commencement, in the College of Philadelphia, July 17, 1790. Containing an Ode, Set to Music, Sacred to the Memory of Dr. Franklin” (Philadelphia: Printed and Sold by William Young, Bookseller, 1790).

The “Franklin Draft” of the Articles of Confederation In 1775, just after the war had begun against England, Benjamin Franklin penned a series of measures for a centralized American government— free of British control—that ultimately would become the Articles of Confederation. When Benjamin Franklin began his attendance as a delegate to the First Continental Congress, he began taking notes for a potential draft of a document that would establish an American confederation. He completed the draft of his proposed articles about 21 July 1775. A month earlier, on 21 June 1775, he notified his fellow delegates that he would be introducing such a plan of union. He based much of his 1775 plan on the 1754 Albany Plan of Union, which called for a confederation of the American colonies under one royal governor. Historian

Fraunces Tavern 425 Jared Sparks, the editor of Franklin’s papers in the mid-19th century, wrote of his draft, “What proceedings were had in relation to them cannot be ascertained from the Journals [of the Continental Congress], but it is probable that after some debate they were referred to a committee. It is worthy of remark that although they are dated nearly a year before the declaration of independence, they could hardly be made practical without assuming the existence of an independent government.” [1] In the Journals of the Continental Congress, written in the hand of Charles Thomson, the secretary of the Congress, is the notes delivered by Franklin: “July 21. 1775. Agreeably to Order the Congress resolved itself into a Committee of the whole to take into Consideration the State of America, when doct. B. Franklin submitted to their Consideration the following Sketch of Articles of Confederation. Art. I. The Name of this Confederacy shall henceforth be The United Colonies of North America. Art. II. The said United Colonies hereby severally enter into a firm League of Friendship with each other, binding on themselves and their Posterity, for their common Defence against their Enemies for the Security of their Liberties and Propertys, the Safety of their Persons and Families, and their mutual and general Welfare.” In total, there were thirteen articles, all of which bound the disparate colonies into one confederation. It was a radical plan, to be sure. [2] One has to remember the situation that the delegates found themselves in at this time. Historian Willi Paul Adams wrote, “When the Second Continental Congress met in Philadelphia in May 1775, the War of Independence had already begun. The war presented the confederation with pressing tasks even before the form of the Confederation itself had been determine. An army that the Congress had not mobilized had laid British-occupied Boston under siege and the Congress now had to assume control of military operations in Massachusetts and appoint a commander-in-chief. Three drafts for articles of confederation—Benjamin Franklin’s of July 1775, John Dickinson’s of July 1776 and the final draft of November 1777—show the degree of consensus and conflict that existed on the issue of constituting the confederation.” [3]

The genius that was Benjamin Franklin shone through when he wrote this document. Writing of Franklin’s ability to frame the issues before the nation, historian Leonard Sadosky explained, “Although Franklin accepted the moves toward independence, he continued to hope that the British imperial system could remain a useful vehicle for resolving the Imperial Crisis. Sometime before 21 July 1775 (when the Articles were presented before Congress), Franklin composed draft articles of confederation for the American colonies. Franklin’s draft articles were not the first attempt made at imagining an American confederation, and they differ in important ways from the articles of Confederation that were eventually put forward to bind together the independent United States in 1777.” [4] The Continental Congress waited two years before debating whether or not to embrace the Articles of Confederation. When they did, they culled ideas from several documents that lay before them, including Franklin’s draft and the draft of John Dickinson. In the end, the document that was presented to the states in 1777 for ratification, which took four years to ratify, was an amalgamation of the ideas of Franklin, Dickinson, Jefferson, Adams, and many others.

[1] “Articles of Confederation and Perpetual Union, Proposed in General Congress” in Jared Sparks, ed., “The Works of Benjamin Franklin; Containing Several Political and Historical Tracts Not Included in Any Former Edition, and Many Letters Official and Private, Not Hitherto Published; with Notes and a Life of the Author” (Boston: Hilliard, Gray, and Company; ten volumes, 1836-40), V:91. [2] “Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789. Edited from the Original Records in the Library of Congress by Worthington Chauncey Ford, Chief, Division of Manuscripts” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; 34 volumes, 1904-37), II:195-99. [3] Adams, Willi Paul, “The First American Constitutions: Republican Ideology and the Making of the State Constitutions in the Revolutionary Era” (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2001), 277. [4] Sadosky, Leonard J., “Revolutionary Negotiations: Indians, Empires, and Diplomats in the Founding of America” (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2009), 66.

Fraunces Tavern Famed as an original New York City landmark, the Fraunces Tavern served as the home of the Continental from January 1785 until 1788.

426

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

In December 1784, as the Continental Congress met in Trenton, New Jersey, during one of its sojourns away from its true headquarters of Philadelphia, the delegates, considering what to do after the Christmas recess, voted to meet again not in Trenton, but in New York City, and at Fraunces Tavern.

Time in the Menial Office of Cook in the Family of General Robertson without any Pay, or Perquisite whatsoever, Except the Priviledge of disposing of the Remna[n]ts of the Tables which he appropriated towards the Comfort of the American Prisoners within the City.” [4] Years later, when he requested a pension from the US government, he stated that while working as a cook for the British, he assisted American troops by smuggling food and clothing to them, as well as delivering intelligence to American military officers on British troop movements inside New York City.

Although named for one of its owners, the innkeeper Samuel Fraunces, in actuality the structure was initially built in 1719 as a residence for Stephen de Lancey, a French Huguenot who emigrated from France to the American colonies in 1686 and became a leading merchant in New York City. The home was built on the southeastern corner of Great Dock and Broad Streets; Great Dock is now known as Pearl Street. De Lancey withheld no expense in building his mansion, and it became one of the most opulent in the city by the middle of the 18th century. [1] Purchased by a private company, the firm of de Lancey, Robinson & Company, which utilized the building as an office, in 1762 it was sold to one Samuel Fraunces for a sum reported as being ₤2000. Fraunces (1722? 1723?-1795), born in the West Indies, is considered to have been a white man despite his birthplace; some sources state that he was of French extraction. [2] However, a work of black business leaders in American history embraces Fraunces as a black man, despite a 1790 census which lists Fraunces and his wife as “free whites.” [3] Whatever his race or ethnicity, Fraunces opened a tavern in the building, naming it the “Queen’s Head Tavern.” Until 1770, Fraunces leased either the entire structure, or portions of it, to various parties. In 1770, he regained full possession of the tavern and ran it until the British invaded New York City in 1776. During this period, the tavern had become a meeting place for groups agitating against British rule, including the Sons of Liberty. When the British swept into the city, they targeted Fraunces for his support of such measures, and he was taken prisoner. Such imprisonment left its victims unable to fight off disease, and many prisoners died from easily treated illnesses. Trying to head off becoming a victim of this situation, Fraunces offered his services to the British. As he later wrote, Fraunces “submitted to serve for some

When he was released, and returned to the operations of his tavern, is unknown, although the end of the war in 1783 is probably the best available date. It is also possible that he had resumed working at the tavern as early as 1781; unable to afford its upkeep, he desired to sell the building, listing it in The New York Royal Gazette on 17 March 1781 and describing it as such: “An elegant Three Story and a Half Brick Dwelling House, situated in Great Dock Street, at the corner of Broad Street, the property of Mr. Samuel Fraunces, and for many Years distinguished as the Queen’s Head Tavern; in which are nine spacious Rooms, besides five Bed-chambers, with thirteen Fire places, an excellent Garret in which are three Bed rooms well finished, an exceeding good Kitchen, and a Spring of remarkable fine Water therein; a most excellent Cellar under the whole, divided into three commodious apartments; a convenient Yard with a good Cistern and Pump, and many other conveniences too tedious to mention; the whole in extraordinary good repair . . .” [5] During the Christmas period of 1784, the Continental Congress, sitting in Trenton, New Jersey, resolved to move its operations to New York City, and the delegates selected Fraunces Tavern as the place where they would assemble. The meeting of the Continental Congress opened in the tavern on 11 January 1785. Although not a large building, the delegates met in a central room, while offices upstairs were used by the Department of Foreign Affairs. Some historians wrongly state that the department had its offices at City Hall; however, a note in the department’s account book, dated 19 January 1785, states that there was “cash paid a cartman for hauling

Fraunces Tavern 427 two cases belonging to the Office, from the City Hall, where they had been carried thro’ mistake with the Boxes of the Secretary’s Office.” [6] Although historians cite the fact that the Continental Congress sat in the tavern that born Fraunces’ name, in fact in April 1785, just three months after the delegates moved in to use the structure, Fraunces sold it, to a butcher from Brooklyn, George Powers, for the sum of ₤1,950. For the remainder of its time in the tavern, the Continental Congress had no connection with Samuel Fraunces. On 1 May 1785, Charles Thomson, the secretary of the Continental Congress, secured a lease for the tavern for an additional two years, having been granted the power to negotiate such a lease by the Continental Congress on 4 April 1785: “Resolved, by nine states, That the Secretary of Congress take a lease from Samuel Frauncis [sic] for his house, now occupied by the public, for the term of two years, at the rate of eight hundred and twelve dollars and one half of a dollar a year: That a warrant be drawn in favour of the said Samuel Frauncis for the sum of sixteen hundred and twenty five dollars, on account of the said rent, and to discharge a mortgage on said house.” [7] During the delegates’ time at the tavern, perhaps the most notable event to occur was General George Washington’s farewell to his officers, which took place in the building on 4 December 1783. The delegates were sitting in the tavern when Britain finally signed the Treaty of Paris, ending the American Revolution in 1783. The delegates sat in the Continental Congress in the tavern until 1788, when repairs being done to the building made it impossible for debates and other matters to continue. On 2 October 1788, the Continental Congress resolved that: [t]he committee consisting of Mr. [Thomas Tudor] Tucker [of South Carolina], Mr. [John] Parker [of South Carolina] and Mr. [Abraham] Clark [of New Jersey] to whom was referred a letter from the Mayor of the city of New York to the Delegates having reported, That it appears from the letter referred to them, that the repairs and alterations intended to be made in the buildings in which Congress at present Assemble, will render it highly inconvenient for them to continue business therein, that it will therefore be necessary to provide some other place for their accomodation, the

committee having made enquiry find no place more proper for this purpose than the two Apartments now appropriated for the Office of Foreign Affairs. They therefore recommend that the said Apartment be immediately repaired for the reception of Congress and the papers of the secretary. [8] The delegates’ last day in the tavern was 30 April 1788. After the Continental Congress left Fraunces Tavern, the building fell into disrepair. Although after its service Fraunces Tavern was never again used for official meetings, in 1790 it was utilized as a place to celebrate the opening of the US Supreme Court in New York City, its first home under the new US Constitution. A history of the homes of the court stated in 1941: On February 1, 1940, the Supreme Court celebrated the 150th anniversary of its first meeting in New York City. The ceremonies of that occasion are recorded at length in the Journal for March 1940. A lot of water has run under the bridge since the organization of the Court in 1790. Perhaps the record of an event as it is described in the United States Gazette for Monday, February 7, 1790, is worth setting out by way of contrast. We read there: “On Monday the Grand Jury for the United States [for the District of New York] gave a very elegant entertainment to the Chief and Associate Justices, the District Judges and the Attorney General, at Fraunce’s Tavern in Courtland Street. The liberality displayed on that occasion and the humor which presided gave particular satisfaction to the respectable guests. After dinner the following toasts were drunk.” [9] It was not until 1906 that a group, The Sons of the Revolution, purchased it and a major restoration of the site took place, completed the following year. It again fell into disrepair, but was purchased, in 1965, by the New York City Landmarks Commission and declared a historical landmark, assuring its preservation. Historian John Whiteclay Chambers II wrote in 1978, “The connection between political leaders and New York’s eateries must begin with Fraunces Tavern, a medium-priced New England style landmark at 54 Pearl Street at Broad. George Washington loved the place. . . . New York politicians dined there dutifully during the 1976 Bicentennial Celebration but otherwise left it mainly to the tourists.” [10]

428

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Since that time, its value, both to the city’s history as well as to the site itself, have been understood. On 24 January 1975, a Puerto Rican terrorist group, the FALN, set off a bomb inside the tavern, killing four and wounding 53 others. [11] As was many of the other structures of lower Manhattan, Fraunces Tavern was impacted by the terrorist attacks of 11 September 2001; located only blocks from the former site of the twin towers of the World Trade Center, it escaped serious damage. [12]

Frederick Frelinghuysen (1753–1804)

Historian Henry Drowne wrote in 1919 a sentiment which is still pertinent today: “Fraunces Tavern has never lost its name and has been open continously as a house of public entertainment since 1762, having much providentially escaped the great conflagrations of 1776 and 1835, which destroyed so much of New York. It has been preserved as an historical memorial of Washington and the days of the Revolution and even as a teacher it is worth a thousand times more what it cost in dollars and cents.” [13]

[1] Drowne, Henry Russell, “A Sketch of Fraunces Tavern, and Those Connected with its History” (New York: Fraunces Tavern, 1919), 3-4. [2] Piehler, G. Kurt, “Fraunces, Samuel” in John A. Garraty and Mark C. Carnes, gen. eds., “American National Biography” (New York: Oxford University Press; 24 volumes, 1999), VIII:414-15. [3] Kranz, Rachel, “African-American Business Leaders & Entrepeneurs” (New York: Facts on File, 2004), 93. [4] Here, Fraunces refers to General James Robertson, the British Governor of New York City, 1780-83. [5] Klos, Stanley Yavneh, “America’s Four Republics: The More or Less United States” (Cedar Key, FL: ROI.us Corporation, 2012), 148. [6] Papers of the US Department of State and Predecessor Agencies, Accounts Records, Cash Book, 1785-95, national archives, entry for 19 January 1785. [7] “Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789. Edited from the Original Records in the Library of Congress by Worthington Chauncey Ford, Chief, Division of Manuscripts” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; 34 volumes, 1904-37), XXVIII:228. [8] Entry of 2 October 1788, in “Journals of The American Congress: From 1774 to 1788. In Four Volumes” (Washington, DC: Printed and Published by Way and Gideon; four volumes, 1823), IV:873-74. [9] U.A.L., “The Supreme Court—Its Homes, Past and Present,” American Bar Association Journal, XXVII:5 (May 1941), 289. [10] Chambers, John Whiteclay, II, “Of Palates and Politics: New York City as a Case Study,” PS, XI:2 (Spring 1978), 224. [11] McCann, Joseph T., “Terrorism on American Soil: A Concise History of the Plots and Perpetrators from the Famous to the Forgotten” (Boulder, CO: Sentient Publications, 2006), 119. [12] Powell, Eric A., “Beyond Ground Zero,” Archaeology, LV:1 (January/February 2002), 22-27. [13] Drowne, Henry Russell, “A Sketch of Fraunces Tavern, and Those Connected with its History,” 22.

Frelinghuysen was the scion of a famed New Jersey family. He served in the Continental Congress (1779) as a US senator from his home state (1793-96), and as member of the Daughters of the American Revolution. Frelinghuysen was born near Somerville, in Somerset County, New Jersey, on 13 April 1753, the only son and one of two children of the Reverend John Frelinghuysen (1727-1754), a preacher, and his wife Dinah (née Van Berg) Frelinghuysen. [1] The Reverend Frelinghuysen, whose birth name was Johannes, was the son of Theodorus Jacobus Frelinghuysen (16911748), considered the elder of the family, who had emigrated from the village of Lingden, the Netherlands, in 1720 and settling in what was the colony of New Jersey. He, in turn, had come from a family which can be traced back several additional generations to Westphalia, an area in what is now northwestern Germany. Theodorus Frelinghuysen, known as “The Apostle of Raritan,” was a leader of the Dutch Reformed Church during the religions period known as “The Great Awakening.” [2] Dinah Van Berg Frelinghuysen was widowed when her son

Frederick Frelinghuysen (1753–1804) 429 was only two. The daughter of a wealthy Dutch merchant, she was preparing to leave America for Amsterdam with her children when one of her deceased husband’s divinity students, Jacob Hardenburgh, asked her to marry him, which she did, embracing both of their families into one. Thus, from both his father’s family as well as his stepfather’s family, Frederick Frelinghuysen received a firm religious upbringing. As a youth, Frelinghuysen followed in his grandfather’s and father’s footsteps. He took divinity and theology classes, but after six months dropped the exercise. Instead, he entered the College of New Jersey (now Princeton University), graduating from that institution in 1770. Studying the law after his graduation, he was admitted to the New Jersey colonial bar and began a practice in Somerset County. He married Gertrude Schenck, the daughter of a famed New Jersey family; together, the couple had three children, all of who lived to adulthood. During this period, the movement towards the independence of the American colonies from England grew in size, due mainly to protests over a series of harsh economic measures enacted by the British Parliament against specific colonies, with most of them aimed at Massachusetts. Working closely with his friend, John Witherspoon, the president of the College of New Jersey, Frelinghuysen joined the movement for ultimate American independence from London. In 1775, when just 22 years old, Frelinghuysen was named, along with Witherspoon and William Paterson, as delegates to the New Jersey Provisional Congress held that year and in 1776 in Trenton. [3] Documents show that Frelinghuysen, along with Paterson, were both elected at this meeting as assistants to the man elected as the president of the convention, Hendrick Fisher. [4] Historian Charles R. Erdman, Jr., wrote, “His votes in that body show him to have been one of the most uncompromising of those seeking complete separation from England.” [5] According to a biography of Frelinghuysen, Frelinghuysen served as a member of the New Jersey Committee of Correspondence; however, the biography also states that “[he] was a member of the Continental Congress in 1775,” which we know is not true—he served in that body in 1779, not 1775. [6] Following his state political service, Frelinghuysen joined the Continental Army,

although his exact unit remains unclear; he may have served in a New Jersey unit, possibly the militia. His biography does state that “[t] hroughout the war he varied his legislative duties with those of a very active military career. First a major of the Minute Men of his county, next a captain of artillery, major, and finally colonel and aide-de-camp to Gen. Philemon Dickinson, Frelinghuysen took part in the battles of Trenton, Princeton, and Monmouth. At Princeton his intimate knowledge of the local terrain was said to have been of great help to his superior officers.” [7] A more extensive work—and, perhaps the most comprehensive on Frelinghuysen, is that done by historian H. Kels Swan in 1967. He wrote, “In the . . . month of February 1776 we first find Frederick Frelinghuysen an officer. The Provisional Congress at New Brunswick has requested a battalion of minute men to defend New York. Charles Stewart was to be [a] Colonel and Frelinghuysen a Major, but Somerset had sent all her powder to Colonel Wind at Amboy [in New Jersey] where he was preparing his battalion for the Northern Expedition, so there was none for the minute men and they disbanded. What a fortunate day for old Somerset not to have lost her Frelinghuysen to the colony as a minute man!” [8] He attained the rank of colonel by the end of the American Revolution. [9] On 6 November 1778, Frelinghuysen was elected by the New Jersey General Assembly to a seat in the Continental Congress. According to historian Edmund Cody Burnett, Frelinghuysen “[d]id not attend [any sessions] in 1778.” [10] This may have been because he was fighting in the military. However, on 6 November 1778, Frelinghuysen was subsequently reelected to the Continental Congress; this time he served, attending sessions from 23 January to 27 February 1779, and from 11 to 24 March 1779. Historian Burnett explained, “[On] 29 April he asked to be excused from further attendance, and it was presumably to fill his place that [William Churchill] Houston was elected [in his stead on] 25 May.” [11] The one piece of correspondence from Frelinghuysen during his service in the Continental Congress, was a letter to Caleb Camp, the Speaker of the New Jersey Assembly, 29 April 1779, regarding matters in the Continental Congress, and asking that he be allowed to resign his seat immediately, a request which was granted. He wrote:

430

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Agreeable to the appointment of the Legislature, I repaired to Philadelphia in the month of January last, and have since that time attended Congress, until the public business entrusted to my care in the county of Somerset rendered my absence unavoidable. It is needless for me to remind the honorable Legislature, that I did with great reluctance accept of the appointment of a delegate for this state in Congress. I was then sufficiently sensible that the trust was too important for my years and abilities. I am now fully convinced that I should do injustice to my country did I not decline that service. In doing this, I am conscious to myself that I am actuated merely by motives for the public good, well knowing that whatever may be my abilities, they will be useless to the state in the supreme council of the Nation, and that the other appointments with which the Legislature of New Jersey have been pleased to honor me in the county of Somerset, are more than sufficient to employ my whole attention. I might add some other circumstances which render my situation there peculiarly disagreeable, but I fear the evils which might arise from my opening myself on this subject, would more than counterbalance any good it might probably answer. I trust, however, the representatives of New Jersey will not think it impertinent in one who has faithfully endeavored to serve his country, to declare to them that the interests of America loudly call on them for extraordinary vigilance. I shall say nothing respecting the amazing expense of attending Congress, and my inability to support it. I am determined not to complain till the last farthing of my little property is spent in the service of my country; and then, perhaps, I shall have the consolation to see poverty esteemed as the characteristic of an honest man. I conclude with observing, I am particularly moved to wish for a release from the appointment, as it has been hinted to me that my colleague Mr. [John] Fell is exceedingly uneasy that he is so often left alone to manage the weighty affairs of state, and that he has even expressed himself with warmth and temper on the subject in his letters to the Legislature. I shall only say I am ready at all times to give an account of my conduct to those who appointed me. I trust the Legislature will take into consideration and gratify my request of being excused from the farther attendance at Congress. [12]

state ratifying convention that ratified the US Constitution, signed in Philadelphia that same year. He also served as a member of the State Council, an advisory group from 1790 to 1792.

Returning to New Jersey, Frelinghuysen served in a military capacity for the remainder of the conflict. In 1781, he was elected as the clerk of the Court of Common Pleas of Somerset County, where he served until 1789, resigning that office. In 1784, he was elected to the New Jersey General Assembly, serving that single legislative year, and, then again from 1800 to 1804. In 1787, he served as a member of the New Jersey

In 1790, President George Washington named Frelinghuysen as a brigadier general to conduct a military campaign against Indian tribes in what was then considered the western United States. Three years later, despite his unfavorable opinion of his earlier political service in the Continental Congress, Frelinghuysen accepted an election to a seat in the US Senate, where he sat from 4 March 1793 to 12 November 1796, when he resigned. His last official service came in 1794 when, as a sitting member of Congress, he served as a major general during the Whiskey Rebellion. Frederick Frelinghuysen died at his home in Millstone, New Jersey, on 13 April 1804, his 51st birthday. [13] He was laid to rest in the Old Cemetery in Weston, New Jersey. Buried next to his wife, Gertrude Schenck Frelinghuysen (1752-1794), in two large sarcophagi, his tomb has on it a stone that reads, “Entombed Beneath This Stone Lies the Remains of the Honourable Frederick Frelinghuysen, Esq. Major General of the Military Forces and Representative in the General Assembly of This His Native State.” Frederick Frelinghuysen’s family has come to be known for decades of political service: Frelinghuysen’s son Theodore served in the US Senate, and, in 1844, was the Whig vice presidential candidate on the ticket with Henry Clay; Theodore’s son, Frederick Theodore Frelinghuysen, was a US senator as well, serving as secretary of state; his son, Joseph Sherman Frelinghuysen (1869-1948), served in the US Senate (1917-23); his grandson, Peter Hood Ballantine Frelinghuysen, Jr. (1916-2011), served in the US House of Representatives (1953-75), while his son, Rodney P. Frelinghuysen (1946- ), has, as of this writing, continues to serve in the US House of Representatives (1995- ). Rodney Frelinghuysen is the great-great-great-greatgrandson of Frederick Frelinghuysen, who served in the Continental Congress 235 years ago.

[1] See the Frelinghuysen family tree, online at www. geni.com/people/Frederick-Frelinghuysen-U-SSenator/6000000015310452526. Sources list Dinah Frelinghuysen’s maiden name as Van Berr, Van Bergh, and Vanberr.

The French Arms Tavern 431 [2] Frelinghuysen “political family tree,” online at www.politicalfamilytree.com/samples%20content/members/vp_losing-cand/ Frelinghuysen-NJ-1.pdf. For additional information on Theodorus Frelinghuysen, see F.J. Schrag, “Theodorus Jacobus Frelinghuysen: The Father of American Pietism,” Church History, XIV:3 (September 1945), 201-16. [3] “Minutes of the Provisional Congress and the Council of Safety of the State of New Jersey” (Trenton, NJ: Printed by Naar, Day & Naar, 1879). [4] “Hendrik Fisher Elected President,” in Peter Force, ed., “American Archives: Consisting of a Collection of Authentick Records, State Papers, Debates, and Letters and Other Notices of Publick Affairs, the Whole Forming a Documentary History of the Origin and Progress of the North America Colonies; of the Causes and Accomplishment of the American Revolution; and of the Constitution of Government for the United States, to the Final Ratification Thereof. In Six Series” (Washington, DC: Published by M. St. Clair Clarke and Peter Force; ten volumes, 1837-53), Series 4, II:687. [5] Erdman, Charles R., Jr., “Frederick Frelinghuysen” in Allen Johnson, “Dictionary of American Biography” (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons; eleven volumes and five supplements, 1958-77), VII:15. [6] Fulsom, Joseph Fairford, advisory chairman, “Cyclopedia of New Jersey Biography, Memorial and Biographical” (New York: American Historical Society, Inc., 1921), 22. [7] Erdman, Charles R., Jr., “Frederick Frelinghuysen,” in “Dictionary of American Biography,” op. cit., VII:15. [8] Swan, H. Kels, “Raritan’s Revolutionary Rebel: Frederick Frelinghuysen, Fatherles Protégé of Dirck Middagh” (Somerville, NJ: Daughters of the American Revolution, 1967), 13. [9] Frelinghuysen’s biography in the Biographical Directory of the United States Congress, one of the most comprehensive, does not list any specific military service; see the biography online at http:// bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=F000368. [10] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), III:lvi. [11] Burnett, “Letters of Members,” IV:lvi. [12] Frederick Frelinghuysen to Caleb Camp, Speaker of the New Jersey Assembly, 29 April 1779, in ibid., IV:185. [13] “Died,” The Centinel of Freedom [Newark, New Jersey], 24 April 1804, 3.

The French Arms Tavern After leaving Annapolis, Maryland, where they met from 26 November 1783 until 19 August 1784, the delegates to the Continental Congress moved to Trenton, New Jersey, and selected the French Arms Tavern on the southwestern corner of King (now Warren) Street and Second (now State) Street as their meeting place. The American Revolutionary war had ended more than a year earlier, with the signing of the Treaty of Paris. However, the Continental Congress moved around to various cities in an effort to try to find a potential—if not proper— capital of the new American nation. To this end, Trenton, at that time a small and barely inhabited city, was given the chance to “show off” whether or not it could handle the bureaucracy that would

come with the institution of being declared the national capital. Thus, following the move from Annapolis, the delegates voted to move to New Jersey. This came about after a June 1783 mutiny by noncommissioned officers and soldiers in Philadelphia. The state of Pennsylvania did not call out militia troops, and a group of heavily armed troops marched on the State House in Philadelphia to force the Continental Congress to hear their demands. A report in The Pennsylvania Evening Post of 12 July 1783 noted a report from Major William Jackson, the assistant secretary of war, who wrote, “Sir: Information having been received, that a detachment of about eighty mutineers, are on their way from Lancaster to this place [Philadelphia], you will please to proceed to meet them, and to endeavour by every prudent method to engage them to return to the post they have left.” [1] The delegates, shocked and stunned by the threat to their safety, instead authorized President Elias Boudinot “to summon the members of Congress to meet on Thursday next at Trenton or Princeton in New Jersey in order that further and more effectual measures may be taken for suppressing the present revolt and maintaining the dignity and authority of the United States.” [2] Having already sat at Princeton, the delegates assembled instead in Trenton. That city had lobbied Congress in 1783 to try to get the new federal capital moved there. Historian Varnum Lansing Collins wrote, “The news that Trenton or Princeton was to be honored with the presence of Congress had traveled to New Jersey as rapidly as post-riders could carry it. When Vice-President Cox of the New Jersey State Council received on the 24th Mr. [Elias] Boudinot’s Letter of the day before, he summoned to the French Arms Tavern a meeting of the inhabitants of Trenton and its neighborhood ‘who being justly alarmed at the daring insult offered to the Supreme Government of the American Union, and being desirous of testifying their zeal in support of the Dignity & privileges of Congress’ speedily passed resolutions which were forwarded to President Boudinot the next day by the chairman of the meeting.” [3] The French Arms Tavern was selected as a meeting house because, at the time, it was the largest structure in Trenton. This did not bode well to the city gaining acceptance to become a national capital. However, the French Arms Tavern was an important structure in Trenton. Historian Steven

432

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Richman explained, “The ‘Corner Historic,’ as the intersection of South Warren and West State Street, is, as its name proclaims, steeped in history. It, too, is a kind of hallowed ground. Originally the site of a stone residence in the 1730s, by the 1740s it was home to the Royal Governor of the colony of New Jersey, Lewis Morris. By 1780 it became a tavern, in which the Continental Congress met, and by 1782 was known as the French Arms Tavern. Lafayette took leave of Congress in the tavern.” [4]

some discussion as to whether or not Trenton would make a suitable national capital, in reality it stood little chance, being too small, and being too far north to suit the southern delegates.

The delegates initially assembled at the French Arms Tavern on 1 November 1784; however, because only seven members appeared, the absence of quorum was called. The seriousness of the absence of most of the delegates is demonstrated in the Journals of the Continental Congress, which, on 11 November 1783, reported that “[f]our states attended, namely, New Jersey, Virginia, South Carolina, and Georgia; and from the State of Massachusetts, Mr. [Samuel] Holten, and from North Carolina, Mr. [Hugh] Williamson. At the desire of the states and members attending, the Secretary wrote to the executive of the states unrepresented, urging them to send on delegates with all possible despatch.” [5] As noted, on 30 November, the requisite number of states represented were in attendance, and the delegates quickly moved to the election of a president. Again, as the Journals of the Continental Congress state, “Eight states being assembled, the United States in Congress Assembled, proceeded to the election of a President, and, the ballots being taken, the honorable Richard Henry Lee was elected.” [6]

The French Arms Tavern no longer exists, but for that short period it played a key role in the early history of America. According to several sources, the structure was run as a tavern by one John Dagworthy until his death in 1756. As noted, it was then utilized as the official office of New Jersey Governor Lewis Morris, from 1740 until 1742. Samuel Henry, who manufactured iron, purchased the building in 1760, and he later leased it to one Jacob G. Bergen for use as a tavern. Bergen still ran the place in 1784 when the Continental Congress used it. Louise Hewitt, another historian of New Jersey, wrote in 1916 of this structure as “The Stacy Potts House.” She explained, “The Citizens of the town gave a Dinner and Reception to General Washington in this Tavern on April 21st, 1789, on the day when he passed through Trenton on his way to New York to be inaugurated [as the] first President of the United States. At one time this Inn was called the ‘French Anns,’ and previous to that, ‘The Thirteen Stars,’ kept at that time by Mr. Bergen. The Continental Congress met here in 1784.” [7] In 1837, the structure that was once the French Arms Tavern was torn down; another building was constructed on the same site, which today is The Mechanics Bank. [8]

During the short period that the Continental Congress sat in Trenton, two items of note occurred, both dealing with foreign policy. On 3 December 1784, the Minister Plenipotentiary of the Netherlands, Peter Van Berckel, went to the city to establish diplomatic relations with the United States; as well, Gilbert du Motier, the Marquis de Lafayette, representing his native France, also visited Trenton to give diplomatic recognition to the new nation.

In a side note, the Continental Congress only sat in Trenton from 1 November 1784 to 24 December of that same year. At the same time that the delegates were meeting, the tavern was the temporary home for the Department for Foreign Affairs, which conducted the foreign relations for the new nation. The Secretary for Foreign Affairs, Robert Livingston, had resigned nearly a year before; John Jay, his successor, had been appointed to the post in May 1784, but he did not take control of the office until 21 December 1784, just three days before the delegates left Trenton. During the short period that the delegates were in Trenton, the office was run by Henry Remsen, Jr. [9]

On 10 December 1784, the crisis in Philadelphia passed; the delegates from South Carolina moved to adjourn the Continental Congress, and it was voted for in the affirmative. Although there was

[1] “The instructions to Major Jackson,” The Pennsylvania Evening Post [Philadelphia], 12 July 1783, 113-14.

George Frost (1720–1796)433 [2] “Trenton, July 9. The United States in Congress Assembled, June 21, 1783,” The Connecticut Courant and Weekly Intelligencer [Hartford], 22 July 1783, 3. [3] Collins, Varnum Lansing, “The Continental Congress at Princeton” (Princeton, NJ: The University Library, 1908), 41. [4] Richman, Steven M., “Reconsidering Trenton: The Small City in the Post-Industrial Age” (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, Inc., 2011), 84. See also Walker, Edwin Robert; Hamilton Schuyler, and John J Cleary, “A History of Trenton, 1679-1929. Two Hundred and Fifty Years of a Notable Town with Links in Four Centuries” (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1929). [5] Ford, Worthington C., ed., “Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789. Edited from the Original Records in the Library of Congress by Worthington Chauncey Ford, Chief, Division of Manuscripts” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; 34 volumes, 1904-37), XXVII:641. [6] Ibid., XXVII:649. [7] Hewitt, Louise, comp., “Historic Trenton” (Trenton, NJ: The Smith Press, 1916), 53. [8] See Dr. Carlos E. Godfrey, “The Mechanics Bank, 1834-1919, Trenton in New Jersey. A History” (Trenton, NJ: Privately Published, 1919). [9] For information on Remsen, see “Journals of the Continental Congress,” op. cit., XXVI:122.

George Frost (1720–1796)

A delegate to the Continental Congress from New Hampshire (1777-79), George Frost is also remembered for his role as a sea captain and as a member of the Court of Common Pleas as both an associate and chief justice. Born in New Castle, in Rockingham County, New Hampshire, on 26 April 1720, he was the son and one of 16 children of John Frost, a

seaman who had served in the British navy, and Mary (née Pepperell) Frost. John Frost, born in Kittery, Maine, in March 1682, was a son of Major Charles Frost, born in Tiverton, Devon, England, who emigrated with his wife to the American colonies. [1] John Frost had a notable service in the British navy before he settled down in what is now the state of Maine. Mary Pepperell Frost’s father, William, was born in Revelstoke, in Devonshire, England, in 1647, and emigrated to Maine, then part of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. [2] Her brother, William Pepperell, the 1st Baronet Pepperell (1696-1759), was a distinguished British soldier who was a leader of the march in 1745 that took control of the French garrison at Fort Louisbourg during King George’s War. [3] The death of John Frost when his son was 12 placed a large burden on the Frost family. Mary Pepperell Frost, unable to care for so many children as a widow, sent George to live with his uncle, William, who instilled in him business and military values. He taught him how to run a ship, skills that George Frost was to use later in life. Although he came from a large family, Frost went into business by himself, opening a merchant concern near the village of Kittery Point, near Portsmouth. New Hampshire. He soon became a sea captain, plying the seas of the region through trade and commerce. He remained as a sea captain for the next two decades. In 1760, Frost returned to Newcastle, where apparently he picked up his business concern. He remained in Newcastle for a decade; in 1770, he relocated to Durham, where he studied the law in an attempt to broaden his economic prospects. Integrating himself into the Durham community, in 1773 Frost was elected as a judge of the Court of Common Pleas for Strafford County, a post he would hold until 1791. According to his official congressional biography, Frost “served as chief justice [for] several years.” [4] On 1 April 1777, along with Nathaniel Folsom, Frost was elected to a seat in the Continental Congress. He ultimately attended sessions from 16 May to 17 September 1777, and then from about 20 December to 31 December 1777. [5] There are two pieces of correspondence from Frost during his Continental Congress service; both are to Josiah Bartlett, who had

434

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

served in the Continental Congress himself from New Hampshire, and in 1776 had signed the Declaration of Independence in the first letter, dated 19 August 1777, Frost writes:

Should in som measure have their propotion of Genl. Officers according to the Troops they Raised by which Reason sor officers was Supersed [ed] or as they call afronted. [7]

I Recd. yours of the 25th. Ulto. (it came to hand after the post was gorn [sic; may be “gone”]) You say the appointment of Genl Schoyler [sic; should be General Philip Schuyler] to the Command at the northward gave great uneasiness to New Hampshire and I’l [sic] add to many other states also and that very justly the Deligate[s] from the Eastern States told Congress that the people in those States had no confidence in sd. Genl. but the Influence of said man and the Deligates of New York (Dewane and Duer in my opinion is no better then their Genl.) had more wait in Congress at that time then all the Deligates from the Eastern States and obtained a majority of one vote in his favour, they now see the Ill Consequence of that appointmt and have order’d Genl: Gates to supersead [sic] him in that Command and sopose he is at that post if well before this time Schoyler and St. Clear [St. Clair] is ordered to head quarters in order for tryeul [sic]; I hope you’l furnish the Court of Inquiry with all the proofs Relating to the situation that post was in and in what manner the troops was furnished. Schoyler [sic] and St. Clear writes to Congress and says most of the troops was old men, Boys, and negros and unfit for garison duty their armes very bad and but one bayinet to ten men, that many of the officers mutinous and a disgrace to an armey that he (Schoyler) wants power from Congress to suspend them, thanks be to praise they are suspended themselves. [6]

After leaving the Continental Congress, Frost returned to public life in New Hampshire, where he continued to serve in several state positions. The Massachusetts Spy of 22 February 1791 reported from Exeter, New Hampshire, that “[t]he members of the Hon. Council for the State of New-Hampshire, as returned [on] December 20, 1780, areas follows: For the county of Rockingham, The Hon. George Frost.” [8] Another paper, Fowle’s NewHampshire Gazette of Plymouth, reported on 30 December 1786 a listing of the “civil officers, &c. for the county of Strafford, [and the] Justices of the Inferior Court of CommonPlease [sic],” and listed “Hon. George Frost” as being a representative of the town of Durham. [9] Frost served as a member of the state’s Executive Council from 1781 to 1784. The New-Hampshire Gazette reported on 14 April 1795 that Frost, along with William Vennad and Thomas Bell, had been appointed as a committee “to receive, examine, and adjust all the claims of the creditors to the estate of Capt. Edward Tredick, late of Newcastle, mariner, deceased.” [10]

In the second missive, Frost penned: The foregoing letter was Sent by Gen]. Lincoln to Genl. Schoyler and by P. Schoyler to Congress Which is Very Alarming to Congress that Gen. Starkes Should take Occasion to Resent any sopposed Affrunt by Congress to him when his Country lays at Stake. at the Same time woud [sic] take Notis [sic] that we Shall loos [sic] the benifit [sic] of our troops being put in the Continentall pay Except the Measures are Alterd, and woud [sic] also observe he dont refuse to put him selfe under Gen]. Schoyler who is Recarled from thet Command and Congress has given the Command of thet Armey to Genl. Gates, wch. I Suppose Gel. Starke knew not of at that time. as to the promotion of Officers in the Armey the Congress went on a new plan agreaed [sic] on in Baltimore (at the Raising the as it Called Standing Armey) that Every State

George Frost died at his home in Durham, New Hampshire, on 21 June 1796, and was laid to rest in Pine Hill Cemetery in Dover, Strafford County, New Hampshire. The Oracle of the Day of Portsmouth, New Hampshire, said, “As a respectable statesman and patriot he was early known in the general Congress, and for many years in the offices of Judge in this state. His humanity, his cheerfulness and his great philanthropy gave evidence of his truly christian [sic] temper—and his unexampled hospitality and kindness, rendered him dear to society. His consort [wife] and children feel the loss of unceasing affection and tenderness— and the sons and daughters of poverty and distress within the compass of his knowledge, now fighting, say, ‘We have lost our friend.’” [11]

[1] Frost, Norman Seaver, “Frost Genealogy in Five Families” (West Newton, MA: Frost Family Association of America, 1926).

George Frost (1720–1796)435 [2] Frost, John Elbridge, “The Nicholas Frost Family” (Milford, NH: Cabinet Press, 1943). [3] Burrage, Henry S., “Maine at Louisburg In 1745” (Augusta, ME: Burleigh & Flynt, 1910), 121-23. [4] Frost official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=F000390. [5] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), II:liii. [6] George Frost to Josiah Bartlett, 19 August 1777, in ibid., II:456.

[7] George Frost to Josiah Bartlett, 19 August 1777, in ibid., II:456-57. [8] “Exeter, January 29,” Thomas’s Massachusetts Spy, Or American Oracle of Liberty [Worcester], 22 February 1781, 4. [9] Fowle’s New-Hampshire Gazette [Plymouth], 30 December 1786, 2. [10] “The Subscribers,” The New-Hampshire Gazette [Portsmouth], 14 April 1795, 1. [11] “Died, at Durham,” The Oracle of the Day [Portsmouth, New Hampshire], 30 June 1796, 3.

G Christopher Gadsden (1724–1805)

Collins Hall, who died in 1730, and then to Alice Mighells, who bore her husband two additional sons before his own death in 1741. Christopher Gadsden was sent to live with his father’s relatives near Bristol, England. After he received his education at what has been called “an English classical school” in England, he returned to the colonies and went to work in a countinghouse in Philadelphia. He also served for a short time as a member of a crew of a British warship, the HMS Aldborough, as a purser during King George’s war from 1745 to 1746. In the latter year, he left the service when he married Jane Godfrey, born in 1730. Together, the couple moved to Charleston, South Carolina, where they had one child, a daughter, Elizabeth, who lived to age 28. Jane Gadsden would die in 1759 at age 29, after which Gadsden married Mary Hasell, with whom he had two children, a daughter and a son, before her death in 1769. Gadsden married a third time, to Ann Wragg, who died the same year as he did.

A merchant, and leader among the men who fought in South Carolina for the movement of independence from Great Britain, Christopher Gadsden served as a delegate to the Continental Congress from his home state (1774-76). The son of Thomas and Elizabeth Gadsden, Christopher Gadsden was born in Charleston, South Carolina, on 16 February 1724. According to one biography, penned by historian George Stillman Hilliard in 1879, “Thomas Gadsden . . . [was] a lieutenant in the British Navy, and Collector of the Port of Charleston under the royal government.” [1] Historian F.A. Porcher agreed, writing in 1878, “His father was Thomas Gadsden, a Lieutenant in the Royal Navy, and the King’s Collector for the Port of Charleston.” [2] Thomas Gadsden had four children with his first wife, who died when her son Christopher was a child; Gadsden’s three older brothers also died before they reached maturity. Thomas then remarried twice, first to

In Charleston, Gadsden became a noted purveyor of fine goods, such as furs, indigo, and rice, which he sold and became quite wealthy. Although some biographers of Gadsden call him a merchant, he was more than that; and, combined with the inheritance he received from his father’s estate and the payments he received from the sale of goods, he was able to purchase two large plantations in the Charleston area. He also grew his business to include ships, and more than 100 slaves. By 1761, he was considered one of the most prosperous dealers of goods in South Carolina. Historian George C. Rogers, Jr., wrote, “Gadsden, whose father Thomas Gadsden was for a long time Collector of the royal customs in Charleston, has usually been labeled a merchant, but he expressly stated in 1769 that he was no longer a merchant, but a factor, generally known as a Country Factor. The distinction is important for understanding Gadsden’s role in the [American] Revolution. A merchant was a man with English connections, who drew his capital from London, who wanted therefore to buy the country produce cheap in order to load the vessels consigned to him by his English

Christopher Gadsden (1724–1805)437 friends to the best advantage. The Charleston factor was the man who marshaled the produce from the country on his wharf and had the same interest as the planter—to sell at high prices.” [3] In 1757, Gadsden became involved in the political arena of the South Carolina colony. In elections for the Commons House of Assembly held in 1762, Gadsden won reelection to that colonial body. Historian Jack Greene explained, “When, in April, 1762, Charles Lowndes declined the seat in the Commons to which he had been elected by the parish of St. Paul, the governor complied with a request from that body that he call a special election to fill the vacancy. In that election Christopher Gadsden, thirty-six-year-old Charleston merchant-planter who had been a member of the Commons from 1757 to 1761, received nearly 80 per cent of the votes in a threeway contest.” However, tensions between the royal government led by Governor Thomas Boone and the Commons, gave way to controversy: rather than admit Gadsden to the colonial Commons House of Assembly, Boone instead dissolved the body and called for new elections. [4] Gadsden won the seat again, and Boone was forced to back down. This spirit of standing up against adversaries marked the life of Christopher Gadsden. Historian Robert R. Meriwether stated: In the Stamp Act Congress of 1765, Gadsden distinguished himself by his arguments for colonial union and against recognition of the authority of Parliament . . . He was now the acknowledged leader of the radicals of the province. In his political principles he was an excellent representative of the liberal portion of the South Carolina aristocracy— insistent on the rights of self-government, but with standards of public order and official responsibility practically precluding anything more democratic than popular rights with aristocratic leadership. Personal qualities rather than difference of principles put him far in advance of his fellows. Despite impetuosity impetuosity to the point of rashness, and a temper that he controlled with the greatest difficulty, his integrity and religious zeal, his courage, optimism, and energy made him an invaluable champion. [5] The series of harsh economic measures enacted by the British Parliament against the American colonies, including the Sugar Act (1764) and the Stamp Act (1765) served to radicalize men

like Christopher Gadsden. On 13 February 1766, Gadsden wrote to Christopher Pearson in England, “We are waiting very anxiously to hear the result of Parliament which shou’d it be against us, many dismal Consequences will unavoidably follow both in this & the Northern Provinces. Not even a pretence was suggested in or out of Parliament when the Stamp Act pass’d that the Americans had done any Thing to forfeit their Charters, or lose their essential Rights & Liberties & many amongst us, those too of clear & independent fortunes have Bravery & Virtue enough to risk every thing & go the most desperate Lengths rather than Submit to so unconstitutional an Act.” [6] Pressure brought upon London caused the Stamp Act to be overturned, which gave new impetus to Gadsden and his fellow patriots who desired to see more sovereignty from England. On 9 June 1766, The South Carolina Gazette reported that “The honorable the [C] ommons House of Assemble [sic] of this Province have requested of Thomas Lynch, Christopher Gadsden and John Rutledge, Esqs. that they will sit for their pictures; which are to be drawn at full length and preserved in the assembly room as a testimony of public regard for those gentlemen, and that the rememberance of the signal service they have done their country, as a committee from this province at the congress held at New York in October last may be transmitted to and remembered by positive terity; the expence whereof is to be defrayed by the province.” [7] Gadsden remained an outspoken member of the Commons for the next years. At the same time, he continued to build his business, which he saw as being a part of his freedom as an American. He built a wharf in Charleston; in a letter to Samuel Adams in Massachusetts, he wrote on 23 May 1774 that he had constructed “large Wharf, or rather, quay, the largest in America . . . to relieve my Mind for the almost insupportable Loss of my eldest Son, a very promising youth of about sixteen years old.” [8] With the passage in the British Parliament of the “Coercive Acts,” a line was crossed that led to the call for a “general congress” of delegates from all of the colonies to meet in Philadelphia beginning in the first week of September 1774. The South Carolina Commons voted on 2 August to send Gadsden, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Lynch, Henry Middleton, and Edward Rutledge

438

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

as delegates to the parley. Gadsden ultimately was reelected to the body on 3 February 1775 and 29 November 1775, serving in sessions from 5 September to 26 October 1774, 10 May t0 2 August 1775, and from about 5 September 1775 to 17 January 1776. [9] John Adams, in his diary which covered his trip to and arrival and stay in Philadelphia, wrote on 29 August 1775, “We then rode into town, and dirty, dusty, and fatigued as we were, we could not resist the importunity to go to the tavern, the most genteel one in America. There we were introduced to a number of other gentlemen of the city: Dr. Shippen, Dr. Knox, Mr. Smith, and a multitude of others, and to Mr. Lynch and Mr. Gadsden of South Carolina. Here we had a fresh welcome to the city of Philadelphia, and after some time spent in conversation, a curtain was drawn, and in the other half of the chamber a supper appeared as elegant as ever was laid upon a table.” [10] In another entry, Adams wrote of Gadsden’s opposition to any action of the British Parliament on trade matters: “Visited Mr. Gadsden, Mr. Deane, Colonel Dyer, etc. at their lodgings. Gadsden is violent against allowing to Parliament any power of regulating trade, or allowing that they have any thing to do with us. ‘Power of regulating trade,’ he says, ‘is power of ruining us; as bad as acknowledging them a supreme legislative in all cases whatsoever; a right of regulating trade is a right of legislation, and a right of legislation in one case is a right in all; this I deny.’ Attended the Congress and committee all the forenoon . . .” [11] Historian Frank Ryan found ample evidence that furthers the belief that Christopher Gadsden may have been the most incendiary opponent of Britain in that First Continental Congress. He explained, “With evident surprise Silas Deane [of Connecticut] observed that Christopher Gadsden ‘leaves all New England Sons of Liberty far behind, for he is for taking up his firelock and marching direct to Boston; nay, he affirmed this morning, that were his wife and all his children in Boston, and they were to perish by the sword, it would not alter his sentiment or proceeding for American liberty.’” [12]

colonies, and whether these would ultimately help the patriot cause or harm it. Historian Christopher Gould wrote in 1986:

One of the leading controversies that arose in the first days of the First Continental Congress was that over the issue of nonimportation or nonexportation agreements between all of the

Delegates to the Continental Congress, which convened in Philadelphia on 5 September, also were divided over the issue of non-importation and nonexportation. Nevertheless, despite opposition from South Carolina and the other southern colonies, a proposal called the Continental Association was approved on 18 October. According to its terms, nonimportation would commence 1 December, while non exportation would be delayed until 1 March 1775. The Association was opposed by every one of South Carolina’s delegates except Christopher Gadsden. Since their dissent would have made the Association inoperative in South Carolina, concessions became inevitable. There fore after considerable debate, Congress decided to exempt rice (but not indigo, as South Carolina delegates also had urged) from nonexportation. Edward Rutledge found this compromise to be based “upon the strictest principles of honour and policy,” yet he recognized that the terms of the Continental Association still would have to be justified to many South Carolinians, not just to indigo planters. [13] After his service in the Continental Congress ended, Gadsden returned to South Carolina, where he went back to his seat in the South Carolina Provisional Congress, established in the wake of the vacuum of power after the royal governments collapsed. In this capacity, he actually aided his state more than he had in the Continental Congress, by helping to write South Carolina’s first state constitution. Historian Terry Lipscomb penned: The South Carolina Provincial Congress began to take action on this resolution in February 1776, about the time that Christopher Gadsden, John Rutledge, and Henry Middleton returned from Philadelphia to resume their seats in that body. Gadsden immediately ventured his opinion that the proposed constitution should declare complete independence of Great Britain, but he was vigorously overruled by his fellow members. On 11 February, a committee was elected to prepare a plan of government. The eleven members of this committee were Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, John Rutledge, Charles Pinckney, Henry Laurens, Christopher Gadsden, Rawlins Lowndes,

Christopher Gadsden (1724–1805)439 Arthur Middleton, Henry Middleton, Thomas Bee, Thomas Lynch, Jr., and Thomas Heyward, Jr. This group represented the entire spectrum of political opinion in the assembly, and no less than three of the members were future signers of the Declaration of Independence. [14] Gadsden was also a supporter in South Carolina of signing the Articles of Confederation, the first national system of government in the United States. To this end, Gadsden wrote to William Henry Drayton, a fellow South Carolinian who also served in the Continental Congress (1778-79) until shortly prior to his death, on 15 August 1778: All your friends I assure you are concerned that any difficulties should happen so as to occasion hesitation to sign the Confederation. We cannot see the least force in the objections. A confederation ought most certainly to have been signed long since. What must the French think? Have they not made an alliance with 13 States? But how can that be while no confederation is made between themselves and if even upon arrival of their Ambassadeur, every State must be separately pleased and throw so many difficulties in the way? What! Because one State has orders not to sign, and another State has not received instructions to sign, Shall we who had positive orders to agree to the determinations of Congress, withdraw our consent and make the breach still wider and do all in our power to make Maryland more obstinate? Had our confederation been signed there would be no room for any political powers or parties, allies or not allies, to interfere for their own purposes. This is no new thing (I am sure you know) in Europe. Witness Holland, Germany, Switzerland &c. Let us prevent all such maneuvres as soon as possible. Nothing will do it so speedily or effectively as a ratify’d Confederation. [15] At the same time that he was continuing his political activities in South Carolina, Gadsden also took command, in 1776, of the newly established South Carolina militia; in June of that year, he was involved in the defense of Fort Johnson when the British attacked the nearby Fort Moultrie, now part of the Fort Sumter National Monument in South Carolina. In September 1777, due to his military service, Gadsden was given the position of Brigadier General in the Continental Army. He remained in the service of the government until 1783, participating in the defense of the city of Charleston in 1780. By this time, Gadsden had

made several enemies in the state. In 1778, he had pushed in the legislature the disestablishment of the church as a leading body; he also supported the popular election of senators to the body. Several of his former allies, including John Rutledge, desired to remove Gadsden from power; however, unable to get him out of the legislature, they succeeded in getting him elected in 1778 as the vice president of the state, an office equal to lieutenant governor. However, while he remained in that office until 1780, it was essentially without power, and he returned to his military career, which led to the fight for Charleston. Regarding that defense, historian James Haw explained, “While the armies maneuvered along the Savannah, [General Benjamin] Lincoln and South Carolina’s leaders cast about for ways of strengthening their defenses. When the South Carolina assembly met on 26 January, President Lowndes urged the legislators to give the government ‘ample powers to enable it to act vigorously and decisively.’ Among his specific recommendations were a revision of the militia law and the election of a man of “military abilities and experience” as his successor. Lowndes probably had in mind his loyal vice president, Christopher Gadsden, but on February 5 the legislature returned John Rutledge to the post of chief executive that he had held before 1778.” [16] When Charleston fell to the British, Gadsden was captured, and quickly paroled, but the British held on to him for ten months at their fort in St. Augustine, Florida, until he was exchanged in 1781. Citing advanced health and ill health, in 1782 Gadsden refused the Assembly’s offer to serve as governor of South Carolina. But he remained involved in the political arena: he sat in the Assembly, where he opposed the confiscation of land and property by Loyalists who had fled the state for England. When the war with England concluded in 1783, Gadsden advocated for a new constitution for the United States; in 1788, he backed the document written and signed that year in Philadelphia, and he was a strong supporter of the administrations of Presidents George Washington and John Adams. On 30 May 1790, Gadsden wrote to his son-inlaw, Thomas Morris, about the South Carolina Constitutional Convention of 1790. He explained: Yesterday morning the Comee. of the whole finished their Business & reported to the Convention, some

440

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

particular matters, the most material, that of ye adjustmt of the general Agreement of reducing the representation to one half as near as cou’d be, being left to a select Comee. of 14 to prepare & report to the Convention wch is adjourn’d to to Morrow 11 o’Clock (two Hours later than our Usual adjournmts) in order to give that Comee sufficient Time properly to range & digest that Business. The Outlines of the Constitution as far as agreed upon, I am far from thinking a Bad one, The fixing of the Seat of Government is rather a matter of Conveniency, which I am sorry the last Assembly lost the most favorable Oppy [sic; opportunity] of bringing it back to Charleston, The two Laws respecting this matter wch I had never read a Syllable of till I came here, being clearly in their Favor—However that being a matter of Conveniency only, if the Constitution in other respects is satisfactory, I shall not complain. I was in hopes when the Comee of the whole broke up, that we were in a fair way of compleating [sic] our Business by Saturday next, & in good Humour or of not encroaching at most above a Day or two on the following Week, but am now apprehensive from a Conversation last evening with one of the select Comee, that a most unreasonable advantage to the Back Country in regard to representation will be reported to the Convention & attempted to be carried, This must throw us back, occasion Heats, & take up no little Time, & in the mean Time the Impatience and Desertion of our lower members, as it has already given them the first Ground, so it will I am afraid compleatly place us at their mercy in that Point . . . [17]

to rest in St. Philip’s Churchyard in Charleston, alongside his parents.

Christopher Gadsden spent the remainder of his life in retirement in Charlestown; in his last years, he was plagued by a head injury from a fall. He remained busy selling land in Charleston, an advertisement for which can be found in a newspaper from that city. [18] Gadsden died in Charleston on 28 August 1805 at the age of 81. The City Gazette of Charleston stated, “The long and meritorious services of this most valuable and lamented citizen are too well known to his countrymen to require a lengthy recital of them here—suffice it to say, that he was one of the earliest patriots of Carolina and the revolution; that as a soldier in the field, as a statesman 0f our councils, and in the private walks of the citizen, his whole life was devoted to the service of his country.” [19] Unfortunately, many sources on Gadsden’s life report his date of death as 15 September 1805 [20]; as this obituary proves, his death was announced on 30 August, not in September. Gadsden was laid

In summing up the life of this revolutionary patriot, historian Richard Walsh wrote, “Christopher Gadsden has come down to us, therefore, as the fiery anti-imperialist who did much to get the ‘ball of revolution rolling’ in his state and who led the ‘mob’ because of his democratic tendencies. Yet, in 1778, when his followers exploded in rioting, the erstwhile leader of popular causes was moved to write to Peter Timothy: ‘I am afraid we have too many amongst us who want again to be running upon every fancy to the Meetings of [the] Liberty Tree.’ Is not such action, he asked, ‘a disease amongst us far more dangerous than anything that can arise from the whole herd of contemptible, exportable Tories?’” [21] See also: The Nonexportation Agreement of 1774; The Nonimportation Agreement of 1774

[1] Hilliard, George Stillman, “Christopher Gadsden,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, III (1879), 186. [2] Porcher, F.A., “A Memoir of Gen. Christopher Gadsden, Read Before the South Carolina Historical Society” (Charleston, SC: The Journal of Commerce Job Office, 1878), 1. [3] Rogers, George C., Jr., “The Charleston Tea Party: The Significance of December 3, 1773,” The South Carolina Historical Magazine, LXXV:3 (July 1974), 156. [4] Greene, Jack P., “The Gadsden Election Controversy and the Revolutionary Movement in South Carolina,” The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XLVI:3 (December 1959), 474-75. [5] Meriwether, Robert R., Jr., “Gadsden, Christopher,” in Allen Johnson, et al., “Dictionary of American Biography” (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons; eleven volumes and five supplements, 1958-77), VII:782-83. [6] Gadsden to Christopher Pearson, 13 February 1766, in “Two Letters by Christopher Gadsden, February 1766,” The South Carolina Historical Magazine, LXXV:3 (July 1974), 170-71. [7] “Portraits of Lynch, Gadsden and Rutledge,” The South Carolina Gazette, 9 June 1766, in The South Carolina Historical and Genealogical Magazine, XXII:3 (July 1921), 100. [8] Gadsden to Samuel Adams, 23 May 1774, in Richard Walsh, ed., “The Writings of Christopher Gadsden” (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1966), 92-93. [9] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), I:lxii. [10] John Adams, diary, entry of 29 August 1775, in ibid., I:1. [11] John Adams, diary, entry of 14 September 1775, in ibid., I:30. [12] Ryan, Frank W., Jr., “The Role of South Carolina in the First Continental Congress,” The South Carolina Historical Magazine, LX:3 (July 1959), 149. [13] Gould, Christopher, “The South Carolina and Continental Associations: Prelude to Revolution,” The South Carolina Historical Magazine, LXXXVII:1 (January 1986), 31.

Joseph Galloway (c. 1731–1803)441 [14] Lipscomb, Terry W., “The South Carolina Constitution of 1776,” The South Carolina Historical Magazine, LXXVII:2 (April 1976), 138-39. [15] Christopher Gadsden to William Henry Drayton, 15 August 1778, in “Letters of Christopher Gadsden, 1778,” The American Historical Review, III: 1 (October 1897), 84. [16] Haw, James, “A Broken Compact: Insecurity, Union, and the Proposed Surrender of Charleston, 1779,” The South Carolina Historical Magazine, XCVI:1 (January 1995), 36. [17] “Letter from Gen. Christopher Gadsden to Mr. Thomas Morris, May 30th, 1790,” The South Carolina Historical and Genealogical Magazine, II:1 (January 1901), 44-45. [18] “To be Sold on the Premises,” Charleston Courier [South Carolina], 1 September 1804, 4. [19] “Died, at his house,” City Gazette [Charleston, South Carolina], 30 August 1805, 3. [20] For instance of the incorrect date see Gadsden’s official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress. gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=G000002; and E. Stanly Godbold, “Gadsden, Christopher,” in John A. Garraty and Mark C. Carnes, gen. eds., “American National Biography” (New York: Oxford University Press; 24 volumes, 1999), VIII:602-03. [21] Walsh, Richard, “Christopher Gadsden: Radical or Conservative Revolutionary?,” The South Carolina Historical Magazine, CXIII:4 (October 1962), 195.

Joseph Galloway (c. 1731–1803)

Joseph Galloway served in the Continental Congress in 1774, but two years later fled to the British army and later escaped to England, where he died in 1803.

The son of Peter Bines Galloway, a landowner, and his wife Elizabeth (née Rigbie), both Quakers, Joseph Galloway was born in West River, in Anne Arundel County, Maryland, sometime in either 1730 or 1731. In historian Ernest Baldwin’s dissertation submitted in 1901 to Yale University regarding Galloway’s ancestry, he explained, “His great-grandfather, Richard Galloway of London, England, acquired considerable land in Lord Baltimore’s province [that of Maryland] in 1662, thus indicating that he was a man of good fortune and respectability. Richard Galloway’s grandson, Peter Bines Galloway, was marry to Elizabeth Rigbie by [a] Friend’s Ceremony in Anne Arundel, [on the] 11th Month, 9th, 1715,” and became the father of Joseph.” [1] Peter Galloway, who initially moved his family to Pennsylvania, the colony and later state that Joseph Galloway would be identified with, died when his son was an infant, and he was bestowed with the lands his father had been given by the royal Delaware government. Baldwin followed up his 1901 dissertation with a series of articles on various aspects of Galloway’s life, including several that appeared the following year in The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography. In the first part of that series, Baldwin wrote, “The death of Peter Galloway, while Joseph was still quite young, leaving a large landed property, may have induced the boy to choose the study of the law, and thus fit himself for the proper care of such an estate.” [2] Utilizing his family’s monetary resources, Joseph Galloway came to Philadelphia when he became of age; he studied the law and was admitted to practice before the colonial bar in 1747. Perhaps quickly tiring of legal matters, or intending to introduce himself to the political arena, in 1748 Galloway was elected to “The Colony,” an exclusive all-male political and social club located in Schuylkill, a wealthy suburb of Philadelphia where Galloway built a home. A Quaker, Galloway was a leader in that religious community in Schuylkill. However, in 1753, he married out of his faith when he tied the knot with Grace Growden, an Episcopalian, the daughter of a well-known Philadelphia leader and attorney, Laurence Growden, who later served as the vice president of the American Philosophical Society. Coming under the wing of his influential father-in-law, Galloway took

442

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

advantage of the opportunities this tie brought him. Three years after marrying, Galloway was elected t0 a seat in the Pennsylvania provincial assembly, a rubber-stamp body that served at the whim of the royal government. Galloway, along with the others in the assembly, chafed at the dictatorial powers that reigned over the colony by the Parliament in London. Galloway was close to Benjamin Franklin, another member of the assembly. Together, both men pushed for a plan that would change the governmental structure in Pennsylvania from a proprietary one, based on land ownership, to one directly selected by the Parliament in England in consultation with the King. In 1764, after both men presented the plan, they were summarily removed from their seats. One of Galloway’s harshest critics was John Dickinson, who supported the proprietary system in Pennsylvania. Relations between the two men became increasingly strained over this single issue; both men delivered harsh remarks, directed at the other. Both men published their speeches in pamphlet form—in one, “The Speech of Joseph Galloway, Esq; One of the Members for Philadelphia County: In Answer to the Speech of John Dickinson, Esq.,” Galloway wrote, “It is not merely because Mr. Dickinson’s Speech was usher’d into the World by a Preface, that one is made to this of Mr. Galloway. But as in that Preface, a Number of Aspersions were thrown on our Assemblies, and their Proceedings were grossly misrepresented, it was thought necessary to wipe those Aspersions off, by some proper Animadversions; and by a true State of Facts, to rectify those Misrepresentations.” [3] In September 1765, running against Dickinson, Galloway won back his seat in the provincial assembly by defeating his nemesis. In 1766, Galloway was elected as the Speaker of the Assembly, a post he held until 1775.

person and government, and gratefully sensible of your benevolent intentions to promote the constitutional liberty and happiness of all of your faithful subjects, however remote, beg leave to supplicate your majesty to hear the complaints, and redress the grievances of your faithful subjects, the good people of this province.” Galloway called on the King to make changes to the several actions of the Parliament, which had inflicted brutal economc distress on the colonies as a whole, including the Sugar Act (1764) and the Stamp Act (1765), in addition to others. [4]

During his time in the Provincial Assembly, Galloway pushed to have all of the colonial governments in the Americas given some degree of sovereignty, while maintaining strict control from London. In 1768, he wrote a letter to King George III, enclosing a “Petition of the Representatives of the Freemen of the Province of Pennsylvania, in General Assembly,” in which he explained that “your petitioners, with hearts deeply impressed with the most perfect loyalty and affection for your majesty’s royal

By 1774, Galloway realized that the system of government in America as a whole, and in Pennsylvania specifically, had to change. It is for this reason that, despite believing in the ultimate control of all of the colonies by England, he accepted election to a seat in the First Continental Congress on 22 July 1774, with his reelection coming on 15 December 1774. Galloway ultimately attended sessions of the body from its first day, 5 September 1774, until 26 October 1774. According to historian Edmund Cody Burnett, “[Galloway] did not attend the Congress of 1775. He was excused [on] 12 May [1775].” [5] During his short tenure in the Continental Congress, most of Galloway’s time was spent pushing his “Plan of Union,” which, if it had passed, would have called in part for “a British and American legislature, for regulating the administration of the general affairs of America,” and that “the said government be administered by a President General, to be appointed by the King, and a grand Council, to be chosen by the Representatives of the people of the several colonies, in their respective assemblies, once in every three years.” Introducing the plan in the Continental Congress on 28 September 1774, he began the document with the statement: Resolved, That the Congress will apply to his Majesty for a redress of grievances under which his faithful subjects in America labour; and assure him, that the Colonies hold in abhorrence the idea of being considered independent communities on the British government, and most ardently desire the establishment of a Political Union, not only among themselves, but with the Mother State, upon those principles of safety and freedom which are essential in the constitution of all free governments, and particularly that of the

Joseph Galloway (c. 1731–1803)443 British Legislature; and as the Colonies from their local circumstances, cannot be represented in the Parliament of Great-Britain, they will humbly propose to his Majesty and his two Houses of Parliament, the following plan, under which the strength of the whole Empire may be drawn together on any emergency, the interest of both countries advanced, and the rights and liberties of America secured. [6] Although he served only for a short time in the Continental Congress—he left once his plan for trying to head of a war was defeated—there are some pieces of correspondence from Galloway regarding his service and his plan. He wrote to William Franklin, the governor of New Jersey, a fellow Loyalist like Galloway, and the son of Galloway’s former friend, Benjamin Franklin, on 3 September 1774: I am just returned from Philadelphia, where I have been to wait on, and endeavour to find out the Temper of the Delegates. Near two-thirds of them are arrived, and I conclude all will be ready to proceed on Business on Monday. I have not had any great Opportunity of sounding them. But so far as I have, I think they will behave with Temper and Moderation. The Boston Commissioners are warm, and I believe wish for a Non-importation Agreement, and hope that the Colonies will advise and justify them in a Refusal to pay for the Tea until their Aggrievances are redressed. They are in their Behaviour and Conversation very modest, and yet they are not so much so as not to throw out Hints, which, like Straws and Feathers, tell us from which Point of the Compass the Wind comes. I dined with them on Thursday. [7] On 28 September 1774, after he introduced his “Plan of Union” in the Continental Congress, Galloway delivered a statement on the plan itself, as well as about the actions in that body in its first weeks: Upon the meeting of Congress, two parties were immediately formed, with different views, and determined to act upon different principles. One intended candidly and clearly to define American rights, and explicitly and dutifully to petition for the remedy which would redress the grievances justly complained of-to form a more solid and constitutional union between the two countries, and to avoid every measure which tended to sedition, or acts of violent opposition. The other consisted of persons, whose design, from the

beginning of their opposition to the Stamp Act, was to throw off all subordination and connexion with GreatBritain; who meant by every fiction, falsehood and fraud, to delude the people from their due allegiance, to throw the subsisting Governments into anarchy, to incite the ignorant and vulgar to arms, and with those arms to establish American Independence. The one were men of loyal principles, and possessed the greatest fortunes in America; the other were congregational and Presbyterian republicans, or men of bankrupt fortunes, overwhelmed in debt to the British merchants. The first suspected the designs of the last, and were therefore cautious; but as they meant to do nothing but what was reasonable and just, they were open and ingenuous. The second, fearing the opposition of the first, were secret and hypocritical, and left no art, no falsehood, no fraud unessayed to conceal their intentions. The loyalists rested, for the most part, on the defensive, and opposed, with success, every measure which tended to violent opposition. Motions were made, debated and rejected, and nothing was carried by either. While the two parties in Congress remained thus during three weeks on an equal balance, the republicans were calling to their assistance the aid of their factions without. Continual expresses were employed between Philadelphia and Boston. These were under the management of Samuel Adams—a man, who though by no means remarkable for brilliant abilities, yet is equal to most men in popular intrigue, and the management of a faction. He eats little, drinks little, sleeps little, thinks much, and is most decisive and indefatigable in the pursuit of his objects. It was this man, who by his superior application managed at once the faction in Congress at Philadelphia, and the factions in New England. Whatever these patriots in Congress wished to have done by their colleagues without, to induce General Gage, then at the head of his Majesty’s army at Boston, to give them a pretext for violent opposition, or to promote their measures in Congress, Mr. Adams advised and directed to be done; and when done, it was dispatched by express to Congress. By one of these expresses came the inflammatory resolves of the county of Suffolk, which contained a complete declaration of war against Great-Britain. By these resolves it is declared, “that no obedience is due to acts of Parliament affecting Boston. That “the justices of the superior courts of judicature, court of assize, etc. are unconstitutional officers, and that no regard ought to be paid to them by the people”;

444

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

That “the county will support and bear harmless all sheriffs and their deputies, constables, jurors and other officers, who shall refuse to carry into execution the orders of the said courts”; That “the collectors of taxes, constables and other officers, retain in their hands all public monies, and not make any payment thereof to the provincial county treasurer”; And that “the persons who had accepted seats at the councilboard, by virtue of a mandamus from the King, should be considered as obstinate and incorrigible enemies to their country.” They advise the people “to elect the officers of militia, and to use their utmost diligence to acquaint themselves with the art of war as soon as possible, and for that purpose to appear under arms once in every week.”

river to Fourth St. a large double house in Market street, between Fifth and Sixth stood alone, and was considered out of town. It was afterwards occupied successively by the two presidents, Washington and Adams. The houses now tenanted by the Schuylkill Bank . . . belonged to Joseph Galloway, Esq. and was confiscated, in consequence of his adherence to the king in the revolutionary war. [9]

And to carry these and other measures into execution, among many other things equally treasonable, they recommend it to the several towns to “chuse a Provincial Congress.” Upon these resolves being read, a motion was made that the Congress should give them their sanction. Long and warm debates ensued between the parties . . . With this view, as well as to probe the ultimate design of the republicans, and to know with certainty whether any proposal, short of the absolute independence of the Colonies, would satisfy them, a plan of union was drawn by a member of the loyal party, and approved by the rest. It was so formed as to leave no room for any reasonable objection on the part of the republicans, if they meant to be united to Great Britain on any grounds whatever. It included a restoration of all their rights, and a redress of all their grievances, on constitutional principles; and it accorded with all the instructions given to them as members of Congress. [8] While attending the Continental Congress in Philadelphia, Galloway stayed at a home that he either owned outright or rented. In a letter which appeared in the publication The Port Folio in 1824, it was written: Previous to the occupation of Philadelphia, by the British troops, in 1777, Water, Front, and Third, were the only streets, parallel with the Delaware River [sic], that were closely built. Many houses in these days, which are not now thought sufficiently genteel or convenient for a second-rate tradesmen, were then inhabited by the rich and honourable of the land. The cross streets from Pine to Vine extended from the

Galloway’s Plan of Union had no chance of being approved once war began between England and the colonies in April 1774; that Galloway thought that it did, showed his naïvete to the entire situation. Nevertheless, he returned to his home, not far from where the Continental Congress was meeting, believing that anything that resembled independence from l0ndon was doomed to failure. He wrote of his continued belief in a system that tied the colonies to England in his work “A Candid Examination of the Mutual Claims of Great Britain and the Colonies” (1775). In May 1775, with the war going for a full year, Galloway, increasingly critical of what he saw as a growing movement to declare independence from England, resigned his seat in the Provincial Assembly. He and his wife spent time at their estate “Trevose,” just outside Philadelphia, located in Bucks County, Pennsylvania. And had events not transpired, Galloway would probably have remained there. However, in 1776, the British Commanderin-Chief in America, Lord Viscount Howe, issued a proclamation. In his 1788 work, “The Claim of the American Loyalists Reviewed and Maintained Upon Incontrovertible Principles of Law and Justice,” he explained, “Lord Viscount Howe published a proclamation, and as a farther and more especial encouragement expressly declared, ‘That due consideration should be had to the meritorious services of all persons who should aid and assist in restoring the public tranquility, and that every suitable encouragement should be given for promoting such measures as should be conducive to the establishment of civil government and peace.’” [10] Believing now that he no longer had a place in the land of his birth, Galloway waited until the British occupied Philadelphia, at which he point he went back to that city and

Joseph Galloway (c. 1731–1803)445 joined the English troops in taking over and administering the city. Once a man who had worked against the British in the Continental Congress, he had not gone 180 degrees in the other direction and was now working for the enemy of his country. Joseph Galloway had made his decision, and he would never return to how things had been. Initially paid ₤200 a year by the British, he was given a salary of ₤300 per year when he was given the post of Superintendent for the Maintenance of Peace in Philadelphia during the city’s occupation in the winter of 1777. In June 1778, after the Continental Army took Philadelphia back from the British, Galloway and his family were evacuated to New York, then still held by the British. He had to abandon his estate, which was later confiscated by the American authorities for Galloway’s treason against his own country. The estate and its contents, valued at some ₤40,000, was sold, and Galloway spent the remainder of his life trying, unsuccessfully, to get some or all of it back. Until forced to flee to the British lines, correspondence from Galloway shows that he intended to ride the conflict out at his estate and remain in America. In a letter to an unidentified correspondent, written from “Trevose,” dated 17 August 1775, Galloway penned, “I entertained some time since more than a wish to have spent the Winter in New York, & had prepared to put my Resolution into Execution, but it is difficult in these perilous Times, to know where is the place of most Safety for a Family, and believing none more safe than the Country I live in, it will induce me to continue here until the contrary shall appear.” [11] In 1861, a collection of letters sent by leading Tories in America to Galloway in England was published for the first time. In one, from Isaac Ogden to Galloway, dated 15 December 1778, Ogden penned, “I hope You will have received long before this reaches You the Original of which the Inclosed is a Duplicate. Nothing has since Occurred Except a Miscarriage in an Attempt, that was made the last Week to cut off the Rear of Washington’s Army that was crossing the North River at King’s Ferry, and below the High Lands & their heavy Baggage. The Convention Troops You was [sic] informed were Ordered to

the Southward. The Difficulty of procuring Provisions to the Eastward for them made this Necessary. These passed Hiudson’s [sic] River at the Fish Kills above the High Lands, & that part of Washington’s Army what were destin’d for Jersey &c., passed at King’s Ferry.” [12] After being forced to leave New York with his family, Galloway sailed to England, where he remained until his death. In London, he became one of the leading spokesmen for the Loyalist cause. He was summoned to appear before the House of Commons to present evidence as to what happened to the Loyalists in America, and what made him flee to England. The questioning and testimony presented before the Commons was covered in nearly every publication in England, from newspapers to magazines . . . the story of Joseph Galloway captivated the English nation. Questioned directly by Lord George Germain, Lord Sackville (later Viscount Sackville), the Colonial Secretary (1775-82), Galloway opened up as to some of the facts of his life: [13] “How long have you lived in America?” “I have lived in America from my nativity to the mouth of October last, about forty eight years.” “In whit part; and what public office have you held?” “I have lived in the province of Maryland, in the Delaware counties, and in the province of Pennsylvania, chiefly in Philadelphia. Mr. public profession was that of the law. I practiced in all the courts of Pennsylvania, in those of the Delaware counties, and in the supreme court of New-Jersey, I was a member of the assembly of Pennsylvania eighteen years, speaker of the house twice. I was appointed by the assembly of Pennsylvania to attend the American Congress, which met the 5th day of September 1774. During the last war, under an appointment, I was one of the commissioners for disposing of the money granted to the crown, and have been several times a commissioner to treat with the Indians, by the assembly of Pennsylvania, and when Sir William Howe took possession of the city of Philadelphia, at this request I undertook the office of superintendent of the police of the city of Philadelphia and its suburbs, of the ports and of the prohibited articles.”

446

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

“When did you come over to the British army, and how long did you continue with it?”

make the exertions necessary to reduce the Colonies. Mr. Galloway, in his turn, wishing to convert the Doctor, and knowing that, in his then dispossession of mind, nothing could effect it but a full conviction of the impracticability of his scheme, reminded him of the common and apposite fable of the two Bull Dogs, though tearing each other to pieces, yet, on the appearance of their common enemy, their enmity instantly ceased, and their whole powers became united, and exerted to reduce him. That such had often been the case of Britons, and certainly would be so again. [15]

“I came over to the royal army [at] the beginning of December, 1776, and cominued [sic] with it until the evacuation of Philadelphia, the 18th of June last.” [14] Galloway remained interested in events in America. A correspondent named “Cicero” penned several letters regarding “treason,” which he felt was being done in the Continental Congress. The London Chronicle printed one of the letters from a sympathizer of the Crown in England, writing to “Cicero,” dated 7 September 1780: Doctor Franklin has wrote a letter to Congess, desiring them to raise all the militia in their power and to let them, together with the Continental troops, lie as near the British lines as possible, in order to give it the appearance of being besieged; he assures them, that he expects ever SALUTARY CONSEQUENCE from such a measure, as it will enable their friends in Parliament, during the winter debates, to hold up as a besieged place, and to insist on a recall of the British troops. Beware of this device!’ In full confirmation of the truths contained in these extracts, and to prove your reasonable intentions to support and co-operate with the rebellion from the beginning; f have the best authority to add the following true anecdote: When Doctor Franklin, between whom and Mr. Galloway there had been a long and continued friendship, endeavoured to prevail on him to accept a Delegation to the second [Continental] Congress, and to throw his weight and influence into their scale; he, among other things, exaggerated the resources of America, and diminished those of Great Britain. But Mr. Galloway, well acquainted with those resources, detecting his facts, and refuting his arguments, the Doctor candidly unfolded to him the true foundation upon which the American rebels built their hopes of a successful opposition. He told Mr. Galloway, that America would be united, and always able to draw her powers into exertion, while the British nation, and its public councils, were, and would be yet, more divided and distracted. That to be friends of the American cause would incessantly maintain and increase that division and distraction, by opposing the measures of Government; and consequently, that though he confessed the resources of Great Britain, from whence the supplies of war must be drawn, were very great, yet that she never would be able to command them, nor to

Galloway was given a sumptuous home in Twickenham Common, in London; in 1793, an advertisement for its sale in a London newspaper described it as follows: “[c]omprising a Commodious and Convenient Villa, the principle apartments neatly and genteelly fitted up and finished, replete with Domestic Offices, good Coach-Houses, and Stabling, Court-Yard, excellent Gardens, with Capital Walls; Hot and Succession Houses, stocked with the Choicest Fruit Trees, beautiful Pleasure Grounds, well constructed Green House, a Chinese Temple, and Four Rich Paddocks, the whole containing Twenty-One Acres, exceedingly well laid out, timbered and watered, forming a complete residence, fit for the reception of a family, and of which immediately possession may be had.” [16] Once he was firmly settled in England, realizing that he would never return to the land of his birth, Galloway began to pen a series of works that highlighted his concern for how America turned away from British rule. The Monthly Review; or, Literary Journal, a British magazine, for March 1782, explained, “Besides what the Author says on the Absurdity, &c. of our prosecuting the American War on defensive principles only, we have a strict enquiry into, and an animated display of, the causes from whence our failures and the sources of all our national misfortunes, in that part of the world, have sprung. The Author is particularly severe, toward the conclusion of his correspondence, on the noble commander in the late unfortunate Southern expedition. These Letters were originally published in the news papers, and are supposed to have come from the very able

Joseph Galloway (c. 1731–1803)447 pen of Mr. Galloway, formerly a member of Congress, who has favoured the Public with a great number of sensible, acute, and interesting remarks on the American Tragedy of ‘ALL IN THE WRONG!’” [17] In “Fabricius: Or, Letters to the People of Great Britain; On The Absurdity and Mischiefs of Defensive Operations only in the American War; And on The Causes of the Failure in the Southern Operations” (1782), Galloway penned an open letter to the people of Britain, somehow giving his newly adopted nation advice on how to win the war in America. He wrote, “My Fellow Subjects, I Find it suggested in the Debates of a Great House, that the proper and best plan for recovering the American Colonies is a naval force, and that we should content ourselves with defending our garrisons of NewYork and Charlestown, without an army in the field. Whenever any measure, which concerns the public safety, is proposed, it is the right of every individual to canvass it; and, if any one apprehens [sic] that it has a manifest tendency to the ruin of his country, to oppose it: I mean, therefore, by this public Address, to forewarn the Gentleman who suggested it, and all others who may intend to support it, of its ruinous consequences.” [18] Galloway was one of the leaders of a group of Loyalists, all former Americans, who continually pushed to get their claims for recompense for the confiscated lands of Loyalists. In 1786, this group sent a letter to “the Honourable the Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses in Parliament assembled,” in which they asked for remuneration for the loss of their lives and estates and other belongings sacrificed as they fled America. The petition stated, in part, “That your Petitioners sensibly effected by the poignant distress of their constituents who have long suffered, and must continue to suffer, should the justice due to them be longer delayed, most humbly entreat your Honourable House to consider, that ten years have elapsed Since they have sacrificed their estates to their confidence in the faith of Majesty, and the solemn assurances of Parliament, and three years have passed away since their whole fortunes have been devoted by the State to the public peace and safety.” The letter was signed by representatives for all of the Loyalists, broken down, ironically, by American state; Galloway signed for the “Loyalists of

Pennsylvania and the Delaware Counties.” [19] Two years later, with no attention paid to their claims or entreaties, the group released a report that they had submitted to the British government, including to the Crown. The report stated, “The claim of the American Loyalists, upon a candid examination, will appear to stand upon the highest ground of national honour and national justice. Their pleas of merit are, a faithful obedience to his Majesty’s commands— firm confidence in his Royal Faith—a perfect reliance on the assurances of both Houses of the British Legislature; and a faithful discharge of the [fisft] of all political duties, by their undaunted exertions in the support and defence of the authority of the Crown, and the rights of Parliament; in consequence of which, their fortunes have been sacrificed to the national safety.” [20] It appears, at least from the historical record, that Galloway, nor his heirs, ever received a single penny in recompense from the US government or the state government of Pennsylvania. Almost until the end of his life, Galloway continued to write. The Times of London reported on 25 August 1802 that “[t]his day is published . . . ‘Brief Commentaries; or, Such Parts of the Revelation, and other Prophecies, as Immediately Relate to the Present Times, in which the Several Allegorical Types and Expressions are Translated into Their Literal Meaning . . .’” [21] His final years were spent writing about church history and the role of religion. Galloway died in Watford, Hertfordshire, on 29 August 1803. His daughter Elizabeth was his only survivor. Most sources on Galloway note that he was interred in the churchyard of the Watford Church, now called the North Watford Cemetery; however recent information states, “Watford Council run two cemeteries: Vicarage Road Cemetery and North Watford Cemetery. Both these cemeteries opened way later tha[n] 1803 and therefore we would not have a record for Mr Joseph Galloway. Both these are Council-run cemeteries and not ‘churchyard’ cemeteries . . .” [22]. In the British paper Bell’s Weekly Messenger of 18 September 1803, it was reported that, “[a]t Watford, the 20th ult[imo] Joseph Galloway, Esq. formerly Speaker of the House of Assembly

448

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

in Pennsylvania.” There was no mention of Galloway’s career, or his fleeing to Britain. [23] In the land of his birth, Galloway’s passing was met with likewise dismissal. Poulson’s American Daily Advertiser of Philadelphia stated, “Died, in England, in September last, in the seventy-fourth year of his age, Joseph Galloway, Esquire, formerly of this city.” [24]

(Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; 34 volumes, 1904-37), I:lix. [6] [Galloway, Joseph: Plan of Union], 28 September 1774, in Ford, Worthington C., ed., “Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789. Edited from the Original Records in the Library of Congress by Worthington Chauncey Ford, Chief, Division of Manuscripts” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; 34 volumes, 1904-37), I:49-51. [7] Galloway to William Franklin, 3 September 1774, in Burnett, “Letters of Members,”op. cit., I:5. [8] “Joseph Galloway, Statement,” in ibid., I:54-56. [9] “For the Port Folio: Reminiscences of Philadelphia,” The Port Folio, February 1824, 89-95. [10] Galloway, Joseph, “The Claim of the American Loyalists Reviewed and Maintained Upon Incontrovertible Principles of Law and Justice” (London: G. and T. Wilkie, 1788). [11] Joseph Galloway to [Unidentified], 17 August 1775, in “Some Letters of Joseph Galloway,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, XXI:4 (1897), 483-84. [12] Isaac Ogden to Joseph Galloway, 15 December 1778, in “Letters to Joseph Galloway, From Leading Tories in America,” The Historical Magazine, and Notes and Queries Concerning the Antiquities, History, and Biography of America, V:12 (December 1861), 356. [13] Refer to Guttridge, George H., “Lord George Germain in Office, 1775-1782,” The American Historical Review, XXXIII:1 (October 1927), 23-43. For more information on Germain see his biography, Viscount Sackville, George Germain. [14] “The evidence given by Joseph Galloway, Esq; late a member of the American Congress, at the bar of the House of Commons, having much excited the public curiosity, we trust an account of it, will prove acceptable to our readers,” The Edinburgh Advertiser [Scotland], 6-9 July 1779, 1. For a complete published account of Galloway’s testimony before the House of Commons, see Thomas Balch, ed., “The Examination of Joseph Galloway, Esq.; by a Committee of the House of Commons” (Philadelphia: Printed for the Seventy-Six Society, T.K. and P.G. Collins, Printers, 1855). [15] “The extract of the second letter,” The London Chronicle, XLIX:3759 (2-4 January 1781), 5. [16] “Twickenham Common, Middlesex,” The Morning Chronicle [London], 17 May 1793, 4. [17] “Monthly Catalogue for April, 1782, East-Indies,” in The Monthly Review, or Literary Journal, LXVI:3 (March 1782), 303. [18] Galloway, Joseph, “Fabricius: Or, Letters to the People of Great Britain; On The Absurdity and Mischiefs of Defensive Operations only in the American War; And on The Causes of the Failure in the Southern Operations” (London: Printed for G. Wilkes, No. 71, St. Paul’s Church-Yard, 1782), 1. [19] “To the Honourable the Knights, Citizens, and Burgesses in Parliament Assembled,” The Morning Post and Daily Advertiser [London], 1 May 1786, 3. [20] “The Claim of the American Loyalists Reviewed and Maintained Upon Incontrovertible Principles of Law and Justice” (London: Printed for G. and T. Wilkes, No. 71, St. Paul’s ChurchYard, 1788), iii. [21] See The Times [London, England], 25 August 1802, 2. [22] E-mail message to the author from Tracey Jolliffe of the Watford [United Kingdom] Council, 11 December 2012, in the author’s possession. [23] “Died,” Bell’s Weekly Messenger [London, England], 18 September 1803, 8. [24] “Died,” Poulson’s American Daily Advertiser [Philadelphia], 27 December 1803, 3. See also the small obituary in The Albany Register [New York], 18 November 1803, 2. [25] Baldwin, Ernest H., “Joseph Galloway, the Loyalist Politician,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, XXVI:4 (1902), 442.

Today, the name of Joseph Galloway is often associated with treason. His earliest biographer, Ernest Baldwin summed up the life of this controversial man: Although Mr. Galloway showed the qualities of a statesman in his plan of an imperial federation—a plan which over a century of statesmanship has failed to accomplish—he lacked that faith in the common people which gave courage to the patriots and enabled them to persevere in what at times seemed a lost cause. In this he failed to rise to the height of the men of faith of his day. Could Mr. Galloway have been persuaded to join the patriot cause, and use his talents and give the benefit of his experience in the task of establishing a new government, it is not unlikely that his name would have been found in the list of delegates to the Constitutional Convention. Certainly he would have supported the Hamiltonian view of a somewhat centralized form of government, and later been in favor of the Alien and Sedition Acts. He would have hated Jeffersonian Democracy as thoroughly as the most extreme Federalist, and government by injunction would have had no terrors for him. [25]

[1] Baldwin, Ernest H., “The Life of Joseph Galloway: With Special Reference to His Career as a Politician and Member of the First Continental Congress” (Ph.D. dissertation, Yale University, 1901), 1. [2] Baldwin, Ernest H., “Joseph Galloway, the Loyalist Politician,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, XXVI:2 (1902), 162. [3] “The Speech of Joseph Galloway, Esq; One of the Members for Philadelphia County: In Answer to the Speech of John Dickinson, Esq; Delivered in the House of Assembly, of the Province of Pennsylvania, May 24, 1764. On Occasion of a Petition drawn up by Order, and then under the Consideration of the House; Praying His Majesty for a Royal, in Lieu of a Proprietory, Government” (Philadelphia: Printed and Sold by W. Dunlap, in Market-Street, 1764), iii. [4] “Revolutionary—1768. To the King’s Most Excellent Majesty,” Hazard’s Register of Pennsylvania, VIII:9 (27 August 1831), 132. [5] “Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789. Edited from the Original Records in the Library of Congress by Worthington Chauncey Ford, Chief, Division of Manuscripts”

Leonard Gansevoort (1751–1810)449

Leonard Gansevoort (1751–1810)

New York cavalry, being appointed as a colonel of the Light Cavalry division. [2] His brother, Peter Gansevoort, also served in the war as well; he was noted for his spirited defense of Fort Stanwix, near what is now Rome, New York (and is also preserved as the Fort Stanwix National Monument). In 1775, Leonard Gansevoort entered the political arena in his native New York colony, serving as a member of the Provisional Congress held both in 1775 and 1776, to plan colonial responses to the war and to aid in a wide colonial response to form a national government of sorts. Leonard Gansevoort’s military service during the American Revolution appears to have been short; many years later, he applied for a military pension from the US government, but it was rejected because “he did not serve [for] six months,” the minimum amount of time of service one needed to qualify for a pension. [3]

One of the scions of a famed Dutch family in New York, Leonard Gansevoort was more of a merchant than a politician. He served in the Continental Congress (1788) and as a member of the New York state militia. He was born in Albany, New York, on 14 July 1751, the son of Harmen Gansevoort, a Dutchborn brewer and merchant in the upper part of the New York colony, and his wife Magdalena (née Douw) Gansevoort. According to historian Robert Gale, who penned a biography of his brother, Peter, Harmen Gansevoort was a member of the Albany Common Council, while his wife Magdalena was a member of an Albany Dutch patrician family. [1] Owing to his family’s business and wealth, Leonard Gansevoort had a formal education; he studied the law, and, in 1771, was admitted to the New York colonial bar. He opened a practice in Albany, his native city. The onset of the conflict that soon blossomed into the American Revolution intruded on Gansevoort’s life and legal practice, however, and when fighting erupted between England and her colonies in 1775 Gansevoort volunteered for service in the

The following year, in 1777, Gansevoort served as the “president” of New York state under the postroyal government; his service in this post, however, merely lasted from 18 April until 14 May of that same year. In 1777, and continuing into the following year, Gansevoort served as the clerk of Albany County, New York. In 1778, he was elected to a seat in the New York state assembly, where he sat in 1778 and 1779, and then again in 1788. In 1786, he served as a delegate to the commercial convention held in Annapolis, Maryland, which attempted to coordinate a national economic and trade policy. On 22 January 1788, the New York state Assembly elected Gansevoort to a seat in the Continental Congress. The previous summer, delegates in Philadelphia had drafted and signed a new US Constitution, which was submitted to the states for ratification just as Gansevoort was being elected to the Continental Congress that would soon be put out of operation by the new document, establishing a national bicameral legislature. Nevertheless, Gansevoort travelled to Philadelphia, where he sat in the sessions of the Continental Congress from 23 February to about 30 April, and from 25 August to 10 October, all in 1788. [4] A study of the correspondence of the members of the Continental Congress shows no letters to or from Gansevoort during this period.

450

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Returning to New York, Gansevoort served, as mentioned, in the New York state Assembly in 1788, and then in the state Senate from 1791 to 1793. In 1794, he was elected as a judge of Albany County, where he served until 1797. In that latter year, according to his official congressional biography, Gansevoort served as “a member of the council of appointment,” which may have made recommendations for appointments for state offices. [5] In 1789, Gansevoort bought a farm, called “Whitehall,” from the son of General Philip Schuyler, but four years later the farm burned down, although Gansevoort retained the property and it was later formed into the town of Bethlehem, New York. In 1800, the property was listed as having 13 slaves on it.

[7] The records of The Albany Rural Cemetery in Menands, New York, show that the place of interment for Gansevoort and his wife was purchased by Leonard G. Ten Eyck. The information is courtesy of The Albany Rural Cemetery, Menands, New York. [8] See Gale, Robert L., “A Herman Melville Encyclopedia” (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1995), 792-93.

In his last years, Leonard Gansevoort served as the judge of the probate court in Albany County from 1799 until his death in 1810. On 26 August 1810, Gansevoort died in Albany of unknown reasons. [6] He was a month past his 59th birthday. He was laid to rest in Albany Rural Cemetery in Menands, New York, in the crypt belonging to the famed New York family the Ten Eyck’s. His stone reads, “Leonard Gansevoort, Died Aug. 26, 1810, in His 60th Year.” He was buried with his wife, Hester, who joined him in death in 1826, when she was 87. [7] Gansevoort’s brother, Peter (1749-1812), was the grandfather of the famed author Herman Melville, who was the son of Peter’s daughter Maria Gansevoort Melville. [8]

[1] Gale, Robert L., “Gansevoort, Peter,” in John A. Garraty and Mark C. Carnes, gen. eds., “American National Biography” (New York: Oxford University Press; 24 volumes, 1999), VIII:224-25. [2] Gansevoort official congressional biography, online at http:// bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=G000040. [3] Entry for Leonard Gansevoort in “Report of the Secretary of the Interior, with a Statement of Rejected or Suspended Applications for Revolutionary War Pensions” (Washington, DC: US Department of the Interior, 1852), 120. [4] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VIII:xc. [5] Gansevoort official congressional biography, online at http:// bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=G000040. [6] For instance, see “Died . . . at Albany, LEONARD GANSEVOORT, esq. judge of probates,” The Columbian [New York], 7 September 1810, 3. This is one of the few that even reported his death.

John Gardner (1747–1808)

Rhode Island delegate to the Continental Congress (1789), John Gardner was a plantation owner and Rhode Island politician. Some sources, including the “Biographical Directory of the United States Congress,” lists the spelling of his name as “Gardner” [1], while other sources list his name as “Gardiner.” The Rhode Island Historical Society, the holder of the papers of this man as well as his family, has them cataloged as “The Gardiner Family Papers.” [2] Newspapers of the period list him as “Gardiner.” He was born in South Kingstown, near Narragansett, Rhode Island. According to the Daughters of the American Revolution (as a “founding father,” Gardner is included in their rolls of honor), his parents were John Gardiner, whose name included “of Boston Neck,” and his second wife, Mary (née Taylor) Gardiner. John and Mary had seven children together—four girls and three boys. The name of Gardner’s father, John Gardiner “of Boston Neck” did come up in family histories of the Gardiner family. Thus, from this we can trace the family back to a Lion Gardiner. John Lyon Gardiner, the family genealogist, wrote in 1927

John Gardner (1747–1808)451 (the original word spellings are retained), “In [the] handwriting in his family Bible . . . is the following: ‘In the year of our Lord—1635—July the 10—Came I Lion Gardner and Mary my wife from Woerden a towne in Hilland where my wife was borne, being the daughter [of] one Derike Wilamson Derocant . . . wee came from Woerden to London and from thence to New England and dwelt at Saybrook forte foure years of which i was Commander and theire was born to me a son named David in 1635 April the 29 the first born in that place . . .” [3] Apparently, nothing else is known about Mary Taylor Gardiner, except that she was the stepmother to the seven additional children that John Gardiner seems to have had with his first wife, who died in 1739. [4] He “engaged in agricultural pursuits in Narragansett, R.I.” [5] During this time, according to the state of Rhode Island archives, his father, also known as “Captain John Gardiner,” served in the French and Indian War, as well as deputy governor of the Rhode Island colony from September 1756 to 1763, during which he served on the colony’s Committee of War in 1756, 1757, 1759, and 1760; he further served as a member of the Colonial Councils of War during these same years, in addition to 1761 and 1762. [6] Gardner volunteered for service once war broke out between England and her colonies in April 1775. His ancestor, Walter MacDougall Livingston, who was descended from Gardner’s sister Sarah, when filling out an application to join the Sons of the American Revolution in 1929, wrote of his ancestor’s service during the war: He stated that Gardner “[s]served as [a] Captain of the South Kingston Reds and Rhode Island Artillery [between] October 1775 and May 1776.” He continued that “the information herein contained was obtained from the copy of my mother’s application to the Society of the American Revolution, of which society she became a member on October 5, 1908.” [7] Gardner’s military service, or, at least, the record of it, ends in 1776. The owner of a plantation in Rhode Island, Gardner entered the political arena in 1786, when he was elected as a representative to the Rhode Island General Assembly, as a member of the Paper Money Party. He served until the

following year. In 1787, The Newport Herald of Rhode Island reported on an election held in that city that same day, in which deputies from cities across the state were elected as “Deputies from the several towns”; on the list as representing “South-Kingston” were Captain Samuel J. Potter and Col. John Gardiner. [8] On 12 May 1788, Gardner was elected to a seat in the Continental Congress, “for One Year from the First Day of November next, and until another shall be appointed to take your Place.” According to historian Edmund Cody Burnett, Gardner attended only a single session of the Continental Congress—on 12 February 1789, just three weeks before the body went out of existence, superseded by the new bicameral national legislature, composed of a US House of Representatives and a US Senate. [9] The Providence Gazette reported on the election, “Delegates [elected] to represent the State in Congress. The Honourable Peleg Arnold, Esq; 1st. Jonathan J. Hazard, Esq; 2d. Thomas Holden, Esq; 3d. John Gardner, Esq; 4th.” Once again, the name of this man is spelled differently than it had previously been done. Perhaps this explains why the US Congress lists his name as “Gardner.” [10] After he left the Continental Congress, Gardner is listed in the 1790 US census, the first ever done in the United States by the federal government of all of the states, as “Coll. [sic] John Gardner.” In 1791, he served as a justice of the peace for South Kingstown. John Gardner died in South Kingstown, Rhode Island, on 18 October 1808. The Providence Gazette merely stated that “[a]t SouthKingstown, on the 25th ult. Col. John Gardiner, in the 62d year of his age.” [11] He was buried in the Platform Cemetery, located in North Kingstown, in Washington County, Rhode Island, under the name “John Gardiner.”

[1] See Gardiner/Gardner’s official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay. pl?index=G000056. [2] See the official inventory for The Gardiner Family Papers, courtesy of The Rhode Island Historical Society, online at http:// www.rihs.org/mssinv/Mss629-8.htm. [3] Gardiner, John Lyon, “Gardiners of Gardiner’s Island” (New York: Jonathan T. Gardiner, 1927), 3.

452

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

[4] Information on Gardiner family tree online, at http://www. geni.com/people/Col-John-Gardiner/6000000021637804901. [5] Refer to Gardiner/Gardner’s official congressional biography, op. cit. [6] The elder Gardiner’s military service can be found in Howard Chapin, “Rhode Island in the Colonial Wars” (Providence, RI: Published for the Rhode Island Historical Society, 1920). Additional information on him, as well as the family, can be found in William Edward Gardner, “The Triumphant Captain John and Gardners and Gardiners” (Nantucket Island, MA: Whaling Museum Publications, 1958). [7] Application of Walter MacDougall Livingston, 15 May 1929, “Sons of the American Revolution, Membership Applications, 1889-1970,” courtesy of the National Society of the Sons of the American Revolution, Louisville, Kentucky, Vol. 246, National Membership Number 49071, State [New Jersey] Number 2498. [8] “Newport, May 3,” The Newport Herald [Rhode Island], 3 May 1787, 3. [9] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VIII:xcv. [10] “Providence, May 10,” The Providence Gazette and Country Journal [Rhode Island], 10 May 1788, 3. [11] “Died,” The Providence Gazette [Rhode Island], 12 November 1808, 3. For an additional obituary, albeit small, see New-England Palladium [Boston, Massachusetts], 22 November 1808, 4.

In a land warrant sworn out in June 1763 in Cumberland, Pennsylvania, it is noted that “Joseph G. Gardner” was born in 1752 in Chester County, the son of Wallace Gardner and Francis Gardner. [1] An additional land warrant, dated 1 July 1784, when Gardner would have been 42 years old, lists his place of residence as “Wyoming, Cumberland.” [2] Gardner’s early education is unknown, except that he studied medicine. He opened a medical practice in Chester County. The land warrant from 1763 states that “Joseph G. Gardner” married one Isabella Cochran. [3]

Joseph Gardner (1752–1794)

From 1763 until the start of the war against England, there is no official record of Gardner excepting for a document labeled “Tax and Exoneration,” dated 1768, in which Gardner was listed as a resident of West Fallowfield, in Chester County, paying taxes to the colonial government. [4] When the war began, as stated in his official congressional biography, Gardner “raised a company of Volunteers in 1776 and commanded the Fourth Battalion of militia from Chester County.” [5] This is confirmed by the state of Pennsylvania, which lists his service in the official records of “Revolutionary War Battalions & Militia Index” that only lists him as being a member of the militia but gives no further information as to the totality of his service. [6] Gardner is also mentioned as having served as a member of the Pennsylvania Committee of Safety in 1776 and 1777, as well as overlapping service in the Pennsylvania state Assembly from 1776 to 1778. In 1779, he was elected as a member of the state’s Supreme Executive Council, which assisted the governor in formulating and carrying out policy.

A delegate from Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress (1784-85), Joseph Gardner was also a physician in his native Pennsylvania. He served as a member of his state’s Assembly, and served during the American Revolution in the Pennsylvania militia.

Gardner was apparently a slaveowner: proof of this comes in several advertisements, signed by him, calling for the sales of black people. In one, from August 1784, his ad states, “To be SOLD, for the term of 22 years, a black girl, 8 years old—also, a mulatto girl, for the term of 24 years. Unalienated depreciation certificates and final settlement certificates, of Pennsylvania, will be taken in payment. Apply to Dr. Joseph Gardner, at the south east corner of Market and Fourth Streets, Philadelphia. August 13, 1784.” [7]

Gardner was born in 1752 in Honeybrook Township, in Chester County, Pennsylvania.

On 16 November 1784, Gardner was elected to a seat in the Continental Congress, “for the

Joseph Gardner (1752–1794)453 ensuing year.” He ultimately served from 29 November to 24 December 1784, 17 January to about 6 May 1785, 7 June to about 3 August 1785, and about 8 September to 4 November 1785. [8] As The Freeman’s Journal: Or, The North-American Intelligencer reported, “[y] esterday came on in the General Assembly, the election of Delegates for this state in Congress, when the following gentlemen were chosen, viz. the hon. Joseph Reed, Cadwallader Morris, William Montgomery, Joseph Gardner, and William Henry (of Lancaster), esquires.” [9] A study of newspaper coverage of the doings of the Continental Congress during the time of Gardner’s tenure show that nearly all of the reports focused merely on his attendance as a delegate from Pennsylvania, and did not discuss any speeches he made or legislation he may have introduced. [10] Incredibly, there are extant several pieces of correspondence from Gardner during the period of his congressional service; it appears that one of the issues he spent time on was the boundary dispute between Pennsylvania and Connecticut over the Wyoming Valley. In a letter to John Dickinson, the President of Pennsylvania, Gardner wrote on 19 January 1785:

times to retreat from Philadelphia to other cities. Gardner penned: The appointment of Commissioners to carry into effect the ordinance of Congress for the Purpose of erecting federal buildings upon the banks of the Delaware has taken near four days of this week and has this day been effected. Genl. Schuyler, Phil. Dickinson and Robt. Morris are the commissioners. Some States have not been hearty in the Measure. Maryland has been principally active in delay-from what motives we are not at liberty to do more than conjecture. Perhaps the precipitate retreat of Congress last summer from their Capital has its influence, or they rather wished the banks of the Potomack had been fixed for the permanent federal residence which would have placed the Capital of the United States nearer them, but whatever reasons operated with them it is very evident that Congress have lost that influence at home and respectability abroad which are essentially necessary to conduct with advantage the concerns of a great Nation and which can never be regained while they are once or twice a year Moving from place to place. [12] Finally, to John Nicholson (died 1800), the Welshborn economist who was the Comptroller of Pennsylvania (1782-94) at the time that Gardner wrote to him, “[t]hat Congress will appoint a person to settle the accts. in conjunction with you or empower the Treasury Board to nominate such a person for the like purpose.” [13]

Herewith I have the Honor to enclose to your Excellency a copy of three papers presented by the Delegates of Connecticut in Congres [sic] tending to revive the old dispute between the two states. I did not arrive here till yesterday afternoon, consequently had it not in my power to transmit copies earlier, it will be impossible for Council to forward such papers and information upon that subject before the day it is ordered for consideration in a committee of the whole which you will observe by the indorsement, but suppose it will not be attended with difficulty to get it postponed until the papers can be received. I hope your Excellency and the Council will see the necessity of forwarding all the information in your power upon this subject since the decree of Trenton as soon as possible. [11]

After he left the Continental Congress, Gardner resumed the practice of medicine, although he moved to Philadelphia, perhaps having had a chance to see the city when he served in the Congress. We find Gardner listed in the Septennial Census, done in Pennsylvania in 1786, as a resident in East Caln, in Chester, Pennsylvania. [14] In 1792, Gardner moved to Elkton, Maryland, presumably to practice medicine there. He died in Elkton sometime in 1794, at about the age of 42.

Gardner wrote to John Bubenheim Bayard, also a member of the Continental Congress from Pennsylvania (1785-86) on the plans to construct a new national capital on the banks “of the Potowmack” River, which came about after the Continental Congress was forced several

[1] See the warrant for “Gardner, Joseph G.,” on the warrant dated 3 June 1763, in the Pennsylvania Land Warrants and Applications, 1733-1952, courtesy of the Pennsylvania State Archives, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. [2] See the warrant for “Gardner, Joseph G.,” on the warrant dated 1 July 1784, in the Pennsylvania Land Warrants and Applications, 1733-1952, courtesy of the Pennsylvania State Archives, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

454

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

[3] Information from the land warrant, 3 June 1763, op. cit. [4] Tax form for Joseph Gardner, 1768, Tax & Exoneration Lists, 1762-1794, Series No. 4.61, Roll 322, Records of the Office of the Comptroller General, RG 4. Pennsylvania Historical & Museum Commission, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. [5] See Gardner’s official congressional biography, online at http:// bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=G000058. [6] See the listing for “Gardner, Joseph,” in the “Revolutionary War Battalions & Militia Index Cards,” I:351, courtesy of the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. [7] “To be Sold,” The Freeman’s Journal: Or, The North-American Intelligencer [Philadelphia], 18 August 1784, 3. [8] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VII:lxxiii; VIII:xciv. [9] “Philadelphia, Nov. 17,” in The Freeman’s Journal: Or, The North-American Intelligencer [Philadelphia], 17 November 1784, 3. [10] For instance, see “The following Delegates,” The Connecticut Courant and Weekly Intelligencer [Hartford] 14 December 1784, 3. [11] Gardner to John Dickinson, 19 January 1785, in Burnett, “Letters of Members,” op. cit., VIII:8. [12] Gardner to John Bubenheim Bayard, 11 February 1785, in ibid., VIII:28. [13] Gardner to John Nicholson, 10 October 1785, in ibid., VIII:232. [14] See entry for Joseph Gardner in the Pennsylvania Septennial Census, 1786, in the Pennsylvania state Septennial Census Returns, 1779-1863, Box 1026, “Chester,” RG 7, Records of the Pennsylvania state House of Representatives, Records of the General Assembly, courtesy of the Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.

of offices. He was born in Bridgehampton, in Suffolk County, on New York’s Long Island, on 4 July 1744, the son of Maltby Gelston and his wife Mary (née Pierson) Gelston. According to the one major source on the family, by Rev. Benjamin W. Dwight in 1871, Mary Pierson Gelston, born in 1720, was two or three years older than her husband. The American line of the Gelston family originated in Ireland, where two brothers, The Rev. Samuel Gelston and Judge Hugh Gelston, emigrated to America from Belfast, settling in Southampton, on New York’s Long Island, about 1715-17. [1] David Gelston’s daughter, Phebe, later married Nicoll Floyd, the son of William Floyd, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, thus merging these two famed revolutionary families, and giving additional insight into the genealogy of the Pierson clan, through David Gelston’s mother: she could trace her ties back to Wilbroe Griggs (1593-1662), who appears in the Parish records in Olney, Buckingham, England. [2]

David Gelston (1744–1828)

A delegate from New York to the Continental Congress (1789), David Gelston was a longtime New York politician who served in a series

A short biography of Gelston in a collection of letters to and from Thomas Jefferson lists his vocation as being a “merchant.” [3] Officials records from the city of Savannah state that he married Sarah Martin on 1 November 1752, when he was 26. David Gelston, as a historical figure, first appears in 1775 when he was one of the signers of New York’s “Articles of Association,” which came about following the opening of the war between England and the American colonies at Lexington and Concord in April of that year. Meeting at New Paltz, New York, 218 New Yorkers signed the document, including Gelston. This radical move was the first indication that the individual colonies were going forward with their attempts to break away from England, culminating the following year in the signing of the Declaration of Independence. In 1775, the same year that he signed the “Articles of Association,” Gelston was elected to the New York Provisional Congress, where he served until 1777. In that latter year, he served as a member of the state Constitutional Convention, which established the first state constitution for New York. Under that constitution, Gelston was elected in 1777 to a seat in the New York state Assembly, where he sat until 1785, serving as that body’s Speaker in the sessions of 1784 and 1785.

David Gelston (1744–1828)455 In 1780, he was appointed as a commissioner in New York state on specie, or currency. [4] On 16 December 1788, Gelston was elected to a seat in the Continental Congress, “from the said day of their appointment, for the present Year.” When Gelston was elected to that body, the Continental Congress was near its end: the previous year, 1787, saw the drafting of a new US Constitution to replace the antiquated and moribund Articles of Confederation, and, in 1788, the 13 states had established conventions to ratify the document. He attended the Continental Congress only for one day, 18 February 1789; the business of that body was about to be handed over to the new bicameral legislature established under the US Constitution. [5] Returning to New York, Gelston served as a member of the Council of Appointment, which recommended to state officials the names of appointees for state offices. In 1790, he was elected to the New York state Senate, where he sat from 1791 to 1794, as well as in 1798 and 1802. In 1792 he served as the New York state Canal Commissioner, overseeing the business of canal operation. A surrogate of the County of New York until 1801, in July of that year President Thomas Jefferson named him as the Collector of the Port of New York to succeed Joshua Sands, a post that Gelston held until 1820. Hearing of potential allegations of corruption at the port, the President wrote to Gelston on 12 November 1802, “The motives which induce the writer of a letter to withold his name are generally suspicious, but not however always blameable. I consider anonymous letters as sufficient foundation for enquiry into the facts they communicate, as the person who is the subject of the inclosed letter is[,] I presume[,] within your department, I inclose it to you merely that you may do in the case exactly what you would have done had it been addressed to you instead of me, men of worth do sometimes languish in an obscurity from which they would be raised were their worth known, whether that is the present case your enquiries may decide . . . ” The allegations of corruption centered around one Walter Bicker, who received funds from the surveyor’s office at the New York Custom House, which was controlled by Gelston. Ten days after Jefferson wrote the letter, Gelston replied, “tell the President that [m]any of the circumstances

related in the anonymous communication are within my knowlege [sic]—the Gentleman therein mentioned I am acquainted W., and tho’ I feel disposed to render him all the assistance in my power, I do not think it would be prudent in me to appoint him to a more important office.” [6] In December 1820, Gelston resigned as Collector at the age of 76, making way for his successor, Jonathan Thompson. During the remaining years of his life, despite his years of faithful—and corruption free—service, Gelston was plagued by the government he had served. Upon retiring, Gelston was handed a bill for some $45,000 for uncollected port fees that the government claimed he had never collected. Despite Gelston having voluminous records and receipts showing that the fees had, indeed, been collected, the government still demanded the payment. Even after his death, the government sued his estate in court for the back fees. As late as 1842, the government was still claiming that Gelston owed it more than $35,000. It is unclear if they ever collected, or the final outcome of the case. Gelston died on 21 August 1828, one month past his 84th birthday. One Baltimore paper stated, “Died . . . [a]t New York, David Gelston, Esq., aged 84 years, late Collector of the Customs, for that port.” [7] He was laid to rest in the First Presbyterian Church graveyard in Manhattan, in New York City, located at 5th Avenue and West 12th Street.

[1] Dwight, The Rev. Benjamin W., “The Gelston Family, Descendants of Judge Hugh Gelston, of Southampton, L.I.,” The New York Genealogical and Biographical Record, II:3 (July 1871), 131-38. [2] Information on Wilbroe Griggs and his descendants, online at http://jrm.phys.ksu.edu/genealogy/needham/d0004/I3712.html. [3] See Barbara B. Oberg, ed., “The Papers of Thomas Jefferson” (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 39 volumes, 19502012), XXXVIII:677. [4] Gelston official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=G000122. [5] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VIII:xc. [6] Thomas Jefferson to David Gelston, 12 November 1802, and Gelston to Jefferson, 22 November 1802, both in Barbara B. Oberg, ed., “The Papers of Thomas Jefferson” (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 39 volumes, 1950-2012), XXXVIII:676. [7] “Died,” Baltimore Patriot & Mercantile Advertiser [Maryland], 12 August 1828, 2.

456

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

George William Frederick, King George III of Great Britain and Ireland (1738–1820)

Wales brought under the umbrella of the entity known as “The United Kingdom,” saw just three monarchs prior to George III: Queen Anne, who reigned for 12 years before her death in 1714 at the age of 49; George I, the grandfather of George III, who reigned for 12 years, 10 months, from 1714 until his death in 1727 at the age of 67; and, finally, George II, the father of George III, who reigned from 1727 until his death in 1760 at the age of 77, having reigned for 33 years. [4] Considered unintelligent from a child—he could not read until he was 11 years old—George William Frederick, as he was known, may have suffered from autism or some other learning disability. Despite his royal ties, he was also related to a number of families who suffered from depression and even insanity. Historian Walter Bett wrote in 1938, “[George III], though intelligent, energetic, and a model of domestic propriety, from childhood displayed a mulish obstinacy. This led him consistently to oppose the tremendous intellectual changes which his long and singularly purposeless reign witnessed, and also directly precipitated the American Revolution. His grandfather, George II, had been subject to fits of depression which could only be solaced by music, and his father, Frederick Louis Prince of Wales, played a pitiful role in English history. On his mother’s side there was feeblemindedness verging on insanity.” [5] In October 1750 Francis, Lord North, was named as his governor, but prior to this he had the services of a number of tutors who prepared him for the eventuality of assuming the throne. Just months later, in March 1751, his father died, impacting him greatly. Now tasked with being next in line for the English throne, George was also given the titles of Duke of Edinburgh and Electoral Prince of Brunswick-Lüneberg, held by his father prior to his death. The following month, he was bestowed with the title of the Prince of Wales, certifying him as next in line for the monarchy.

The monarch of Great Britain (1760-1820), King George came to power just before the American Revolution broke out, and he is often blamed for the war that followed. His alleged “madness” at the end of his life can be attributed to the disease porphyria. George William Frederick, the son of Frederick, the Prince of Wales, and his wife, Augusta, the Princess of Saxe Gotha, was born in Norfolk House, in St. James’ Square (some sources report Leicester Square) in London, England, on 4 June 1738. As the eldest son of the Prince of Wales, George was destined to become the British monarch. [1] He was descended on all sides from royal nobility: His great-grandfather, George I, a German prince, was invited to come to England to take control of the nation after the death of Queen Anne in 1714, initiating the Hanoverian dynasty. George I spoke only German and a little French, and he spent much of his time not in England, but in Hanover, in Germany, from whence he had come. George I died in 1727, and the throne of England was passed to his son, the military leader George II, who ruled from 1727 until his death in 1760. George II became, in 1743, the last British monarch to see military action, when he fought alongside his troops at the battle of Dettingen in 1743. George II and his son, the Prince of Wales, argued constantly. George II had his limitations; Oliver Goldsmith, writing in 1771, said of him that he was “a man of inferior abilities to the late king, and strongly biassed [sic] with a partiality to his dominions on the continent.” [2] George II’s son, Frederick, the Prince of Wales, died in 1751, and, when George II died in 1760, the throne was passed to his grandson, George III. George III’s mother, whose full name was Augusta von Sachsen-Gotha-Altenberg (1719-1772), resigned as the Empress Dowager during the 12 years that she lived during her son’s monarchy. When she died in London on 8 February 1772, a grand funeral was held for her, and she was laid to rest not in her native Germany but in Westminster Abbey in London. [3] The Act of Succesion, enacted in 1707, in which the countries of England, Scotland, and

Until he was formally crowned, George Frederick was under the tight influence of many of the men who had surrounded his grandfather. Historian Guy Boustead, writing in 1940, described this assemblage of “advisors” simply as “[Henry St. John, 1st Viscount] Bolingbroke, [Philip Stanhope, 4th Earl of] Chesterfield, [George] Cartaret, [sir William] Wyndham, [Sir George Brooke, 9th Baron] Cobham, [and] [William]

George William Frederick, King George III of Great Britain and Ireland (1738–1820)457 Pitt.” [6] This group implanted their ideas and plans for England in the coming years, after George would take the throne. This event occurred on 22 September 1761, when George was 23, and married to Charlotte Sophia of Mecklenburg-Strelitz (1744-1818), herself a German princess. Needless to say, the marriage between George and Charlotte was an extremely happy one, resulting in 15 children, 13 of whom lived to adulthood, including their eldest son, who became King William IV of England upon his father’s death in 1820. The celebration at the coronation of George at Westminster Abbey on 22 September 1761 was heralded as spectacular; one publication, released for the occasion, stated that “the Ceremonies accustomed upon that great and glorious Solemnity.” [7] When George acceded to the throne, England— as well as the entire world—was undergoing fundamental changes that would mark the difference between the 18th century from the 17th century. Historian Linda Cooley wrote of this period, “In England, Scotland and Wales, those innovations in eighteenth-century society which have tended to be discussed only in terms of their contribution to a growing radical consciousness—an enormously improved road and postal system, an expanding press-network, metropolitan and urban growth and, arguably, an absolute increase in the level of literacy— were likely also to erode localism, facilitate popular receptivity to state propaganda, and encourage national consciousness.” [8] Trade was expanding; new trade routes were being discovered and utilized. Unfortunately, the same changes, and others, including a marked interest in human rights for the colonists, were occurring in the British colonies in America—but the Crown, and his ministers, did not foresee that they needed to make changes, as well, to the way they treated the colonists. They did not, and what soon followed was to spur a total revolt against British rule. That revolt began, quite innocently, with the enactment by the British Parliament of certain pieces of legislation that, taken on their own, would probably have done little to impact the relations between Britain and her American colonies. These acts included the Sugar Act (1764), the Stamp Act (1765), and other actions that created hostilities in the colonies. Some

historians may call this period a “falling out,” but in fact it was far more personal, and far more harsh. Repeated requests by the colonists to be heard on these matters were dismissed by London as the voices of protest against these and other actions grew louder. Discussing this period of deteriorating relations between England and the American colonies, starting about 1763-64, which rose to become the American Revolution, historian William Liddle explained: “Never were a People more wrapped up in a King, than the Americans were in George the Third in the Year 1763,” observed William Henry Drayton in October 1776. Certainly the state of colonial opinion regarding America’s last monarch had changed remarkably by the time Drayton addressed this charge to the grand jury of Charleston, South Carolina. Yet, in his view, that revolution in American attitudes was a very recent development: “It was even so late as the latter end of the last Year [1775], before that Confidence” which had sustained the colonists’ special faith in their sovereign “visibly eclined.” Moreover, in his opinion, many believed that King George III, “from Motives of Policy, if not from Inclination, would heal our Wounds, and thereby prevent the Separation” of the colonies from Great Britain until their hopes finally succumbed to the continuing accumulation of oppressive measures emanating from London. [9] In 1762, George had arranged for John Stuart, the 3rd Earl of Bute, to become his prime minister. Bute was exceptionally unpopular among the Members of Parliament (MPs), who felt that he was not competent to run the government. At the same time, his First Lord of the Treasury, Lord George Grenville, pushed through a series of tax increases on the American colonies to pay for England’s participation in the French and Indian War, which had cost Britain’s treasury dearly. These acts, noted above, were resisted by the colonists in whatever way possible. In April 1763, after less than a year as prime minister, Bute was replaced Grenville as prime minister, who ushered through Parliament the acts which brought a revolt on. He was then replaced by Charles Watson-Wentworth, the 2nd Marquess of Rockingham, who also served for a year. He was succeeded by William Pitt, the 1st Earl of Chatham, known more commonly as “Pitt the Elder.” In a short period, he was also replaced,

458

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

succeeded by Augustus Henry Fitzroy, the 3rd Duke of Grafton. His ministry lasted until 1770.

other actions—including the forcible quartering of British troops in the homes of Americans against the will. It was North who backed additional measures that came to be known as The Intolerable Acts, which included a tax on British tea that led to the Boston Tea Party in 1774. In response to the action against British tea, North pushed through the Boston Port Bill (1774), which ultimately led to the opening of warfare at Lexington and Concord in April 1774. Some MPs, including Charles Fox and Edmund Burke, spoke against the pieces of legislation, believing that they exacerbated an already destructive atmosphere between London and the colonies.

It was the man who succeeded Grafton, Frederick North, Lord North, that years of pent-up rage among the American colonists exploded. Perhaps it was the “merry-go-round” of men who led Britain that made it inevitable that a revolt would explode; perhaps there being so many different men in one position in such a short time also lent itself to issues being allowed to build up without being properly addressed. Another possibility is that George held a tight rein over the Parliament itself. In August 1771, William Pitt the Elder wrote, “The influence of the Crown is become so enormous [in the Parliament] that some stronger bulwark must be erected for the defense of the Constitution.” Whatever the reasons that ultimately led to the outbreak of revolt against the Crown, historians blame North, and rarely mention his predecessors, or even the King, for the war for American independence which soon followed. The role of Lord North in the events which led t0 the onset of the American Revolution is covered, in depth, in the entry on that British prime minister. The King and Lord North saw eye to eye on many matters, most notably how to treat the American colonies—and it is for this reason that North remained as prime minister for more than a full decade. Americans in England, however, saw the true villain as the King. Historian Stella Duff wrote, “Among the Americans in London who realized the value of the Radical movement to the colonial cause was Arthur Lee of Virginia. The brother of Richard Henry Lee, he had been resident in England for some time. His political friends were Wilkites [supporters of the radical politician John Wilkes] and he himself was a member of the Society of the Supporters of the Bill of Rights. In I773, he wrote in a letter to Sam Adams that there was nothing in George III’s reign to prove him anything but a tyrant over his people. ‘You may depend upon it that the later American Act of Revenue, [the Townshend Act, repealed in I770] moved from the throne with an insidious view of dividing the American opposition.” [10] It was North who supported the parliamentary policy of continuing the harsh economic policies that angered and roiled the colonists, as well as

Believing that the King, and his Prime Minister Lord North, were out to subjugate the colonists as potential slaves, a meeting of delegates was called from all of the colonies to address these concerns and others. This was the First Continental Congress. From September 1774, when that body first met, voices among the delegates grew louder that the singular step of full and complete independence from Britain must be declared. To that end, a document was drafted listing all of the colonists’ grievances against Britain in general, and the King in particular, as the cause for the conflict. Thomas Jefferson, as well as the delegates who composed and signed the Declaration of Independence in the summer of 1776, took great pains to point the finger for the reasons for their declaring themselves separate from their “Mother County” right at George III. In one sentence in the Declaration, the document said of the monarch: “A prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a tyrant is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.” Historian Andrew Jackson O’Shaughnessy wrote that while John Adams later regretted using the term tyrant, having met the King and coming to like him, Jefferson, who penned much of the Declaration, hated the British ruler: Jefferson certainly never ceased to blame George III personally for the breakdown in relations leading to the American Revolution: “Future ages will scarce believe that the hardiness of one man adventured within the short compass of twelve years only, to build a foundation so broad and undisguised for tyranny over a people fostered & fixed in the

George William Frederick, King George III of Great Britain and Ireland (1738–1820)459 principles of freedom.” After his return to Paris, he wrote sardonically of George III as the American Messiah who had labored for twenty years “to drive us to our good” and who “has not a friend on earth who would lament his loss as much and so long as I should.” In his copy of François Soule’s “Histoire des troubles de l’Amérique anglaise” (London, 1785), in which the author discusses the education of George III, Jefferson commented “the seeds of the war are here traced to their true source . . . At the moment he came to the throne, and cleared his hands of his enemies by the Peace of Paris, the assumptions of the unwarrantable right over America commenced.” [11] George saw things quite differently. Sir John Fortescue, who published the correspondence of the King from 1760 to 1783 in six volumes in 1927 and 1928, documented the feelings and writings of the monarch during this crucial period. Writing of the collection, Professor Basil Williams wrote, “George III., according to Sir John, was almost invariably right, and those who opposed him, from Chatham downwards, were factious and unscrupulous demagogues, generally, too, sinning against the light. He finds nothing good to say about the American colonists or their supporters in England, and in his sixth volume thoroughly endorses the king’s ‘knowledge’ that it was the faction headed by [Charles James] Fox in Parliament which had brought about the loss of America.” [12] A study of the six volumes of Fortescue shows the realization that came to the King as the colonies first declared independence, and then fought for their right to be separate from England. Writing to his Prime Minister, Lord North, on 7 March 1780, he tried to impart the tremendous loss that would be felt if the American colonies won their war: “As to Lord North’s propositions for making good the Services of this Year I have no doubt that they are those he finds the least objectionable for His knowledge of Finance is universally admitted; but I can never Suppose this Country so far lost to all ideas of Self importance as to be willing to grant America independence, if that could ever be universally adopted, I shall despair of this Country being ever preserved from a state of inferiority and consequently falling into a very low class among the European States, if we do not feel our own consequence other Nations will not treat us above what we esteem ourselves.” [13]

Matters of state changed drastically in March 1782, when Lord North’s government collapsed. Although the war in America is usually cited as the chief cause of his failure, it was in fact events at home that ultimately led to his downfall: most notably, a series of anti-Catholic riots in 1780, known as the Gordon riots, among people who demanded that Parliament repeal the Catholic Relief Act, a 1778 law. It took two additional years, however, for enough pressure to build in the House of Commons for a no-confidence vote in North’s leadership to be forced. When it came, North was defeated, and he resigned. He was replaced by the Marquess of Rockingham, who realized that the war in America was not only unpopular in England, but that it was draining vital res0urces from England and the rest of the British Empire while forcing the British military to be occupied fighting a civil war it ultimately could not win. Immediately upon taking office, Rockingham sought to negotiate an end to the war, dispatching diplomats to Paris to meet with American representatives there. The previous year, events in America made that realization moot, as the British surrendered at Yorktown, ending the military portion of the conflict; Rockingham’s move only acceded to reality. In either January or February of 1783, King George penned an extensive letter to an unknown correspondent, documenting his feelings at the end of the war in America. He wrote, in part, “America is lost! Must we fall beneath the blow? Or have we resources that may repair the mischief? What are those resources? Should they be sought in distant Regions held by precarious Tenure, or shall we seek them at home in the exertions of a new policy? The situation of the Kingdom is novel, the policy that is to govern it must be novel likewise, or neither adapted to the real evils of the present moment, or the dreaded ones of the future.” [14] At the same time, Rockingham, as well as his successor, William Petty, the 2nd Earl of Shelburne, who took office after Rockingham’s unexpected death from influenza on 1 July 1782, had to deal with the King’s unchecked power in the House of Commons. When he became prime minister, however, the necessity of securing a peace with America was tantamount to making his ministry a successful one. The Reverend William Hunt wrote, “On 5 December [1782], the king, in

460

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

his speech on [the] opening [of] parliament, announced that he had offered to declare the American colonies free and independent. ‘Did I,’ he afterwards asked, ‘lower my voice when I came to that part of the speech?’” [15] The King really had no choice; on 3 September 1783 the Americans and the British signed the Peace of Paris, ending the war and granting the United States full independence.

instance, in 1968, historians Ida Macalpine, Richard Hunter, and C. Rimington traced the disease through George’s ties to the royal houses of Stuart, Hanover, and Prussia, all of which point directly to his grandparents and mother. They wrote in The British Medical Journal, “Porphyria may justly be called a royal malady. It caused directly two major national disasters: the Regency Crisis in 1788 when George III had his severest attack, and the catastrophe of 1817 when Princess Charlotte died in childbed with her infant. This tragedy threatened the Hanoverian succession with extinction and left the nation without an heir apparent until the birth in 1819 of Victoria. Porphyria may also have contributed to Queen Anne leaving no heir, a calamity which necessitated safeguarding the Protestant succession by the Act of Settlement of 1701, by which the crown was transferred from the Catholic House of Stuart to that of Hanover, and so brought George I and his descendants to the English throne.” [16]

On 2 April 1783, the Earl of Shelburne’s ministry collapsed, making William Cavendish-Betinck, the 3rd Duke of Portland, the Prime Minister. His ministry lasted less than a year, and he resigned on 19 December 1783, making William Pitt the Younger the new Prime Minister. Pitt forced the King’s program on the House of Commons, making the monarch unpopular with the Whig Party members of the body. At the same time that George was having trouble with Parliament, his own family was coming apart. As he had had poor relations with his own father, George had a stormy relationship with his eldest son and heir to the throne, George, the Prince of Wales; on 5 November 1788, the King attacked his son, smashing his head into a wall. Doctors were called, and the King was placed in a straitjacket for his own protection. This may have been the first signs of the strange disease that plagued the King for the remainder of his life and drove him into insanity: porphyria, which has been called “The Madness of King George.” Blisters soon broke out on his body, and royal physicians, puzzled as to how to treat the monarch, applied painful mustard plasters and other treatments that did little to help the King. Although in 1789 the doctors considered him “cured,” in fact the King was slowly descending into full-blown insanity. Yet for the next two decades he carried out his royal duties. By 1810, however, George was incurably insane. The following year, his eldest son, William, was declared Regent; in effect, he was the “King-in-Waiting.” Studies since the death of George III have tried to trace whether he did, in fact, suffer from porphyria, and, if he did, what familial ties such a disease had. These studies have intensified since the 1960s, although the release of the film “The Madness of King George” in 1994 have made those efforts calm in comparison. For

At the same time, some historians and doctors believe that this diagnosis is in error. Historian L.J. Witts wrote in 1972: Some of the evidence against it has been summarized by Geoffrey Dean—who has probably seen as much porphyria as anyone else in the world (in his book The Porphyrias) He does not find the picture typical of porphyria variegata and some of the genealogical evidence is bizarre. George III sometimes passed red urine but he had renal calculi and in hereditary porphyria the urine is clear when passed and develops a reddish or brownish colour on standing. Porphyria is not a common cause of insanity and is rarely found in surveys of patients in mental hospitals. The only way of testing the hypothesis would be to show that the descendants of George III have a higher prevalence of porphyria than would be expected in the normal population and this would not be an easy thing to do. For all this, it seems likely that the diagnosis of hereditary porphyria will hold the field for the present in the absence of a credible alternative. [17] Whatever the cause of the King’s illness, much of the last 30 years of his record 60 years reign (bested only by Victoria and Elizabeth II) were spent unable to do much for his country. He did, however, start what is known as the royal collection of books: Some 65,000 volumes were

George William Frederick, King George III of Great Britain and Ireland (1738–1820)461 later endowed to the British Library, and is now known as The King’s Library, and which formed the origins of that institution. Today, visitors to the new British Library in London can see the collection, housed in a magnificent tower at the center of the magnificent building that holds the library at St. Pancras. On 29 January 1820, George died at Windsor Castle at the age of 81. Blind for the last years of his life, he had been unaware that his wife had died in 1818, or that his son, Prince Edward, the Duke of Kent, had died six days prior to his own passing. His beloved son, Prince Frederick, the Duke of York and Albany, was at his side when he succumbed. [18] In America, the land that he once resigned over, newspapers wrote thusly: The New York Daily Advertiser said in an editorial, “Thus has terminated the reign of George the Third, after a duration of fifty-nine years, three months and nine days—a reign distinguished alike by the public and private virtues of the Monarch, and by the extraordinary vicissitudes in the affairs of the world, in which the British Cabinet has taken so prominent a part.” [19] The Charleston Courier stated, “In the national distress, occasioned by the death of the late King, and the Duke of Kent, and the illness of the new King, George the 4th, all remembrance of the Radicals appears to be absorbed—Scarcely a word is said about them in any of our papers.” [20] Following a short funeral, the King was laid to rest in the family vault in St. George’s Chapel at Windsor Castle. [21] His son George succeeded him on the throne as George IV; when he died, without issue, in 1830, his brother William became King, reigning until his death in 1837. Neither of these two monarchs had children; the monarchy passed to the Duke of Kent’s daughter, Victoria, who ruled until 1901. The current Queen of England, Elizabeth II, is the great-great granddaughter of Victoria; the newest member of the royal family, born in July 2013, is Elizabeth’s great-grandson, George Frederick Louis, who will one day reign as King George VII. In the two centuries since his death, there have been various historical reviews of George III. Historian Vernon Bogdanor offers his: “It was during Queen Victoria’s reign that the monarchy first attained the prestige which it still enjoys today. Victoria’s predecessors had

been little respected and their private lives had been scandalous. Her three most immediately predecessors, George III, George IV, and William IV, had been described as an imbecile, a profligate, and a buffoon.” [22]

[1] Hunt, The Rev. William, “George III” in Sir Sidney Lee and Leslie Stephen, eds., “Dictionary of National Biography” (London, Smith, Elder, & Co.; 63 volumes and three supplements, 18851901), XXI:172. [2] Goldsmith, Dr. Oliver, “The History of England,From the Earliest Times to the Death of George II. In Four Volumes” (London: Printed for T. Davies, in Russel-street; Becket and Dr. Hondt; and T. Cadell, in the Strand; four volumes, 1771), IV:254. [3] The genealogy of Princess Augusta can be found in her family tree, online at http://www.geni.com/ people/Princess-Augusta-of-Saxe-Gotha-Princess-ofWales/6000000003891753089. [4] Information from “Gaine’s Universal Register, Or, American and British Kalendar, For the Year 1775” (New-York: Printed for H. Gaine, Bookseller and Stationer, 1775), 51. [5] Bett, Walter R., “George III (1738-1820),” The British Medical Journal, II:4055 (24 September 1938), 664. [6] Boustead, Guy M., “The Lone Monarch” (London: John Lane, The Bodley Head, 1940), 21. [7] “An Account of the Ceremonies Observed at the Coronation Of Our Most Gracious Sovereign George III. And His Royal Consort Queen Charlotte, On Tuesday the 22d of September 1761. To which is added, The Form of the Ceremonies observed at the Coronations of the following Kings and Queens of England; Viz. King James II. and his Royal Consort; King William III and Queen Mary; Queen Anne; King George I; and King George II. and Queen Caroline. Also A Description of the Royal and Sacred Ornaments wherewith the Kings and Queens of England are crowned and invested on this solemn Occasion; adorned with Cuts of the Imperial Crowns, Scepters, Orb, Queen’s Circlet, the Two pointed Swords and Curtana, St. Edward’s Chair, the Royal Rings, &c. With Two curious Copper Plates; the larger one exhibiting the Procession observed in the Coronation of King William and Queen Mary; the other representing the Manner of the Champion’s Challenge in Westminster-Hall” (London: Printed for G. Kearsley, at the Golden Lion, in Ludgate-Street, 1761), 4. [8] Cooley, Linda, “The Apotheosis of George III: Loyalty, Royalty and the British Nation 1760-1820,” Past & Present, CII (February 1984), 98. [9] Liddle, William D., “‘A Patriot King, or None’: Lord Bolingbroke and the American Renunciation of George III,” The Journal of American History, LXV:4 (March 1979), 951. [10] Duff, Stella F., “The Case Against the King: The Virginia Gazettes Indict George III,” The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, VI:3 (July 1949), 393-94. [11] O’Shaughnessy, Andrew Jackson, “‘If Others Will Not Be Active, I Must Drive’: George III and the American Revolution,” Early American Studies: An Interdisciplinary Journal, II:1 (Spring 2004), 3-4. [12] Williams, Basil, “George III,” The Scottish Historical Review, XXV:100 (July 1928), 286. [13] King George III to Lord North, 7 March 1780, in Sir John Fortescue, ed., “The Correspondence of King George the Third from 1760 to December 1783, Printed from the Original Papers in the Royal Archives at Windsor Castle, Arranged and Edited by the Hon. Sir John Fortescue” (London: Macmillan and Co., Ltd.; six volumes, 1927-28), V:30.

462

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

[14] King George III, untitled paper, January/February 1783, in the Royal Archives, Additional Georgian Papers, Add. MSS 32/2010/11, Windsor Castle, Windsor, United Kingdom. The remainder of the letter, printed in full, is in the section of Documents. [15] Hunt, The Rev. William, “George III” in “Dictionary of National Biography,” op. cit., XXI:184. [16] Macalpine, Ida, Richard Hunter, and C. Rimington, “Porphyria In The Royal Houses Of Stuart, Hanover, And Prussia A Follow-Up Study Of George III’s Illness,” The British Medical Journal, I:5583 (6 January 1968), 18. [17] Witts, L. J., “Porphyria And George III,” The British Medical Journal, IV:5838 (25 November 1972), 479-80. [18] “Memoir of His Late Majesty George the Third,” The Times [London], 31 January 1820, 3. [19] New-York Daily Advertiser, 11 March 1820, 2. [20] “Very Late from England!,” The Charleston Courier [South Carolina], 13 March 1820, 2. [21] “The Funeral of His Majesty King George III,” Liverpool Mercury [United Kingdom], 25 February 1820, 275. [22] Bogdanor, Vernon, “The Monarchy and the Constitution” (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 1995), 36.

as a clerk of the town council in Dublin, but, in July of that year, he was given the post of captain in the Sixth Dragoon Guards of the British army. [3] Before the end of this military career, Sackville would rise to the rank of lieutenant general. He was poised for a promising military career: Over the next several years, he saw action during the War of the Austrian Succession at Dettingen (27 June 1743), and at Fontenoy (11 May 1745); he fought under William Augustus, the Duke of Cumberland, against the forces of Charles Edward Stuart in the Jacobite Rising at Culloden, also known as Blàr Chùil Lodair (16 April 1746). However, it was at the battle of Minden, also known as Thornhausen (1 August 1759), during the Seven Years’ War, when a combined British and Prussian force went up against the French and the Saxons in northern Germany. Led by Prince Ferdinand of Brunswick, the British and Prussians won the battle. The situation before Minden, however, looked dire for the British, with poor relations between the British and Prussians. Historian Horace Walpole, in the memoirs of King George III, explained, “This was the state of things before the battle of Minden; but being little or not at all known in England, it was with equal surprise and indignation that the people heard Lord George Sackville, who had always stood in high estimation for courage, more covertly at first, soon openly accused of cowardice, and of having thrown away the moment of completing the total destruction of the French Army.” [4] At Minden, Sackville was ordered to send his forces into battle, but he refused, and, despite the victory, he was dismissed from the British army for refusing orders to reinforce Brunswick’s forces with his own. Tried in a court-martial, he was convicted. [5]

George Germain, 1st Viscount Sackville (1716–1785) The First Lord of Trade (1775-79), George Germain served as the secretary of state of the American Colonies from 1775 to 1782. The third son of Sir Lionel Cranfield Sackville, the 7th Earl of Dorset, and his wife, Elizabeth (née Colyear) Sackville, George Sackville was born on 26 January 1716 in London. [1] Germain was descended from Thomas Sackville, the 1st Earl of Dorset and the 1st Baron Buckhurst (15271608) and his progeny, all of whom served as the Earl of Dorset, including German’s father, who was the 1st Duke of Dorset as well as the 2nd Earl of Middlesex. In 1778, a London newspaper, The St. James’s Chronicle, stated that Germain’s ancestor, Richard Sackville, the Earl of Dorset, “was a very avaricious and corrupt Man, who depending upon his Power at the Council Board, where many Causes were shamefully tried during the Reign of our first arbitrary King James, laid Claim to a Gentleman’s Estate of the family of Lucy, for no other Reason, but because it was contiguous to his own.” [2] George Germain studied at the prestigious Westminster School in London, and then at Trinity College at the University of Dublin, Ireland, from which he received a bachelor’s degree in 1733, and a master’s degree a year later. He was admitted to the Irish bar in that same latter year, 1734. In 1737, he was named

Sackville tried to vindicate himself, by writing letters to important personages and printing tracts in which he gave his side of the story of what happened at Minden. [6] Unable to get back in the military, and facing a lifetime of humiliation, Sackville decided on a political career. He had been elected to a seat in the British House of Commons in 1742, but it was not until his military career was over that he took it seriously. In 1757, after William Pitt was dismissed as the prime minister by King George

George Germain, 1st Viscount Sackville (1716–1785)463 II, Charles James Fox tried to form a government, and he offered Germain the post of secretary of state. Fox wrote to Lord Waldegrave, “If Lord George will take it, nothing can shake us in the House of Commons.” However, Germain declined the offer. [7] The Prince of Wales, impressed by Germain’s move, wrote to John Stuart, the 3rd Earl of Bute, “Lord George shows himself the man of honour you have often described him to me.” The King saw it differently; he wrote to Philip Yorke, the 1st Earl of Hardwicke, “that Lord George had most ungratefully abandoned him after all that he had done for his Lordship, and had gone over to his enemies.” [8] In 1769 Lady Elizabeth Germain, the daughter of Charles, the 2nd Earl of Berkeley, whose husband had been a friend of Sackville’s maternal grandfather, died without an heir, and through her will she passed her estate, and the title of Germain, to Sackville. The following year, he was elevated to the peerage as Lord Germain, and he held that official title until just before his death. Remaining in the House of Commons, Germain, as he was now officially called, continued to rise in the eyes of his fellow politicians. Even before he became the state secretary for the Colonies, Germain was deeply involved in the policy generated towards the Americas. Historian Robert Livingston Schuyler noted: On 18 March 1779, Galloway sent to Lord George Germain two alternative plans “for Establishing a Permanent Union between Great Britain and America” . . . The first plan proposed to give the colonies representation in the British Parliament ‘as in the cases of Chester, Durham, Wales and Scotland,’ a recommendation which had already been made by many publicists on both sides of the Atlantic. Galloway probably had little hope of the adoption of this proposal and devoted much more space to his second plan, which was a variation of the plan of 1774. The most striking differences between the two are explained by Galloway’s conviction that it was “of the utmost Importance to the permanent Union of the parts of a Great Empire that the same essential principles of policy should pervade the whole” and “run thro [sic] every inferior and Subordinate Politic Body.” [9] Summing up how history could view the selection of Germain as the secretary of state

for the Colonies, historian George H. Guttridge explained, “When in 1775 the King and Lord North decided to coerce the Americans, they entrusted the task to a man who had been court-martialled [sic], declared unfit to serve the king in any military capacity, and ejected from the Privy Council. Posterity has taken the hint, and has dismissed him, almost without consideration, as a failure.” [10] Germain may have realized the depths of what he had just taken on: In a letter to General Sir John Irwin, an Irish officer in the British army, he wrote on 4 November 1775, “This letter will I suppose find you just ready to set out for England. When you arrive I fear you will find me in Lord Dartmouth’s office of secretary of state for America. I have try’d and cannot avoid it. Pity me, encourage me, and I will do my best.” [11] When Germain succeeded Lord Dartmouth as the secretary of state for the Colonies, he installed more power in the office than ever before. Historian B.D. Bargar noted that “[w]hile Hillsborough may have deliberately underestimated his own influence in order to disarm applicants for employment, ‘the good Lord Dartmouth’ exercised much greater influence, and he passed on to his successor, Lord George Germain, a firmer and more extensive control of patronage than he had received with his seals of office.” [12] In addition to the colonies, Germain had to deal with difficulties in the West Indies, which led to near-clashes with Spain. Historian William Sorsby noted that “Germain deliberately misinterpreted evidence of Spanish depredations in the Indies so as not to endanger AngloSpanish relations.” [13] It may be that no matter who was serving as the secretary of state for the Colonies during this period, that the war to rein in the colonies would ultimately be lost. Germain’s policies contributed to the loss, however: Historian Frances Kepner wrote: The failure of the British attempt to capture Charleston in June, 1776, has long since been recognized as meaning the postponement for at least three years of the opportunity for British penetration of the American colonies through the South during the American Revolution.1 It is also generally understood

464

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

that the failure was due as much to the poor judgment and blundering of the British commanders as to the valor of the revolutionary defenders. That some of the British authorities were aware of this mismanagement at the time or shortly afterward is indicated by [a] report which seems to have been made to Lord George Germain, the colonial secretary, in 1778, by one who was a resident of Charleston during the months of preparation at Fort Moultrie and a witness of the June events when the city was within sight of Sir Peter Parker’s naval vessels and Sir Henry Clinton’s land force. [14]

present itself in the course of the Campaign which Sir Henry Clinton will think fit to be embraced for restoring you to the Exercise of your Function in the Jersies [sic]. [15]

On 22 January 1779, after William Franklin, the son of Benjamin Franklin, was released from captivity by British troops, Germain wrote to him: I congratulate with you most sincerely upon your deliverance from your long & severe Confinement in the hands of the Rebels, & I shall rejoice to hear you have recovered your Health with your Liberty, & that the remembrance of the hardships you have undergone is all that remains to affect you of them; and I have great Satisfaction in being able to acquaint you His Majesty is fully pursuaded [sic] of your zeal & Attachment, & I have no doubt, when the occasion offers, will reward your Merit, & it will in the mean time be a farther Consolation to you to find that attention has been immediately shewn to your Situation by the Lords of the Treasury upon my communicating to them your Letter No. 3 . . . The Picture you draw of the People’s sufferings & the Tyranny of their Rulers is very striking and corroberates [sic] the varioius [sic] Accounts we had before received, & encourages us to hope that when they see Great Britain determined to prosecute the War and compell them to return to their Allegiance, & have found how little their Alliance with France has availed them, their natural good Sense will at length prevail over their prejudices & induce them to make an Effort to deliver themselves from the Oppression they groan under & seek to be restored again to that Constitutional Liberty & Happiness they so wantonly abandoned [sic]. I intirely agree with you in opinion that the War should be carried on in a manner better calculated to make them feel their distresses than the mode hitherto pursued, & I also concur with you in thinking Advantage should be taken of our Success in getting Possession of any County to establish a Civil Government which they would find it their Interest and Inclination to support & defend; & I am not without hopes, Sir, some Opportunity will

By 1780, many British politicians believed that the war in America was close to a conclusion— that victory was coming to their side. The office of the secretary of state for the Colonies was due to reorganization. Historian Arthur Basye explained: The first clause of Burke’s Establishment Bill as presented in the House of Commons in 1780 provided for the abolition of “the office commonly called or known by the name of third secretary of state or secretary of state for the colonies.” Governor Pownall suggested that the only description necessary was “third secretary of state,” but Lord George Germain, who held the office in question, objected to any qualifying terms, for the reason that he was neither third secretary of state nor secretary of state for the colonies, but “one of his Majesty’s principal secretaries of state”—a position he had taken in a previous session when he had described himself as “secretary of state at large.” “He wished most sincerely,” however, “if the committee should determine to abolish any one of the three offices, that it might be the one he had the honour to fill.” This protest availed nothing; the original wording was retained in the final bill, passed in 1782. [16] Germain wrote to Sir Henry Clinton on 4 July 1780: The King read with great satisfaction your secret letter of the 14th of May, as it informed his Majesty that you still had reliance on the assurances given you of the loyal disposition of the inhabitants of the country, though your humane and judicious attention to their safety had induced you to repress their zeal, until your success at Charles-Town was sure. Lord Cornwallis will, I trust, in his progress remove all obstructions to a free communication between then and the King’s troops; and as you propose leaving under his Lordship’s command a sufficient force, not only for the defence of South Carolina and Georgia, but also for any farther active measures which may be necessary, they cannot doubt of effectual and permanent protection . . . [17] What Germain did not know—or, perhaps, did not care to know—was that the British were

George Germain, 1st Viscount Sackville (1716–1785)465 slowly losing the war in America. Years of poor military planning, horrific treatment of the colonists, and a strengthened colonial army were bringing the American side closer to victory than anyone dared to assume. Germain’s policies, ultimately, are part of the answer for the loss; historians fault Germain for the eventual defeat of Cornwallis at Yorktown. Historian Randolph Adams wrote in 1931: There is no need to recount the details of the FrancoAmerican military strategy which marched two armies completely around Sir Henry Clinton’s British forces at New York, and closed in on the land side of Cornwallis at Yorktown just after the French Admiral Grasse had effectively sealed the ocean approaches to Cornwallis’s position. But why did Sir Henry Clinton and the British Admiral Thomas Graves, at New York, permit Washington to march around them, and why, when they knew of the maneuver, did they delay seven weeks in going to the rescue of Cornwallis, when they might have reached the Chesapeake in a week? Probably no one can answer that question but Sir Henry Clinton himself, and there is good reason to agree with Sir Henry that his accounts have been either suppressed or ignored in order to exonerate Lord Cornwallis and the colonial secretary, Lord George Germain. [18] In addition, historian H.E. Egerton noted in 1910: According to Lord Shelburne, the failure of Howe to co-operate from the south with Burgoyne was due to Lord George Germain: “Among many singularities he had a particular aversion to being put out of his way on any occasion; he had fixed to go into Kent or Northamptonshire at a particular hour, and to call on his way at his office to sign the despatches, all of which had been settled for both these generals. By some mistake those to Gen. Howe were not fair copied; and, upon his growing impatient at it, the office, which was a very idle one, promised to send it to the country after him, while they despatched the others to Gen. Burgoyne, expecting that the others could be expedited before the packet sailed with the first, which however by some mistake sailed without them, and the wind detained the vessel which was ordered to carry the rest. Hence came Gen. Burgoyne’s defeat, the French declaration, and the loss of thirteen colonies.” [19] The collapse of the British at Yorktown came as a shock to the British political and military

establishment. For Germain, he merely moved on: In February 1782, King George III forced his resignation. There was no successor, as there was no more British America. The London newspaper The St. James’s Chronicle stated on 9 February 1782 that “[t]he Business of the American Department is said to be at last decided upon, and the Arrangements were settled on Wednesday in the following Manner: Lord George Germain kissed Hands on being appointed to the Title of Viscount Sackville and Baron Bolebrooke, in the County of Sussex . . .” [20] Sackville spent his final years in retirement. He died at his home, “Stoneland Lodge,” near Withyham, Sussex, on 26 August 1785, at the age of 69. A work published soon after Germain’s death noted that “[i]t was Lord Sackville’s fate to act for several years in a responsible office during an unpopular and unprosperous war. In the evil temper of those times, it is not to be wondered at, if a Minister, ate once so efficient and so out of favour with the public, had a full share of personal rancour [sic] and animosity from the opponents to his measures.” [21] The Times of London printed a “monumental inscription” to Sackville, noting that “[a]s a Husband, Father, Friend, and Master, He was beloved, respected, and revered. A Scholar, Illustrious for Learning. A Statesman, Eminent for Ability. In Eloquent, unequalled! In Argument, irresistible!” [22] Sackville had married Diana Sambrooke in 1754; they had two children, a daughter and a son. The Germain home is now renamed “Buckhurst Park,” and, in 2014, is owned by Germain’s descendant, William Sackville, the 11th Earl De La Warr.

[1] For a biography of the elder Sackville, see G.F. Russell Barker, “Sackville, Lionel Cranfield,” in Sir Sidney Lee and Leslie Stephen, eds., “Dictionary of National Biography” (London, Smith, Elder, & Co.; 63 volumes and three supplements, 18851901), L:92-95. [2] The St. James’s Chronicle; Or, British Evening-Post [London], 14 April 1778, 1. [3] Courtney, W.P., “Germain, George Sackville, first Viscount Sackville,” in Sir Sidney Lee and Leslie Stephen, eds., “Dictionary of National Biography” (London, Smith, Elder, & Co.; 63 volumes and three supplements, 1885-1901), XXIII:231-35. [4] Walpole, Horace, ed., “Memoirs of the Reign of George III. By Horace Walpole, Youngest Son of Mr. Robert Walpole, Earl of Oxford. Edited, from the Original MSS. With a Preface and Notes by the Late Lord Holland” (London: Henry Colburn, Publisher, Great Marlborough Street; three volumes, 1847), III:193-94.

466

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

[5] See “The Trial of the Right Honourable Lord George Sackville, at a Court-Martial Held at the Horse-Guards, February 29, 1760, for an Enquiry into his Conduct, Being Charged with Disobedience of Orders, while He Commanded the British Horse in Germany. Together with His Lordship’s Defence” (London: Printed for W. Owen, at Homer’s Head, Temple-Bar, 1760). [6] See “Lord George Sackville’s Vindication of Himself, in a Letter to Colonel Fitzroy, One of the Aids De Camp to Prince Ferdinand: with Colonel Fitzroy’s Answer; and the Declaration of Captain Smith, One of the Aids De Camp to Lord George. Containing a Full and Particular Account of Every Thing that Passed, Relative to Lord George Sackville’s Conduct and Behaviour at the Battle of Thornhausen, on the First of August, 1759” (London: Printed for R. Stevens, at Pope’s-Head, in PaternosterRow, 1759). [7] Fox to Lord Waldegrave, 19 March 1757, in Clark, J.C.D., “The Dynamics of Change: The Crisis of the 1750s and English Party Systems” (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 1982), 347. [8] Namier, Sir Lewis B., and John Brooke, eds., “The History of Parliament: The House of Commons, 1754-1790. I. Survey, Constituencies, Appendices” (London: Her Majesty’s Stationary Office; three volumes, 1964; reprinted, London: Secker & Warburg Limited; three volumes, 1985), I:391. [9] Schuyler, Robert Livingston, “Galloway’s Plans for AngloAmerican Union,” Political Science Quarterly, LVII:2 (June 1942), 282. [10] Guttridge, George H., “Lord George Germain in Office, 17751782,” The American Historical Review, XXXIII:1 (October 1927), 23. [11] Lord George Germain to General John Irwin, 4 November 1775, in Great Britain, Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts, “Report on the Manuscripts of Mrs. Stopford-Sackville, of Drayton House, Northamptonshire. Presented to Parliament by Command of His Majesty” (London: Printed for His Majesty’s Stationary Office by Mackie & Co., Ltd.; two volumes, 1904-10), I:138. [12] Bargar, B.D., “Lord Dartmouth’s Patronage, 1772-1775,” The William and Mary Quarterly, XV:2 (April 1958), 192. [13] Sorsby, William Shuman, “The British Superintendency of the Mosquito Shore, 1749-1787” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of London [United Kingdom], 1969), 211. [14] Kepner, Frances Reece, “A British View of the Siege of Charleston, 1776,” The Journal of Southern History, XI:1 (February 1945), 93. [15] Germain to William Franklin, 22 January 1779, in Records of the Auditors of the Imprest, Commissioners of Audit, Exchequer and Audit Department, National Audit Office and related bodies, American Loyalist Claims, AO12, Series 1, British National Archives, Kew, United Kingdom. [16] Basye, Arthur Herbert, “The Secretary of State for the Colonies, 1768-1782,” The American Historical Review, XXVIII:1 (October 1922), 13-14. [17] “The following are authentic Copies of the Papers, produced in consequence of the preceding Motions. Letters to America. Extract of a Letter from Lord George German to Sir Henry Clinton, dated Whitehall, July 4th, 1780 [Secret]” in “The Parliamentary Register; or, History of the Proceedings and Debates of the House of Commons; Containing an Account of the Most Interesting Speeches and Motions; Accurate Copies of the Most Remarkable Letters and Papers; of the Most Material Evidence, Petitions, &c. Laid Before and Offered to the House, During the First Session of the Fifteenth Parliament of Great Britain. Vol. VIII” (London: Printed for J. Debrett (Successor to Mr. Almon), Opposite Burlington-House, Piccadilly, 1782), 121. [18] Adams, Randolph G., “A View of Cornwallis’s Surrender at Yorktown,” The American Historical Review, XXXVII:1 (October 1931), 25.

[19] Egerton, H.E., “Lord George Germain and Sir William Howe,” The English Historical Review, XXV:98 (April 1910), 315. [20] The St. James’s Chronicle; Or, British Evening-Post [London], 7-9 February 1782 1. [21] Cumberland, Richard, “Character of the late Lord Viscount Sackville” (London: Printed for C. Dilly, in the Poultry, 1785), 2-3. [22] “Monumental Inscription to the Memory of the Right Hon. George Lord Viscount Sackville,” The Times [London, United Kingdom], 7 September 1785, 2. See also “An Heroic Epistle to the Right Honourable Lord Viscount Sackville” (London: Printed for G. Kearsley, at No. 46 in Fleet-Street, 1783).

Elbridge Gerry (1744–1814)

Gerry served in the Continental Congress (1776-80, 1783-85), as vice president of the United States (1813) under James Madison, and as the governor of Massachusetts (1810-11). Elbridge Gerry is also one of the three American commissioners who were sent to France to head off war, a mission that led to the notorious XYZ Affair. Today, his name is attached to the term “gerrymandering,” meaning to establish political districts that aid one political party or entity. The third of the twelve children of Thomas Gerry, a merchant and former ship captain, and his wife Elizabeth (née Greenleaf) Gerry, Elbridge Gerry was born in Marblehead, Massachusetts, on

Elbridge Gerry (1744–1814)467 17 July 1744. [1] Historian and Gerry biographer George Athan Billias notes that they had eleven children; Elbridge Gerry was the third of those born. [2] Thomas Gerry, the father of Elbridge, was born in 1702 in Newton Abbot, in Devonshire (now Yorkshire, England), who came to the American colonies about 1730 and settled in Massachusetts. [3] He married Elizabeth Greenleaf, the daughter of a merchant in Boston, and although he was an experienced sea captain, he settled his family in nearby Marblehead, where, according to historian Samuel Eliot Morison, he “built up a mercantile business and became commander of the local fort.” [4] Historian William Richard Cutler added in 1908, “The name of Elbridge Gerry was obtained from a relative in this way. His great-grandmother, Elizabeth Elbridge, married Samuel Russell, who was born in 1645, she being born [on] 19 June 1653.” [Their daughter] Rebecca Russell married Enoch Greenleaf, and their daughter Elizabeth married Thomas Gerry. The Elbridge family belonged in Bristol, England, where an uncle, John Elbridge, a merchant of that place, died and left them a large property, and in memory of this family Elbridge Gerry derived his name.” [5] His official congressional biography states that Gerry “pursued classical studies,” which was the overall term for studies that involved languages, English, literature, and other areas of study suited for those times. [6] Gerry then entered Harvard College (now Harvard University) in 1758, and graduated from that institute in 1762, the 29th in a class of 52 students. [7] He then returned to Marblehead, where he joined his father and his brothers in the family business, shipping dried cod to Spain and Barbados, and importing goods from these faraway ports for sale in the colonies. The Gerrys owned their own fleet of ships, making the transport of the goods exclusive to their business. However, for the remainder of the decade, a series of harsh economic measures, enacted by the British Parliament against the colonies, gradually began to impact the business climate. Elbridge Gerry decided, by 1772, to enter the political arena in the Massachusetts Bay Colony; that May, he was elected as a representative in the Massachusetts General Court, where he became one of the acolytes of the famed orator Samuel Adams, cousin of attorney John Adams.

Over the next several years, as events in the colonies spun out of control and the threat of war between the colonists and England grew, Gerry and Samuel Adams became close friends, exchanging numerous pieces of correspondence on subjects of interest to both men. At the same time, Gerry became an enthusiastic member of both the Marblehead as well as the Massachusetts Committees of Correspondence, which used secret letters to keep like-minded colonists in other colonies apprised of what was happening. Gerry later wrote of his role in aiding the movement from whence eventually sprang the Declaration of Independence, “It is the duty of every man, though he may have but one day to live, to devote that day to the good of his country.” When the British Parliament forcibly closed Boston Harbor in June 1774, putting a complete halt to the importation and exportation of goods from that port, Marblehead, just a few miles away, became an important center where residents of Massachusetts could ship goods to aid the Bostonians. One of the leading merchants who came to this call was the Gerrys, with Elbridge Gerry taking the lead in the exercise. Historian Theodore Draper wrote, “By the end of 1774, Massachusetts, army and people, was preparing for war. John Adams informed a correspondent: ‘Out People, thro the Province, are every where learning the military Art— exercising perpetually—So that, I suppose if occasion should require, an Army of Fifteen Thousand Man from this Province alone, might be brought into the Field in one Week.’ In October 1774, Elbridge Gerry told Sam Adams that a civil war was ‘almost unavoidable.’” [8] Gerry remained unmarried until 1786, when, at 42 years old, he married New Yorker Ann Thompson; she was nine years his junior. [9] In 1774, Gerry was elected as a delegate to the First Provincial Congress of Massachusetts, and by the end of 1776 he had been elected to and had attended the Second Provincial Congress. He was also a member of the colonial Council of Safety with fellow Massachusetts’ delegates Samuel Adams and John Hancock, and was named to one of the Council’s committees, that of Supply, which aided in the raising of troops and supplying them with proper matériel,

468

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

including guns and ammunition. Gerry was at a meeting of the council on 18 April 1775 in the town of Menotomy (now Arlington), near Lexington and Concord, when fighting broke out between colonial troops known as “Minute Men” and British forces for control of an armory, and Gerry was just able to escape being captured by the English. James T. Austin, one of Gerry’s biographers, wrote in 1829, “A committee of congress, among whom were Mr. Gerry, Colonel [Joshua] Orne, and Colonel [John] Hancock, had been in session on the day preceding the march of the troops, in the village of Menotomy, then part of the township of Cambridge, on the road to Lexington. The latter gentleman, after the session was over, had gone to Lexington. Mr. Gerry and Mr. Orne remained at the village, the other members of the committee had dispersed.” That night, as they were in their rooms in the village, British troops who had heard of their appearance came to arrest them. Austin added, “The gentlemen [then] found [the] means, by their better knowledge of the premises, to escape, half-dressed as they were, into an adjoining cornfield, where they remained concealed for more than an hour, until the troops were withdrawn. Every apartment of the house was searched for the members of the rebel congress, even the beds in which they had lain were examined. But their property, and among other things, a valuable watch of Mr. Gerry’s, which was under his pillow, was not disturbed.” [10]

certainly at that period the most laborious and important of all the duties of congress; on that for reporting the best ways and means of supplying the army in Canada with provisions and necessaries; on those appointed to inquire and report the best ways and means of raising the necessary supplies to defray the expenses of the war for the present year, over and above the emission of bills of credit; to devise the ways and means for raising ten millions of dollars; to repair to head quarters [sic] near New York, and inquire into the state of the army, and the best means for supplying their wants; to form plans for the arrangement of the treasury department, and the better conducting the executive business of congress, by boards composed of persons not members of that body . . . [12]

On 18 January 1776, Gerry was elected by the General Court to a seat in the Continental Congress, elected in a group that included both Adamses, John Hancock, and Robert Treat Paine. Quickly heading for Philadelphia, where the Congress was sitting, Gerry attended sessions of that body from 9 February to 4 July 1776, when he allegedly signed the Declaration of Independence. [11] (Historians believe that many delegates signed the document much later, some into August of 1776.) Aside from signing the Declaration, Gerry did important work in the Congress. Historian Robert T. Conrad wrote in 1846: During the spring of this year [1776], we find Mr. Gerry on several important committees; on the standing committee for superintending the treasury,

The Reverend Charles Goodrich wrote in 1842: Our limits preclude a minute notice of the various duties which he there discharged. On various occasions he was appointed to serve on committees, whose business required great labour, and whose results involved the highest interests of the country. He assisted in arranging the plan of a general hospital, and of introducing a better discipline into the army; and regulating the commissary’s departments. In several instances, he was appointed, with others, to visit the army, to examine the state of the money and finances of the County, and to expedite the settlement of public accounts. In the exercise of his various official functions, no man exhibited more fidelity, or a more unwearied zeal. He sustained the character of an active and resolute statesman, and retired from the councils of the confederacy, with all the honours which patriotism, integrity, and talents, could acquire in the service of the state. [13] During his first service in the Continental Congress, numerous pieces of correspondence, both from and to Gerry, are extant. For instance, in a letter to famed patriot James Warren, dated 26 March 1776, Gerry penned: You are desirous of knowing what capital measures are proposed in Congress. I refer you to Colonel Orne for what is done concerning privateering, and I hope soon that all your ports will be open, and a free trade be allowed with all nations. This will not, in itself, satisfy you; and I hope nothing will, short of a determination of America to hold her rank in the creation, and give law to herself. I doubt not this will

Elbridge Gerry (1744–1814)469 soon take place; and am sure New England will not be satisfied with less, since not only the Government, but the people of Great Britain, are corrupt, and destitute of publick virtue . . . America has gone such lengths she cannot recede; and I am convinced that a few weeks, or months at farthest, will convince her of the fact; but the fruit must have time to ripen in some of the other Colonies. In New England, the hot-bed of sedition, (as North has impudently called Boston,) it has already come to maturity. Would it not be good policy for the New England Governments to think of the matter, and adopt similar measures? [14] Then, to Joseph Palmer, a military officer who had just been given the rank of Brigadier General for Suffolk, Massachusetts, to replace Gen. Benjamin Lincoln, Gerry wrote: The Conviction which the late Measures of Administration have brot [sic; should read “brought”] to the Minds of doubting Persons has such an Effect, that I think the Colonies cannot long remain an independent depending People, but that they will declare themselves as their Interest and Safety have long required, entirely separated from the prostituted Government of G Britain. Upon this Subject I have wrote to our Friend Col: Orne and beg leave to refer you there to. The principal object of our attention at this important Time I think should be the Manufacturing Arms, Lead and Cloathing, obtaining Flints, for I suppose since the Measures adopted by North Carolina and Virginia that there cannot remain a Doubt with our Assembly of the propriety of declaring for Independency and therefore that our Tho’ts [sic; should be “thoughts”] will be mostly directed to the Means for supporting it. [15] Finally, to General Horatio Gates, Gerry wrote on 25 June 1776 of the document he was about to sign, as well as other matters, “I think we are in a fair way to a speedy Declaration of Independency, confederations, and other measures that depend on secrecy for success; and Congress having yesterday passed resolves for capitally punishing spies that shall be found in or about any of the camps or fortifications of the United Colonies, and recommended to the Assemblies to make provision for punishing all inhabitants and other persons receiving protection in any of the Colonies, who shall be found affording aid or comfort to the King of Great Britain, or other enemies of the United States of America, it

appears to me that little will remain to be done, but an attention to the supplies, appointments, and discipline of the Army—all of which are of the utmost importance.” [16] Gerry’s signing of the Declaration of Independence puts him in a very limited company, of which only 56 total names exist. Historian Caroline Robbins, in breaking down the men who signed the Declaration, puts Gerry in “that galaxy [of] the Adams cousins,” Samuel and John, mentioning that Gerry himself was “early a Patriot.” [17] When the signatures on the document are laid out, Gerry’s is the fifth amongst the 56 men who signed the declaration, although some works, which list the signers by state rather than the order that they signed, merely has Gerry listed last under the four signers from Massachusetts, which included the two Adamses and Robert Treat Paine. [18] Unfortunately, just exactly when he signed it is a matter of history; however, one clue comes from a note that he wrote to both Samuel Adams and John Adams, 21 July 1776, in which he explained, “Pray subscribe for me the Declaration of Independence if the same is to be signed as proposed. I think We ought to have the privilege when necessarily absent of voting and signing by proxy.” [19] As noted, Gerry initially served in the First Continental Congress, although he was re-elected to the second entity of that body until 1780, reelected on 10 December 1776, 4 December 1777, 15 October 1778, 18 November 1779, and 4 October 1780, and he served in sessions of 5-16 July 1776, 2 September 1776 to 31 December 1777, 1 January to 31 December 1778, 1 January to 1779, and 1 January to 17 February 1780. [20] As earlier stated, there is a fair amount of correspondence, both from and to Gerry, during the years of his service in the Continental Congress, culminating in February 1780. One of the ideas that it appears he promulgated was to have a Board of Admiralty oversee the naval affairs of the nation’s military. Expressing the need for just such oversight, Gerry wrote to Samuel Adams in October 1776, “Great Delays have taken place in the marine Department. I am sure it is high Time to adopt a Plan for a Board of Admiralty that can be obliged to attend to the business . . . the Indian and our [unknown text] department “are firm without effeminacy or the least Disposition for Wavering. Some others have the Disorders mentioned in Mr. Adams

470

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

famous Letters!” [21] Finally, we see Gerry complaining about the “underrepresenation” of Massachusetts in the Continental Congress in a short missive to Jeremiah Powell, the President of the Massachusetts Council, 28 March 1778: “The State of Massachusetts since January last, has been unrepresented in Congress, in Consequence of a Resolution appointing Mr. [Francis] Dana on a Committee for reforming the Army: he has lately returned from Camp for the Advice of Congress on a Subject of Importance, and having obtained it, is again to meet the Committee many States require but one, others two, and Massachusetts alone three Members present to have a Vote; and should the same Rate continue with Respect to the latter, It may hereafter be found necessary to have at least four Members present, for preventing the Inconveniences which necessarily result from the Want of Voice in.” [22]

Even though his Continental Congress service technically ended with his resignation, he was reelected to the body for the next several years, but he refused to return from 1780 until 1783. Despite his disagreements with the Continental Congress, Gerry remained a leading figure to his fellow delegates, even to a man as historically significant as John Adams. Following the signing of the Declaration of Independence, Adams wrote to James Warren in July 1776, “The News you will learn from my very worthy Friend Gerry. He is obliged to take a Ride for his Health, as I shall be very soon, or have none. God grant he may recover it, for he is a Man of immense Worth. If every man here was a Gerry, the Liberties of America would be safe against the Gates of Earth and Hell.” [24]

In February 1780, Gerry was involved in a dispute in the Continental Congress that ultimately led to his resignation from the body. Historian Edmund Cody Burnett explained: It was well enough understood that the general requisition of December 14 [1779] calling upon the states for specific supplies would have to be brought down to particulars. It was a complicated task, requiring extensive knowledge of the existing or probable supplies in the several states, and particularly called for a delicate balancing of requirements to accord with the respective capacities of the states and their equitable proportions of the general burden. The simple rule that quotas should be apportioned in accordance with population would scarcely be a fair one. Necessarily this adjustment stirred no little controversy and produced almost endless manoeuvering and dickering among the delegations. It was not until near the end of February that agreement was reached, and before that time one member, Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, had become so infuriated over what he termed injustice to his state that he quit Congress in a huff. Congress readily recognized that inequities might, probably would, result, and so provided for subsequent adjustment of these differences. [23] As a supplier of goods for the Continental Army, Gerry couldn’t get things cleared up for himself and other suppliers even as a member of the Continental Congress.

In May 1780, the General Assembly of Massachusetts passed a resolution, which read: “Resolve approving of the conduct of the Hon. Samuel Adams and Elbridge Gerry, Esq’rs. in the advice contained in their letter to Brigadier Fellows, and confirming their doings: June 23, 1780.” [25] During the period that he did not attend the Continental Congress, Gerry sat for a short time in the Massachusetts legislature, and he worked as a privateer, supplying private ships for civilians to use against the British. He finally consented to return in 1783, after the Articles of Confederation had been ratified by the states and had gone into operation as a blueprint for a national government. He would remain in the body until 1785, working on ways to finance the war while also paying for the accumulating debts of the new nation. In 1786, as noted, he married and retired from business. For Elbridge Gerry, it appeared that he would remain for the rest of his life in retirement in Massachusetts. But, for a man like Elbridge Gerry who was a committed patriot, that could not be the end of his story. That same year, he was elected again to the state legislature. A year later, in 1787, that body elected him as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, held in Philadelphia that summer initially to reform the nowmoribund Articles of Confederation; however, the delegates ultimately tossed the entire document and drew an entirely new blueprint, what would become the US Constitution.

Elbridge Gerry (1744–1814)471 Gerry was the chairman of a committee which eventually crafted what was known as “The Great Compromise” between the small and large states, that established a bicameral national legislature, with the lower house, the US House of Representatives, to be represented based on population, which was backed by the large states, and an upper house, the US Senate, which had two senators from each state, giving the small and large states equal footing. However, Gerry proved to be too difficult to deal with; one delegate later wrote that Gerry “objected to everything he did not propose.” Although he had gone to the convention calling for a strong national government, Gerry denounced the lack of a Bill of Rights in the original document— an omission which many objected to—and he ultimately refused to sign the final document. Returning to Massachusetts, he led to drive to deny it ratification in the state, calling it “full of vices.” In the end, however, enough support in Massachusetts overcame his and others’ objections, and the Constitution was ratified by all of the states. In 1788, with national elections slated to be held for the new national legislature designed to succeed the Continental Congress, Gerry agreed to support it once its backers stated that they would push for the passage and ratification of a Bill of Rights in the First Congress. With this backing, Gerry was elected to a seat in that first meeting of the new Congress. A listing of the members of the First Congress and the salary they received shows that Gerry received $1,413 in total. [26] He was one of the leaders who helped to draft several portions of the Bill of Rights, the name for the first ten amendments to the US Constitution which were ratified by the states. Gerry also served in the Second Congress (1791-93), retiring at the end of that session. In 1797, the second president, John Adams, to head off a growing crisis with the nation’s former ally, France, dispatched a group of three commissioners—John Marshall, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, and Gerry—to Paris to try to negotiate before the potential of war broke out between the two powers. The French, in the middle of war with England, had taken to seizing any goods coming to or from Britain, even those on American ships. This began to impact the American economy, and led to increasing anger

against the French. When the three men were set to meet with the French Foreign Minister, the Marquis Charles Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord, Prince de Bénévent; instead, they were forced to deal with men who worked for the French government: Nicholas Hubbard, Jean Hottinger, Pierre Bellamy, and Lucien Hauteval. These four men—the American press only got the names of three of them—demanded payment of a bribe of 50,000 British pounds sterling, if the Americans wanted to deal with Talleyrand. Sending home coded messages on the demands, three of the men—Hottinger, Bellamy, and Hauteval—were labeled by the Americans as “X, Y, and Z.” Hubbard was later labeled as “W,” although his role in history has been miscast. Despite the missing information, the press in the United States got wind of the demand for bribes, and called the incident “The XYZ Affair.” Talleyrand, unknown to the French government, was hoping to use the bribes to pad his own personal wealth, while delaying meeting with the Americans. Instead of gaining monetary compensation, the affair blew up in his face. Pinckney, utterly disgusted at the demand, allegedly said to the four men, “No; no; not a sixpence.” Talleyrand then allegedly got a female agent to try to use sexual favors on Gerry and Marshall, demanding of both men, “Why will you not [lend] us money? If you were to make us a loan, all matters will be adjusted. When you were contending your Revolution, we lent you money.” By the time the group’s secret dispatches reached the United States, outrage over the bribery demand grew to the point that the nation prepared for war with France. Pinckney’s statement has been twisted by history to read, “Millions for defense, but not one cent for tribute.” However, few know that Federalist Robert Goodloe Harper (17651825), then a Representative, and later a US senator, from South Carolina, actually made that statement attributed to Pinckney. [27] Historians Thomas G. Paterson and J. Garry Clifford, among others, wrote, “In January 1798, Marshall drew up a memorial, signed by Gerry and Pinckney, which recounted all American grievances against France, including the personal indignities that French agents had gratuitously inflicted on the American commissioners. Talleyrand made no reply. The French issued new and harsher decrees that made a neutral cargo liable to capture if any part of it—even a jug of rum—had British origins.

472

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Marshall and Pinckney asked for their passports, although Gerry did linger another three months in a futile attempt to negotiate.” [28]

wear off the prejudices against him, and probably make him a greater favorite than the other. But having given up Madison, I ought to give up Hamilton too. Whom then should I name? I mentioned Mr. [Francis] Dana and Mr. Gerry to the heads of departments, and to many leading men in both houses [of Congress]. They all preferred Mr. Dana. But it was evident enough to me that neither Dana nor Gerry was their man. Dana was appointed, but refused. I then called the heads of departments together, and proposed Mr. Gerry. All the five voices unanimously were against him. Such inveterate prejudice shocked me. I said nothing, but was determined I could would not be the slave of it. I knew the man infinitely better than all of them. He was nominated and approved, and finally saved the peace of the nation; for he alone discovered and furnished the evidence that X. Y. and Z. were employed by Talleyrand; and he alone brought home the direct, formal, and official assurances upon which the subsequent commission proceeded, and peace was made. [30]

The period that followed the bribery incident has come to be known as America’s “Quasi-War” with France. While not a shooting war, it nevertheless took the two former allies to the point of just such a conflict. At the same time, political enemies of President Adams believed that he was hiding the true scope of the problem inside the secret dispatches of the three commissioners, and they demanded their release. Adams complied, but to shield the names of the three—actually four— French agents, he replaced their names with “X, Y, and Z,” giving the scandal the name it has had for two centuries now. [29] Tallyrand soon realized that he had made a serious mistake, and tried to reach out to the United States to try to negotiate. A Quaker leader, George Logan, who was a pacifist, traveled to France and negotiated an end to the crisis, even though he had no diplomatic recognition. When he returned to the United States, the US Congress, angered at his personal foreign policymaking, enacted the Logan Act, which makes personal diplomatic missions illegal under American law. At the same time, new negotiations to end the crisis resulted in the Convention of 1800, which is also known as the Treaty of Mortefontaine. The undeclared war, however, injured the American economy to such an extent that President Adams was defeated in the election that year by former Secretary of State—and fellow Declaration of Independence signer—Thomas Jefferson. Many years later, in a letter to the editor of “The Boston Patriot” newspaper, Adams wrote of how he had selected Gerry for the mission: Upon further inquiries of the other heads of departments and of other persons, I found that party passions had so deep and extensive roots, that I seriously doubted whether the Senate would not negative Mr. [James] Madison, if I should name him. Rather than expose him to a negative, or a doubtful contest in the Senate, I concluded to omit him. If I had nominated Madison, I have nominated [Alexander] Hamilton with him. The former, I knew, was much esteemed in France; the latter was rather an object of jealousy. But I thought the French would tolerate one for the sake of the other. And I thought, too, that the manners of one would soon

While the negotiations of Gerry and others had forestalled and ultimately ended the threat of war, the crisis hit Massachusetts hard, and there was anger at Gerry for not gaining economic payment for the French actions. In 1800, Gerry ran for governor, but was defeated; over the next three years, he was similarly defeated in three additional runs for that office. Finally, on 2 April 1810, after years of trying to regain his good name in his native state, he was rewarded with a victory for the gubernatorial election as a candidate of the Democratic-Republican Party over Governor Christopher Gore, the Federalist candidate, 46.5% to 44.1%, with a scattering of votes for minor candidates. Gerry served two terms as governor, ending in 1811. In an attempt to bridge the heated partisan divide in the state between the Democratic-Republican Party and the Federalist Party, Gerry kept on Federalist appointees to state offices instead of firing them. By the end of his terms, however, Gerry found working with the Federalists to be impossible, and he aided Democratic-Republican members of the legislature to redistrict the state to limit Federalist power. Slicing the state into curved districts, some of which looked like a salamander, the new districts were called “gerrymanders” and Gerry’s attempts were derided by Federalists as “gerrymandering,” a word still in use today, although usually used with a soft “G” rather the hard “G” in “Gerry.”

Elbridge Gerry (1744–1814)473 While the action aided the Democratic-Republican Party, the redistricting led to Gerry’s 1811 defeat by Federalist Caleb Strong. Despite his age—he was 68 in 1812—Gerry was selected as James Madison’s running mate for the 1812 presidential election, to balance the ticket of the Virginian Madison with the New Englander Gerry. How much he campaigned is little known, but Madison and Gerry, the DemocraticRepublican Party candidates, defeated the Federalist ticket, led by De Witt Clinton and Jared Ingersoll, 128 electoral votes to 89 electoral votes. When he was sworn in as the fifth vice president on 4 March 1813, Gerry took over an office which had been vacant since the death of his predecessor, George Clinton, the uncle of De Witt Clinton, in office on 20 April 1812. During his tenure as the vice president of the United States, Gerry was far different than Clinton, who had been Madison’s first vice president: he supported Madison’s foreign policy, and voted the way Madison wanted as president of the US Senate, giving important backing to Madison’s handling of the War of 1812 with Britain. By November 1814, the work and the inclement weather of the capital city as well as the war had taken their toll on Gerry. On 22 November 1814 he appeared for work in the US Senate complaining of chest pains. The next morning, he suffered an attack, on his way to the Capitol and was dead in less than a half hour. Gerry was 70 years old. The Daily National Intelligencer of Washington, DC, said in memory of the deceased vice president, “Another of our Revolutionary worthies has ascended to join the band of deceased patriots, who have ‘become immortal in both worlds.’ An inflexible republican, a most active agent in emancipating our country from British thralldom, and a sage, who devoted a long life to public service, has departed to the person of Elbridge Gerry . . .” [31] Gerry was survived by his wife, who would live as a widow until 1849, the last surviving widow of a signer of the Declaration of Independence, as well as seven children—four daughters and three sons. He was laid to rest in the Congressional Cemetery in Washington, DC. His tomb, one of the most ornate in that graveyard, reads, “The Tomb of Elbridge Gerry, Vice President of the United States, Who Died Suddenly in This City On His Way to the Capitol as President of the Senate.” Gerry’s greatgrandson, Peter Goelet Gerry (1879-1957), served

as a US Representative (1913-15) and a US senator (1935-47) as a Democrat from Rhode Island. One of Gerry’s leading biographers, Eugene Kramer, wrote in 1955, “Along with his personal coolness went an obstinacy which led to much adverse criticism. No one can deny that Gerry clung to ideas and principles until long after they were outdated. To put the most charitable light on this characteristic would be to call it the result of a policy of making a long and careful study of a problem before taking a stand on it . . . In the final analysis, Gerry made some worthwhile contributions to his nation’s welfare, but he was never able to unite his basic instincts with his convictions, nor his New England social position and outlook with practical politics.” [32]

[1] Birth, and parents’ names, certified by Massachusetts Vital Records, Registry of Vital Records, Office of Health and Human Services, Boston, Massachusetts. [2] Billias George Athan, “Gerry, Elbridge,” in John A. Garraty and Mark C. Carnes, gen. eds., “American National Biography” (New York: Oxford University Press; 24 volumes, 1999), VII:866-68. [3] Thomas Gerry genealogy, online at http://www.geni.com/ people/Thomas-Gerry/6000000009916315223. [4] Morison, Samuel Eliot, “Gerry, Elbridge,” in Allen Johnson, et al., “Dictionary of American Biography” (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons; eleven volumes and five supplements, 1958-77), VII:222-24. [5] Cutler, William Richard, “Genealogical and Personal Memoirs Relating to the Families of Boston and Eastern Massachusetts” (New York: Lewis Historical Publishing Co., 1908), 47-50. [6] Gerry official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=G000139. [7] Refer to the graduate list for 1762 in “Catalogus Eorum qui in Collegio Harvardino, quod est Cantabrigiæ Nov-Anglorum, ab Anno MDCXLII, ad Annum MDCCLXXVI, alicujus Gradús Laureâ donati sunt. N.B. Qui literis majusculis exarantur, sunt honore vel civili vel militari inter primos insigniti. Qui ad imum classium caeteris, lineâ interpositâ, separantur, alibi instituti suerunt, vel apud nos gradu honorario donati” (Bostoniæ: typis Thomæ & Johannis Fleet, academiæ Typographorum, Annoque reipublicæ Americanæ primo, 1776), 25. [8] Draper, Theodore, “A Struggle for Power: The American Revolution” (New York: Vintage Books, 1997), 440; also, see Gerry to Samuel Adams, 15 October 1774, in Pauline Maier, “From Resistance to Revolution” (London: Routledge & Kegan Paul, 1973), 244. [9] Information on Gerry’s marriage as well as on his wife, courtesy of Massachusetts Vital Records, Registry of Vital Records, Office of Health and Human Services, Boston, Massachusetts. [10] Austin, James Trecothick. The Life of Elbridge Gerry, with Contemporary Letters to the Close of the American Revolution” (Boston: Wells and Lilly—Court Street; two volumes, 1829). [11] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), I:xlviii. [12] Conrad, Robert T., ed., “Sanderson’s Biography of the Signers to the Declaration of Independence” (Philadelphia: Thomas, Cowperthwait & Co., 1846), 90.

474

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

[13] Goodrich, The Rev. Charles A., “Lives of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence” (Hartford, CT: R.G.H. Huntington, 1842), 126. [14] Elbridge Gerry to James Warren, 26 March 1776, in Burnett, op. cit., I:409-10. [15] Elbridge Gerry to Joseph Palmer, 31 May 1776, in ibid., I:468. [16] Elbridge Gerry to General Horatio Gates, 25 June 1776, in ibid., I:506. [17] Robbins, Caroline, “‘Decision in ‘76’: Reflections on the 56 Signers,” Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Third Series, LXXXIX (1977), 80. [18] For instance, see John Lendrum, “A Concise and Impartial History of the American Revolution. To Which is Prefixed, a General History of North and South America. Together with an Account of the Dscovery and Settlement of North America, and a View of the Progress, Character, and Political State of the Colonies Previous to the Revolution. From the Best Authorities. By John Lendrum. Published According to Act of Congress” (Printed at Boston: By I. Thomas and E.T. Andrews, [Proprietors of the Work] Faust’s Statue, No. 45, Newbury Street; two volumes, 1795), II:100. [19] Elbridge Gerry to Samuel Adams and John Adams, 21 July 1776, in ibid., II:20. [20] Burnett, op. cit., II:lii, III:liv, IV:liii, V:lviii. [21] Elbridge Gerry to Samuel Adams, 4 October 1776, in ibid., II:115. [22] Elbridge Gerry to Jeremiah Powell, the president of the Massachusetts Council, 28 March 1778, in ibid., III:145. [23] Burnett, op. cit., V:vii-viii. [24] John Adams to James Warren, 15 July 1776, in “Warren-Adams Letters: Being Chiefly a Correspondence Among John Adams, Samuel Adams, and James Warren” (Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society; two volumes, 1917-25), I:260. [25] Massachusetts, General Court, “Resolves of the General Assembly of the State of Massachusetts-Bay, in New-England; Begun and Held at Boston, in the County of Suffolk, on Wednesday the thirtyfirst day of May, Anno Domini, 1780” (Boston: Printed by Nathaniel Willis, Printer to the Honorable General Assembly, 1780), 50. [26] See United States, Department of the Treasury, “An Account of the Receipts and Expenditures of the United States, Commencing with the Establishment of the Treasury Department, under the Present Government, and Ending on the Thirty-first Day of December One Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety-One. Stated in Pursuance of the Standing Order of the House of Representatives of the United States, Passed on the Thirtieth Day of December, One Thousand Seven Hundred and Ninety-One. Published by Order of the House of Representatives” (Philadelphia: Printed by Childs and Swaine, 1793), 26-30. [27] See Charles Cotesworth Pinckney to Secretary of State Timothy Pickering, 27 October 1797, in “State Papers and Publick Documents of the United States, from the Accession of George Washington to the Presidency: Exhibiting a Complete View of our Foreign Relations Since That Time” (Boston: Printed and Published by T.B. Wait and Sons; 10 volumes, 1817-19), III:492. [28] Paterson, Thomas G., J. Garry Clifford, Shane J. Maddock, Deborah Kisatsky, and Kenneth J. Hagan, “American Foreign Relations: A History” (Boston: Wadsworth; two volumes, 2010), I:52. [29] See, for instance, “Authentic Copies of the Correspondence of Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, John Marshall, and Elbridge Gerry, Esqrs. Envoys Extraordinary and Ministers Plenipotentiary to the Republic of France; as Presented to both Houses of Congress, April 3, 1798, by His Excellency John Adams, President of the United States of America” (London: Printed for J. Debrett, Opposite Burlington-House, Piccadilly, 1798); “Instructions to Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, John Marshall and Elbridge Gerry, Envoys Extraordinary and Ministers Plenipotentiary to the French Republic, Referred to in the Message of the President of the United States of the Third Instant” (Philadelphia: Printed by Way

& Groff, No. 27, Arch-Street, 1798); and “Message of the President of the United States to both Houses of Congress. April 3d. 1798” (Philadelphia: Printed by John Fenno[?], 1798). [30] Adams to “The Editor of The Boston Patriot” in Charles Francis Adams, ed., “The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States: With a Life of the Author, Notes and Illustrates” (Boston: Little, Brown and Company; 10 volumes, 1850-56), IX:286-87. [31] “From The Baltimore Patriot, [a] Biographical Memoir of Elbridge Gerry, Late Vice-President of the United States,” Daily National Intelligencer [Washington, DC], 1 December 1814, 3. “Thralldom” is defined as “a state of subjection to an owner or master or forced labor imposed as a punishment; i.e., ‘penal servitude.’” [32] Kramer, Eugene Francis, “The Public Career of Elbridge Gerry” (Ph.D. dissertation, The Ohio State University, 1955), 187.

John Lewis Gervais (1741–1798)

A wealthy planter from South Carolina, John Lewis Gervais was an intimate of fellow South Carolinian Henry Laurens, who rose to serve in the Continental Congress (1782-83). Gervais was “born of Huguenot parents in Hanover, Germany, circa 1741” [1], which is confirmed in an application for membership into the Sons of the American Revolution, which was approved in 1932, in which his descendant Gervais Ward McAuliffe wrote that “the first emigrant [of the family to America] was Colonel John Lewis Gervais of Huguenot descent, but before his emigration to this country, he was a subject of the King of England, and a Colonel in the

John Lewis Gervais (1741–1798)475 Hanoverian service of that King.” [2] Other sources claim that Gervais was born in Germancontrolled France, or in Huguenot France. [3] In his mid-20s, Gervais sailed to the American colonies and settled in Charleston, South Carolina in about 1764. He was carrying a letter of introduction from Richard Oswald, a British diplomat who would later serve as his nation’s representative at the Paris peace talks, which eventually ended the war between the United States and Great Britain. Addressed to Henry Laurens, a noted South Carolina merchant who, like Gervais, would later serve in the Continental Congress, Oswald’s directive asked that the young Gervais be given an opportunity in the colony to become a merchant. Expressing an interest in the growing of rice in the colony, he invested in rice plantations along the Cooper River 123in South Carolina, which soon become a center for the rice-growing industry. Explaining that culture, historian Lawrence Rowland wrote in 1987, “Charles and Jermyn Wright, Henry Laurens and Lord William Campbell were the first in a long line of Savannah River rice planters whose absenteeism may have set records in the American South. Lord William Campbell never set foot on Smithfield. Henry Laurens visited Wright’s Savannah only once in the eight years before the Revolution, leaving local affairs to a series of overseers, about whom he continually complained, to his brother John Laurens and to trusted agent John Lewis Gervais.” [4] At the same time that Gervais and others were helping to make rice on the leading crops and food staples in the colony, there was additional work, done with Gervais, that served to advance the planting and usage of other crops, such as cotton, which would play a major role in the South’s 19th century history, as well as indigo, a dye used on clothing. As to the former, historian Joyce Chaplin explained, “Production of textiles increased during the early years of the war [against Britain], as more patriots managed to buy, borrow, or hire equipment. In 1777, for instance, South Carolinians Nathaniel Heyward and John Lewis Gervais made enough cloth for their slaves—Gervais had at least 365 yards by November of that year.” [5] Indigo, however, appears to have come at a much higher cost, with its success rate far below the other mentioned crops. Historian G. Terry

Sharrer stated, “During the war, the problem of absenteeism contributed to the decline of indigo culture. The manufacturing process for indigo required a high degree of supervisory expertise. Few successful planters trusted overseers or slaves with the tasks of judging the exact time for fermentation, or the proper moment for the introduction of the lime catalyst, or the quality of the finished dye. If military or political activity required the planter, patriot or loyalist, to be absent from his plantation during harvest time, income from an entire season could be lost. Henry Laurens and John Lewis Gervais, for example, had planned to develop a 13,200 acre indigo plantation in Ninety-Six District before the Revolution, but the war made their plans impossible.” [6] At this same time, Gervais also invested in the growing and harvesting of grapes for wine, a highly sought-after commodity that could be sold in other colonies or, for hard currency, overseas, particularly in Europe. Historian Arthur Hirsch explained this movement towards the growing of wine grapes, perhaps divulging a little of Gervais’ French background: “From their earliest residence in America the French displayed an interest in the grape. The vine grew wild in the Southern provinces, but its artificial culture was introduced there by the French, and generous bounties were often bestowed for their industry in this branch of agriculture. The transplanting and acclimatation of native French grape-vines was the leading occupation of such men as Lewis Gervais and Lewis St. Pierre. Gervais, after six years of industry is reported to have cultivated a vine that needed no supports.” [7] Gervais could not have done any of this without slave labor. While it is impossible to know exactly how many slaves he owned, his extensive land and plantation holdings in a state heavily dependent on slave labor indicates it may have been several hundred. Numerous advertisements in local South Carolina newspapers, including the South Carolina Gazette, advertise for slave auctions that either Gervais attended or participated in. Henry Laurens, Gervais’ good friend, wrote to him in February 1772 and cautioned him to “be early and extensive as possible in Advertizing [sic] the whole country for your intended Sale” of slaves. [8] John Lewis Gervais may have remained a simple merchant in South Carolina had it not been for the onset of the war between the American

476

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

colonies and Great Britain. His ancestor’s application for entry in the Sons of the American Revolution stated that Gervais “was, during the Revolution, one of the Council of John Rutledge, the Governor, and with him left Charleston immediately before the British entered and took possession if the city. He was, during the war, a member of the Convention in Philadelphia which adopted the articles of confederation and in 1782 was President of the state Senate . . . Colonel Gervais before the Revolution was possessed of a large estate but it was very much impaired by his patriotic contributions to the support of the Government during the Revolution.” [9] A longtime protégé of Henry Laurens, a delegate to the Continental Congress who also served as the president of that body, Gervais received a letter from Laurens on 5 September 1777 on the inner workings of the Continental Congress:

 . . . When Laurens left for Congress in 1777, he placed John Lewis Gervais in charge of his own affairs in South Carolina. Their relationship dated from the 1760’s, when Gervais, an immigrant from Germany, had settled in the Ninety-Six District on land held in conjunction with Henry Laurens. Gervais became a major landholder and planter in the area and served as Laurens’ business agent in the backcountry. Eventually the wealth Gervais accumulated in the piedmont enabled him to set up as a Charleston merchant; as such he conducted business at various times in partnership with John Owen, Andrew Pickens, Le Roy Hammond, and others. Gervais was also very active in politics. For many years he represented Ninety-Six District in the legislature, and later sat for Charleston. [11]

Congress is not the respectable body which I expected to have found, to be particular on this point would be improper, but I mention so much from that feeling which is irrisistible. I see my own private affairs going to Wreck. I am helping forward the heavy loss by most amazing expences here. I am adding to the load of trouble which my friends must have from attending to their own concerns, and am rendering my Country no intrinsic services, this latter consideration grieves me most. I think I have been instrumental in averting two pernicious schemes and except these my time 8 or 10 hours every day has been squandered. the most necessary work we have to do at present is that of Confederating, and that of making a state of past expences, to be fully informed of the application of those Millions already Issued to govern our future proceedings by wiser measures and to fill our exhausted Treasury by means least likely to involve us in difficulties, my attempts to accomplish these great purposes have hitherto proved fruitless and I have too much reason to fear, from a discovery of the cause, will ever prove so, unless very particular Instructions from some of the States should be charged upon their Delegates to demand of Congress an adjustment of accounts! I wish we were half an hour together I would say many things to you, as an Assembly Man, in favour of our little honest State. what I have said you may think of in that Character but as being said to your self only . . .  [10] The connection between Gervais and Laurens, however, was extremely deep and friendly, as marked by historian Raymond Starr:

During this period, Gervais served as a delegate to the South Carolina Provisional Convention and its successor body, the Provisional Congress, in 1775 and 1776; further, he served, as stated, as a member of the South Carolina Council of Safety in 1775, 1776, and again in 1781. In 1778, the Continental Congress, of which he would later become a member of, named him as the deputy postmaster general for South Carolina, and he held that position for the remainder of the conflict. In 1780, he served a short stint in a military fashion, working to organize the forces of South Carolina during a potential threat of invasion by the British forces, and he aided in the defense of Charleston that same year. In 1781, he was elected to the South Carolina state Senate, where he remained until 1782 and served as that body’s president. On 31 January 1782, the South Carolina legislature elected Gervais to a seat in the Continental Congress; no term was specified. He attended sessions of about 1-5 July 1782, around 31 July 1782, from 14 August to about 20 November 1782m and from about 12 December to 31 December 1782. A side note by historian Edmund Cody Burnett states, “Edward Rutledge wrote to Arthur Middleton [on] 8 February [1782] that he obtained the insertion in the resolution of appointment a provision that those in Philadelphia should be continued until a sufficient number to represent the state should arrive.” John Lewis Gervais appears to have been elected under this aegis. [12] South Carolina Governor Edward Rutledge wrote to Mrs. Arthur Middleton, the wife of another South Carolina delegate, on 6 February

John Lewis Gervais (1741–1798)477 1782, “As an Express will set off in a few Days for Philadelphia, I have sent the Bearer for your Commands—The Assembly proceeded in the last week to the Choice of Public Officers when, Mr. Matthews was elected Governor, Mr. Middleton, Mr. [Ralph] Izard, Colo. Gervais, Dr. [David] Ramsey [sic; should be “Ramsay”] , & my Brother [John] were appointed Delegates— As it was known that my Friend in Philadelphia intended to remain there until the Spring, we wished to avail ourselves of his Abilities at all Events, until that Time . . . ” [13] In the historical record there is previous work done by Gervais for the Continental Congress. For instance, in a collection of “Miscellaneous Papers of the General Committee, Secret Committee and Provincial Congress” there are two occurrences where Gervais spent monies out of his own pocket to pay for committee work. In the first, it was noted that Jacob Bellard had “[r]received [on] 12 July 1775 from John Lewis Gervais [the sum of] Ten pound(s) Currency in full for delivering Letters from the Committee of Intelligence to Major Andrew Williamson.” In the second, James Banks reported that he had “[r]received [on] 31st July 1775 of John Lewis Gervais [the sum of] Twenty Five Pounds Currency for bringing down an Express from Fort Charlotte.” [14] During his actual Continental Congress service, there is also a reference in the newspaper The Independent Gazetteer; or The Chronicle of Freedom of Philadelphia to members of the Continental Congress, including Gervais as reported on 11 November 1782, “The Committee consisting of Mr. [David] Howell [of Rhode Island], Mr. Gervais, and Mr. [Ezra] Hommedieu [sic; should be L’Hommedieu of New York], having reported on the letter of the 6th, from the Governor of Maryland, relative to the case of Col. H. Hollingsworth, [are] Resolved, That Congress are satisfied with the report of the Honorable Alexander Contee Hanson, Esq. one of the Judges of the General Court of the state of Maryland, on the case of Henry Hollingsworth, referred to him by the Executive of the said state, in pursuance of the order of Congress of the 20th July, 1780, and that the complaint against the said Henry Hollingsworth be dismissed.” The order was signed by Charles Thomson, the Secretary of the Continental Congress. [15]

After returning home to South Carolina, Gervais apparently returned to his work on plantations. The next time he appears in the historical record is at the end of the decade of the 1780s: historian Matthew Lockhart wrote: In March 1789 the General Assembly adjourned from Charleston for the final time and convened the following January at a crude, half-finished frame building in “a wilderness of pines” near the geographic center of the state. Though it represents a milestone in the political emergence of the backcountry in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries, South Carolina’s capital relocation and the movement that made it possible have received little critical attention from scholars. Existing treatments are brief and cursory, and within them, individuals of influence receive only passing mention. For example, from Salley and Wallace to Nadelhaft and Klein to Moore and Edgar, all document John Lewis Gervais as having introduced the legislation in the General Assembly in March 1786 that established a town on the Congaree River for the purpose of “removing the Seat of Government hereto” and as having named it Columbia. None, however, offer even a footnote as to who he was or why he did what he did. [16] The reason for this may be simple, as historian Keith Krawczynski expounded in his work that described the move from Charleston to Columbia: “the day of poor roads and primitive transportation, it was a hardship for backcountry legislators to meet in Charleston. For decades they clamored for removing the capital to a centralized location. When the backcountry received greater representation in the legislature during the Revolution, they finally had the political clout to force the issue. Serious discussion began in 1783 when Thomas Sumter proposed to remove the capital to the High Hills of Santee where he owned property. In March 1786, however, the General Assembly, upon the suggestion of John Lewis Gervais, selected the area near Friday’s Ferry on Congaree River for the site of the new capital.” [17] John Lewis Gervais continued to serve his adopted nation and state up until his death. In 1794, he was named as the state Commissioner of Public Accounts, a post he held until the following year. In March 1794, he signed a letter “to the public,” an open missive that read, in part, “The great sacrifices which the republic of France is daily making, and the blood which she

478

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

has already shed, and which she will not cease to shed until the fine established on a firm basis, her own liberty and that of both hemispheres, are known to all the world.” The letter was signed by M.A.B. Mangouritm the consul of the French republic, David Ramsay, John Lewis Gervais, Robert G. Harper, and Gayetan Aiguier. [18] An announcement in the papers of South Carolina for December 1794, announcing elections to seats in the state legislature and other governmental positions, took notice that of the men elected as “Justices of the Quorum,” among them was the name of John Lewis Gervais. [19]

courtesy of the National Society of the Sons of the American Revolution, Louisville, Kentucky, Vol. 263, National Membership Number 52560, State [New York] Number 5366. [10] Henry Laurens to John Lewis Gervais, 5 September 1777, in Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), II:476. [11] Starr, Raymond, Annotator, “Letters from John Lewis Gervais to Henry Laurens, 1777-1778,” The South Carolina Historical Magazine, LXVI:1 (January 1965), 16. [12] Gervais’ Continental Congress service information in ibid., VI:li. [13] Edward Rutledge to Mrs. Arthur Middleton, 6 February 1782, in Joseph W. Barnwell, annotator, “Correspondence of Hon. Arthur Middleton,” The South Carolina Historical and Genealogical Magazine, XXVII:1 (January 1926), 1-2. [14] See “Miscellaneous Papers of the General Committee, Secret Committee and Provincial Congress, 1775,” The South Carolina Historical and Genealogical Magazine, IX:2 (April 1908), 67, 69. [15] “In Congress, Thursday, November 21, 1782,” The Independent Gazetteer; or The Chronicle of Freedom [Philadelphia], 29 March 1783, 2. [16] Lockhart, Matthew A., “‘Under the Wings of Columbia’: John Lewis Gervais as Architect of South Carolina’s 1786 Capital Relocation Legislation,” The South Carolina Historical Magazine, CIV:3 (July 2003), 176-77. [17] Krawczynski, Keith, “William Drayton’s Journal of a 1784 Tour of the South Carolina Backcountry,” The South Carolina Historical Magazine, XCVII:3 (July 1996), 200. [18] “To the Public,” The South-Carolina State-Gazette & Timothy & Mann’s Daily Advertiser [Charleston], 4 march 1794, 4. [19] “Legislature of South-Carolina. In the Senate, December 18, 1794,” City Gazette and Daily Advertiser [Charleston], 14 January 1795, 2. [20] “Died, on Saturday last,” City Gazette and Daily Advertiser [Charleston], 22 August 1798, 2.

On 18 August 1798, Gervais died suddenly at his home in Charleston. The City Gazette and Daily Advertiser of Charleston stated, “Died, on Saturday last, in the 57th year of his age, John Lewis Gervais, esq. greatly regretted by his family, and all who had the pleasure of his acquaintance. He was an affectionate husband and indulgent parent; and in peace and war has justly merited the applause of his countrymen.” [20] Gervais was laid to rest in the Saint Philips Episcopal Church Cemetery in Charleston. His gravestone, a flat stone, reads, “Sacred to the Memory of Col. John Lewis Gervais, Who Departed This Life August 18, A.D. 1798. Aged 57 Years.”

[1] Gervais official congressional biography, online at http:// bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=G000142. [2] Application of Gervais Ward McAuliffe, 2 May 1932, “Sons of the American Revolution, Membership Applications, 1889-1970,” courtesy of the National Society of the Sons of the American Revolution, Louisville, Kentucky, Vol. 263, National Membership Number 52560, State [New York] Number 5366. [3] For instance, see Gervais’ online family tree, provided by the Daughters of the American Revolution, online at http://www. geni.com/people/John-Lewis-Gervais/6000000006426689622, which reports the place of birth as France. [4] Rowland, Lawrence S., “‘Alone on the River:’ The Rise and Fall of the Savannah River Rice Plantations of St. Peter’s Parish, South Carolina,” The South Carolina Historical Magazine, LXXXVIII:3 (July 1987), 128. [5] Chaplin, Joyce E., “Creating a Cotton South in Georgia and South Carolina, 1760-1815,” The Journal of Southern History, LVII:2 (May 1991), 180. [6] Sharrer, G. Terry, “Indigo in Carolina, 1671-1796,” The South Carolina Historical Magazine, LXXII:2 (April 1971), 101-02. [7] Hirsch, Arthur H., “French Influence on American Agriculture in the Colonial Period with Special Reference to Southern Provinces,” Agricultural History, IV:1 (January 1930), 4. [8] See Donnan, Elizabeth, “The Slave Trade into South Carolina Before the Revolution,” The American Historical Review, XXXIII:4 (July 1928), 804-28. [9] Application of Gervais Ward McAuliffe, 2 May 1932, “Sons of the American Revolution, Membership Applications, 1889-1970,”

William Gibbons (1726–1800)

A Georgia lawyer and politician, William Gibbons rose to serve in several important offices in Georgia before and after the American

William Gibbons (1726–1800)479 Revolution, including as a delegate to the Continental Congress (1784), as Speaker of the Georgia state House of Representatives, and as an assistant judge on the state’s Supreme Court, a post he held until his death. He was born in the village of Bear Bluff, South Carolina, on 8 April 1726, the son of Joseph Gibbons, and his wife Hannah Martin. He studied the law in Charleston, South Carolina, and was admitted to that colony’s bar. He later moved to Savannah, Georgia, where he stayed for the remainder of his life. According to a document in the Georgia Historical Society, Gibbons was granted a land grant of some 365 acres by King George II on 5 March 1756 when he was 30 years old. The grant, signed by Royal Governor John Reynolds, and awarded the grant to Gibbons in Newington Village in the district of Savannah in the “province of Georgia.” [1] He turned this land grant into a burgeoning rice plantation at Newington, which soon made him a wealthy and influential man. Just four years after receiving that grant, Gibbons was elected to the Georgia colonial assembly, where he served from 1760 until 1762. Until the end of that decade, Gibbons seems to have been, like others in the colony, a firm supporter of the Crown and royal rule. It was during this period, however, that a series of harsh economic measures, enacted by the British Parliament against the colonies, led to growing anger against England and fomented revolutionary thoughts. In 1774, he joined the Sons of Liberty. By 1775, when a Continental Congress had been called to meet in Philadelphia, and a shooting war opened up between English and colonial troops, William Gibbons was firmly in the revolutionary camp. Historian Robert Preston Brooks wrote, “When the news of the battle of Lexington reached Georgia, Gibbons was one of a group of six men who broke into the King’s powder magazine in Savannah (May 1775), thus definitely committing themselves to rebellion. He was a member of the Provincial Congress in July 1775, was a member of the Committee of Safety in December of that year, and, in 1777-81, a member of the executive Council created by the Provincial Congress. He took no part in the actual fighting of the Revolution, being

fifty years of age when the war began, but was active in the political and administrative aspects of the struggle.” [2] While William Gibbons was lending his support to the colonial cause, his own brother, Thomas Gibbons, was a committed Loyalist, and his properties in South Carolina were later confiscated by state authorities. Once royal rule had been overthrown in Georgia, a fight broke out between moderate forces, led by General Lachlan McIntosh, a member of the Continental Army, and more radical leaders, led by button Gwinnett. Gibbons, more moderate than most and from Christ Church Parish, sided with McIntosh, which earned him the ability to be in the center of policymaking. When these more moderate members established a government in Augusta on 10 July 1779, Gibbons served as a member of the Supreme Executive Committee that selected John Wereat, a McIntosh sympathizer, as the council’s chairman. These moved were fought by Gwinnett’s sympathizers, led by George Walton, who would also later serve in the Continental Congress, as well as William Glascock and Richard Howly, among others. In 1781, he was named as an associate justice of Chatham County’s court system, where he served until the following year. In 1783, he was elected to the state House of Representatives, and served as that body’s Speaker that same year. On 23 February 1784, that same House where Gibbons was serving as Speaker elected him to a seat in the Continental Congress; he ultimately served in that body from 1 November to 24 December 1784. According to historian Edmund Cody Burnett, “Gibbons and William Houstoun arrived in Philadelphia [on] 12 June, after the adjournment of Congress.” This accounts for why he was elected in February but did not take his seat until November. [3] The date of Gibbons’ election is confirmed by contemporary sources: for instance, The South Carolina Gazette, on 26 February 1784, reported, “[t]he Honourable the House of Assembly, have elected General Lachlan McIntosh, Colonel William Few, and William Gibbons, Esq. to be Continental Delegates, in addition to those formerly appointed.” [4]

480

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

The Newport Mercury of Rhode Island explained, “The Account published in our last of Congress having removed to Philadelphia, proves to be premature. We hear the Question for adjournment from Trenton was taken in that Honorable Body, on the 11st instant, and lost.” The paper then listed “[t]he following Delegates are now attending in the Congress of the United States, convened in Trenton, viz.,” and, as part of the contingent representing Georgia, was listed “the Hon. William Houston, and William Gibbons.” [5] Further, The Freeman’s Journal: Or, The North-American Intelligencer of Philadelphia reported, “the hon. the house of assembly [sic] of Georgia, have made choice of the following gentlemen to represent that state in Congress for the present year, viz. the hon. William Houstoun, John Habersham, Edward Telfair, William Gibbons, sen[ior] and Abraham Baldwin, esqrs.” [6] Only one piece of correspondence seems to exist from Gibbons during the period of his service in the Continental Congress, allegedly addressed to “the Governor of Georgia,” and dated 28 October 1784, it reads:

and 1787. The Pennsylvania Packet reported on 30 June 1786:

This morning I shall leave this City to meet Congress at Trenton and hope in the course of the next month some other Gentlemen will arrive to relieve me as my private affairs will not admit of my longer absence and some matters that has come to my knowledge since my leaving the State require my immediate presence. Mr. Houstoun who I heard from a few days since informs me he has wrote by every oppertunity and forward what acts of Congress he could procure but neither of us have had any Letters from Georgia since we left it and I have not yet learnt whether the Bill of Exchan[g]e that was lodged in the Treasury and was to be forwarded on for my support has yet been received at Philada. Should it not I shall for want of money be obliged to take the first Vessel for Georgia or Charleston and return. I wish other delegates may [be] sent forward as I shall at all events leave Congress by the Fifth or Tenth of December. I informd the State befor[e] my election I could not Stay longer than July, that I shall think my self disengaged after the first of Decr. [7] Gibbons returned to Georgia, where he reclaimed his seat in the state House of Representatives, serving from 1785 to 1789, and then from 1791 to 1793, serving as Speaker of that body in 1786

All [of] the records and other documents, or papers, that shall appertain to their respective offices that are in Savannah. When this resolve was received, a number of gentlemen taking it into consideration, were of [the] opinion that it was extremely improper, because there were in the Secretary’s office, wills for estates in Chatham county, the registry of grants for lots in and adjoining the town of Savannah, with several other records entirely local, all which by the constitution ought to be lodged in possession of the clerk of the court of Chatham county: John Houston, Joseph Clay, William Obrien [sic], William Gibbons, William Stephens, Richard Wylly, Peter Devaux, Samuel Sark, James Jackson, & George Walton, esquires, went to the house where the papers of the secretary’s office were kept, and having sorted out the records of grants for all the lots in, and five and forty-five acre lots adjoining the town of Savannah, and other books containing documents altogether of a private nature, delivered them to Mr. [Archibald] Bulloch, clerk of the court for the County of Chatham, who attended for the purpose of receiving executive authority that no disrespect was intended against government, a letter was written to the governor, informing him at the step that had been taken, and expressing a hope that this measure would meet with his and the council’s approbation, being entirely consistent with justice, public convenience, & the spirit of the constitution. [8] In 1789, Gibbons served as the president of the state constitutional convention, which drafted a new constitution for the state. This Constitution of the state of Georgia was printed on 27 June 1789; laid out in state and national newspapers, it was signed at its header by “William Gibbons, President and delegate from Chatham.” [9] A listing of the justices for Chatham County, published in state newspapers on the last day of 1789, had William Gibbons, Sr., headlined as representing the Cherokeebill District. His son, William Gibbons, Jr., is also listed, he representing the Little Ogeebee District. [10] On 16 December 1793, Gazette of the United States of Philadelphia reported from the capital of Georgia, Augusta, “On Monday last both branches of the General Assembly of this state, met in the Court-house of this town, and a

William Gibbons (1726–1800)481 sufficient number appearing to form a quorum, the House of Representatives proceeded to vote for a Speaker and Clerk, and the Hon. William Gibbons, Esq. was elected Speaker, and James M. Simmons, Esq. Clerk.” [11] The Georgia Gazette of Savannah reported on 9 October 1794 that “[o]n Monday last, the day appointed by the Constitution for the General Election throughout the state, the following Gentlemen were chosen to represent the under mentioned Counties, viz. Chatham County. In the House of Representatives. James Jones, George Jones, William Gibbons[,] sen[ior], and David Brydie Mitchell, Esqrs.” [12] The last time prior to his death that Gibbons was apparently mentioned in a public forum came in January 1798, when he signed an open letter, giving notice that “[i] n consequence of a Writ of Election from his Excellency the Governor, directed to the Justice of the Inferior Court of the County of Chatham, notice is hereby given, That an Election will be held, on Monday the 5th of February next, at the Courthouse, for a Representative of this County in the General Assembly, vice the Hon. James Jackson, elected Governor.” The notice was signed by Joseph Clay, James B. Young, and William Gibbons, Sr. [13] William Gibbons died in Savannah, Georgia, on 27 September 1800, aged 74. The Georgia Gazette said of him, “Died, on Saturday [the] 27th [of] September, in the 51st year of his age, after a tedious illness, which he bore with great resignation and fortitude, the hon. William Gibbons, esq. one of the assistant judges of the supreme court of the state of Georgia, and formerly a member of Congress, and speaker [sic] of the House of Representatives of that state. In his private character he was much respected, by all who knew him, as an honest and honorable man. His remains were respectfully interred on the Sunday following.” [14] Gibbons was laid to rest in the Colonial Park Cemetery in Savannah, the same burying ground where fellow Continental Congress delegates Samuel Elbert, Button Gwinnett, John and Joseph Habersham, William Pierce, and John Joachim Zubly are also buried. According to several biographies, Gibbons and his wife, Sarah had ten children, including a daughter, Sarah, who married Edward Telfair, who served as governor of Georgia (1786, 1790-93).

Historian Charles C. Jones, Jr., writing of the delegates from Georgia who served in the Continental Congress, wrote of Gibbons: The honorable Thomas Spalding, then far advanced in years, in 1850 thus narrates his recollections of the subject of this sketch[:] “Mr. Gibbons was my law instructor. After my own father he was the best friend I ever knew. He was a great lawyer, well read in his profession, which he acquired in Charleston under the direction of a Mr. Parsons,—an Irish gentleman of high grade in the law. The result from his professional labors while I lived with him was three thousand pounds sterling a year. This I knew, as I was his collector and Mrs. Gibbons his treasurer. There was then no bank paper. His notebook was to him of great value, for he had distinctly noted every important case that had occurred during his whole practice, giving the points on which it turned and the opinion of the judge; and as these judges in those times were Judge Walton of Augusta and Judge Houstoun of Savannah, these decisions carried more weight with the jury than the decisions of the King’s Bench . . . Mr. Gibbons was not a very fluent speaker. He was very quick in discovering the weak point of his opponent, and his memory was always ready to give the law that bore upon it. His commentary upon the law was in short, in clear, distinct terms, very pointed; and sometimes he indulged in witticisms, which increased as he grew older from his intimate association with Peter Carnes the elder—the wittiest lawyer I ever have known, and whose wit obscured his profound law knowledge in the eyes of the many. Mr. Gibbons in his nature was very open, frank, and manly, and very determined. This gave him a few warm friends and many bitter enemies.” [15]

[1] William Gibbons land grant, 5 March 1756, MS 303, Georgia Historical Society, Savannah, Georgia. [2] Brooks Robert Preston, “Gibbons, William,” in Allen Johnson, et al., “Dictionary of American Biography” (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons; eleven volumes and five supplements, 1958-77), VII:243-44. [3] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VII:lxvi. [4] “Savannah, February 26,” South Carolina Gazette, and General Advertiser [Charleston], 4-6 March 1784, 4. [5] The Newport Mercury [Rhode Island], 25 December 1784, 2. For an earlier reference to this same attendance, see Loudon’s New-York Packet [New York City], 9 December 1784, 2.

482

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

[6] See “Philadelphia, March 16,” The Freeman’s Journal: Or, The North-American Intelligencer [Philadelphia], 16 March 1785, 2. [7] William Gibbons to “the Governor of Georgia,” 28 October 1785, in Burnett, op. cit., VII:605. This letter cannot be to the “Governor of Georgia,” as the governor at that time was John Houstoun—and the letter references Houstoun in a way that shows that this letter could not be sent to him. This was supposed to be for someone else, and is very clearly ­mislabeled. [8] “Charleston, (S.C.), May 2,” The Pennsylvania Packet [Philadelphia], 30 June 1786, 3. [9] See “The CONSTITUTION of the State of Georgia,” The Federal Gazette, and Philadelphia Evening Post, 27 June 1789, 1-2. [10] “Savannah, December 31,” Georgia Gazette [Savannah], 31 December 1789, 3. [11] “Augusta, November 9,” Gazette of the United States [Philadelphia], 16 December 1793, 1. [12] “Savannah, October 9,” Georgia Gazette [Savannah], 9 October 1794, 2. [13] “Notice,” Georgia Gazette [Savannah], 2 February 1798, 3. [14] “Died,” Georgia Gazette [Savannah], 23 October 1800, 3. [15] Jones, Charles Colcock, Jr., “Biographical Sketches of the Delegates from Georgia to the Continental Congress” (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1891), 40-41.

serve as the state treasurer (1791) and governor of New Hampshire (1794-1805).

John Taylor Gilman (1753–1828)

Gilman was born in Exeter, New Hampshire, on 19 December 1753, the eldest son of Nicholas Gilman, a shipbuilder and noted New Hampshire politician, and his wife Ann (née Taylor) Gilman. According to family historians, the earliest ancestor of the clan was Edward Gilman (the spelling was probably Gyllman), known as “The Immigrant,” born in Hingham, in Norfolk, England, southeast of the city of King’s Lynn. That same family history notes that Edward Gilman emigrated to the American colonies in or about 1638, settling in Massachusetts. [1] Nicholas Gilman, the father of John Taylor Gilman and his brother Nicholas Gilman, was a noted shipbuilder in the city of Exeter. The elder Gilman played an integral role in prerevolutionary New Hampshire politics. A 1877 work confirms that Gilman, born in Exeter in October 1731, married Ann Taylor, the daughter of the Reverend John Taylor of Milton, Massachusetts, born the following year. [2]

The scion of a famed New Hampshire political family—Gilman’s brother Nicholas would also serve in the Continental Congress (1782-83)― John Taylor Gilman was a merchant who rose to

The confluence of political connections and wealth gave John Taylor Gilman a start in life few people had at the time. Gilman received a common school education in the public schools of New Hampshire, with no additional degrees. In the years prior to the American Revolution, Gilman worked alongside his father. In April 1775, years of rage at British economic policies towards the colonies exploded with shooting at Lexington and Concord, in Massachusetts. Gilman’s father Nicholas was named as the New Hampshire colonial treasurer, and shortly thereafter John Taylor Gilman was employed as a clerk in his office. In this capacity, he learned the tasks of accounting and bookkeeping and other financial matters needed to run not only a state office but a major shipbuilding concern as well. According to several sources, John Taylor Gilman served in the New Hampshire militia for a short time during 1775, [3] although Gilman’s official congressional biography states that he in fact was “one of the Minute Men of 1775.” [4] Following this limited action, Gilman never served again in a military capacity; the remainder of his life was spent in political offices: He served as a Selectman for Exeter in 1777 and 1778, and as a member of the New Hampshire state House of Representatives served in 1779

John Taylor Gilman (1753–1828)483 and 1781. Several sources state that Gilman was elected to the New Hampshire Council of Safety in 1779, and remained a member of that body for the remainder of the conflict. In October 1780, he served as a delegate to the “Convention of the States,” held in Hartford, Connecticut, in which an attempt to establish a “national government” by convention rather than the document that did create such a structure, the Articles of Confederation, ended in failure. On 15 January 1782, Gilman was elected by the General Court of New Hampshire to a seat in the Continental Congress, “untill [sic] the first day of November next, unless sooner relieved or recalled.” He was subsequently reelected on 14 September 1782 “for one year from this date unless sooner relieved or recalled.” He ultimately attended sessions of the body from 20 June to 31 December 1782. [5] Gilman wrote a number of letters on events both inside and outside of the purview of the Continental Congress. On 15 August 1782, he wrote to Meshech Weare, the president of New Hampshire: In my Letter of the 8th Instt. I Mentioned that S’r Guy Carleton had Informed Genl. Washington that Adm’l Digby with himself were Appointed Commiss’rs for making peace, and that the Commission was receiv’d by a late Packett. It now Appears that, that Letter was Misunderstood, it was from this Expression that they had received Information as Commiss’rs for making peace etc. . . . our Prisoners are released from the Goals in England and Some of them have Arrived here, but have nothing Official from Europe respecting this matter. The Conversation of the Day is a General Peace, but I fear the Enemy Intend a Separate One, first with Holland and then with America, but they will be much disappointed if they Expect a Seperate peace with America. Hope a few Days will give further Information in this business. [6] On 20 November 1782, Gilman wrote to Weare, “In my Letter of the 29th Ultimo I Informed you that the affairs of Vermont were then under Consideration, much has been said on this Subject but no Conclusion made—almost all agree that it is absolutely Necessary to make a final determination of the matter, but are at a loss to know what is best to be done. Mr. White as well as myself is very desirous that we may have particular Instructions from the State on this Subject. I inclose [sic] you Copy of

a Resolution of Congress Accepting the Cession made by New-York-the Cession made is on the printed Journals of March 1781.” [7] The death of his father, which followed that of his mother, necessitated Gilman’s resignation from the Continental Congress. Returning to New Hampshire, he was named as state treasurer in 1783, a role he had been groomed for under his father’s tutelage; his father’s passing opened the vacancy, and Gilman succeeded him. He served a second tenure in this same office from 1791 to 1793. In 1788 he was elected to serve as a member of the federal board of commissioners, to oversee the settlement of debts incurred between the federal government and the states during the war; he served in this office until 1790, and then for several months in 1791. In 1788 as well he served as a delegate to the state Constitutional Convention, which ratified the US Constitution, drafted and signed in Philadelphia the previous year. Among his brothers, Nicholas and Nathaniel Gilman, John Taylor Gilman was a noted Federalist, a supporter of a strong central US government. In later years, when the Federalist Party suffered serious declines and eventually became moribund, John Taylor Gilman remained one of its final and most loyal advocates. His health poor, Gilman resigned a second time from the Board of Commissioners in 1789, a move that President George Washington quickly asked him to reconsider. Gilman wrote to the president on 12 August 1789, “I hope your Excellency will be pleased to Excuse the trouble of this Letter, as an Attack of the Rheumatism deprives me the Honor of waiting on you in person. Having been Honored by the late Congress with an appointment as One of the Commissioners for adjusting the Accounts between the United States and Individual states, I met the other Commissioners in this place in January last, but as I cannot proceed in the business in the absence of the Gentlemen who are now Associated with me, and am desirous of Visiting my Family in New Hampshire, have to Request that your Excellency would be pleased to Indulge me with leave of Absence for a few Weeks. I have the Honor to be, with the Highest Respect . . .” [8] Despite his poor health, in 1794 Gilman was elected governor of New Hampshire, a post

484

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

he would hold until he lost reelection in 1804. The seventh governor of the state, Gilman took office on 5 June 1794, and became one of the most popular leaders in the state’s early history. Leading the state through the end of the 18th century and into the first years of the 19th, Gilman saw the New Hampshire economy grow; he helped to reform the court system, and under his direction a medical school was established at Dartmouth College. On 24 November 1803, on the date that he was supposed to deliver an address to the state legislature, Gilman was forced to beg off. As he wrote to the Speaker of the state House of Representatives, “The state of my health preventing me from waiting on the Legislature, as in have usually done at the commencement of a session, you will please to lay the inclosed communication before the Honorable the House of Representatives. Your humble servant, J. T. Gilman.” [9] In 1804 he was defeated by John Langdon, the DemocraticRepublican candidate. Gilman tried to regain the office, but was defeated in 1805, 1806, 1808, and 1810. On 5 July 1810, the Raleigh Register of North Carolina reported that “James Monroe of Virginia, Morgan Lewis of New-York, and John Taylor Gilman of New-Hampshire are elected Members of their respective State Legislatures. They have all served in the capacity of Governor, and at the same time.” [10] Finally, in 1813, he defeated William Plumer, the Democratic-Republican candidate, and he took office on 5 June 1813 as the twelfth governor of New Hampshire. During this second tenure, he oversaw the restoration of Fort William and Fort Mary to their former glory. Most importantly, however, Gilman came into the governorship when the War of 1812 was still being fought, a clash with England that had economic effects on the New England economy, and Gilman had to address those problems. The war was over when he left office for the final time on 6 June 1816, at which time he retired from political and public life. [11]

31 August 1828 at the age of 74. The Boston Courier of Massachusetts stated, “[a]mong the names of distinguished persons who have lately deceased are those of John Taylor Gilman, formerly the Governor of New-Hampshire, and Robert Trimble, of Kentucky, one of the Judges of the United States [Supreme Court].” [12] The New-Hampshire Statesman & Concord Register published a quarter page history of Gilman’s life. [13] Gilman was buried in the Winter Street Burial Ground in Exeter; his grave is covered by a large stone bearing only the dates of Gilman’s birth and death on it. His home in Exeter today is run by The Society of the Cincinnati, a Revolutionary War patriotic veterans’ organization.

John Taylor Gilman’s final service to New Hampshire was to serve as an ex officio trustee for Dartmouth College, as well as for the Phillips Exeter Academy in the city of Exeter; in fact, he used his own money to donate personal landholdings to the latter institution for their use on the campus. Gilman died in Exeter on

See also: The Hartford Convention; Nicholas Gilman

[1] See Salisbury, Edith Lynch, “Descendants of Edward Gilman, the Immigrant” (1996), typescript manuscript, courtesy of the Family History Center Library, The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, Salt Lake City, Utah. For additional information on the family in America, see also Arthur Gilman, “The Gilman Family, Traced in the Line of Hon. John Gilman, of Exeter, N.H.: With an Account of Many other Gilmans in England and America” (Albany, NY: Joel Munsell, 1869). [2] “Provincial and State Papers” in Nathaniel Bouton, comp. and ed., “Miscellaneous Documents and Records Relating to New Hampshire” (Concord, NH: Edward A. Jenks, State Printer, 1877), 9. [3] Robinson, William A., “Gilman, John Taylor, in Allen Johnson, et al., “Dictionary of American Biography” (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons; eleven volumes and five supplements, 1958-77), VII:303-04. [4] Gilman official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=G000214. [5] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VI:xlvii. [6] John Taylor Gilman to Meshech Weare, 15 August 1782, in ibid., VI:443. [7] John Taylor Gilman to Meshech Weare, 20 November 1782, in ibid., VI:546. [8] John Taylor Gilman to President George Washington, 12 August 1789, Miscellaneous Letters, RG 59, Records of the Department of State, National Archives. [9] “State of New Hampshire, Nov. 24, 1803,” National Intelligencer and Washington Advertiser [Washington, DC], 21 December 1803, 2. [10] See the Raleigh Register, and North-Carolina State Gazette, 5 July 1810, 3. [11] “Gilman, John Taylor” in Robert Sobel and John Raimo, eds. “Biographical Directory of the Governors of the United States, 1789-1978” (Westport, CT: Meckler Books; four volumes, 1978), III:941-44. [12] Boston Courier [Massachusetts], 11 September 1828, 1. [13] New-Hampshire Statesman & Concord Register, 20 September 1828, 3.

Nicholas Gilman (1755–1814)485

Nicholas Gilman (1755–1814)

Like his brother, John Taylor Gilman, Nicholas Gilman served in the Continental Congress (1787-89). He signed the US Constitution on behalf of New Hampshire (along with John Langdon), then helped to shepherd the document through the ratification process in his native state. Nicholas Gilman was born in Exeter, New Hampshire, on 3 August 1755, the son of Nicholas Gilman, a shipbuilder and New Hampshire politician, and his wife Ann (née Taylor) Gilman. The family was descended from one Edward Gilman, whose name may have originally been spelled Gyllman; this Edward Gilman, known as “The Immigrant,” came to the New World about 1638 and settled in Massachusetts. From this single man flowed the descendants of many spectrums, including the Nicholas Gilman clan of New Hampshire. Family historian Arthur Gilman, writing in 1869, in fact traced the family back to Wales, in the 9th century AD. He wrote, “Cilman Troeddhu of Glynllifon in Uwch Gwir Vai, in Caer-ynArvonshire, lived in the year 843, in the time of Roderick the Great, with whom he came out of the North of Britain. He bore Argent, a Man’s

Leg couped, fable. The Glyns of Glynllifon are descended from Cilmin, whose name is also spelled Kilmin. This Cilmin was head of one of the fifteen noble tribes of North Wales, and there appears to be good reason to believe that he was one of the ancestors of the Gilmans of England, Ireland and America.” [1] Nicholas Gilman’s education appears to have been limited; his official congressional biography indicates that he “pursued an academic course.” He worked for a time in his father’s countinghouse, which was the business of bookkeeping and/or accounting [2]; here, Gilman worked as a clerk, earning important experience in the accounting trade. Like his brother, who worked in the family shipbuilding concern, both men would probably have been groomed to take these respective businesses over from their father had the war not intervened. The war that came between England and her colonies was deeply personal to the Gilman clan: the harsh taxes imposed on the colonies by the British Parliament had impacted the elder Gilman’s business, and he imported his hatred of British policy on his sons. Thus, when the shooting war opened up between English and American forces at Lexington and Concord in April 1775, the younger Gilman volunteered for service in the New Hampshire regiment of the Continental Army, and given the rank of captain. Historian William A. Robinson wrote that “[h]e was commissioned [a] captain in the New Hampshire line, afterwards transferred to the staff of the adjutant-general, and served until the close of the war, when he returned to Exeter and soon became active in local politics.” [3] Although most sources on Nicholas Gilman’s life state that he served for the remainder of the war in the military, there is evidence, albeit slight, that this may be in error. Historian Jeremy Belknap, writing a history of New Hampshire in 1791, explained, “[t]he former Treasurer, George Jeffrey, Esq. was applied to for the public money in his hands, which to the amount of one thousand five hundred and sixteen pounds four shillings and eight pence, be delivered; and Nicholas Gilman, Esq. was appointed Treasurer in his room. During the year, three emissions of paper bills were made: the first, of ten thousand and fifty pounds; the

486

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

second, of ten thousand pounds; and the third, of twenty thousand pounds. For the amount of those sums, the Treasurer gave his obligation in small notes, which passed for a time, as current money, equal in value to silver and gold.” [4]

sessions of that body from 25 September to 20 November 1787, from 21 January to 26 August 1788, from 4 September to 1 November 1788, and, finally, on 19 February 1789, one of the final sessions of the Continental Congress before it went out of existence, replaced by a bicameral legislature composed of a US Senate and a US House of Representatives. [7]

As with the other members of his family, most notably his father and his brother, Nicholas Gilman was deeply involved in New Hampshire politics during the war. Whereas his brother John Taylor Gilman followed in the family business of shipbuilding, and worked with their father in colonial and then state offices relating to the New Hampshire treasury, Nicholas Gilman played a more subtle role during the years preceding and during the American Revolution. Even histories favorable to him state that “[h] e was distinguished in the Revolution and was the New Hampshire commissioner to the Federal Convention that drafted the constitution [sic], which was adopted [on] September 17 and presented to Congress [on] September 30, 1787, with a letter from Gen. Washington in his capacity as president of the convention.” [5] A letter from Nicholas Gilman to his brother Joseph, expressing his feelings at the close of the Constitutional Convention and the document that its delegates ultimately drafted, reads as follows: “The important business of the Convention being closed, the Secretary set off this morning to present Congress with a report of their proceedings, which I hope will soon come before the State in the manner directed but as some time must necessarily elapse before that can take place I do myself the pleasure to transmit the enclosed papers for your private consideration—forbearing all comments on the plan but that it is the best that could meet the unanimous concurrence of the States in Convention; it was done by bargain & Compromise—yet, notwithstanding its imperfections, on the adoption of it depends (in my feeble Judgment) whether we shall become a respectable nation or a people torn to pieces by intestine commotions and rendered contemptible for ages.” [6] Gilman had been elected by the New Hampshire legislature on 27 June 1786 to a seat in the Continental Congress, “for the term One Year from and after the first Monday in November next.” He was ultimately re-elected on 23 June 1787, and 17 June 1788, and he attended the

Despite the fact that Nicholas Gilman served in both the Continental Congress and as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention in 1787, and that he served at the end of the existence of the Continental Congress, nevertheless there are several pieces of correspondence that are extant from him during this period. For instance, in a missive to John Sullivan, the president of the state of New Hampshire during the postcolonial period, Gilman wrote on 31 October 1787, “When I had the honor to address your Excellency last from Philadelphia[,] it was not my intention to have taken a seat in Congress this year but as it was conceived important to have a full House on the Subject of the new plan of Government I was induced to take a seat; and have continued in Congress in expectation of receiving a small supply of Money and of having a Colleague for the next year.” [8] In a letter again to Sullivan, this time on 7 November 1787, Gilman wrote of the situation in the state of Georgia regarding potential war with the Native Americans there: The most important news we have here is from Georgia; where they are under the greatest apprehensions of an open war with the Creek Nation, which, according to the account of the Georgia delegates, consists of Seven or Eight thousand fighting men; but, be that as it may, they have had several skirmishes, and the Indians preparation for war is so alarming to the State that they have thought proper to order all the Slaves upwards of sixteen years of age, within sixteen miles of Savanna, to be employed in fortifying that town. How these things will end[,] time must reveal, but if we are to be much longer unblessed with an efficient National Government, destitute of funds and without public Credit, either at home or abroad, I fear we shall become contemptible even in the eyes of savages themselves. [9] In a letter to John Langdon, 6 March 1788, Gilman writes of the situation that exists to

Nicholas Gilman (1755–1814)487 bring Kentucky into the Union as a potential new state: “The most important business now before Congress is an application from Kentucky to be set off from Virginia and to be received into the union as a Sovereign State, in which Virginia agrees to concur on certain conditions: that she shall be released from a proportion of her federal obligations etc. this is not a time for the determination of so important a subject, but it is so strenuously urged and the people of that Country are become so jealous and irritable as to require the most delicate management, how it will terminate is yet uncertain.” [10] Finally, in a letter to John Sullivan, 23 March 1788, Gilman writes of the politicking that was behind-the-scenes at both the Constitutional Convention as well as the conventions in the states to ratify the US Constitution: “Had it been pleasing to the preserver of Man, in the Super abundance of his tender mercies to, to have removed P______y with M___n to the regions of darkness, I am induced to think the new System of government would have been adopted-but the delay in our backsliding State has rendered it much more doubtful in my mind that it had been at any period since the Completion of the plan. The opposition is now reduced to System, the leaders are known to each other and are indefatigable in their exertions. If they succeed I am apprehensive the sword will soon be drawn and your Excellencys early prediction be verified. I am by no means without hope of tranquility, though I think appearances are very alarming . . .” [11] Under the new US Constitution, elections for the new US House of Representatives were mandated across the country; Gilman was elected to the First Congress (1789-91) as a Federalist, a supporter of the administration of President George Washington, and he remained in that seat through the end of the Fourth Congress (179597). Historians have noted that during this single term in the House, as well as his later service in the US Senate, Gilman rarely participated in debate; in fact, the only evidence of any argument he made was for a post office in Exeter. [12] Gilman left office in March 1797, having declined to be a candidate for reelection in 1796, and he remained out of the public eye for the next several years. The resignation of James Sheafe from the US Senate on 14 June 1802

set off a wild movement to name his successor. Political considerations, as always, played a major role in who this successor would be, and when William Plumer, a political enemy of the Gilman family, rose to become that successor, Nicholas Gilman was one who spoke out against him. Gilman then proceeded to deliver remarks before the New Hampshire state House of Representatives, where he said in part, “As the election is made, by which Mr. Plumer may have a legal claim to a seat in the Senate of the United States, it would be unavailing to recommend a review of their proceedings to the consideration of the electors: It is therefore to be regretted that the spirit of party, stimulated by the private views of a few individuals, should have produced an effect that has so far outraged the general opinion in the extensive county where the Senator resides, that those who took a leading part in the election, are unwilling to claim the merit which is their due.” [13] Gilman did not win this election, but he did reestablish ties to the Federalist Party that would serve him in the future, serving that same year when President Thomas Jefferson named him as a commissioner in bankruptcy; as well, in 1804, Gilman was elected for a single term to the New Hampshire state Senate. The national politic future came three years later, when he was elected to the US Senate to replace the retiring Simeon Olcott (1735-1815). Gilman would remain in the Senate until his death, elected not as a Federalist but as a DemocraticRepublican, a follower of the Jeffersonians. Gilman was reelected in 1811. Nicholas Gilman died in Philadelphia on 2 May 1814 while preparing to travel home to New Hampshire; he was only 58 years old. Poulson’s American Daily Advertiser of Philadelphia stated, “Yesterday, at two o’clock, P.M., departed this life, after a short illness, the Honorable Nicholas Gilman, late Senator of the United States, from the State of NewHampshire. His friends are respectfully invited to attend his funeral from Capt. Odlin’s, in Eighth street, third door below Chesnut street, this afternoon, at four o’clock.” [14] The Constitutionalist, a newspaper in Gilman’s hometown of Exeter, New Hampshire, said, “In the death of Mr. Gilman the public have suffered a great loss, and his relatives and

488

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

friends an irreparable breach.” [15] Gilman’s body was returned home, and he was laid to rest in the Exeter Cemetery in that city.

Robert Goldsborough (1733–1788)

See also: John Taylor Gilman

[1] Gilman, Arthur, “The Gilman Family, Traced in the Line of Hon. John Gilman, of Exeter, N.H.: With an Account of Many other Gilmans in England and America” (Albany, NY: Joel Munsell, 1869), 3. [2] Nicholas Gilman official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay. pl?index=G000215. [3] Robinson, William A., “Gilman, Nicholas” in Allen Johnson, et al., “Dictionary of American Biography” (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons; eleven volumes and five supplements, 1958-77), VII:304-05. [4] Belknap, Jeremy, “The History of New-Hampshire. Comprehending the Events of Seventy Five Years, from MDCCXV to MDCCXC. Illustrated by a Map. By Jeremy Belknap, A.M. Member of the Philosophical Society in Philadelphia, and of the Academy of Arts and Sciences in Massachusetts” (Printed at Boston: For the Author, by Isaiah Thomas, and Ebenezer T. Andrews, Faust’s Statue, no. 45, New-bury-Street; two volumes, 1791), II:396-97. [5] Noyes, Mrs. Charles P., ed., “A Family History in Letters and Documents, 1667-1837. Concerning the Forefathers of Winthrop Sargent Gilman and his Wife Abia Swift Lippincott” (St. Paul, MN: Privately Printed; two volumes, 1919), I:153-54. For Gilman’s signature as a member of the New Hampshire delegation at the Constitutional Convention, see “Plan of the New Constitution for the United States of America, Agreed Upon in a Convention of the States. With a Preface by the Editor” (London: Printed for J. Debrett, Piccadilly, 1787). [6] Nicholas Gilman to Joseph Gilman, 18 September 1787, in ibid., I:154. [7] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VIII:lxxxviii. [8] Nicholas Gilman to the president of New Hampshire, John Sullivan, 31 October 1787, in ibid., VIII:670. [9] Nicholas Gilman to John Sullivan, 7 November 1787, in ibid., VIII:676. [10] Nicholas Gilman to John Langdon, 6 March 1788, in ibid., VIII:706. [11] Nicholas Gilman to John Sullivan, 23 March 1788, in ibid., VIII:709. In a snide way without naming them, Gilman points a finger at “Patrick Henry” and “George Mason.” [12] See debate on the “Post Office Bill,” 2 February 1793, in “The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States; With an Appendix, Containing Important State Papers and Public Documents, and All the Laws of a Public Nature; With a Copious Index. Second Congress: Comprising the Period from October 24, 1791, to March 2, 1793, Inclusive” (Washington, DC: Printed and Published by Gales and Seaton, 1849), 356-57. [13] “From the N. Hampshire Gazette,” National Intelligencer and Washington Advertiser [Washington, DC], 25 August 1802, 2. [14] Poulson’s American Daily Advertiser [Philadelphia], 3 May 1814, 3. [15] “Obituary,” The Constitutionalist and Weekly Magazine [Exeter, New Hampshire], 10 May 1814, 3.

Maryland delegate Robert Goldsborough, who sat in the Continental Congress from 1774 to 1776, was a longtime government official in that colony and state, serving as a Burgess in the colonial assembly (1765), as attorney general of the colony (1766), as a member of the Council of Safety (1775), as a delegate to the state constitutional convention (1776), and as a member of the Maryland state Senate (1777). The son of Charles Goldsborough, an attorney, and his wife Elizabeth (née Ennalls), Robert Goldsborough was born at his family estate, “Horns Point,” in Dorchester County, Maryland, on 3 December 1733. A historical account of the Goldsborough family traces them to 1066 AD, the time of William the Conquerer. This history states, “When, in 1066, William the Conqueror made the land of the Saxons his own, he found a knightly family seated in their Manor of Goldsborough near Knaresborough, in the beautiful section of Yorkshire, sometimes called ‘A Yorkshire Rhineland,’ and oft-times, ‘the Holy Land of the Nidd’; this name coming from the lovely river which wanders with gentle murmurs through the valley . . . It is believed that this land was acquired by some descendant of Havelock and Goldsburghe, in whose memory they named their Manor, or Chase, known in the Saxon tongue as ‘Godensburg,’ or ‘The Meeting Place of the Gods.’” [1] Robert Goldsborough’s

Robert Goldsborough (1733–1788)489 maternal grandfather, Robert Goldsborough, Sr., was born in Blandford, in Dorset, England, about 1660, and emigrated to the American colonies prior to 1698, when his daughter Ann was born. [2] Charles Goldsborough, Robert Goldsborough’s father, was able to become a scion of this family, working to become an important member of the Maryland colonial government and landowner. Elizabeth Goldsborough died about 1739, when her son was a small child; Charles Goldsborough then married Elizabeth Dickinson, the half-sister of John Dickinson (1732-1808), who, like his step-nephew, would serve himself in the Continental Congress (1774-76, 1779) from Pennsylvania and Delaware. Goldsborough “pursued an academic course” [3], which, owing to his family’s wealth, usually meant being schooled by tutors or attending a private academy. In 1752, he was sent to England, and he completed his studied there; he then pursued the study of the law, attending London’s prestigious Inner Temple (some sources state that it was the Middle Temple), one of the four Inns of Court of the English legal system. Called to the British bar in 1757, he remained in England for an additional two years, returning to Maryland to practice law in 1759. In 1765, Goldsborough entered the political arena in the Maryland colony, when he was elected to the Lower House of the colonial Assembly from Dorchester, where he served until 1766. In 1760, when his brother William, who was a member of the Governor’s Council, died suddenly, the Royal Governor, Horatio Sharpe, wrote to his Secretary, Lord Calvert in August 1760, “His being now removed into the Upper House may perhaps induce and encourage others to pursue the same steps in the Lower House in order to obtain the same end and as I doubt not but his Son a Young Gentleman of good abilities and character who lately studied at the Temple will be elected by the People in his Father’s Stead should the latter be made one of the Council such a step would not at this time lessen the Number of Moderate men in the House of Delegates.” [4] Goldsborough did not join the Council until 1762. In 1765, Goldsborough married Sarah Yerbury, the daughter of a fellow landowner; together, the couple had eleven children. In addition

to his service in the General Assembly, Goldsborough served as the attorney general of Maryland from June 1766 until he resigned in October 1768. In 1767 it was stated that, as an attorney in that colony, he was “at the top of his profession” and was “possessed of a considerable fortune.” According to his Maryland legislative biography, in 1767 he inherited more than 4,600 acres of land from his father in Dorchester County, and by 1783 this had increased to more than 8,600 acres. During his life, Goldsborough owned 123 slaves, assessed in value at some point at ₤6,103 pounds. [5] Governor Sharpe named him as the sheriff of Dorchester County; however, when Sharpe agreed to name him to the Governor’s Council in 1768, with the approval of Lord Baltimore, Goldsborough, as stated, resigned his position as attorney general and refused the offer to sit on the council for an unknown reason. He then retired from public life, at least at this point, to his estate, “The Point,” on the Choptank River in Dorchester County. The harsh economic measures enacted by the British Parliament against the colonies escalated with the passage of Boston Port Bill (1774), which sought to punish that city for the failure to pay for the damage caused by the Boston Tea Party. A convention of concerned Maryland citizens met in convention, 22-25 June 1774, to address the response in that colony to that action; Goldsborough was elected as one of the delegates from Dorchester County. In quick order, that convention, the first held in Maryland without the express approval of the royal government, elected delegates to a general meeting of delegates from all 13 colonies to meet in Philadelphia that September to plan a united response to the Boston Port Bill as well as other parliamentary measures. One of these delegates elected to the Philadelphia parley was Robert Goldsborough. The exact date of his election is unknown; Continental Congress historian and expert Edmund Cody Burnett, whose collection of letters of the members of that body also gives an historical examination of the dates of election and service of each specific member of the Continental Congress, when they served, and other information, has only the general dates of the Maryland convention—22-25 June 1774—as

490

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

the specific date for Goldsborough’s election to the Continental Congress. [6] He was reelected to that body during an additional Maryland convention, held from 8-12 December 1774, and a third and final time on 14 August 1775. According to Burnett, Goldsborough ultimately served in the Continental Congress from 5 September, the body’s first day, until some mysterious date in 1774; as well, he served in May 1775, and from about 28 April to some period in 1776. Burnett adds:

destroying the essential securities of the lives, liberties, and properties of the colonists . . . ” [9] When he first began his service in the Continental Congress, Goldsborough could be considered an “accommodationist”—in short, someone who believed that tensions between the colonies and England could be fixed, and that the relationship could be remade to what it once been. In this early period, if one could call it that, Goldsborough was allied with such Maryland notables as Charles Carroll of Carrollton and William Paca. Gradually, however, Goldsborough came to the realization, especially after the start of fighting between the colony and England in early 1775, that the status quo could not maintained, although he advocated for a state constitution after 1776 that kept a proprietary form of government in Maryland, controlled not by British royal authority but by landowners such as himself. Historians Henry F. Thompson and A.S. Dandridge wrote in 1915:

Besides the record of Goldsborough’s attendance at the opening of Congress [5 September 1774], the only other mention of him in 1774 is his appointment on a committee [on] 7 September. He did not sign either the Association or the petition to the king. In 1775, only his attendance on 15 May is recorded in the Journals [of the Continental Congress]. The proceedings of the Maryland convention, 9 December 1775, record the inability of Goldsborough to attend because of “long indisposition,” and [fellow Maryland delegate John] Hall’s plea that it was “very inconvenient” to him to attend at this time. Accordingly, John Rogers and Robert Alexander were appointed as additional delegates. The only record of Goldsborough’s attendance in 1776 is a committee appointment [on] 29 April. [7] Historian W.C. Mallalieu reports that the committee that Goldsborough was named to at the beginning of the Continental Congress was “the committee to state the rights of the colonies, but [he] seems to have taken little part in [its] proceedings.” [8] In May 1775, Goldsborough returned to Maryland, where he served in another convention and signed the “Association of the Freemen of Maryland” on 26 July. This document, which could be considered an early “declaration of independence,” which, like that document signed the following year, listed the grievances against the British government and the Crown, stated, “The long premeditated, and now avowed design of the British government, to raise a revenue from the property of the colonists, without their consent, on the gift, grant, and disposition of the commons of Great Britain; and the arbitrary and vindictive statutes passed under colour of punishing a riot, to subdue by military force, and by famine, the Massachusetts bay; the unlimited power assumed by parliament to alter the charter of that province, and the constitutions of all the colonies, thereby

[o]n the 14th of August, 1775, the important body known as ‘The Council of Safety’ was constituted by the Convention, being at first composed of 16 members (eight from each shore), then seven, and then nine, which continued to be its number. Robert Goldsborough was elected one of the Eastern Shore members, 14 August 1775, to serve until the next Convention. This Council continued its authority until March, 1777, when it was dissolved, after organization of the State government. As [a] member of each of these bodies (the Convention, the Continental Congress, and the Council of Safety), Robert Goldsborough seems to have held a prominent place among the men of whom it has been said: “Their intellectual character was not inferior to their moral courage, and the sagacity of their councils was consummate as the execution of their work.” [10] Under the new state constitution, drafted in 1776, Goldsborough was elected as a state senator under this new governmental plan; however, he did not take his seat, perhaps for health reasons. In fact, he stopped participating in political matters until 1781, when he called for additional military support to keep British raids from harming properties on the Eastern Shore of the state. (Some sources state that Goldsborough did in fact serve in the state Senate from 1776 to 1781.) He was reelected to that body in 1781, but, again, he did not take his

Mary Katherine Goddard (1738–1816)491 seat, formally resigning in May 1783. That same year, he was again elected to the upper body, but he stated that he could only serve “whenever [my] health would permit,” which he could not do. In 1788, he was elected as a delegate to the state convention which ultimately ratified the US Constitution, drafted in Philadelphia the previous summer, but, again, his poor health intervened and he could not attend. Another reason for this perhaps is the death in May 1787 of Goldsborough’s wife, Sarah, whom The Maryland Journal called “this truly amiably Lady . . . who was distinguish [sic] for the Excellence of her Understanding . . .” [11] Soon after, on 22 December 1788, Goldsborough died at his home in Cambridge, Maryland. The Pennsylvania Packet said of his passing: The death of this distinguished patriot will sensibly afflict his numerous connections, and be sincerely regretted by every friend to the late revolution. He was early in life advanced to the station of attorney general of Maryland, and held it many years with great reputation. He sat in the memorable Congress of 1775; and embarking his extensive fortune and influence in the cause of his country, remained stedfast [sic] and inflexible in his opposition throughout the contest with Great Britain; nor did the storms when blackened over our prospects, at any time shake his courage. As he was honored in his public life, he was also beloved in his private relations; during a long and prosperous career of life, his family possessed in him a tender husband, a fond parent and a generous master. In his friendship he was warm and sincere; and he had a heart ever open to the calls of charity; but alas! the hand of fate has snatched him from us . . . [12] Goldsborough was laid to rest next to his wife in the Christ Episcopal Church Cemetery in Cambridge. His simple tombstone merely reads, “In Memory of Robert Goldsborough, Barrister. 1733-1788.” His son, Robert Henry Goldsborough (1779-1836), served in the US Senate from Maryland (1813-19, 1835-36).

[1] Goldsborough, Eleanora Winter, “The House of Goldsborough” (Salt Lake City: Filmed by the Genealogical Society of Utah, 1949; reprint, privately printed by Paul and Mary W. Feist, 2011), 59. Additional information on the Goldsborough clan can be found in their family tree, online at http://www.geni. com/people/Robert-Goldsborough/6000000012935487834.

[2] Dandrige, Anne Spotswood, “Robert Goldsborough of Ashby, and his Six Sons,” Maryland Historical Magazine, XXXVI (1941), 315-35. [3] Goldsborough official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay. pl?index=G000263. [4] Riley, Elihu Samuel, “A History of the General Assembly of Maryland, 1635-1904” (Baltimore: Nunn & Co., Publishers, 1905), 265. [5] “Goldsborough, Robert,” in Papenfuse, Edward C., eds. et al. “Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; two volumes, 1979), I:362. [6] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), I:xlv. [7] Ibid., I:xlv. [8] Mallalieu, W.C., “Goldsborough, Robert,” in Allen Johnson, et al., “Dictionary of American Biography” (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons; eleven volumes and five supplements, 1958-77), VII:366-67. [9] See the full text of the “Association” in “Proceedings of the Conventions if the Province of Maryland, the City of Annapolis, 1774, 1775, & 1776” (Baltimore: James Lucas & E.K. Deaver, 1836), 19-20. [10] Thompson, Henry F.; and A.S. Dandridge, “Hon. Robert Goldsborough, Barrister, 1733-1788,” Maryland Historical Magazine, X:1 (March 1915), 104. [11] “On Tuesday Morning last,” The Maryland Journal and Baltimore Advertiser, 8 May 1787, 3. [12] “Died at Cambridge, Maryland,” The Pennsylvania Packet, and Daily Advertiser [Philadelphia], 10 January 1789, 3.

Mary Katherine Goddard (1738–1816) Mary Katherine Goddard ran one of the first newspapers in the American colonies to publish the Declaration of Independence, The Maryland Journal of Baltimore. She played a key role in the printing and distribution of the Declaration, having been carefully selected for the work by the Continental Congress itself, cementing her role in American history. Goddard was born in Groton, Connecticut, on 16 June 1738, the daughter of Giles Goddard, a physician, and his wife Sarah (née Updike) Goddard. Giles Goddard was not only a respected doctor in Groton, but he also served as the town’s postmaster, a role that his daughter Mary Katherine later picked up near the end of her life in a different city. Sarah Goddard was a highly educated woman, who spoke both French and Latin fluently. Goddard was also from a well-known Rhode Island family; she was the daughter of Lodowick Updike, a major Rhode Island landowner. The Goddards had four children, but of these, only two lived to

492

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

adulthood: Mary Katherine, and her younger brother William (1740-1817). Of the family’s background, historian William Richard Cutter explained, “The surname Goddard occurs in the Domesday Book, in county Leicester, England, three of the name being records in the Winton ‘Domesday’ as owing land in the reign of Henry I (1100-35), showing that the name is an ancient one in England.” [1]

Chronicle and Universal Advertiser and moved to Baltimore to be with her brother, and take over managing duties in the new city. Ironically, William Goddard bought The Maryland Journal from a woman, the widow of the owner, Nicholas Hasselbach, who had been lost at sea. When his sister arrived in Baltimore, William Goddard had already left Baltimore, plagued by ill health, and he turned the complete control of the newspaper over to his sister, a daunting task for anyone, especially a woman in a time when women had few if any rights. Historian Lawrence C. Wroth penned, “In February 1 774, his sister, Mary Katherine Goddard, assumed control of the newspaper for what she doubtless thought would be the temporary absence of her brother. A year later, however, he had not returned to take up his responsibilities and his name was removed from the imprint of the journal, where it did not reappear until nearly a decade had passed.” [5] In May 1775, just one month after the American Revolution broke out in Lexington and Concord, Mary Katherine Goddard officially became the publisher of a major American newspaper. The colophon—the space which listed those who put the paper together, stated quite clearly, “Published by M. K. Goddard.”

Mary Katherine Goddard received a private education from her parents, with her mother giving her lessons in French and Latin. [2] Her life changed dramatically in 1762, when Giles Goddard suddenly died. By this time, brother William Goddard was a respected printer in Providence, Rhode Island. Soon after Giles Goddard died, his widow and his daughter joined William in Providence, where together they established the newspaper The Providence Gazette and Country Journal, the first newspaper in the Rhode Island colony that was the first truly successful publication of its kind. Three years after the family began this venture, William tired of it and left Rhode Island, and the two women halted publication of the paper. Determined to try to publish on their own, the following year they restarted its presses, this time under the odd name “Sarah Goddard and Company,” making the two Goddard women the first newspaper publishers in the American colonies. In 1768, however, after two years of struggles with this printing, they shut down the paper and followed William to Philadelphia, where he had opened another newspaper, the highly influential The Pennsylvania Chronicle and Universal Advertiser. Over the next several years, as the city of Philadelphia grew and the paper grew with it, Mary Katherine Goddard served as its manager. [3] Sarah Goddard died in 1770, and in May 1773 William decided to move to Baltimore to open a newspaper there, founding The Maryland Journal. Historian Lauren Silberman wrote of this move, “The small backwater city was growing, which promised the possibility of many new subscribers. True, John Adams would describe Baltimore as ‘the dirtiest city in the world’ during the Second Continental Congress’ winter sojourn there, but it was an untapped audience with great potential.” [4] The following February, Mary Katherine Goddard closed The Pennsylvania

Unlike other women of these times who managed individual success, Mary Katherine Goddard did not owe it to their husband’s or family’s influence. Her success, while helped by her brother, was due almost entirely caused by her own work and effort. In many ways, Mary Katherine followed in the footsteps not of her brother, but of her mother, whose drive and energy and impetus she inherited. From 1775, the dawn of the American Revolution, until 1784, Goddard made The Maryland Journal one of the most influential papers in the infant nation. Historian Margaret Masson wrote, “After a close study of the Maryland press in the Revolutionary period, Joseph Towne Wheeler concluded that of the four presses functioning at this time, the Goddard press in Baltimore was clearly the most important, ‘judged on the basis of quantity and quality of output, or by the influence it exerted in the community in which it was located.’” [6] In the work referenced, Joseph T. Wheeler’s “The Maryland Press” (1938), that historian explained, “Like her brother, [Goddard] was an active partisan of the liberty of the press. On 3

Mary Katherine Goddard (1738–1816)493 June 1776, the Baltimore County Committee met and in its proceedings is found an interesting incident in the career of this courageous woman: ‘Miss Goddard informed this Committee, by Letter, that on Wednesday last[,] Mr. George Somerville came to her office and abused her with threats and indecent language on account of a late publication in her paper. The Committee, conceiving it to be their duty to inquire into everything that has a tendency to restrain the liberty of the Press, Ordered, That a summons be issued for the said George Summerville, returnable at three o’clock P.M.’” Wheeler notes that Somerville resisted the arrest warrant, and was forcibly taken into custody, and tried “‘by the evidence of Miss Goddard, that his conduct had a direct tendency to influence the freedom of the Press, which in every country should be inviolably maintained, and on account of his contemptuous treatment of the Committee. It was Resolved, unanimously, That Mr. Somerville be censured by this Committee; and, as he now refused to sign the Enrollment or Association Papers when tendered to him, was determined that he give bond, with security, for his future good behavior, agreeable to directions of the Convention.’” [7] Despite numerous shortages during the first years of the war with England—including a deficit in the amount of paper she could purchase—Goddard was able to publish The Maryland Journal as a regular newspaper, although sometimes she had to use differing sizes of paper, depending on the supplies she received. As well, due to the war, many of her competitors were unable to stay in business, and from 4 July 1779 until 16 May 1783, hers was the only newspaper published in the entire city of Baltimore. Historian Maurine Beasley wrote, “To keep the paper alive during the difficult days of the Revolution, she started a paper mill, engaged in barter with subscribers, fought for press freedom, and printed ‘extraordinaries’ (extra editions) on newsworthy events such as the battle of Bunker Hill.” [8] In the days after the document was promulgated by the Continental Congress in July 1776, only the actual text of the Declaration of Independence was published; the names of the signers were withheld, probably out of fear of reprisals by the British against them and their families.

John Dunlap, the Philadelphia printer who was hired by the Continental Congress to publish the first copies of the Declaration, only included the name of John Hancock on his editions. It was not until January 1777, more than five full months after it was initially released and agreed to, that the Continental Congress, meeting in Baltimore, resolved that it be published in a local newspaper with a full roster of the signers—and they selected The Maryland Journal, published by a woman, Mary Katherine Goddard, to be that publication. The Continental Congress had had to flee from Philadelphia in the winter of 1776 to escape the British invasion of Pennsylvania. Moving to Baltimore, the delegates occupied Henry Fite’s House, a private residence which the Continental Congress paid ₤60 for three months in that building; they ultimately met there from 20 December 1776 until 27 February 1777. On 18 January 1777, the delegates of the Continental Congress quickly moved to have the Declaration printed, this time with the names of all of the signers included. The Journals of the Continental Congress reported on that date that the delegates: “Ordered, That an authenticated copy of the Declaration of Independency [sic], with the names of the members of Congress subscribing the same, be sent to each of the United States, and that they be desired to have the same put upon record.” [9] That the Continental Congress never explicitly gave the work to Goddard is true; however, the delegates who had been in attendance when the Declaration was signed were impressed by how Goddard had devoted the entire first page of the 10 July 1776 edition of her paper to the historic document. However, whereas the document had been published without the names of the signers, the Continental Congress now felt surer of their release, with Continental Army victories at Trenton and Princeton in late 1776 giving new optimism to the patriot cause. That same day, Goddard used her paper again on behalf of the American nation, becoming the first American newspaper to publish the Declaration in full, with the names of all 55 signers (the 56th, Thomas McKean, did not add his signature until much later). While the paper continued to be run by Mary Katherine Goddard, her brother sometimes

494

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

came back to Baltimore to work with his sister, and this made for a situation that eventually boiled over between the two siblings. After years of working on her own, Mary Katherine believed that the paper’s ultimate success was due to her toil and not her brother’s, something he disagreed with. Unable to reconcile their business relationship, William closed the paper in 1784, marking the end of Mary Katherine Goddard’s printing and publishing career. In November of that year, after the paper had closed, the Goddards published competing almanacs; William, in the preface to his publication, called his sister a “hypocritical character.” This fight resulted in their not speaking to each other again; Mary Katherine even refused to attend William’s wedding in 1786. By the time of its closing, The Maryland Journal had become one of the largest papers in terms of circulation in the United States. In 1792, William moved permanently to Rhode Island.

The Representation of Mary Katherine Goddard, Humbly sheweth—That She hath kept the Post Office at Baltimore for upwards of fourteen years; but with what degree of Satisfaction to all those concerned, She begs leave to refer to the number & respectability of the Persons who have publickly addressed the Post Master General & his Assistant, on the Subject of her late removal from Office; And as Mr Osgood has not yet favoured between two and three hundred of the principal Merchants & Inhabitants of Baltimore with an answer to their last application, transmitted to him by Post on the lath Day of November ultimo, nor with any Answer to sundry private Letters, accompanying the transcript of a like application, made to Mr Burrell when at Baltimore: She therefore, at the instance of the Gentlemen thus pleased to interest themselves on her behalf, lays before your Excellency, Superintendant of that department, as briefly as possible, the nature & circumstances, of what is conceived to be an extraordinary Act of oppression towards her.

In addition to the newspaper, Mary Katherine Goddard was involved in several other areas of labor, most notably bookbinding and bookselling. As well, in 1775 she had been named as the postmaster for all of Baltimore, becoming the first woman to hold such an important position. She would hold the office for 14 years, until 1789. [10] Under the new US Constitution, the federal government began to redefine all of the postmasterships based not on merit but on politics; the first Postmaster General, Samuel Osgood, moved quickly once he was in office to remove Goddard as the Baltimore postmaster and replace her with Federalist John White, a Washington administration political ally who had served as the commissioner of army accounts in Annapolis during the Revolution. White had no experience handling postal matters, but he gave the administration a friendly face in this important political position. Osgood wrote to Goddard in dismissing her that the job required “more traveling . . . than a woman could undertake,” despite her having done the work for nearly a decade and a half during wartime. Mary Katherine Goddard wrote to the president imploring him to change his mind (writing about herself in the third person):

That upon the dissolution of the old Government, when from the non importation Agreement and other causes incident to the Revolution, the Revenue of the Post-Office was inadequate to its disbursements, She accepted of the same, and at her own risque, advanced hard money to defray the Charges of Post Riders for many years, when they were not to be procured on any other terms; and that during this period, the whole of her Labour & Industry in establishing the Office was necessarily unrewarded; the Emoluments of which being by no means equal to the then high Rent of an Office, or to the Attention required both to receive & forward the Mails, as will evidently appear the Schedule, here unto annexed, and therefore, whoever thus established & continued the Office, at (the) gloomy period when it was worth no Person’s Acceptance, ought surely to be thought worthy of it, when it became more valuable. And as it had been universally understood, that no Person would be removed from Office, under the present Government, unless manifest misconduct appeared, and as no such Charge could possibly be made against her, with the least colour of Justice, She was happy in the Idea of being secured both in her Office, and the Protection of all those who wished well to the prosperity of the Post Office, & the new Government in general. That She has sustained many heavy losses, well known to the Gentlemen of Baltimore, which

Mary Katherine Goddard (1738–1816)495 swallowed up the Fruits of her Industry, without even extricating her from embarrassment to this day, although her Accounts with the Post Office were always considered, as amongst the most punctual & regular of any upon the Continent; notwithstanding which She has been discharged from her Office, without any imputation of the least fault, and without any previous official notice: The first intimation on that head being an Order from Mr Burrell, whilst at Baltimore, to deliver up the Office to the Bearer of his Note; and altho’ he had been there several days, yet he did not think proper to indulge her with a personal Interview, thus far treating her in the Stile of an unfriendly delinquent, unworthy of common Civility, as well as common Justice. And although Mr White, who succeeded her, might doubtless have been meritorious in the different Offices he sustained, yet, She humbly conceives, he was not more deserving of public notice & protection in his Station, than She has uniformly been in hers: It must therefore become a matter of serious Importance & of peculiar distress to her, if Government can find no means of rewarding this Gentleman’s Services, but at the Expence of all that She had to rely on, for her future dependence & subsistence. That it has been alledged as a Plea for her removal, that the Deputy Post Master of Baltimore will hereafter be obliged to ride & regulate the Offices to the Southward but that She conceives, with great deference to the Post Master General, impracticable, & morally impossible; because the business of the Baltimore Office will require his constant Attendance, & he alone could give satisfaction to the people, if therefore the duties of the Assistant, Mr Burrells’ Office are to be performed by any other than himself, surely it cannot well be attempted by those who are fully occupied with their own; and as two Persons must be employed, according to this new Plan, She apprehends, that She is more adequate to give Instructions to the Riding Post Master, how to act than any other Person possibly could, heretofore unexperienced in such business. She, therefore, most humbly hopes from your Excellency’s Philanthropy and wonted Humanity, You will take her Situation into Consideration; and as the Grievance complained of, has happened whilst the Post Office Department was put under your auspicious Protection, by a Resolve of Congress, that Your Excellency will be graciously

pleased to order, that She may be restored to her former Office, and as in duty bound, She will ever pray &c. Mary K: Goddard Washington penned a short response to Goddard: In reply to your memorial of the 23rd of December, which has been recieved, I can only observe, that I have uniformly avoided interfering with any appointments which do not require my official agency; and the Resolutions and Ordinances establishing the Post Office under the former Congress, and which have been recognized by the present Government, giving power to the Postmaster General to appoint his own Deputies, and making him accountable for their conduct, is an insuperable objection to my taking any part in this matter. I have directed your memorial to be laid before the Post Master General who will take such measures thereon as his judgment may direct. I am, Madam, Your most Obdt Sevt. [11] Those who knew Goddard in Baltimore also sent letters of protest to Osgood and to President Washington, demanding that the firing be rescinded. On 12 November 1789, some 200+ citizens of Baltimore signed a petition to be sent to Osgood: “Mr. Osgood professes to be sensibly struck with the honorable & just motives of those who interested themselves in behalf of Miss Goddard, and, yet, strange! he took Eight Weeks & upwards to answer their Letter. This certainly was not hinting to Mr. Osgood, that he should displace the Post Mistress, at Baltimore, it being a distance of thirty Miles from where Mr. White, or those who recommended him, live.” [12] The petition noted that Goddard delivered “universal Satisfaction to the community,” and that those signing were “praying in the most Ernest manner that she be restored.” Osgood did not bother to answer the petition, and on 23 December 1789 Goddard sent a personal letter to President Washington asking for him to intervene. Instead, the president stated that Osgood, as the postmaster general, had the final say as to who served as the postmaster in a particular city. On 29 January 1790, Goddard sent a memorial to the US Senate, asking for a redress of grievances, but that body merely read

496

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

her letter and then tabled her protest, ending the matter.

the most trying and critical periods of the revolution, and that she was Intrusted by her brother with the sole management of his business when the exigencies of his occupation demanded his presence elsewhere, proves that she possessed extraordinary judgment, energy, nerve and strong good sense. [15]

For the next decade, Goddard ran a bookstore in Baltimore. She retired completely in around 1809 or 1810, and she spent the remainder of her life quietly in Baltimore with her female slave, Belinda Starling. Goddard died in Baltimore on 12 August 1816 at the age of 78. Her will stated that upon her death Belinda Starling be given her freedom, as well as “all the property of which I may die possessed, all of which I do to recompense the faithful performance of duties to me.” [13] Goddard was laid to rest in the yard of St. Paul’s Parish in Baltimore. She had never married. She was inducted into the Maryland Women’s Hall of Fame in 1998. Most biographies of Mary Katherine Goddard make little effort to define her religion and/ or political beliefs. Kind praise came from her brother, who, before their falling-out, said that she was “an expert and correct compositor of [all] types.” Historian Karen Zeinert wrote, “While Abigail usually shared her political views only with her husband and close friends, female publishers attempted to share their ideas and information with as many people as possible. During the [Revolutionary] war, at least six women published newspapers: Clementina Rind, Margaret Draper, Ann Catharine Green, Elizabeth Timothy, Mary Crouch, and Mary Katherine Goddard. All except Goddard became involved in publishing through their husbands, and all faced intense pressure during the war when the Patriots and Loyalists wanted only their side of the issue published.” [14] In February 1898, in remembering “women as publishers” in America, The Boston Sunday Globe reminisced about the work of Mary Katherine Goddard: There Is a woman at the beginning of all things . . . and this, is true in relation to their connection with the typographical art in America . . . The most distinguished example of “the woman in journalism” was Miss Mary Katharine Goddard, who was an actuality more than 100 years before the recent employment of members of her sex as editors and reporters . . . Miss Goddard was a remarkable woman in many respects. The simple fact that she conducted the Journal during

[1] “New England Families, Genealogical and Memorial. A Record of the Achievements of Her People in the Making of Commonwealths and the Founding of a Nation. Compiled under the Editorial Supervision of William Richard Cutter, Corresponding Secretary and Historian of the New England Historic Genealogical Society; Author of ‘The Cutter Family,’ ‘History of Arlington,’ Etc.” (New York: Lewis Historical Publishing Company; four volumes, 1913-14), IV:1834. [2] Henry, Susan, “Sarah Goddard, Gentlewoman Printer,” Journalism Quarterly, LVII:1 (Spring 1980), 23-30. [3] Miner, Ward L., “William Goddard, Newspaperman” (Durham, NC: Duke University Press, 1962), 33-44. [4] Silberman, Lauren, “Wicked Baltimore: Charm City, Sin and Scandal” (Charleston, SC: The History Press, 2011), 17. [5] Wroth, Lawrence C., “A History of Printing in Colonial Maryland, 1686-1776” (Baltimore: Published by the Typothetæ of Baltimore. 1922), 129. [6] Masson, Margaret W., “Mary Katherine Goddard, 1738-1816: Printer, Publisher and Postmistress” in Winifred G. Helmes, ed., “Notable Maryland Women” (Cambridge, MD: Tidewater Publishers, 1977), 161. [7] Wheeler, Joseph Towne, “The Maryland Press, 1777-1790” (Baltimore: The Maryland Historical Society, 1938), 12. [8] Beasley, Maurine H., “Mary Katherine Goddard” in Stephen L. Vaughn, ed., “Encyclopedia of American Journalism” (New York: Routledge, 2008), 199. [9] Ford, Worthington C., ed., “Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789. Edited from the Original Records in the Library of Congress by Worthington Chauncey Ford, Chief, Division of Manuscripts” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; 34 volumes, 1904-37), VII:48. [10] Hudak, Leona M., “Early American Women Printers and Publishers, 1639-1820” (Metuchen, NJ: Scarecrow Books, 1978). [11] See Mary Katherine Goddard to President George Washington, 23 December 1789, in RG [Record Group] 360, Papers of the Continental Congress and the Confederation Congresses, Papers of the Washington Administration (1789-97), document 78, and Samuel Osgood to Mary Katherine Goddard, in W.W. Abbot, ed., and Dorothy Twohig, Associate Editor, “The Papers of George Washington. Presidential Series” (Charlottesville, VA: University Press of Virginia; 16 volumes, 1987- ), IV:426-29. [12] Bowling, Kenneth R.; William Charles DiGiacomantonio, and Charlene Bangs Bickford, eds., “Petition Histories and Nonlegislative Official Documents” (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998), 238. [13] Will of Mary Katherine Goddard, drawn up in 1814, Baltimore County [Maryland] Register of Wills, File MSA C437-60-66, 2/56/13/51. [14] Zeinert, Karen, “Those Remarkable Women of the American Revolution” (Brookfield, CT: The Millbrook Press, Inc., 1996), 47. [15] “Women as Publishers: Mary Katherine Goddard Was the Pioneer,” The Boston Sunday Globe [Massachusetts], 13 February 1898, 25.

Nathaniel Gorham (1738–1796)497

Nathaniel Gorham (1738–1796)

A delegate to the Continental Congress at different times, (1782, 1783, 1786, 1787, and 1789), Nathaniel Gorham was a noted merchant in his native Massachusetts. A member of the Continental Congress’ Board of War (1778-81), a precursor of the departments of State and War, he also rose to serve as president of the Continental Congress in June 1786. Gorham was born in Charlestown, Massachusetts, in May 1738, the son and eldest of five children of Nathaniel Gorham, a boat operator, and his wife Mary (née Soley) Gorham. In an application to join the Sons of the American Revolution, Charles Lackey Bartlett, a great-great-grandson of Gorham’s, wrote in 1900 that Gorham was born in Charlestown, Massachusetts, on 27 May 1738, and died in the same city on 11 June 1796, giving clear indication that this was the same Nathaniel Gorham. [1] The family can be traced back through the elder Gorham’s father, Stephen Gorham, born in Barnstable, Massachusetts, in 1683. [2] The original emigrant of the family was John Gorham, born in England in 1643, who came to the American colonies and married Desire Howland, the daughter of John Howland,

who came to America on board the Mayflower. A two-volume work done in the last years of the 19th century, “Genealogical Notes of Barnstable Families,” reports on Gorham’s father that “Capt. Nathaniel Gorham, born in 1709, resided in Charlestown. He died early, but his widow (Mary Soley) was living in Boston in 1796. His children were: Nathaniel, born 27th May, 1738; John, [who attended] Harvard College[,] 1759, died early; Stephen, and probably others.” [3] The Gorham family were impoverished, and Nathaniel, the eldest son, was apprenticed, after a rudimentary education in the public schools of Charlestown, at the age of 15 to Nathaniel Coffin, a merchant in New London, Connecticut. He worked there for several years before he moved back to Charlestown. In 1763 he married a local girl, Rebecca Call, and together the couple had nine children; among these were the eldest son, also named Nathaniel, a settler who died in Canandaigua, New York, in October 1826, and another son, Benjamin, a Harvard-graduated attorney who was elected to the US House of Representatives as a Federalist, and served several terms (182021, 1827-31, 1833-35). According to his official congressional biography, to support his large family, Nathaniel Gorham was “engaged in mercantile pursuits” during the years leading up to the outbreak of hostilities between England and her colonies. [4] In 1771, Gorham was elected to a seat in the Massachusetts Provincial legislature, where he sat until 1775. A radical who quickly sided against England’s harsh economic policies imposed on the colonies, most notably Massachusetts, Gorham also served as a delegate to the Provincial Congress in 1774 and 1775. As a private merchant, who was experienced in shipping goods, he was called upon by the Continental Congress to serve on its Board of War from 1778 to 1781. He became active in privateering, the move to use small, private ships to seize British goods for use by the Continental Army and private citizens. A member of the Massachusetts state Constitutional Convention in 1779, on 14 June 1781, Thomas’s Massachusetts Spy of Worcester, Massachusetts, reported that “[t] he Hon. Nathaniel Gorham, we are informed[,] is chosen Speaker of the Hon. [state] House of

498

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Representatives, in the room of the Hon. Davis, who has resigned.” [5] Bills from the legislature were signed by Gorham as Speaker, Samuel Adams as president of the state Senate, and John Hancock as governor. [6]

that he penned dealing with several substantial matters before the Continental Congress: most important are the ones that Gorham wrote as the president of that body. Discussing the role of equal representation among the states with Massachusetts patriot James Warren, Gorham wrote, “[I]ndeed the principle of the confederation as it respects representation and the mode of voting is calculated to encourage delinquencey. there is no reason that Rhode Island, Delaware and Georgia should have equal weight in the federal councills [sic] with Massachusetts, Pennsylvania and Virginia, and if the representation had been apportiond according to numbers or property, and a suitable quorum established and the major vote to determine questions, this inattention would not exist. but as unanimity is now necessary upon the most trivial questions we feel all the inconveniences of the liberum Veto of a Polish Diet.” [10]

On 24 October 1782, Gorham was rewarded for his service to the revolutionary cause when his fellow legislators elected him to a seat in the Continental Congress, “until the fifth day of November 1783.” He was eventually reelected on 16 June 1785, 27 June 1786, and 6 June 1788; Gorham attended sessions of 12 to 31 December 1782, 1 January to 21 June 1783, 17 January to 7 March 1786, 22 March to 13 November 1786, from about 21 April to 24 May 1787, 20 September to 12 October 1787, and on 26 January 1789. The American Herald, a Boston, Massachusetts, newspaper, reported on 20 June 1785, “On Thursday last[,] agreeable to the order of the day, the Hon. the Legislature proceeded to the election of Delegates to represent this Commonwealth in the Congress of the United States, when on collecting the votes, the whole number appeared to be 150, 76 making a choice: The Hon. Rufus King, Esq. had 142 votes. Hon. Nathaniel Gorham Esq. 116 Hon. Theodore Sedgwick, Esq. 101 Hon. Nathan Dane, Esq. 83 were chosen. Five being the number to be elected, and four only being chosen, the legislature again proceeded to the choice of a fifth Delegate . . .” [7] On 15 May 1786, when David Ramsay retired from the post, Gorham was elected by the delegates to the Continental Congress as the chairman of Congress. (Ramsay, of South Carolina, has served as the chairman of the Continental Congress since 23 November 1785, because President John Hancock had been unable to serve due to ill health; Ramsay’s term was on an ad interim basis only.) [8] On 6 June 1786, Gorham was promoted to becoming president of Congress Assembled, a sort of majority leader of that body, rather than the separate office of the president of the United States that we have today. [9] Because Gorham was a leader in the Continental Congress almost from the start of his service until the body went out of existence in 1789, there are numerous pieces of correspondence

To James Bowdoin, the governor of Massachusetts, Gorham explained on 5 April 1786, “There is now on the floor of Congress but eight States, there having been nine but very few days the present year. It is attended with great inconvenience and damage to the affairs of the Union that the States are thus inattentive to their Representation. several subjects of great consideration are now before Congress and cannot (owing to the above circumstance) be taken up. It appears to me that the Congress of last Year were not sufficiently apprised of the consiquence of a Treaty with the Barbary Powers, or they would not have conducted that business in the manner they did. I conceive it would have been much the best way to have sent a Person of Reputation and Character directly from hence with full Powers to have treated with those People.” [11] During the Constitutional Convention, at which Gorham was a delegate, fellow Massachusetts delegate to the Continental Congress Nathan Dane wrote to Gorham and the stands he took at that parley: “I had the pleasure yesterday, of receiving yours the 3d inst. I am very glad the Convention came fully into the determination of dividing the powers of Government, and of lodging them in distinct and independent hands as Nature seems always to have intended etc. but in what hands to lodge the Legislative and executive powers so as to collect in the federal Government the greatest

Nathaniel Gorham (1738–1796)499 strength and stability, and general Confidence, is a work, I think, the Convention will find of vast consideration.” [12] A notice in The Worcester Magazine for July 1786 that “[a]t the annual meeting of the Proprietors of the Charles-River-Bridge, at Faneuil Hall, on Tuesday the 11th last, the following gentlemen were chosen directors, viz. Thomas Russell, his excellency Nathaniel Gorham, Richard Devans, Joseph Barrell, John Hurd, Esquires, Mr. David Wood, jun.” [13] On 29 June 1786, as reported in the newspaper The New-York Journal, “Tuesday last, the hon. the legislature made [a] choice of his excellency Nathaniel Gorham, hon. Samuel Holten, hon. Rufus King, hon. Nathan Dane, Esq’rs[,] delegates to represent this commonwealth in Congress.” [14] On 3 November 1786, the Continental Congress passed a resolution: “By the United States in Congress Assembled. Resolved, That the thanks of Congress be given to his Excellency Nathaniel Gorham, for his able and faithful discharge of the duties of the President, while acting in that important station.” [15] While sitting as a delegate to the Continental Congress, Gorham was elected as one of Massachusetts’ delegates to the Constitutional Convention, held in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 to try to address the challenges that the moribund Articles of Confederation were giving to the new nation. At that convention, the entire Articles of Confederation was thrown aside and an entirely new constitution was drawn up. Gorham was selected at the convention as the chairman of the Committee of the Whole, in effect the “President” of the convention. Historian John R. Vile explained the pivotal point that was made with Gorham’s selection to this position: From May 30 through June 19, the Convention started each day of business by resolving itself into a Committee of the Whole. This mechanism had developed in the English Parliament to expedite business had been extensively used in early Congresses, and is still employed in congress and other contemporary bodies. The Convention selected Nathaniel Gorham of Massachusetts, to serve as committee chair; he had been a leader in the Congress under the Articles of Confederation, where he had served briefly as president. Given Washington’s role as President of the

Convention, it is possible that regional considerations also influenced Gorham’s selection by balancing a Southerner with a Northerner (albeit one from a fairly large state). The vote appears to have been 7 to 1 for him over John Rutledge of South Carolina; in publishing the Convention’s notes, John Quincy Adams suggested that Gorham might have cast the vote on behalf of his state for Rutledge. [16] In fact, Max Farrand, the main historian of the debates at the Constitutional Convention, wrote that Gorham was “selected by ballot” over John Rutledge. [17] Thus, Gorham, a signer of the US Constitution, who served as the president of the Continental Congress, returned home to Massachusetts and served as a delegate to the state convention which ratified the new constitution in 1788. Having been elected as a judge of the Court of Common Pleas in Massachusetts in 1785, he now turned to that work, a post he held until his death. The remainder of his life was also spent purchasing lands in the Genesee Valley of New York state. [18] Nathaniel Gorham died in Charlestown on 11 June 1796. [19] The Boston Gazette of Massachusetts reported in their obituary on Gorham, “He was apparently well, and attended at Lecture the Evening proceeding.” [20] The Gazette of the United States stated, “By this melancholy event his family and connections are bereaved of a tender and affectionate husband, an exemplary and indulgent parent, a valuable, unfeigned brother and friend, and an endearing acquaintance. Liberality to the poor and hospitality to strangers were leading traits in his car. The various public services he has performed are too well known to require a newspaper eulogy, and the honorable and important offices he has sustained, in his native town, in this Commonwealth, and in the unuist, are the best evidences of his fidelity, integrity, and the public confidence.” [21] Gorham, just 59 years old, was buried in the Phipps Street Burying Ground in Charleston. His initial place of burial was a nondescript crypt. The Massachusetts chapter of the Daughters of the American Revolution placed a plaque next to the crypt, which reads, “Honorable Nathaniel Gorham. 1738-1796. Signer of the Constitution of the United States of America.”

500

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

In his application to join the Sons of the American Revolution, Gorham’s great-great-grandson explained his ancestor’s role in the founding of the United States. “The said Nathaniel Gorham,” he wrote, “is the ancestor who assisted [in] establishing American independence, while acting in the capacity of [a] Framer of the Constitution of the United States, member of the Legislature, Provisional Congress, and Continental Congress.” [22]

[15] Resolution of the Continental Congress, 3 November 1786, reported in The New-York Packet [New York City], 7 November 1786, 2. [16] Vile, John R., “The Critical Role of Committees at the U.S. Constitutional Convention of 1787,” The American Journal of Legal History, XLVIII:2 (April 2006), 153. [17] Farrand, Max, ed., “The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787” (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; three volumes, 1911), I:29. For more on the election controversy—for instance, Farrand states with certitude that the single vote for Rutledge came from Gorham, “at that time President of the old Congress.” See Farrand, III:433. [18] Gorham official congressional biography, online at http:// bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=G000325. [19] “Nathaniel Gorham (Hon),” death notice in “A Record of Deaths in Charlestown,” courtesy of Massachusetts Vital Records, Registry of Vital Records, Office of Health and Human Services, Boston, Massachusetts, III:632. [20] “Died, at Charlestown,” The Boston Gazette [Massachusetts], 13 June 1796, 2. [21] “Died, at Charlestown,” Gazette of the United States [Philadelphia], 23 June 1796, 3. For another, albeit shorter, obituary on Gorham, see The Centinel of Liberty, and George-Town Advertiser [Washington, DC], 24 June 1796, 3. [22] Application of Charles Lackey Barnett, 7 May 1900, “Sons of the American Revolution, Membership Applications, 1889-1970,” courtesy of the National Society of the Sons of the American Revolution, Louisville, Kentucky, Vol. 64, National Membership Number 12746, State [Wisconsin] Number 246.

See also: Presidents of the Continental Congress

[1] Application of Charles Lackey Barnett, 7 May 1900, “Sons of the American Revolution, Membership Applications, 1889-1970,” courtesy of the National Society of the Sons of the American Revolution, Louisville, Kentucky, Vol. 64, National Membership Number 12746, State [Wisconsin] Number 246. [2] Gorham family tree, with information on Gorham’s grandfather Stephen Gorham, online at http://www.geni.com/people/ Stephen-Gorham/6000000003937951614. See also Gorham, William F., “A History of the Gorham Family” (Rockport, ME: Penobscot Press, 2002). [3] Otis, Amos, “Genealogical Notes of Barnstable Families: Being a Reprint of the Amos Otis Papers, Originally Published in the Barnstable Patriot. Revised by C.F. Swift, Largely from Notes Made By the Author” (Barnstable, MA: F.B. & F.P. Goss; two volumes, 1888-90), I:434. [4] Gorham official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=G000325. [5] “Worcester, June 14,” Thomas’s Massachusetts Spy, or Worcester Gazette [Massachusetts], 14 June 1781, 3. [6] For instance, see the resolutions enacted which are reported in The Independent Chronicle, and Universal Advertiser [Boston, Massachusetts], 4 July 1782, 3. [7] American Herald [Boston, Massachusetts], 20 June 1785, 2. Sedgwick later served in the First Congress (1789-91), and was elected as the first Speaker of the US House of Representatives. [8] For more on Gorham’s election as president of the Continental Congress, see Ford, Worthington C., ed., “Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789. Edited from the Original Records in the Library of Congress by Worthington Chauncey Ford, Chief, Division of Manuscripts” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; 34 volumes, 1904-37), XXIX:883, and XXX:264, 330. [9] Information on Gorham’s dates of election and service in the Continental Congress from Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VI:xlvi, VII:lxviii, VIII:lxxxvii. [10] Nathaniel Gorham to James Warren, 6 March 1786, in ibid., VIII:317-18. [11] Nathaniel Gorham to James Bowdoin, the governor of Massachusetts, 5 April 1786, in ibid., VIII:336-37. [12] Nathan Dane to Nathaniel Gorham, 6 June 1787, in ibid., VIII:604-05. [13] “Boston, July 20,” The Worcester Magazine, XVII (July 1786), 205. [14] “Boston, June 29,” The New-York Journal, or the Weekly Register [New York City], 6 July 1786, 3.

William Grayson (1740–1790)

Remembered for his service in the US Senate (1789-90) as well as membership in the Continental Congress, William Grayson was an aide-de-camp to General George Washington during the American Revolution. He served as a commissioner on the Continental Congress’ Board of War (1780-81), and as a member of the Virginia House of Delegates (1784-85). He served

William Grayson (1740–1790)501 as a delegate to the Continental Congress (178587) and as a delegate to the Virginia ratifying convention, which ratified the US Constitution. He was born in 1740 in Prince William County, Virginia, the third son and third child of Benjamin Grayson, Jr., and his wife Susana (née Monroe) Grayson, the aunt of James Monroe, making Grayson a cousin to the famed Virginia politician who helped to write the US Constitution and served as the fifth president of the United States (1817-25). [1] According to a family tree, William Grayson’s grandfather, John Grayson, was born in the village of Deal, in Kent, England, northeast of Dover, about 1656, and emigrated to the Virginia colony before his death in St. George County, Virginia, in March 1736. [2] Historian Weston Bristow, one of Grayson’s main biographers, stated in 1917, “The earliest record of the Grayson family in America is that in 1635 a William Grayson was a member of a company of men who had sworn allegiance to the established church and were to set sail in the ship Safety, Master John Grant, for Virginia.” [3] Various biographies of William Grayson identify his father as a merchant in prerevolutionary Virginia. William Grayson attended the College of Philadelphia (now the University of Pennsylvania), and, according to his official congressional biography, then went overseas to England, where he studied “classical studies”— the study of languages, literature, music, and other similar studies—at the University of Oxford, and, afterwards, studied the law in London. [4] After Grayson earned his legal degree, he returned to his native Virginia, where he opened a law practice in the town of Dumfries. In 1764, he married Eleanor Smallwood, the sister of William Smallwood, the governor of Maryland, and together the couple had four children, all sons. A listing of land titles in colonial Virginia in 1750 show property owned by William Grayson, with the power of attorney over the estate given to one William Sutton of Spottsylvania County. [5] While practicing the law in Dumfries, Grayson became a close friend of a nearby land surveyor, George Washington. At the same time, Grayson was angered by a series of harsh economic measures enacted by the British Parliament against the colonies, specifically the Stamp Act

(1765). As such, he became a member of the meetings in nearby Westmoreland County, where the Association of 1766, a group opposed to the Stamp Act as well as other measures, was established. The Association soon voted to boycott British goods to force England to retract the measures. Over the next several years, it appears that Grayson continued to oppose the British economic measures, but not to the extent that he became a leading voice in the Virginia colony, although in a listing of the “Committee for Prince William County, Virginia,” chosen on 9 December 1774, Grayson is listed as one of the members. [6] Nevertheless, the initiation of a shooting war between England and the colonies at Lexington and Concord in April 1775 saw Grayson move firmly into the patriotic camp. A year later, on 24 August 1776, after his friend George Washington was appointed as a general and as the commander of the Continental Army, Grayson was commissioned a Lieutenant Colonel, and as an aide-de-camp to Washington. He was eventually prompted to the rank of Colonel in January 1777, and, during his military service, he saw action at the battles of Long Island (August 1776), White Plains (October 1776), Brandywine (September 1777), and Germantown (October 1777). In late 1778, Washington himself named Grayson to a four-man commission to meet with the British General Sir William Howe to negotiate over the mutual release of prisoners of war. Elias Boudinot, who served on the commission with Grayson and, like Grayson, also served as a delegate to the Continental Congress, took notes of the two conferences held between American and British commissioners to exchange prisoners of war in 1778. An introduction to Boudinot’s diary of the meetings related, “[The exchange of civil and military prisoners of war was a matter which continued in a very unsatisfactory state until the appointment by Congress in June of 1777 of Elias Boudinot, Esq., as Commissary General of Prisoners . . . The American Commissioners were Colonel William Grayson, LieutenantColonels Alexander Hamilton and Eobert Hanson Harrison, of Washington’s staff, and Colonel Elias Boudinot, and the British, Colonel Charles O’Hara, of the Coldstream Eegiment of Foot Guards, Colonel Humphry Stephens, of the Third Eegiment of Foot Guards, and Captain the Hon.

502

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Eichard Fitzpatrick, of the First Eegiment of Foot Guards.” [7] Additional service for Grayson during the war included a stint on the Continental Congress’ Board of War from 1780 to 1781.

agreeable to you to be informed of the further progress of this important business. The Ordnance was reported to Congress three days ago, and ordered to be printed, and I now take the earliest opportunity of sending you a copy; the idea of a sale by public Vendue, in such large quantities, appears at first view eccentric, and objectionable; I shall therefore mention to you the reasons which those who are advocates for the measure offer in it’s support; They say this cannot be avoided with’t affording an undue advantage to those whose contiguity to the territory has given them an opportunity of investigating the qualities of the land; That there certainly must be a difference in the value of the lands in different parts of the country, and that this difference cannot be ascertained with’t an actual survey in the first instance and a sale by competition in the next. [11]

Following the end of his military service, Grayson returned to Virginia and picked up his law practice. However, he re-entered the political arena, serving as a member of the Virginia House of Delegates from 1784 to 1785. On 22 June 1784, the members of the House of Delegates elected Grayson to a seat in the Continental Congress, “for one year from the first Monday in November next,” although Grayson did not attend any sessions of that body in 1784. [8] He was reelected to the Continental Congress on 15 November 1785 and 7 November 1786, eventually attending sessions of 11 March to about 17 August 1785, 7 September to 4 November 1785, 13 February to 7 March 1786, 22 March to about 1 September 1786, 20 November to 4 December 1786, and from 5 February to 29 October 1787. Historian Edmund Cody Burnett noted that “Grayson was in Philadelphia for his health [on] 12 September 1786, and remained away from Congress until 20 November.” [9] One of Grayson’s correspondents was his friend George Washington; he wrote to the general on 10 March 1785 regarding activities in the Continental Congress: “Congress are engaged in a plan for opening their Land Office on the Western waters, In recommending a plan for extending their powers in forming Commercial treaties, In regulating the Post Office and in making a Peace establishment. They have directed a treaty to be form’d if practicable with the Piratical States on the coast of Africa. I expect a Minister will be appointed to the Court of Spain after the arrival here of Down Diego Gardoqui, and one I presume will be appointed to Holland in the room of Mr. Adams who goes to the Court of St. James.” [10] He followed this missive up a month later with an update for Washington, regarding a service that Grayson was named to: On my being appointed one of the Comm’ee for draughting the Ordinance for ascertaining the mode of disposing of lands in the Western territory, the President was kind enough to furnish me with an extract of your letter to him on the subject of the back Country, which now induces me to conclude it will be

To James Madison, his fellow Virginian, Grayson apologized for a lengthy absence of messages, and asked for Madison’s forgiveness: I am afraid my silence since I came to this place has giv’n you some reason to suspect me to be impregnated with that vis inertiae which has been so often attributed to me: the only apology I have to make is that I wish’d to have something to write to you worth your acceptance. However as there would be some danger in risquing a farther delay, I shall give you what I have in the manner The New England delegates wish to sell the Continental land, rough as it runs; what I miss in quality I will make up in quantity. All our attentions here have been for some time turned towards the hostile preparations between the emperor and the Dutch; as it was thought the event might have a considerable influence on the affairs of the United States. The packet which arrived yesterday has brought different accounts of what is doing respecting this business; however I take the following to be nearly the truth of the case. [12] Grayson continued his correspondence to Madison on 28 May 1785: I did myself the pleasure some time since of writing to you; and I expect by this time you have recieved my letter; since which nothing has happened of any consequence except the passage of the Land Ordinance and the arrival of Don Diego de Gardoqui at Philadelphia: I inclose you a copy of the Ordinance: and if it is not the best in the world, it is I am confident the best that could be procured for the present: There

William Grayson (1740–1790)503 was such a variety of interests most of them imaginary, that I am only surprised it is not more defective. The Eastern people who before the revolution never had an idea of any quantity of Earth above a hundred acres, were for selling in large tracts of 30,ooo acres while the Southern people who formerly could scarce bring their imaginations down so low as to comprehend the meaning of a hundred acres of ground were for selling the whole territory in lots of a mile square. [13] While in the Continental Congress, Grayson argued that the Articles of Confederation were insufficient in maintaining a strong national government, and he called for their complete overhaul. Thus, it was not a surprise when Virginia sent Grayson, along what George Mason and Patrick Henry, as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention held in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787 to ultimately write a whole new constitution for the new nation. Grayson took part in many of the debates in the convention, ultimately opposing the document because it did not contain a Bill of Rights, an omission which nearly cost it the price of ratification in some states. only the promise by Madison and other drafters of the Constitution that a separate Bill of Rights would be sent to the states following the establishment of a national government gave it the needed impetus to win passage, despite opposition from people like William Grayson, who did not want the promise of a future Bill of Rights to come before the document’s ratification. Grayson argued his points decisively in debates in the convention in both Philadelphia and back home in Virginia, although his vote against its passage was in the minority. Historian F. Claiborne Johnston explained, “[I do not] suggest that the convention debates were without significance to the outcome. Clearly they were. Although most knowledgeable contemporary observers thought the federalists went into the convention with a narrow majority, virtually all acknowledged that the outcome hung in a delicate balance until the final vote. Anti-federalist William Grayson wrote in the early days of the convention that matters were ‘suspended by a hair,’ turning primarily, he thought, on the indecision of seven or eight delegates.” [14] For a time, Grayson believed that the points that he and Patrick Henry and George Mason were putting forward about a lack of a Bill of Rights were winning the day. Grayson wrote to Nathan Dane, who served in the Continental

Congress like Grayson, on 18 June 1788, “[I]t is absolutely certain that we have got 80 votes on our side which are inflexible, and that eight persons are still fluctuating and undecided.” [15] The Constitution, however, was ratified by the Virginia convention, a vote that was needed because ratification had to be unanimous, by all of the states. Despite his vociferous opposition to the ratification of the Constitution, with its passage a new bicameral national government was established, and on 2 December 1788, the Virginia General Assembly elected Grayson and Richard Henry Lee to fill the two opening spots in the new US Senate in 1789. The Freeman’s Oracle: Or, New-Hampshire Advertiser reported that “[o]n Friday last, agreeably to the Constitution, the Senate of the United States, was classed. The Classes were determined by Lot, and are as follows.” Grayson was listed in the “first class” of seven US senators, who would serve a term of just two years. [16] In that body, both men argued for a series of reforms to be included in the promised Bill of Rights, although many of their suggestions were set aside for those which could pass in all of the states. Grayson also demanded that the US Senate operation in open session, another piece of advice that his fellow senators refused to go along with. On 12 March 1790, while visiting his home in Virginia, William Grayson died suddenly, apparently of gout, an illness he had suffered from for many years. The Federal Gazette reported, “On Friday the 12th instant, died at this place, on his way to Congress, the Hon. William Grayson, Senator of the United States. His remains were this day attended from hence a numerous circle of acquaintance and deposited in the family vault at the Rev. Spence Graysons. By the death of this Gentleman, the public, as well as his own family, have sustained an irreparable loss. His abilities were equalled by few. His integrity surpassed by none.” [17] As noted, Grayson was interred in the Grayson family estate at Belle Air, near Dumfries. Under his will, all of his slaves who had been born after the signing of the Declaration of Independence in 1776 were to be freed by his family. In 1917, Grayson biographer Weston Bristow noted, “In appreciation of his great services

504

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

to the nation and to his State, in 1793, when the State was forming new counties in the Southwest, a portion of Wythe County was made into a separate county and named ‘after the distinguished’ Virginian, the Hon. William Grayson, soldier, statesman, and patriot.” [18]

Great Seal of the United States

[1] Grayson family tree, with information on the Grason/Grayson line, online at http://www.geni.com/people/Sen-WilliamGrayson-Anti-Fed-Virginia/6000000014188674367. See also Cynthia E. Snider (Jean M. Cook, ed.), “Bateman, Grayson, Boyett, Carter, and Cole Families and Their Kin as They Marked the Way” (Oakland, CA: Privately Printed, 1985). [2] Some genealogical information on the Grason and Grayson family in Deal, Kent, is also online, at http://www.generationsgoneby.com/tng/getperson.php?personID=I40419&tree=1. [3] Bristow, Weston, “William Grayson: A Study In Virginia Biography of the Eighteenth Century,” Richmond College Historical Papers, II:1 (June 1917), 74. [4] Grayson official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=G000403. [5] Entry for William Grayson, 28 September 1750, with the power of attorney in William Sutton, planter, in William Armstrong Crozier, ed. “Virginia County Records. Spotsylvania County Records, 1721-1800. Being Transcriptions from the Original Files at the County Court House of Wills, Deeds, Administrators’ and Guardians’ Bonds, Marriage Licenses, and Lists of Revolutionary Pensioners” (New York: Fox, Duffield & Co., 1905). [6] Coleman, Charles Washington, “The County Committees of 1774-’75 in Virginia,” The William and Mary Quarterly, V:4 (April 1897), 248. [7] “Colonel Elias Boudinot’s Notes of Two Conferences Held by the American and British Commissioners to Settle a General Cartel for the Exchange of Prisoners of War, 1778,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, XXIV: 3 (1900), 291. [8] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VII:lxvii. [9] Ibid., VIII:xcviii. [10] William Grayson to George Washington, 10 March 1785, in ibid., VIII:63-64. [11] William Grayson to George Washington, 15 April 1785, in ibid., VIII:95. [12] William Grayson to James Madison, 1 May 1785, in ibid., 109. [13] William Grayson to James Madison, 28 May 1785, in ibid., 129-30. [14] Johnson, F. Claiborne, Jr., “Federalist, Doubtful, and Antifederalist: A Note on the Virginia Convention of 1788,” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, XCVI:3 (July 1988), 333-44. [15] William Grayson to Nathan Dane, 18 June 1788, Nathan Dane Papers, 1782-1845, Manuscript Division, Library of Congress. [16] See “The Legislature of Virginia,” The Connecticut Courant, and Weekly Intelligencer [Hartford], 1 December 1788, 3, as well as “On Friday last,” The Freeman’s Oracle: Or, New-Hampshire Advertiser [Exeter], 26 May 1789, 3. [17] “On Friday the 12th instant,” The Federal Gazette, and Philadelphia Evening Post, 23 March 1790, 3. See also an obituary, albeit small, in The American Mercury [Hartford, Connecticut], 29 March 1790, 3. [18] Bristow, Weston, “William Grayson: A Study In Virginia Biography of the Eighteenth Century,” Richmond College Historical Papers, II:1 (June 1917), 117.

Among national regalia there are none more important than the Flag and Seal—one an emblem of living acts and constant aspirations, the other a guarantee of acts accomplished and of plighted faith. [1] An act of the Continental Congress established a national seal for the new American nation, known as The Great Seal of the United States. On 4 July 1776, the same day that the Continental Congress published the Declaration of Independence, the delegates enacted the following resolution: “Resolved, That Dr. [Benjamin] Franklin, Mr. J[ohn]. Adams and Mr. [Thomas] Jefferson be a committee to prepare a device for a Seal of the United States of America.” [2] With these 25 words—28 with the corrections added in by the author—the Continental Congress started the creation of the Great Seal of the United States. And, although not as important as other items of history, or of resolutions of the Continental Congress, the drawing up of a Great Seal for a nation newly broken away from its master, Great Britain, planted a seed into the minds of the men working to keep that independence going, either in the military or in the political realm. The delegates who named Franklin, Adams, and Jefferson to this committee knew that they were utilizing the same minds who had melded their ideas into the document that had become the Declaration of Independence. And while drawing up a Great Seal for the United States would not be even a tenth as hard as it would be laying out the reasons why the American colonies needed to break away from “Mother England” and declare independence, nevertheless the exercise was an important one. John Adams appears to be the first of the seal drafter to correspond and mention the work they were doing. In a short missive to Samuel Chase, on 9 July 1776, Adams wrote, “The Declaration was yesterday published and proclaimed from that awful stage in the State-house yard . . . As soon as an American seal is proposed, I conjecture the Declaration will be subscribed by all the members, which will give you the opportunity you wish for, of

Great Seal of the United States505 transmitting your name among the votaries of independence . . .” [3] Writing to his wife, Abigail Adams, on 14 August 1776, committee member John Adams described some of the early work towards the drafting of the Seal: I am put upon a committee, to prepare a device for a golden medal, to commemorate the surrender of Boston to the American arms, and upon another, to prepare devices for a great seal, for the confederated States . . . Doctor F. proposes a device for a seal. Moses lifting up his wand, and dividing the red sea, and Pharaoh in his chariot overwhelmed with the waters. This motto, ‘Rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God,’ Mr. Jefferson proposed, The children of Israel in the wilderness, led by a cloud by day, and a pillar of fire by night—and on the other side, Hengist and Horsa, the Saxon chiefs, from whom we claim the honor of being descended, and whose political principles and form of government we have assumed. I proposed, The choice of Hercules, as engraved by Gribelin, in some editions of Lord Shaftesbury’s works. The hero resting on his club. Virtue pointing to her rugged mountain on one hand, and persuading him to ascend. Sloth, glancing at her flowery paths of pleasure, wantonly reclining on the ground, displaying the charms both of her eloquence and person, to seduce him into vice. But this is too complicated a group for a seal or medal, and it is not original.” [4] Franklin, for his part, also took copious notes, including an idea for a large image in the middle of the seal: “Moses [is] standing on the Shore and extending his Hand over the Sea, thereby causing the same to overwhelm [the] Pharoah who is sitting in an open Chariot, a Crown on his Head and a Sword in his Hand. Rays from a Pillar of Fire in the Clouds reaching to Moses to express that he acts by [the] Command of the Diety,” while Jefferson, in addition to his motto, including a similar picture, that of a “Pharoah sitting in an open chariot, a crown on his head, and a sword in his hand passing into the divided waters of the Red Sea . . .” [5] A contemporary source demonstrates where Jefferson may have gotten the motto that he proposed. A notice in The Pennsylvania Evening Post in December 1775, months earlier, alluded to these exact words: “The following inscription was made out three years ago on the cannon near which the ashes of President [John] Bradshaw

were lodged, on the top of a high hill bear Martha Bray in Jamaica, to avoid the rage against the Regicides exhibited at the Restoration.” The saying read, in part, “O, reader, Pass not on till thou hast blessed his memory, and never—never forget, That Rebellion to Tyrants is Obedience to God.” [6] Historian Derek Davis explained, “The Congress believed what an emblem and national coat of arms were needed to give visible evidence of a sovereign nation and a free people with high aspirations and grand hopes for the future. The task proved to be far more difficult than anticipated.” [7] In the middle of a war, while trying to keep all of the colonies as part of a weak national government, raise troops, raise funds from various European nations to pay for soldiers’ salarys and ammunition and matériel, the thought of a “national seal” utilizing valuable resources did not appear to be a priority. Thus, it would take more than six years, with a total of fourteen men coming and going from the committee. Starting with the Franklin/Adams/Jefferson committee, formulated in July 1776, the initial ideas for a Great Seal were to have some sort of heraldic drawing as the main body of the Seal. None of the three men heading up the committee had any history with heraldry, so they employed an experienced article, the Swiss artist Pierre Eugène Du Simitière (also spelled among several sources as DuSimitière and Du Cimitière). A portrait painter and naturalist, born in Geneva, Switzerland, about 1736, Du Simitière came to the American colonies in 1765 having spent several years in the West Indies collecting live specimens for his paintings. In 1768 he was elected as the curator of the American Philosophical Society in Philadelphia, and he established a natural history museum in that city. He died in Philadelphia in 1784; his papers and papers and other personal items were then sold to pay creditors. While most is still missing, the Library of Congress and the Library Company of Philadelphia have been able to rescue some papers and paintings and they are now preserved in their collections. [8] The Committee presented their findings, their report, and some drawings by Du Simitière (all now apparently lost) to the delegates on 20 August 1776. The delegates as a whole, embracing the

506

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Declaration of Independence so elegantly, now turned their noses up at the idea of a Great Seal drafted by some of the same men who had penned the Declaration. The Continental Congress voted the same day that they received the Adams/ Franklin/Jefferson report to table it, await another potential committee in the future, and then did nothing. More important and pressing matters took precedence for the delegates, and the idea of a “great seal” sat, untouched, for four years.

indulged his imagination in descriptions, which, whether intended for romance or truth, it was difficult if not impossible to understand.” [10] This “Lovell Committee” did not work long: by 10 May 1780 it had returned with its final report, having had the input of former member of the Continental Congress Francis Hopkinson, himself an expert in heraldry:

During this period, diplomats overseas, representing the new nation, complained that he had to issue official documents of the government of the United States without an official seal. When the American Minister to France, Silas Deane, wrote bitter diplomatic notes to the Congress, a movement arose to change the situation. On 13 January 1777, Congress named a committee, headed by William Ellery if Rhode Island, to formulate a “Report on a Device for a [P]ublic [S]eal,” but Ellery did little work on it, and the committee did not issue a report. [9] The issue would not be taken back up until March 1780. In 1780, the Continental Congress formed a second committee, composed of chairman James Lovell of Massachusetts, John Morin Scott of Virginia, and William Churchill Houston of New Jersey, to draft a “great seal,” and they were given the notes and drawings of the Adams/Franklin/Jefferson Committee to use in their own deliberations. While Lovell was an important member of Congress—he had sat in the body since 1776, following his capture by British troops at the battle of Bunker Hill and his being exchanged—but most of his work had dealt with being a member of the Committee of Foreign Affairs, not with domestic matters. Respected for the service he had given to the American cause, nevertheless he was not held in the same high regard as, say, other delegates were. Historian James T. Austin, the biographer of fellow Massachusetts delegate to the Continental Congress Elbridge Gerry, wrote of Lowell in 1829, “For several years he had been a member of congress, and although his patriotism and zeal were without suspicion, there were not wanting those who were unable to reconcile certain eccentricities of manner and language with a perfect sanity of mind. Exact and regular, so far as business was concerned, methodical and punctilious in the discharge of it, he often

“The Comittee [sic] to whom was referred on the 25th of March last the report of a former Comittee [sic] on the Device of a Great Seal for the United States in Congress assembled beg Leave to report the following Description. The Seal [is] to be 3 Inches in Diametre[.] [sic] On one Side the Arms of the United States, as follows; The Shield charged on the Field Azure with 13 diagonal Stripes[,] alternate rouge and argent— Supporters; dexter, a warriour [sic] holding a Sword; sinister, a Figure, representing Peace[,] bearing an Olive Branch—The Crest—a radiant constellation of 13 Stars—The motto Bello vel Paci; The Legend round the Atchievement—The great Seal of the United States of America[.] On the reverse, The Figure of Liberty[,] seated in a Chair holding the Staff and Cap—The motto virtute peren nis—underneath, MDCCLXXVI. A Drawing of the Seal is annexed – May 10th 1780 – A Miniature of the Face of the great Seal to be prepared of Half the Diametre [sic], to be affixed as the less Seal of the United States.” [11] Despite this work, the final second design did not meet the expectations of the delegates, and this report, too, was tabled. Historian Elmer Plischke wrote, “Although is did not yet have a Great Seal, in January 1782 Congress passed a resolution empowering the Secretary of Congress [Charles Thomson] ‘to keep the public seal, and cause the same to be affixed to every act, ordinance or paper, which Congress shall direct.’” [12] Then, four months after giving Thomson those powers, the delegates established a third committee to draw up a Great Seal. This time, there would be no chairman, but three members: Arthur Middleton of South Carolina, Elias

Great Seal of the United States507 Boudinot of New Jersey, and John Rutledge of South Carolina, and these men selected William Barton (1754-1817), a Pennsylvania attorney who had an interest in heraldry, as the man to put the committee’s ideas into a draft report, although, as it turned out, Barton and Charles Thomson did most of the work with little if any input from the actual committee members. Historian Milton Rubincam wrote in 1945, “In May 1782 William Barton was called into consultation. In those days every cultured family possessed a knowledge of heraldry, and young Barton’s fame as an heraldic authority was already well established. Barton submitted two designs for the seal; in the second, only the reverse was adopted, for the committee was not satisfied with the obverse he had drawn. In collaboration with [Secretary of Congress] Charles Thomson, he worked out the design until it met with general satisfaction. Their report, in Barton’s handwriting and bearing Thomson’s endorsement, ‘Mr. Barton’s improvement on the Secretary’s device,’ is entitled: ‘Device for an Armorial Achievement for the United States of North America, blazoned agreeably to the Laws of Heraldry-proposed by Wm. Barton, A.M.’” This time, through, the delegates gave the report good notice, noticing that, for the first time, entirely new ideas were not the totality of the drafts, but had some original plans mixed with the drawings from all three previous committees dating back to the Adams/Franklin/Jefferson Committee. On 20 June 1782, the Continental Congress voted to adopt the Barton-Thomson seal; four days later, Thomson wrote to Barton, “I enclose you a copy of the device by which you have displayed your skill in heraldic science, and which meets with general approbation.” [13] Historian Gaillard Hunt, an expert on the history of the United States Department of State and American foreign policy, explained, “This report originated from two sources, Thomson and Barton, and the agency of each is clearly defined. The distinction of producing the arms of the United States can not justly be accorded wholly to either, but belongs wholly to both, with the larger share of distinction to the Secretary, Charles Thomson.” [14] In his letter to Barton, 24 June 1782, Thomson gave a line-by-line description of the Seal as it had been adopted by the Continental Congress, a piece of correspondence that has been rarely reprinted, and is seen here in its entirety:

Remarks on the Device of the Seal of the United States. The escutcheon is composed of the chief and pale, the two most honorable ordinaries. The thirteen pieces [sic] represent the several States in the Union, all joined in one solid compact, entire, supporting a chief which unites the whole and represents Congress. The motto alludes to this union. The pales in the arms are kept closely united by the chief, and depend on that union and the strength resulting from it for support, to denote the confederacy of the United States and the preservation of their union through Congress. The colors of the pales are those used in the flag of the United States of America. White signifies purity and innocence; Red hardiness and valour, and Blue, the colour of the chief, signifies vigilance, perseverance and justice. The olive branch and arrows denote the power of peace and war which is exclusively vested in Congress. The crest or constellation denotes a new State taking its place and rank among other sovereign powers. The escutcheon is borne on the breast of an American eagle, with out any other supporter, to denote that the United States of America ought to rely on their own virtue. The pyramid on the reverse signifies strength and duration. The eye over it, and the motto “Annuit cœptis”—It prospers our endeavours—alludes to the many signal interpositions of Providence in favour of the American cause. The date underneath is that of the Declaration of Independence, and the words under it signify the beginning of the new American Era, which commences from the date. The Device for an Armorial Achievement and Reverse of a Great Seal for the United States in Congress assembled, is as follows: Arms.—Paleway of thirteen pieces Argent and Gules. A chief Azure; The Escutcheon on the breast of the American bald Eagle displayed proper, holding in his dexter Talon an olive branch and in his sinister a bundle of thirteen arrows, all proper, and in*his beak a scroll inscribed with this motto “E pluribus unum.”

508

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

For the crest.—Over the head of the Eagle, which appears above the Escutcheon, a glory, or, breaking through a cloud, proper, and surrounding thirteen stars forming a constellation, argent, on an azure field.

Historian Milo Naeve explained how the Great Seal impacted the history of early America:

Reverse.—A Pyramid unfinished. In the Zenith an eye in a triangle surrounded with a Glory, proper. Over the eye these words “Annuit cœptis.” On the base of the Pyramid the numerical letters M.D.C.C.L.X.X.VI. and under neath the following motto—“Novus ordo saeclorum.” Sir,—I am much obliged for the perusal of the elements of Heraldry which I now return. I have just dipt into it so far as to be satisfied that it may afford a fund of entertainment and may be applied by a State to useful purposes. I am much obliged for your very valuable present of Fortescue “De Laudibus Legum Angliæ,” and shall be happy to have it in my power to make a suitable return. I enclose a copy of the Device by which you have displayed your skill in heraldic science, and which meets with general approbation. I am, sir, your obedient humble servant, (Signed) Chas. Thomson. June 24, 1782 [15] The Great Seal was utilized by the new nation on official documents until the Continental Congress was dissolved in March 1789; by an Act of Congress of 15 September 1789, titled “An Act to provide for the safe keeping of the Acts, Records, and Seal of the United States, and for other purposes,” the possession and control of the original Great Seal was given into the custody of the United States Department of State, which uses it on official documents of state, passports, and other documents needing a national seal to conduct business. It has become obvious to many historians that religion played a large role in the formation and drafting of the Great Seal, most notably Freemasonry. Historians Michael Glenn Maness explained, “The Great Seal of the US uses several Freemasonry symbols and is absent of Christian symbols, save the general theistic words, ‘In God We Trust’ . . . Thomson translated the Bible from Greek and, if the others did not, he would have certainly known how to incorporate Christian symbols instead of masonic symbols.” [16]

The Continental Congress adopted the Great Seal of the United States on 20 June 1782, and the [F]irst Congress endorsed it on 15 September 1789. Craftsmen and their patrons soon placed it everywhere, from furniture in sophisticated parlors to sternboards on ships at sea. With equal ease, it became a lively two-dimensional pattern or a spirited threedimensional form. Flexibility in rendering the Seal and the background in Western culture of the eagle, the main visual element in it, supported the immediate popularity of the new symbol. A just pride in the new nation long made it a part of daily life. During the Federal Period, the Seal and the eagle from it occur with greater frequency than in any other period as costly embellishments on sophisticated furnishings. Designs reached a wider audience on many objects in the I820’s through new methods of reproducing patterns inexpensively. By the close of the century, the Seal had all but disappeared in popular imagery, but the eagle survived, even among artists without formal training. [17]

[1] Totten, Charles Adiel Lewis, “The Seal of History. Our Inheritance in The Great Seal of ‘Manasseh.’ The United States of America, its History and Heraldry; and Its Signification Unto ‘The Great People’ Thus Sealed” (New Haven, CT: The Our Race Publishing Company; two volumes, 1897), I:3. [2] Ford, Worthington C., ed., “Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789. Edited from the Original Records in the Library of Congress by Worthington Chauncey Ford, Chief, Division of Manuscripts” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; 34 volumes, 1904-37), V:517-18. [3] John Adams to Samuel Chase, 9 July 1776, in Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), II:8. [4] John Adams to Abigail Adams, 14 August 1776, in ibid., II:49-50. [5] Worthington C. Ford, ed., “Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789. Edited from the Original Records in the Library of Congress by Worthington Chauncey Ford, Chief, Division of Manuscripts” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; 34 volumes, 1904-37), V:690. [6] “The following inscription,” The Pennsylvania Evening Post [Philadelphia], 14 December 1775, 575. Bradshaw was the judge over the trial of King Charles I of England, executed by beheading in January 1649. All of those who participated in the trial, including Bradshaw, were called “Regicides,” or murderers of the King. [7] Davis, Derek H., “Religion and The Continental Congress, 1774-1789: Contributions to Original Intent” (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2000), 137-38. [8] For more information, see “Pierre Eugène Du Simitière: His American Museum, 200 Years After. An Exhibition at the The Library Company of Philadelphia, 1314 Locust Street, Philadelphia, Pa. July to October 1985” (Philadelphia: The Library Company of

Cyrus Griffin (1748–1810)509 Philadelphia, 1985), as well as William John Potts, “Du Simitiere, Artist, Antiquary, and Naturalist, Projector of the First American Museum, with Some Extracts from His Note-Book,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, XIII:3 (October 1889), 341-75. [9] See Ford, ed., “Journals of the Continental Congress, 17741789,” op. cit., VII:59. [10] Austin, James Trecothick. The Life of Elbridge Gerry, with Contemporary Letters to the Close of the American Revolution” (Boston: Wells and Lilly—Court Street; two volumes, 1829), I:337. [11] Text of the Lovell Committee report in Gaillard Hunt, “The History of the Seal of the United States” (Washington, DC: Department of State, 1909), 19-20. [12] Plischke, Elmer “US Department of State: A Reference History” (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 1999), 30. [13] Rubincam, Milton, “A Memoir of the Life of William Barton, A.M. (1754-1817),” Pennsylvania History, XII:3 (July 1945), 186-87. [14] Hunt, op. cit., 37. [15] “Seal of the United States,” Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, IX (1866, 351-52. [16] Maness, Michael Glenn, “Character Counts: Freemasonry Is a National Treasure and a Source of Our Founders’ Constitutional Original Intent” (Bloomington, IN: AuthorHouse, 2010), 324. [17] Naeve, Milo M., “American Art and the Great Seal,” Bulletin of the Art Institute of Chicago, LXX:4 (July-August 1976), 2-12.

Cyrus Griffin (1748–1810)

One of the leaders of the Continental Congress, Cyrus Griffin rose to become the president of that body in 1788. He was born in Farnham Parish, in Richmond County, Virginia, on 16 July 1748, the fourth son of LeRoy Griffin, a tobacco

farmer, and his wife Mary Anne Bertrand. Some sources list Griffin’s mother simply as “Bertrand” [1] or “Mary Ann Bertrand” [2]. While most sources list Griffin’s place of birth as Virginia, some state that the actual place was in England. In one leading genealogical source, it is reported that “Griffin . . . was a member of the Virginia legislature and [a] delegate to Congress from 1778-81. He was born in England.” [Author’s italics.] [3] Other works, however, report that Griffin was indeed born in Virginia, although that colony was, at that time, a part of England, which may account for the confusion. In fact, the state of Virginia has erected a sign, titled “Cyrus Griffin’s Birthplace,” near the actual spot where his birth home once sat, which reads, in part, “Four and a half miles southwest was born Cyrus Griffin [on] July 16, 1748 . . .” Of his genealogical background, historian Cornelia Fraunces Taylor explained in 1879, “Cyrus Griffin was descended from an old Welsh family, dating as far back in history as the last king of Wales, Llewllyn Griffin, who fell in battle against Edward I of England, in 1282, after a reign of 28 years.” Taylor also states that Mary Anne Griffin was the “granddaughter of a Huguenot gentleman who fled from France during the reign of Louis XIV.” [4] An article in the American Historical Register in July 1895 reported that “[t]he Griffin family, of Virginia, was founded by Thomas Griffin, who took up various grants of land, from 1651, on the Rappahannock river [sic] in Virginia. Thomas and his brother Samuel came to America from Wales. They left their eldest brother in Wales, who possessed an estate of ₤600 sterling per annum. He died without issue, and Samuel went back to Wales to look after the estate. He died before his business was finished. Thomas then sent over an agent to collect the revenue of the estate. Thomas Griffin never left Virginia. His wife’s maiden name is not known.” [5] Cyrus Griffin’s early education came when he was sent to England. His father having died when he was a child, he came into a portion of his father’s estate when he turned 18, which financed his education abroad. He studied the law at the University of Edinburgh, and then at the Middle Temple in London, with the Middle Temple being one of the four Courts of Inn of the famed English legal system. In 1770, he had

510

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

a relationship with Lady Christina Stuart (some sources spell it as “Stewart”), the eldest daughter of Charles Stuart, the Sixth Earl of Traquair (16991779), a member of one of the noble families of Scotland. (Their hunting lodge, at Traquair in Scotland, is one of the oldest structures still standing in Scotland.) Unable to get Christina’s father to consent to the relationship—Griffin was an Episcopalian, while the Stuarts were Roman Catholic—the couple eloped and ran off together to London, where Griffin continued his legal studies. In 1771, the couple had their first child, a son, John Griffin, who later became a judge of the Indiana Superior Courts; the couple would later have five additional children—a total of four sons and two daughters, including a son, Cyrus Griffin, Jr., who died in 1787 while his father was in the Continental Congress. In 1774, Griffin left England for Virginia to begin his law practice, leaving his wife and infant son behind. The following year, he returned to England, in the midst of fighting between the British army and the American colonies, to try to gain some money from the estate of his father-in-law, which he was prohibited from gaining. Over the next several years, through Griffin’s friend Benjamin Franklin acting as an intermediary, Charles Stuart and his daughter, who had returned with Griffin to America in 1775, reconciled, just prior to his death.

under consideration; such determination to be sent in writing upon the next morning, and by a special Officer, to the aforesaid delegates sitting to receive the same; the delegates to vote by a majority whether the determination of the Commissioners will be satisfactory.

Despite his wife’s family being on the “other side” of the American Revolution, and his own background, Griffin sided with the patriot cause, although evidence shows that he desired to find a route of reconciliation between London and her colonies even after open warfare had broken out. In a letter discovered many years after his death, which he penned in December 1775, Griffin wrote of his ideas to end the conflict: That the Commissioners be instructed to meet either the whole or any number of those men who compose the Congress at any particular place except Philadelphia. That when so met and Ceremonies adjusted they shall begin from the year 1763 and discuss each separate grievance complained of by America. That when any point is fully debated the Meeting shall adjourn to the next day; in the meantime the Commissioners are to determine with themselves how far or whether they shall totally admit the hardship

That if there should be any points upon which The Commissioners and Dele- gates cannot perfectly agree those points may be referred to the wisdom of the next parliament, and the Colonies to be heard by Counsel in the said parliament. That when all matters are finished at this united convention the Members of the Congress shall return to Philadelphia and the said Congress shall instantly dissolve themselves. In the end, Griffin’s plan, delivered to a friend, Lord Dartmouth, in London, went nowhere. [6] Griffin would soon rise to serve as a member of the Virginia House of Delegates in 1777, and later, in 1786 and 1787. On 29 May 1778, Griffin was elected to a seat in the Continental Congress, attending sessions during that year from 19 August to about 21 October, and about 23 December to 31 December 1778. [7] One letter from Griffin during this period stands out: In a missive to Thomas Jefferson, 6 October 1778, Griffin penned: You will be good enough my dear Sir, to excuse this Letter. There are but few Men indeed with whom I could wish to be thus candid. It appears to me that Congress will shortly be dissolved. If the large Emissions of Money, and visionary Expeditions do not bring forth our destruction, I greatly fear that Party will complete the matter. Congress exhibit not more than two or three Members actuated by Patriotism. Great questions are carried every day in favor of the Eastward, and to the prejudice of the southern states. Great questions are now upon the Carpet and if determined in the affirmative will do excessive damage to Virginia and Maryland particularly—at present we are under secrecy. . . . [P]erhaps in a little time I shall think myself obliged to quit Congress. I will not sit in a house whose proceedings I cannot assent to with honor, nor is it in my abilities to oppose them with success. I value most what our great Politicians value least. Congress are at present a Government of Men. It would astonish you to think how all affairs proceed upon the interested Principle: Members prostituting their votes in expectation of mutual assistance upon

Cyrus Griffin (1748–1810)511 favorite Points. I am apprehensive that in get[t]ing free from oppression in one quarter we are likely to establish it in another; by avoiding one set of Plunderers we are certain to fall into the clutches of a still more dangerous set. I am sorry our good Friend Harvey [referring to John Harvie of Virginia] is about to leave Congress; he is a valuable man in times like the present, a man of great Virtue and boldness of Spirit. If the Land office should be established, put him at the head of it; his abilities and honesty will be highly necessary in that Employment . . .  [8] Griffin did not resign his seat; in fact, he was reelected on 18 June 1779, “for one year from the first Monday in November next.” He attended sessions that year from 1 January to 30 July, and 25 August to 31 December 1779. [9] In several letters, he told of the workings in Congress; however, in one letter to Benjamin Franklin, September 1779, he thanked the Pennsylvanian for his role in bringing messages to the late Earl of Traquair and reconciliating with his wife. He then wrote to Franklin, “no doubt you were astonished how any part of Congress should wish that all the Commissioners might be recalled to Philadelphia: it was for the purpose of explaining those unhappy dissentions and animosities which have arisen among them; and tho yourself would have left Europe at a most critical period, yet returning to France with accumulated honors after receiving the blessings of America and convincing Congress in what path to walk upon this unhappy and most disgraceful business, perhaps the whole matter impartially considered the united States would have found great benefit if such a plan had taken place.” [10] To Benjamin Harrison, the Speaker of the Virginia House of Delegates, Griffin complained about being the only representative from Virginia at certain times in the Continental Congress: “am at present alone in this important delegation; perhaps abundantly more important than my Constituents suppose. a majority of states in Congress shew a manifest inclination to lessen the weight of Virginia in the general scale of the union; and the Continental Credit is already upon the very brink of ruin, at such a period the assembly are satisfied that my abilities and Influence are greatly inadequate to represent so vast a Country as Virginia, even upon the supposition I had the power of voting in Congress. I feel exceedingly for the rights of

my Country, and the Welfare of America, and I hope to be excused when I express some degree of astonishment that at least three Members are not sent forward to Philadelphia, and Members too of the first abilities and character.” [11] Although few sources take note of the fact, Griffin attended sessions of the Continental Congress from 1 January to about 13 June 1780, after which he resigned. The exact date of his resignation is not known; however, his successor, Theodorick Bland, was elected on 21 June 1780 “until the first Monday in November next in the room of Cyrus Griffin who hath resigned.” [12] In these final months of his service, Griffin continued his correspondence, specifically with Thomas Jefferson; in a letter of 9 June 1780, he warned Jefferson of a crisis to gather troops to fight the war against England: “a Committee of Congress who have been many weeks at head quarters with very extensive powers, in concurrence with G. Washington and the marquis de La Fayette [sic], think proper to call upon the different states for a considerable quantity of specific supplies in addition to a former resolution of Congress, and also for 22,000 militia immediately to join the northern army, but whether Congress will send forth the requisitions to the state of Virginia I cannot determine, as the neighboring states will demand your utmost exertions.” [13] In his final letter as a member of Congress, again to Jefferson, Griffin wrote of his work in Philadelphia: “As this will perhaps—be the last letter I shall have the honor of writing your excellency in my official capacity, I hope to obtain the Governor’s approbation that while alone and at the head of the Delegation to Congress I have done my part in making those representations and giving that Intelligence from time to time, which the executive ought constantly to be informed of. I do not recollect any one matter of importance that was omitted in my communications to your excellency—and I confess as an Individual that I felt a pride and pleasure in corresponding with a great character, exclusive of that sacred Duty which my honorable appointment demanded of me.” [14] Although he had clashed with the more radical element in the Continental Congress from Virginia, led by Richard Henry Lee, just prior to his resignation Griffin had been named by the Continental Congress as the new chief judge

512

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

of the Court of Appeals in Cases of Capture, which adjudged so-called “prize” cases, those involving ships and cargo seized during the course of the war; the appeals court would be a “supreme court” over all of the state courts which heard these cases. Griffin would serve on this court longer than anyone else in its short history, remaining until the Continental Congress ended its jurisdiction in 1787. In the docket of this Federal Court of Appeals for the August session, 1781, two prize cases, involving ships seized during war, came before the court: these were Miller, et al. v. The Ship Resolution, and Ingersoll, Claimant, and Miller et al. v. The Cargo of the Ship Resolution, and O’Brien[,] Claimant. As noted in the case transcript, “[t] hese were Appeals from the Admiralty Court of Pennsylvania, where the ship had been acquitted and the Cargo condemned. After argument by Wilcox, Lewis and Sergeant, for the Appelants, and Morris and Wilson for the Appellees, the opinion and judgment of the Court (comprising a statement of all the facts and document material to the case) were delivered by Cyrus Griffin, the presiding Commissioner . . .” [15]

the hon[orable] minister plenipotentiary of France: Resolved, That the secretary [sic] for foreign affairs inform the minister of France, that Congress learn with great pleasure that the steps taken by Congress and the respective states, their constituents, in opposition to the attempts of the British court to bring about a partial negociation [sic], has been satisfactory to his most Christian majesty: that his majesty’s conduct, in the progress of the negociations [sic] commenced in Europe, as it has been communicated to Congress, is sufficient to inspire a just abhorrence of every act derogatory to the principles of the alliance, and serves to fortify the resolutions which his repeated acts of friendship, and a sense of their own honor and dignity, had dictated to the United States in Congress assembled, and the states they represent.

In 1782, the Continental Congress formed a committee of learned colleagues to listen to the cases of Pennsylvania and Connecticut and decide on the proper boundary between the two states in the Wyoming Valley. The newspaper The Freeman’s Journal: Or, The North-American Intelligencer of Philadelphia reported, “After some objections made in Congress to issuing the commission to the judges certified by the parties to have been mutually agreed on, it passed under the great seal of the United States, to the honourable William Whipple of New Hampshire, Welcome Arnold of Rhode Island, David Brearly, chief justice of New Jersey, William Churchill Houston, of the same state, Cyrus Griffin, of Virginia, one of the judges of the court of appeals for the trial of captures on the high seas, Thomas Nelson, and Joseph Jones, esquires of the same state; and the 12th of November was appointed for the commencement of the trial.” [16] At the same time, a notation in the Journals of the Continental Congress for 3 January 1783 stated that: [o]n the report of the secretary [sic] for foreign affairs, to whom was referred a communication from

The official communication to the French King was signed by delegates William Whipple, Welcome Arnold, William Churchill Houston, David Brearly, and Cyrus Griffin. [17] In another case originally heard before a Rhode Island court and then appealed, in the case of The Speedwell, George Dennison, Master, it is noted that Griffin is again listed as sitting as a member of the Court of Appeals in Cases of Capture, held in Philadelphia in 1784. His signature, along with that of fellow court members George Read and John Lowell, appears on the final decree that was issued on 24 May 1784. [18] In 1783, Griffin was defeated when he ran for a seat in the Continental Congress, and, the following year and in 1786, he was also defeated for a seat on the Virginia Executive Council. In 1786, he did win a seat in the Virginia House of Delegates, where he sat until January 1787. On 23 October 1787, just works after the new US Constitution had been drafted and signed, submitted to the states for their unanimous ratification, Griffin was once again elected to a seat in the Continental Congress. The body would go out of existence with the ratification of the Constitution, to be succeeded by a bicameral legislature, but in the final 16 months of its existence Griffin attended sessions on 20 November 1787, and then from 21 January to 15 November 1788. [19] On 22 January 1788, less than a year before the Continental Congress would go out of existence, Cyrus Griffin was elected as the 15th and final president of the Continental Congress. [20] Arthur St. Clair, a

Cyrus Griffin (1748–1810)513 delegate from Pennsylvania, had been elected President on 2 February 1787, but, as a military man and not a politician, he did not fit in well, as his presidency was an abject failure; he later wrote to a friend explaining why he took the position despite his obvious reservations: “I hold that no man has a right to withhold his services when his country needs them . . . be the sacrifice ever so great, it must be yielded upon the altar of patriotism.” Griffin wrote to Thomas FitzSimons of Pennsylvania to tell him of his new duties as the leader of the Continental Congress: “The congratulations of a worthy man and so friendly a mind must always be acceptable to a heart of sensibility. I thank you for them, and yet I feel no addition of real satisfaction in being thus elevated, but truly and with sincerity I feel the reverse. My family are the great object I have in contemplation, and if this promotion in its consequences shall redound to the advantage of my children my utmost wishes will be accomplished. So far as private considerations are permitted to operate-at all times and upon all occasions I would sacrifice my ease to their emolument, and as to the public, it is not in my power to do any essential services, but I will discharge my duty with honesty and to the best of my abilities.” [21] Delegate Samuel Alleyne Otis, in a letter to the Speaker of the Massachusetts state House of Representatives, James Warren, wrote of Griffin’s election, “Every good Citizen feels himself hurt by the indignities his Country is liable to in this humiliating predicament both at home and abroad. Under these circumstances however Congress tho’t it their duty at least to preserve the forms, and proceeded to the election of Cyrus Griffin Esq. their President on 22d Jany., but being only seven states represented, the more important business is necessarily defered [sic].” [22] Unlike other delegates to the Continental Congress as well as leading politicians in Virginia and elsewhere, Griffin did not serve as a member of the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia which drafted the US Constitution in the summer of 1787, nor did he serve in the Virginia ratifying convention that gave the document its approval. The American Magazine, a popular literary journal published in the 18th century, reported in its edition of

November 1788, “The Legislature of Virginia have appointed the following gentlemen to represent that Commonwealth in the Congress of the United States for one year from the first instant, viz. Cyrus Griffin, John Brown, James Madison, jun. John Dawson, and Mann Page, Esquires. They have also appointed the Hon. Richard Henry Lee and William Grayson, Esquires, the Representatives of that Commonwealth in the Senate of the United States.” [23] As well in 1788, it remains barely reported that Griffin was a candidate for a seat in the new US House of Representatives under the new Constitution. According to historians Merrill Jensen, Gordon Denboer, and Robert A. Becker, Griffin was a candidate for represent from District 7 in Virginia. However, it is apparent that Griffin was not elected, but the results in this specific election are not revealed by this source. [24] Griffin was elected in December 1788 as a member of the Virginia Executive Council; however, before he could take his seat, the following August he was appointed by the new President of the United States, George Washington, to a three-man commission established to negotiate treaties with the Creek nation of Native Americans. Osborne’s New-Hampshire Spy, a newspaper in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, stated, “The President of the United States has been please to nominate Cyrus Griffin, and David Humphreys, Esqrs. to be commissioners for negociating [sic] a treaty with the Southern Indians, in addition to Benjamin Lincoln, Esq. appointed for that purpose on Thursday last. And the Senate of the United States[,] taking the same into consideration, have been pleased to advise and consent thereto.” [25] In November, the newspaper Gazette of the United States of Philadelphia reported, “On Tuesday evening last arrived at this place [Augusta, Georgia], the Hon. Benjamin Lincoln, Cyrus Griffin, and David Humphreys, Esq’ rs, Commissioners Plenipotentiary for negociating treaties with the Indian tribes south of the Ohio [River], on their way to the Rock Landing, to conclude the treaty with the Creeks. After some communications with the executive, they took an early dinner with his Honor the Governor, and proceeded about three o’clock yesterday afternoon. From appointments so respectable and confidential, we have the best sounded hopes of a substantial

514

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

and just peace, and we feel it as a favorable feature already impressing in the dawnings of the new government.” [26]

As stated, Griffin remained on the district court until his death. In 1807, it was reported that Griffin attended, and may have officiated over, the trial for treason of Vice President Aaron Burr. [28] He also did officiate over the trial for libel of newspaper editor James T. Callendar.

Following the negotiation mission, Washington rewarded Griffin by naming him as a federal judge for the court of the district of Virginia. Griffin had wanted to succeed the Thomas Jefferson, leaving the post of US ambassador to France, but the president did not feel that Griffin, an attorney, was a proper candidate for such an office. This judicial office became Griffin’s final service to his nation, one in which he served for nearly 20 years until his death. One of the cases that Griffin heard on this court ultimately went to the US Supreme Court, as Ware v. Hylton (3 Dallas [3 US] 199 [1796]), a case from Virginia that involved a debt owed by a Virginia resident to an Englishman, collected under the Treaty of Paris (1783), which ended the American Revolution; the justices on the US Supreme Court eventually held that the Virginia law under which the debt had been satisfied was unconstitutional, establishing the landmark legal doctrine that allows the high court to uphold or invalidate state laws based on the US Constitution. In 1796, Griffin, still sitting as a commissioner of the land boundary dispute between Pennsylvania and Connecticut, released a letter regarding the controversy, which was published in many national newspapers. In the open letter to Barnabas Bidwell of Stockbridge, Connecticut, Griffin explained why the commission came down on the side of Pennsylvania: “Being upon a tour of duty in the line of my office, I had not the pleasure of reading your letter until yesterday. Before the Commissioners determined that important con[t]est between Pennsylvania and Connecticut, it was agreed, 1st. That the reasons of the determination should never be given. 2nd. That the minority should concede the determination as the unanimous opinion of the Court. No doubt sufficient reasons appeared to use to adopt these preliminary points: Whether strictly justifiable or at present would be adopted, I will not unde[r]take to say. Perhaps a different course might be pursued; but this I will unde[r]take to say, that no court ever met and decided a great question, less subject to partiality or corruption, or in which more candor and freedom of debate were exercised.”

Griffin was in Yorktown, Virginia, on 14 December 1810 when he died at the age of 62. The Federal Republican, a newspaper published in Baltimore, Maryland, stated, “He was a gentleman highly respected for his eminent virtues, his integrity, and independence. He has filled many public appointments, and always with honor to himself, and with advantage to the country.” [29] Griffin was laid to rest next to his wife, who had predeceased him in 1807, in the Bruton Churchyard in Williamsburg, Virginia. Both lie in a nondescript, unmarked tomb. See also: Presidents of the Continental Congress

[1] For instance, see Gaspare J. Saladino, “Griffin, Cyrus” in John A. Garraty and Mark C. Carnes, gen. eds., “American National Biography” (New York: Oxford University Press; 24 volumes, 1999), IX:589-90. [2] Gordon, Armistead Churchill, Jr., “Griffin, Cyrus” in Allen Johnson, et al., “Dictionary of American Biography” (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons; eleven volumes and five supplements, 1958-77), VII:618-19. [3] See Ellen Dudley Clarke, Historian General, “Lineage Book. National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution” (Washington, DC: Daughters of the American Revolution, 1919), XLVIII (volume 1904), 165. [4] Taylor, Cornelia Frances, “Cyrus Griffin, Last President of the Continental Congress,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, III:3 (1879), 317-18. [5] “Some Colonial Families: Griffin of Virginia,” American Historical Register, II (July 1895), 1233. [6] Rorer, Henry S., “Cyrus Griffin’s Plan of Reconciliation with the American Colonies,” The Journal of Southern History, V:1 (February 1939), 99. [7] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), III:lxi. [8] Cyrus Griffin to Thomas Jefferson, 6 October 1778, in ibid., III:444-45. [9] Ibid., IV:lxiv. [10] Griffin to Benjamin Franklin, September 1779, in ibid., IV:463-64. [11] Griffin to Benjamin Harrison, 9 November 1779, in ibid., IV:512-13. [12] Information on Griffin and Bland and their dates of service in ibid., V:lxiv.

James Gunn (1753–1801)515 [13] Griffin to Thomas Jefferson, 9 June 1780, in ibid., V:201. [14] Griffin to Thomas Jefferson, 13 June 1780, in ibid., V:214. [15] See Miller et al. v. The Ship Resolution, and Ingersoll, Claimant, and Miller, et al., v. The Cargo of the Ship Resolution, and O’Brien, Claimant, heard in the Federal Court of Appeals, August 1781 session, in Alexander James Dallas, “Reports of Cases Ruled and Adjudged in the Courts of Pennsylvania, Before and Since the Revolution: by A.J. Dallas, Esquire” (Philadelphia: Printed for the Reporter, by T. Bradford, 1790), 7. [16] See The Freeman’s Journal: Or, The North-American Intelligencer [Philadelphia], 22 January 1783, 2. [17] “Journals of Congress: Containing their Proceedings from November 2, 1782, to November 1, 1783. Published by Authority. Volume VIII” (Philadelphia: From Folwell’s Press, 1800), 43-44. [18] Great Britain, Lords Commissioners of Appeals in Prize Cases, “Before the Most Noble and Right Honourable the Lords Commissioners of Appeals in Prize Causes. The Brigantine Triumph, Benjamin Northam, Master. Additional Appendix to the Appellants’ Case” (London: No Publisher, 1786?), 3-4. [19] Burnett, op. cit., VIII:xcviii. [20] Griffin’s election as president even got the notice of British newspapers; for instance, see The World [London], 24 May 1788, 3. [21] Griffin to Thomas FitzSimons, 18 February 1788, in ibid., VIII:699-700. [22] Samuel Alleyne Otis to James Warren, 6 February 1788, in ibid., VIII:696, [23] The American Magazine, Containing a Miscellaneous Collection of Original and Other Valuable Essays, in Prose and Verse, And Calculated both for Instruction and Amusement (November 1788), 875-76. [24] Denboer, Gordon, ed., “Documentary History of the First Federal Elections, 1788-1790” (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press; four volumes, 1976), II:413. [25] Osborne’s New-Hampshire Spy [Portsmouth], 29 August 1789, 141. [26] “Extract of a letter from Augusta, Sept. 19,” Gazette of the United States [Philadelphia], 11 November 1789, 242. [27] See “Copy of a Letter, from the honorable Cyrus Griffin,” Norwich Packet [Connecticut], 19 January 1797, 3. [28] For instance, see “Friday, August 7, 1807,” The Albany Register [New York], 18 August 1807, 2, which clearly stated that at the trial were “[p]resent the Chief Justice of the United States, and Cyrus Griffin, judge of the district of Virginia.” [29] “Died, on Friday last at York,” The Federal Republican [Baltimore, Maryland], 25 December 1810, 3. Other obituaries, as well as biographies of Griffin, report that he died not in York, but in Yorktown.

Second Earl of Guilford (1732–1792) See: Frederick North, Lord North, Second Earl of Guilford

James Gunn (1753–1801) A leader in Georgia in the period of the American Revolution, James Gunn is remembered for his service in the US Senate (1789-1801). Elected to the Continental Congress in 1787, he refused to serve.

Gunn was born in Virginia on 13 March 1753. Gunn’s father is identified as John Gunn, and his mother simply as Mary Gunn. Gunn was one of six children. [1] The elder Gunn was born in Caswell County, North Carolina, where he died in 1780. A clue to James Gunn’s birthplace comes, perhaps, from his paternal grandfather, Thomas Gunn, II, who was born in Amelia County, Virginia, in 1688. A family genealogist, Robert R. Gunn, wrote in 1925, “The author thinks that this line of Gunns has become extinct. The expert genealogists who investigated the records report that he was a great-grandson of William Gunn, the immigrant to Elizabeth City County in 1635. We know that by old letters still on file in the family he was writing back to his cousins in Virginia and that these cousins were greatgrandchildren of William the immigrant. So he is one of the same line.” [2] James Gunn attended “common schools” for “classical studies,” and then studied the law, and was admitted to the Virginia colonial bar. However, he left the colony and traveled to Savannah, Georgia, where he opened a law practice and remained until the start of the war between the colonies and England in April 1775. At that time, Gunn volunteered for service in the Georgia militia, and rose to the rank of captain of the colony’s Dragoons. Historian Charles C. Jones, Jr., wrote: When the united colonies took up arms against the mother country, he espoused the cause of the Revolutionists, and, in his native State, joined the rebel army. As a captain of dragoons he participated, under General Wayne, in the movement for the relief of Savannah, Georgia, in 1782; and upon the termination of the war selected that town as his home, and there resumed the practice of his profession. He was fond of military affairs, and, as Colonel of the First Regiment of Chatham County Militia, led a detachment of state troops which succeeded in dispersing a formidable body of runaway slaves, who, having been trained to arms by the British during their occupation of Savannah, upon the cessation of hostilities styling themselves the “King of England’s soldiers,” and refusing to return to the abodes of their respective owners, formed a fortified encampment on Bear Creek, and from this place of conjectured security sallied forth by night, plundering and burning adjacent plantations on both sides of the Savannah River. [3]

516

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Gunn’s official congressional biography states that he then “served in [the] county and state militia, becoming brigadier general in the latter.” [4]

Having been reelected, Gunn never faced the potential of being thrown out of office; he did not ask to be reelected in 1801, and left office on 4 March of that year.

With the end of the war, Gunn returned to his law practice. Having served his state in a capacity, which earned him great honors, according to historian Edmund Cody Burnett, Gunn was elected to a seat in the Continental Congress on 10 February 1787, but he “did not attend.” [5] Other sources report that Gunn in fact “refused” his seat, although Burnett does not mention that in the short biography of Gunn. Instead, under the US Constitution, Gunn was elected to the US Senate in 1789. Historian S.G. McLendon wrote, “James Gunn and William Few were the first Senators from Georgia under the Constitution, both being elected in 1789. James Gunn was elected for the term of six years and William Few was elected for the term of four years. When Few’s term expired in 1793 James Jackson was elected for the term of six years, but resigned [on] 12 April 1796 . . . James Gunn was reelected Senator in 1795 for the term ending 4 March 1801. We know little of the history of Senator Gunn, except that he was connected with the so-called Yazoo frauds, that is, the frauds of 1795.” [6] The story of the Yazoo land frauds is long and complicated, and early America’s first true political corruption scandal, one which ensnared many politicians who had cashed in on land purchases. That Gunn was caught up in the scandal is not hard to figure, as he had been punished during the American Revolution for various corrupt offenses. In fact, General Nathanael Greene wrote to George Washington in 1785 that Gunn was “without reputation or principle. Indeed he is little better than a public nuisance being always engaged in riots and drunken [brawls].” [7] On 2 April 1796, the newspaper The Philadelphia Minerva reported that “[t]he Senate of Georgia have resolved that Gen. Gunn, in a former legislature did attempt to corrupt and unwarrantably influence the members of the Legislature, and has lost the confidence of that body.” [8] The Georgia state census of 1793 listed Gunn as living in the township of Little Ogeeche, in Chatham County, Georgia. [9] In 1797, Gunn’s wife, Mary Jane, died at the age of 32.

Gunn died suddenly on 30 July 1801, while traveling in Louisville, in Jefferson County, Georgia. The Georgia Gazette of 6 August 1801 reported, “Extract of a letter from Louisville, dated July 31. General Gunn arrived here last Sunday, and died last night at eleven or twelve o’clock; a very short illness indeed. It is said that his death was greatly owing to a draught of cold water after the taking of medicine; and, what is strange, the doctor and several gentlemen were in the room, and no one observed his death till some time after he expired. He is to be buried this afternoon with the honors of war.” [10] Although it appears that he had no ties to the town, Gunn was laid to rest in the Revolutionary War Cemetery, formerly The Old Capitol Cemetery, in Louisville; the large stone on his grave reads, “Here lies the Body of Brigadier General James Gunn, who died on the 3o of July 1801 aged 48 years, 4 months and 17 days.”

[1] Gunn family tree, online at http://www.geni.com/people/ James-Gunn-U-S-Senator/6000000000575228912. [2] Gunn, Robert R., “The Gunns” (Crawfordville, GA: C. G. Moore’s Print Shop, 1925), 165. For additional genealogical information, see Robert A. Burns, “James Glenn of Lunenberg County ‘Gunned Down,’” Magazine of Virginia Genealogy, XXXIV:1 (Winter 1996), 63-65. [3] Jones, Charles Colcock, Jr., “Biographical Sketches of Delegates from Georgia” (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, 1891), 44-47. [4] Gunn official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=G000526. [5] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VIII:lxxxv. [6] McLendon, S.G., “History of the Public Domain of Georgia” (Atlanta: Foote & Davies Co., 1924), 135-36. [7] Nathanael Greene to George Washington, 25 April 1785, in John C. Fitzpatrick, ed., “The Writings of George Washington” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; thirty-nine volumes. 1931-44), XXVIII:144. [8] “Philadelphia, April 2,” The Philadelphia Minerva, 2 April 1796, 3. [9] Georgia Census and Tax List, 1793, for James Gunn, Georgia Tax Lists Index, courtesy of the Georgia Historical Society, Savannah. [10] Obituary for Gunn in The Georgia Gazette, 6 August 1801, in Northen, William J., ed., “Men of Mark in Georgia: A Complete and Elaborate History of the State from its Settlement to the Present Time, Chiefly Told in Biographies and Autobiographies of the Most Eminent Men of Each Period of Georgia’s Progress and Development” (Atlanta: A. B. Caldwell; six volumes, 1907-1912), I:123.

Button Gwinnett (c. 1735–1777)517

Button Gwinnett (c. 1735–1777)

Gwinnett was a member of the Continental Congress, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, and a leader of his nation at a time when such leadership could have been considered treason against the British crown. He was born the son of Samuel Gwinnett and his wife Anne (née Ernes) Gwinnett.Various sources report that he was born in 1732 [1], “about 1732,” [2], and as late as 1735. [3] Historian John D. Wade wrote that Gwinnett “was born at Down Hatherley, Gloucestershire, England, the son of Samuel and Anne (Ernes) Gwinnett, and was baptized on April 1o, 1735. His father, whose ancestors had long lived in Wales, was a clergyman, and his mother was related to people of consequence in Herefordshire.” [4] In 1921, historian William Clemens collected facts about Gwinnett in a pamphlet, “Button Gwinnett: Man of Mystery,” in which he stated, “We are informed by a writer in the Encyclopedia Brittanica that Gwinnett was born in England in 1732 and was a merchant in Bristol. Harper’s Cyclopedia of United States History says he was born about 1732. A Philadelphia publication declares that Button Gwinnett was born in Wales. His

surname is no doubt of Welsh origin, being almost identical with Gwynnedd, which at once recalls to mind the famous Welsh king, Owen Gwynnedd.” [5] Gwinnett’s official biography in the British Dictionary of National Biography reports that while his exact date of birth cannot be ascertained, he was “baptized at St Catherine’s Church, Gloucester, on 10 April 1735.” [6] Gwinnett went to the British city of Bristol, where he apparently worked as a merchant. In 1757, he married Ann Bourne, and the couple had three children, all daughters, of which only one survived to adulthood. In 1765, Gwinnett left England and landed in the American colonies, settling first in Savannah, Georgia, where again he tried his hand at working as a merchant. Historians conclude that Gwinnett was not successful at his numerous ventures. He sold all of his possessions in Georgia and used the proceeds to purchase a major share in St. Catherine’s Island, off the coast of the Georgia colony. Gwinnett placed an ad in The Georgia Gazette regarding his newly-purchased property: “All persons whatever are hereby prohibited from hunting and shooting upon the Island of Saint Catherine’s, or causelessly [sic] landing upon the same, or fishing on the shore or beach, or in any of the creeks thereunto belongiong, as such trespassers, when known, will be prosecuted without distinction to the utmost rigour of the law.” [7] On that island, Gwinnett raised cotton and corn and rice and the dye indigo, using slave labor. Of Gwinnett’s foray into George politics, historian Walter Charlton wrote in 1924, “It is suggestive of the uncertainty which envelopes our information about Gwinnett, that while Jones gives the date of his removal to the parish of St. John, which was a decisive moment in his career, as 1768, the historian Stevens states it to have been 1772. The latter asserts that at this time, whenever it was, his convictions on the questions which were agitating the colony had not crystallized. His mind wavered. Born an Englishman, and but recently from the influence of that country, this conjecture would seem to be reasonable.” [8] Whatever the true date of his entry into the Georgia political arena, Gwinnett entered with both feet and quickly established himself as a force in the colony. The Georgia Gazette reported on 21 February 1769 that “[o]n

518

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Thursday the 15th instant a new Commission of the Peace for this Province was issued, when the following Persons were appointed, viz.” Listed as a “Justice for the Parish of St. John” was Button Gwinnett, along with Audley Maxwell, Andrew Darling, Parmenas Way, John Stewart, and Samuel Jones. [9] That same paper reported on 1 November 1769 from Savannah that “Monday last the General Assembly of this province met here, but there being few of the Members in town they adjourned till yesterday, when the Honourable the Commons House again made the choice of the Hon. Noble Jones, Esq., to be their Speaker. [Then elected to that body] [f]or Midway and [the] Parish of St. John, Benjamin Andrew, John Stevens, and Button Gwinnett, Esqrs.” [10] Gwinnett served as a member of the Georgia colonial assembly for the next five years, although the continuing economic failures of his plantation on St. Catherine’s Island caused him to spend more and more time away from political affairs. It is because of his growing financial difficulties that no record of him is found with regard to debates on the numerous acts of the British Parliament that led America to declare independence, including the Intolerable Acts (1774).

by [Royal] Governor [George] Johnstone, on the third of November last. Friday last our Provisional Congress proceeded to the election of delegates to represent this province in the grand Continental Congress, when, on closing the poll, it appeared that Archibald Bullock, John Houstoun, Lyman Hall, Button Gwinnett and George Walton, Esquires, were duly elected, and declared delegates accordingly.” [11] On 2 February 1776, the Georgia Council of Safety elected Gwinnett, along with the other five men listed above, to seats in the Continental Congress. And although he would come to play a major role in that body’s early work—the signing of the Declaration of Independence—Gwinnett only served as a delegate from 20 May to 4 July 1776. There do not appear to be any surviving correspondence to or from Gwinnett during this short period. [12] He did serve on several important congressional committees, including one that examined the potentiality of having a confederation of the states into one national entity. In the debate over the language of the Declaration of Independence, Gwinnett held firm with his fellow Georgian delegates who remained during the sessions, Lyman Hall and George Walton, in demanding that slavery not be mentioned in the document. It was the insistence of the Georgia delegation, along with other southerners, that forced that issue out of the final declaration. With this change, on 4 July Gwinnett signed the document that made him famous, although some historians list the date of his signature as being 2 August; this cannot be, as Gwinnett had already returned to Georgia. He never came back to Philadelphia for any additional Continental Congress sessions. Of the 56 men who signed the Declaration, eight were born in Britain, including Gwinnett; which means that one of every seven signatures on that historic document came from the hand of a man cutting ties to his own heritage. [13]

In January 1776, Gwinnett was named as a member of the Georgia Council of Safety, which governed the colony when the royal government collapsed, leaving a vacuum of leadership that desperately needed to be filled. Events soon came faster as the war gathered speed, and the momentum of the Continental Congress became more and more evident. A Provisional Congress had been formed in Georgia to replace the old General Assembly; now, in early 1776, this body named Gwinnett as the commander of the colonial troops, the continental battalion. Conservative Tories, who remained loyal to England even as America fought a war against Britain, denounced the selection of Gwinnett, who was seen as being too much for Georgian independence, to command troops. Such an argument seems odd, but it carried the day, because Gwinnett was removed from the command. Instead, he was given a different office: as a delegate to the Continental Congress. The Norwich Packet of Connecticut reported on 22 April 1776 of the doings in far-off Georgia: “The petition from the Congress of this province to the King, was presented to his Majesty

Back in Georgia, events were taking a road that would ultimately lead to Gwinnett’s fall from power and death within a year of signing of the declaration. The controversy over the military post that he had had to abandon rose up: in his stead, given the command of colonial and then state troops, was Lachlan McIntosh, a wealthy planter who led his own political and military faction in the state. [14] Thus, when Gwinnett returned to Georgia, he hoped to now take

Button Gwinnett (c. 1735–1777)519 command of the state troops that he had been denied. McIntosh, however, was not going to relinquish the position, and Gwinnett fought back by getting members of the Provisional Congress to name him as Speaker of that body, where he could control military affairs. Further, he was named as chairman of the committee that drew up the new state constitution, enacted in 1777, which gave more power to Gwinnett’s part of the state and less to McIntosh’s. His political allies in the state government dismissed those connected or loyal to McIntosh, and they installed proGwinnett candidates. This seeded the ground for an explosion that was soon to come.

On 19 May, three days after being shot, Gwinnett succumbed to his wounds, 42 years old, and bankrupt. The Pennsylvania Evening Post reported in July 1777, “We hear from Georgia, that Col. [Samuel] Elbert made a descent upon EastFlorida, with the brigade under his command, and after some successful skirmishing with the enemy, in which he took some prisoners, and retook a number of Negroes, returned with the brigade safe into Georgia. That General McIntosh was entirely recovered of the wounds he some ago received in an engagement with the enemy, and lately in a duel with Governor Gwinnett.” [15]

In March 1777, Archibald Bullock—also spelled Bulloch—who had served with Gwinnett in the Continental Congress, and had been elected by the revolutionaries in Georgia as their first postroyal governor, suddenly died. Bullock was much loved, and his death set off a chain reaction to grab power from the Gwinnett and McIntosh factions in the state. It was Gwinnett who took control, having himself named as the “President of the State of Georgia” and commander-in-chief of the state’s troops, thus superseding McIntosh. For two full months, Gwinnett acted almost as a dictator, taking command over every facet of state government and removing those who sided or were loyal to McIntosh, including McIntosh’s own brother, who was accused of treason. Then, believing that he could stand for reelection and win, Gwinnett was defeated when his own faction turned against him. What changed the political atmosphere was a military move into Florida, which had been supported by Gwinnett for some time. In the spring of 1777, the General Assembly began an inquiry into whether it had been Governor Gwinnett, or General Lachlan McIntosh, who was responsible for its ultimate failure. When the investigation blamed McIntosh and cleared Gwinnett, McIntosh went before the Assembly and called Gwinnett a “scoundrel and a lying radical.” Today, such words may be commonplace; but in that time, Gwinnett had no choice but to defend his honor. He challenged McIntosh to a duel. The two men met the following morning, 16 May 1777; both men shot to kill, and while both were wounded, McIntosh’s wounds were not fatal. Carried from the field, Gwinnett soon experienced a downturn; one source said that “a Mortification came on.”

Gwinnett was buried in a pauper’s grave. In 1966, historian Roger Williams asked, “Who’s Got Button’s Bones?” He wrote, “Button Gwinnett was well-known among autograph collectors and specialists in the history of the American Revolution long before the controversy about his bones projected him into the spotlight. His signature is extremely rare, rarer than that of any other signer of the Declaration, except perhaps Thomas Lynch, Jr., of South Carolina . . .” [16] In 1957, researchers examining a plot in Colinal Cemetery, also known as the Old Christ Church in Savannah, found an unmarked grave, containing a body with a shattered left thigh bone, which seemed to be the same spot of the wound that caused Gwinnett’s death. [17] A Georgia state representative, Arthur J. Funk, of Savannah, had guessed that this was where Gwinnett was buried and led the search for the remains. After a thorough investigation, they were found to be Gwinnett’s remains. However, state officials in Augusta requested that Gwinnett’s remains be moved to Augusta, next to Georgia’s other two signers of the Declaration of Independence, Lyman Hall and George Walton. After a lengthy debate, in October 1964 Gwinnett’s remains, in a small box, were reburied in the Savannah cemetery where they had laid since his death. [18] Today, about 40 known copies of his signature are extant, each worth hundreds of thousands of dollars. Historian Charles C. Jones wrote in 1891: Brief but brilliant was the career of Button Gwinnett. Rising like a meteor, he shot athwart the zenith of the young commonwealth, concentrating the gaze of all, and, in a short moment, was seen no more. Within

520

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

the compass of a very few years are his brilliant aspirations, triumphs, and reverses compressed. Without the accident of birth or the assistance of fortune, he was advanced, and that most rapidly, to the highest positions within the gift of his countrymen. Inseparably associated is his name with the charter of American independence. Of his intelligence, force of character, ability to command success, courage, indomitable will, tenacity of purpose, patriotism, love of liberty, and devotion to the cause of American freedom, he gave proof most abundant. But he was ambitious, covetous of power, strong in his prejudices, intolerant of opposition, and violent in his hate. [19]

[5] Clemens, William Montgomery, “Button Gwinnett, Man of Mystery: Member of the Continental Congress: Signer of the Declaration of Independence: President of the Provincial Council of Georgia” (Pompton Lakes, NJ: William M. Clemens, 1921), 3. [6] Jackson, Harvey H., III, “Gwinnett, Button,” courtesy of the “Dictionary of National Biography,” online at http://www. oxforddnb.com/index/101073429/Button-Gwinnett. [7] “All persons whatever,” The Georgia Gazette [Savannah], 10 September 1766, 4. [8] Charlton, Walter G., “Button Gwinnett,” The Georgia Historical Quarterly, VIII:2 (June 1924), 147. [9] “On Thursday the 15th instant,” The Georgia Gazette [Savannah], 21 February 1769, 3. [10] “Savannah, November 1,” The Georgia Gazette [Savannah], 1 November 1769, 2. [11] “Savannah [Georgia], February 7,” The Norwhcih Packet and Weekly Advertiser [Connecticut], 15-22 April 1776, 2. [12] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), I:xliv. [13] Robbins, Caroline, “Decision in ‘76”: Reflections on the 56 Signers,” Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Third Series, LXXXIX (1977), 79. [14] Destler, C.M., “An Unpublished Letter of General Lachlan McIntosh,” The Georgia Historical Quarterly, XXIII:4 (December 1939), 394-95. [15] “Philadelphia,” The Pennsylvania Evening Post, 19 July 1777, 383. [16] Williams, Roger, “Who’s Got Button’s Bones?,” American Heritage, XVII:2 (February 1966), 28. [17] “Skeleton Found; It May Be That of Button Gwinnett,” The Chicago Daily Tribune, 2 June 1957, 37. [18] “Button Gwinnett Is Buried Again,” The Washington Post, 3 October 1964, C31. [19] Jones, Charles C., Jr., “Biographical Sketches of the Delegates from Georgia to the Continental Congress” (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, 1891), 67.

[1] The Society of the Descendants of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence reports the 1732 date as firm, and give the place of birth as Gloucestshire. See the site, online at http://www.dsdi1776.com/signers-by-state/button-gwinnett/. [2] For this instance, see Conrad, Robert T., ed., “Sanderson’s Biography of the Signers to the Declaration of Independence” (Philadelphia: Thomas, Cowperthwait & Co., 1846), 705, as well as “Original. Sketches of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence: Button Gwinnett,” The Youth’s Companion: A Family Paper, Devoted to Piety, Morality, Brotherly Love, XXVIII:23 (28 September 1854), 90. [3] Jones, Charles C., Jr., “Biographical Sketches of the Delegates from Georgia to the Continental Congress” (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, 1891), 48. [4] Wade, John D., “Gwinnett, Button” in Allen Johnson, et al., “Dictionary of American Biography” (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons; eleven volumes and five supplements, 1958-77), VIII:65-66.

H John Habersham (1754–1799)

Brother of Continental Congress delegate Joseph Habersham (1751-1815), John Habersham was a noted Georgian politician who was captured twice by British forces during the American Revolution. Before his death, days before his 45th birthday, he served a short period in the Continental Congress (1785). The Habersham name in Georgia is associated with service to nation and to the patriotic cause. The son of famed politician James Habersham (1715?-1775), a planter and merchant in the Georgia colony, and his wife Mary (née Bolton) Habersham, John Habersham was born on his family’s estate, “Beverly” (also spelled “Beverley”) located about eight miles from Savannah, Georgia, on 23 December 1754. His older brother was Joseph Habersham (1751-1815), who would himself later serve in the Continental Congress (1785), at the Constitutional Convention (1788), and as the postmaster general in the administrations of

President George Washington and John Adams (1795-1801). Historian Joseph G.B. Bulloch, in assembling a genealogical history of the Habersham family and its associated families, wrote in 1901, “Habersham seems to be but one variety of spelling the name, and Habershon, Haversham, Habergham, Habrinchsham, all appear to have been names derived from the ancient family of Habergham or de Habrincham. The highly honorable ancient and prominent family of Habersham of Georgia descends from James Habersham, of Beverley, Yorkshire, England, who with his wife Elizabeth lived in that country.” James, the grandfather of John and Joseph Habersham, had eight children with his wife; his son James, the father of two men who would later serve in the Continental Congress, was the second child in the family given that name. [1] James Habersham became one of the most important merchants in colonial Georgia. He had mastered the merchandise trade after the death of his mother, after which he was apprenticed to his uncle, also named Joseph Habersham, in London. And while the merchants’ trade became his financial life, in 1736 he came under the religious influence of the Reverend George Whitefield, one of colonial America’s earliest preachers. The pull between his uncle and Whitefield culminated when Habersham accompanied Whitefield to the American colonies. When he arrived in Georgia, Habersham set up his business there, and never returned to his homeland. He married, and established his family in Georgia. His son John Habersham was baptized by the Reverend Bartholomew Zouberbuhler, the rector of Christ Church of Beverley. He never attended school; instead he was tutored at home. With this educational background, Habersham entered Princeton College (now Princeton University) in New Jersey, although he did not graduate. [2] Instead, he engaged “in mercantile pursuits,” as a trader and purchaser of goods, working on his father’s rice plantations and living at one of them, “Silk Hope,” located on the Little Ogeechee

522

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

River near Savannah. After his mother’s death in 1763, he moved to Savannah to be with his father. John Habersham later wrote that he received “no other Education, than what He got here under my own eye.” [3]

American and British forces at Lexington and Concord in April 1775, and hearing that his son Joseph actually joined the band of rebels that seized power in colonial Georgia following the collapse of royal rule, sapped his health. In July 1775, he traveled with one of his sons, who remained a Loyalist, to the northern colonies to try to recover, but he died the following month, on 28 August 1775, in Brunswick, New Jersey, having never spoken to his three rebellious sons again. In one of his final letters, he wrote on 7 April 1775, “I would not chuse [sic] to live here longer then we are in a state of proper subordination to, and under the protection of Great Britain, altho’ I cannot altogether approve of the steps she has lately taken.” [6]

By the time that the American Revolution began in 1774, Habersham was only 19 years old, but nevertheless he became instantly involved in the patriotic cause: volunteering for service in the militia in Georgia that sprung up to fight the British army, Habersham was named first as a lieutenant and then as a brigade major of the First Georgia Continental Regiment. Historian Charles Colcock Jones explained in 1886, “On the 7th of January, 1776, he was mustered into continental service as the first lieutenant of the first company of the battalion raised at the charge of the United Colonies for the protection of Georgia. Of this command his brother Joseph was commissioned Major. With three hundred men of that battalion he was present when Colonel Lachlan McIntosh, from the hastily constructed works upon Yamacraw Bluff, armed with three four-pounder iron field-pieces, opened fire upon the British troops led by Maitland and Grant, who were seeking to capture and take to sea the rice-laden vessels congregated at the wharves and along the opposite shore of the Savannah River.” [4] During the early days of the American Revolution, James Habersham, his brother, served as a member of Georgia’s Council of Safety. During the entire conflict, John Habersham was captured twice by the British, and each time was held as a prisoner of war, eventually exchanged for British prisoners of war. Although his service during the war for independence is fully covered, less so is his relationship, and those of his brothers, with their father, James, Sr. The elder Habersham retained a strong connection to the land of his birth, and he resisted all efforts to find any way to have the colonies break away from England. Perhaps the greatest shock came when his three sons, John, James, Jr., and Joseph, all sided with the patriot cause and worked for the independence of the American colonies. This caused a bitter break between the father and his sons, even as the father worked in the final years of the colonial government in Georgia. [5] Two pieces of news served to destroy him: the clash between the

John Habersham was promoted to the rank of brigade-major of the military forces of the Georgia Continental Army, which included Lachlan McIntosh and Samuel Elbert, both of whom would play a major role in the formation of postroyal Georgia, as well as all three men serving in the Continental Congress. With McIntosh and Elbert first and second in command of the military forces, under the direction of General Charles Lee, these troops launched several attacks on British forces in the region. For instance, Georgia troops took part in attacks on St. Augustine in Florida. Because of his role in these attacks, Habersham was given a seat on the Council of War, which worked with Governor John Houstoun and president of the Council Button Gwinnett. A listing of the “Return of the first Georgia Battalion of Continental Troops Commanded by Colonel Joseph Habersham” for May through October 1777 includes the names of George Walton, Lachlan McIntosh, and even John Habersham. [7] Historian Joseph Bulloch, the genealogist of the Habersham family, wrote that John Habersham was, “[A] Major in the Continental Army, where he aided us as a gallant Georgian to attain our independence, and where he was appreciated as a soldier by General [Anthony] Wayne, and rendered that aid which his blood called upon him to perform.” [8] John Habersham married Sarah Ann Camber, “the daughter of Thomas Camber, Esq.” A sister married fellow Continental Congress delegate George Walton, making the Habersham and Walton families connected by marriage. Little is known of Sarah Ann Camber (1765-1802), who

John Habersham (1754–1799)523 would be widowed by her husband but died at age 37 in 1803. [9] They had one child: a son, Dr. Joseph Clay Habersham (1790-1855), who later served as the president of the Medical Society of Georgia. As the decade of the 1780s began, John Habersham found himself deep in the military and politics of Georgia. Harriet Glascock Gould Jefferies, a noted Georgian historian, wrote in 1907, “In White’s Historical Collections, page 98, appears a Disqualifying Act, passed July 6, 1780, directing Sir James Wright, Baronet, Captain-General, Governor and Commanderin-Chief of his Majesty’s Province in Georgia, to disqualify certain persons who had taken up arms against his Majesty from ever thereafter holding any position under the Crown.” [10] This act, passed because British troops were still in Georgia, forced Habersham and his fellow patriots to flee for their lives. Enacted here was “An Act to disqualify and render incapable the several persons hereafter named, from holding or exercising any office of trust, or profit in the Province of Georgia, for a certain time, and for other purposes therein mentioned.” Among the persons mentioned in the act were John Houstoun, “rebel governor,” George Walton, a “Member of [the] rebel Congress,” and both John and Joseph Habersham, named as a “rebel mayor” and a “rebel Colonel,” respectively. [11] As the British were eventually forced out of Georgia and headed north, the state “reopened” for those who had supported the revolution. Historian William W. Abbot wrote in 1957: Noble Wimberly Jones, the acknowledged leader of the radicals who led Georgia into revolution in 17751776, and Jonathan Bryan, the doughty and aged rebel, immediately took seats there. James Jackson, the English immigrant who had become a general in the Georgia Revolutionary forces at an incredibly early age and was in 1782 at the threshold of a brilliant political career, hardly missed a session in the 1780’s. Also usually present and active in the business of the legislature were such men as the respected planterlawyer William Gibbons, Sr.; John Habersham, the former leader of the Liberty Boys, and his brothers William and John—three sons of a distinguished father; Edward Telfair, merchant and planter; and the leader of the upcountry, William Few—all ambitious men and men of standing in the state. [12]

Now handed new responsibilities in the new state government, on 31 December 1782, “Major John Habersham and Samuel Stirk[,] Esquire, were appointed by the Honorable the House of Assembly, to class the persons who resided in and about the Town of Savannah, and the County adjacent . . . That the said Major John Habersham and Samuel Stirk[,] Esquire, do immediately require the said persons to furnish their substitutes to the Continental Army within fifteen days from the date thereof . . . ” In 1784, Habersham was elected as the president of the Executive Council of Georgia, and he presided over the Land Court, which heard and decided land disputes. Working with William Houstoun and Abraham Baldwin, John Habersham tried to make the government of Georgia work in the postrevolutionary period. At the same time, the lack of a strong federal government gave the state problems in trying to pay its financial payments to the Continental Congress, leading Houstoun to write to Governor Samuel Elbert in April 1785 that “[i]t is very seriously talked of, either to make a tryal [sic] of voting Georgia out of the Union or to fall upon some means of taking coercive measures against her. In truth I do not think at any one time since the existence of Georgia she has been in a worse situation than at present.” Historian George R. Lamplugh explained, “In spite of Houstoun’s pessimism, Congress took no punitive action against the state. By June, John Habersham, who along with Abraham Baldwin had been at Houstoun’s side since the end of May, could inform Savannah merchant Joseph Clay that, ‘From our being so long unrepresented, and the indifference shewn to our Fœderal requisitions, I was led to suppose we should frequently be reminded of the delinquency of Georgia; but whether it is because the States have all been in some degree culpable, or that our distresses and consequent inability are considered, the subject has seldom been touched upon.’” [13] On 5 May 1785, this same General Assembly elected Habersham to a seat in the Continental Congress. Moving quickly to Philadelphia to attend the body’s meetings, he ultimately attended sessions of the Congress from 30 May to 27 October 1785. [14] According to historian Edmund Cody Burnett, there are only two pieces

524

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

of correspondence written by Habersham during this period; the most important of these is to his friend Joseph Clay, penned on 24 June 1785, in which Habersham discusses the events in the Continental Congress:

Governor Edward Telfair named Habersham as a member of a commission to “treat,” or negotiate, with the Creek Indians of that state. Telfair, signing his initials, “E.T.,” wrote to Habersham, “Sir: The Executive since your departure have received sundry dispatches relating to the Creek Indians, extracts of which have been directed to be made out and are herewith transmitted for the information of your honorable Board. Ε.Τ.” [17] A letter from these “Georgia Commissioners” to Alexander McGillivray, 15 August 1786, stated:

From our being so long unrepresented, and the indifference shewn to Fœderal requisitions, I was led to suppose we should frequently be reminded of the delinquency of Georgia; but whether it is because the States have all been in some degree culpable, or that our distresses and consequent inability are considered, the subject has seldom been touched upon. A commissioner was appointed before our arrival for the purpose of setling [sic] the demands of our State against the United States, and will go from hence about the first of November next. Was he to go sooner it would answer no good purpose, Mr. [John] Wereat being at Augusta and as I understood him not quite prepared for an adjustment of the business.’ You will observe by some of the inclosed [sic] News papers [sic] that Town Meetings have been held in different parts of these Northern States to consider the present distressful situation of American Commerce; the result has been that they have agreed to recommend to their respective Legislatures the investing Congress with full power to regulate Trade. This is a nice subject to come before Congress, and ample, indefinite, powers will hardly go down. Nevertheless something that would enable Congress to counteract the oppressive Systems of foreign Nations, is undoubtedly necessary, as without it they will never be brought to act on equal terms with us. [15] In a second, and far less important missive, this one to William Gibbons, Jr., Habersham explained, “I think we shall leave this [city] the beginning of next Month. Mr. Baldwin and Mr. Houstoun both say they will return about the same time; tho’ I think the latter cannot easily quit a certain beautiful object. Mrs. Habersham seems reconciled to returning by water, and I imagine we shall go in one of the Carolina Packets to Charleston. The going by land is extremely tedious and not quite consistent with the length of my purse.” [16] Following his service in the Continental Congress, Habersham returned to Georgia, where he was appointed by General George Washington, the commander of the Continental Army, to serve as an Indian agent. During this period, Habersham also served as a commissioner to help settled the Georgia-South Carolina boundary dispute. In 1786, Georgia

The General Assembly of this State has been pleased to appoint us Commissioners to hold a Conference and Treaty w the Nation of Creek Indians, we have this day transmitted a Talk to their Kings, Head Men, and Warriours [sic], and invited them to a meeting to be held on the upper Trading Path, near the mouth of Shoulder bone Creek, on the Oconee River, [on] the 15th October next. Having no doubt of your disposition to prevent, if possible, the further effusion of human blood, and being sensible at the same time of your influence with that people, we do not hesitate to request that it may be exerted in this instance, in endeavoring to prevail on them to accede to our proposal; and that you also will meet us on this momentous business, being persuaded that your presence will be highly beneficial to both parties. [18] In 1789, probably in recognition of his services to his state and to his nation, Habersham was named by President George Washington, the first president of the United States under the new US Constitution, as the Collector of Customs at the Port of Savannah, a post he held until his death. Habersham also served as a member of the board of trustees that eventually established the University of Georgia, as well as the secretary for the Georgia branch of the Society of the Cincinnati, a patriotic and fraternal organization of veterans of the American Revolution. Habersham died near Savannah on 17 December 1799. The Augusta Herald of Georgia stated, “In the late Revolution[,] he early defended the rights of his country, and was promoted to the rank of Major in the first Continental regiment of this state. Since the Peace he served several years in the former Congress, and on the organization of the Federal Government he was appointed Collector of this Port, in which office he continued till his death. The ease, affability, and obligingness of disposition with which he

John Habersham (1754–1799)525 executed his public functions, will long render his death a subject of general regret in this community, and of embittering recollection to those whose intercourses of life were sweetened by an intimate acquaintance with him.” [19] Habersham was laid to rest in Savannah’s Colonial Park Cemetery in a rather large sarcophagus; a sign on the grave reads, “John Habersham, 1754-1799. Third Son of Hon. James Habersham and Mary Bolton. Maj. Continental Army. Member of the Continental Congress. Member of the Society of the Cincinnati in Georgia. Collector of the Port of Savannah. One of the Trustees of the University of Georgia. And His Wife, Ann Sarah Camber.” In addition to his son, a noted physician, Habersham was also the uncle to Richard Wylly Habersham (1786-1842), who served in the US House of Representatives (1839-42), and the great-uncle of Alexander Wylly Habersham (1826-1883), a naval officer who served in the US Civil War and was held by the Confederacy as a prisoner of war. Historian Charles C. Jones wrote in 1891 of the impact and legacy of this man: “Major Habersham was in all respects an estimable man, fearless, honest, patriotic, public-spirited, and, in his domestic relations, tender and true. He was the friend of the widow and orphan; and, as adviser and guardian, in many instances rendered gratuitous and most acceptable service. In his official acts, and in the execution of the responsible trusts confided to him, he was upright and efficient. As an officer of the Continental army he was prompt, courageous, and selfsacrificing. To the cause of the Revolutionists, even in its infancy, was his cordial allegiance given, and he never swerved from its support until the independence of the United Colonies was fully established.” [20]

[1] Bulloch, Joseph Gaston Baillie, “A History and Genealogy of the Habersham Family in Connection with the History, Genealogy and Mention of the Families of Clay, Stiles, Cumming, King, Elliott, Milledge, Maxwell, Adams, Houston, Screvens, Owens, Demere, Footman, Ellis, Washington, Newell, deTreville, Davis, Barrington, Lewis, Warner, Cobb, Flournoy, Pratt, Nephew, Bolton, Bowers, Cuthbert, and Many Many Other Names Either as Having a Connection to Some Other Family or Showing of the Name as Related or Connected to Some Other Family in This Work” (Columbia, SC: The R.L. Bryan Company, 1901), 1-2. See also Anna Habersham Wright Smith and Leila Elliott Habersham, eds., and comps., “A Savannah Family, 1830-1901: Papers from

the Clermont Huger Lee Collection Including A sketch of the Life of Frederic Augustus Habersham, Written for His Three Little Children by Their Mother Leila Elliot Habersham[,] the Summer of 1863” (Milledgeville, GA: Boyd Publishing, 1999), 1-20. [2] See Habersham’s official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay. pl?index=H000001. [3] Georgia Historical Society, “The Letters of Hon. James Habersham, 1756-1775” (Savannah, GA: The Savannah Morning News Print, 1904), 461. See also W. Calvin Smith, “Georgia Gentlemen: The Habershams of Eighteenth-Century Savannah” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, 1971). [4] Jones, Charles Colcock, Jr., “Biographical Sketch of the Honorable Major John Habersham of Georgia” (Cambridge, MA: Privately Printed by The Riverside Press, 1886), 239. [5] Lambert, Frank, “Father against Son, and Son against Father: The Habershams of Georgia and the American Revolution,” The Georgia Historical Quarterly, LXXXIV:1 (Spring 2000), 1-28. [6] “The Letters of Hon. James Habersham, 1756-1775,” op. cit., 7. [7] “Minutes of the Executive Council, May 7 Through October 14, 1777,” The Georgia Historical Quarterly, XXXIV:2 (June 1950), 110. [8] Bulloch, Joseph Gaston Baillie, “A History and Genealogy of the Habersham Family,” op. cit., 8. [9] See Jeannette Holland Austin, ed., “The Georgians: Genealogies of Pioneer Settlers” (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Co., Inc., 1984), 141. [10] Jefferies, Harriet Glascock Gould, “William Glascock,” in Northen, William J., ed., “Men of Mark in Georgia: A Complete and Elaborate History of the State from its Settlement to the Present Time, Chiefly Told in Biographies and Autobiographies of the Most Eminent Men of Each Period of Georgia’s Progress and Development” (Atlanta: A.B. Caldwell; six volumes, 1907-1912), I:108-09. [11] See “Disqualifying Act, 6 July 1780” in The Rev. George White, “Historical Collections of Georgia: Containing the Most Interesting Facts, Traditions, Biographical Sketches, Anecdotes, Etc. Relating to Its History and Antiquities, From its First Settlement to the Present Time. Compiled from Original Records and Documents, Illustrated by Nearly One Hundred Engravings page Public Buildings, Relics of Antiquity, Historic Localities, Natural Scenery, Portraits of Distinguished Men, Etc., Etc. By The Rev. George White, M.A., Author of the Statistics of Georgia” (New York: Pudney & Russell, Publishers, No. 79 John-Street, 1854), 98-104. [12] Abbot, William W., “The Structure of Politics in Georgia: 1782-1789,” The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, XIV:1 (January 1957), 50. [13] Lamplugh, George R., “Farewell to the Revolution: Georgia in 1785,” The Georgia Historical Quarterly, LVI:3 (Fall 1972), 400. [14] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VIII:lxxxvi. [15] John Habersham to Joseph Clay, 24 June 1785, in ibid., VIII:151-51. John Wereat (c.1733-1799) was a British-born revolutionary, who served as an agent for the Continental Congress, and later acted as the de facto governor of Georgia in 1779. [16] John Habersham to William Gibbons, Jr., 10 October 1785, in ibid., VIII:232-33. [17] “Honorable John Habersham, Chairman of the Board of Commissioners appointed to Treat with the Creek Nation. October 20th, 1786,” in “Some Official Letters of Governor Edward Telfair,” The Georgia Historical Quarterly, I:2 (June 1917), 154. [18] “The Georgia Commissioners to [Alexander] McGillivray, 15 Aug 1786, in John Walton Caughey, “McGillivray of the Creeks” (Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 1938), 129. See also the letter, undated, from Habersham to Telfair, in The Pennsylvania Packet and General Advertiser [Philadelphia], 7 December 1786, 3. [19] Untitled obituary in The Augusta Herald [Georgia], 27 November 1799, 2.

526

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

[20] Jones, Charles C., Jr., “Biographical Sketches of the Delegates from Georgia to the Continental Congress” (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, 1891), 78-79.

During this time, however, the two Habersham brothers moved further and further towards the cause of the American colonies, while their father remained staunchly loyal to the Crown. [3]

Joseph Habersham (1751–1815)

Those loyalties would be tested, as all three of the Habersham sons—Joseph, John, and James, Jr.—all became more radical against British rule in America, while their father looked on in what only could have been horror and disgrace. For years, the Habersham boys had resisted the imposition of British rule; in Joseph, it can be traced back to 1765, with the passage of The Stamp Act. Writing to William Knox on 28 October 1765 from Savannah on that legislation, Habersham penned, “The inhabitants of this place here have already begun to show their public dislike to this Law, and I hope and very heartily wish, they may not, as some Northern people have done, carry it to an unjustifiable excess.” Following this up with an additional note to Knox on 4 December 1765, he explained, “I really look upon The Stamp Act as an ill advised [sic] Measure . . . yet I cannot see, that our refusing to receive The Stamp Act . . . can have the least Efficacy, towards obtaining a Repeal of it . . . But this at present is a very unpopular Subject, and a Man that will dare to deliver his free Sentiments for Moderate Measures is threatened to be mobbed, and I know not what. Thus are we almost deprived of thinking, by those who call or rather miscall, themselves the Sons of Liberty.” [4]

The brother of delegate James Habersham, Joseph Habersham was a noted merchant in Savannah, Georgia, with his brother and cousin prior to the American Revolution. He then served on the Georgia Council of Safety, before sitting in the Continental Congress (1785-86). He would conclude his career as postmaster general in the cabinets of Presidents George Washington and John Adams (1795-1801). The son of James Habersham, a merchant in colonial Georgia, and his wife Mary (née Bolton) Habersham, Joseph Habersham was born in Savannah, Georgia, on 28 July 1751. According to historian Otis Ashmore, “[Habersham’s] mother having died when he was quite young, he was sent, at the early age of eight-and-a-half years, to Princeton, N.J., to be educated, where he remained [for] six and a half years.” Habersham, whose health was poor, attended College of New Jersey (now Princeton University), but was called home when his father became upset with his education: the father wrote, in a letter to a friend, “I truly lament that I ever sent my two other sons to the northward [sic]. Joe went there at eight-and-a-half years of age, and under the idea of stuffing his head with useless criticisms of phrases and words in Latin and Greek, he was neither taught to write legibly nor with propriety in the Language.” [1] In 1768, when the younger Habersham was 17, his father sent him to England, to work for the mercantile concern Graham, Clark, and Company. To further his education, friends of the elder Habersham enrolled Joseph in the Woolwich (pronounced “Wool-itch”) Academy, where he learned writing and language skills. Despite all this, Habersham disliked England and the English people, and decided to return home to Savannah in 1771 after just three years in London. [2] The elder Habersham, an important merchant in colonial Georgia, established his newly returned son in his business, pairing first with Joseph’s brother James, and then with their cousin Joseph Clay, the latter concern being Joseph Clay & Company.

By 1774 the Habersham brothers had become leaders in revolutionary Georgia; Joseph was a principal in a group known as the “Liberty Boys” (which included, among others, Joseph Clay, Dr. Noble Wymberley Jones, William Gibbons, and Edward Telfair), which raided Savannah’s royal arms depot to seize gunpowder so that the pro-British royal government could not use it on the Americans. Joseph was then named to a committee that denounced the “Intolerable Acts,” a series of harsh economic measures enacted against the colonies in the wake of the Boston Tea Party. The key moment in the movement against England came when interested citizens met at Peter Tondee’s tavern in Savannah on 10 August 1774; and while those in attendance, which included Joseph Habersham, could not agree on who to send to the “General Congress” meeting (as the First Continental Congress) in

Joseph Habersham (1751–1815)527 Philadelphia the following month, nevertheless they did pass resolutions in support of the people of Boston and the right of the colonies to resist Britain tyranny. [5] It was at this point that Joseph parted ways with his brothers: while John enlisted in the Continental Army the following year (as did Joseph), James, Jr. went back into business and did not become the revolutionary that his brother did. Joseph purchased a schooner, commissioned by the Continental Congress, which was used to intercept and capture the British ammunition ship Philippa. Joseph was then named to Georgia’s Council of Safety, where he worked as part of the Continental Association to enforce the boycott on British goods coming into the colonies. In addition, he was charged with naming military officers to the colonial militia, and to raise supplies of arms, ammunition, and other materiél. Upon his father’s death in 1775, Joseph inherited an estate with some 4,300 acres of land and 66 slaves. In May 1776, Habersham married Isabella Rae, the daughter of an Irish immigrant family; together, the couple had twelve children. [6] He was named as a major of a battalion of militia in Georgia, the 1st Georgia Regiment, and he was eventually raised to the rank of colonel in the Continental Army (the rank in the Continental Army was always higher than in state militias.) Habersham remained in the Continental Army until he resigned his commission in 1778. During his career, he saw action in several clashes in the southern United States. He became involved in the controversy between Button Gwinnett and General Lachlan McIntosh; in fact, when the two men dueled in May 1779, Joseph Habersham served as McIntosh’s second, angering many leaders in Georgia who allied themselves with Gwinnett, who was killed in the fight. This led to the end of his political career for some time, and he spent the remainder of the American Revolution in exile in Virginia and South Carolina, especially after Savannah fell to the British. [7] Habersham, as well as his brothers and Joseph Clay, all worked to rebuild Georgia following the British retreat from the state in 1782 and the end of the war the following year. Seen as an important leader who brought great political skills to the table, Joseph and James were both

elected to the Georgia Assembly several times, and, in 1785, Joseph was elected as Speaker of the body, and also to the Continental Congress. [8] In addition to his Assembly tenure, Joseph Habersham worked on a committee to draw up a new constitution for Georgia; in 1788, he was a delegate to the state ratifying convention for the US Constitution signed in Philadelphia in September 1787. Under this new government blueprint, Habersham took an active role in opposition to the Yazoo land deals, which soon became one of the earliest fraud scandals in American history. In addition, he had to deal with debts incurred by his father previous to the onset of the revolution. Historian W. Calvin Smith explained, “[O]nce federal courts were functioning and the political climate changed by time and Jay’s Treaty, some British creditors saw an opportunity to clear old accounts . . . the Habersham brothers were struck in this way in 1798, when John Nutt and Company of London brought suit in chancery against the estate of James Habersham, Sr. The firm . . . demanded payment of an alleged balance due from James Habersham, Jr. and Company of ₤27,333.9.4.” The family fought the lawsuit for years; however, in 1805, Joseph, the last surviving brother, settled for the amount of $24,000. [9] During the last two decades of the eighteenth century, Joseph Habersham became more involved in local Savannah politics: He was elected to the city council, and, in 1792, he was elected as the city’s mayor, serving until the following year. Following the resignation of Timothy Pickering as the second postmaster general under the US Constitution, President George Washington named Habersham as his successor on 25 February 1795. During his six years in office, Habersham increased the number of roads used for post office functions from 1,875 in the nation to nearly 21,000 total miles, and there was a similar increase in the number of post offices themselves, which rose from 75 when he began to 903 when his tenure was complete. As the nation was growing in the last years of the 18th century and the first years of the 19th century, Habersham took a leading role in expanding service to new settlements and states. [10] He served through the remainder of Washington’s tenure, and through the entirety of President John Adams’ administration.

528

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

In 1801, however, Thomas Jefferson, who was not a Federalist, came into office as the third president, and he demanded that Habersham fire Federalist officeholders in the Post Office Department and replace them with those loyal to the new administration. Habersham refused, and when Jefferson offered him a judgeship, or a post as treasurer of the United States, he turned down both offers and instead resigned in November 1801. Returning to his business and life in Savannah, he spent the remainder of his life caring for his late brothers’ families and rebuilding his estate, destroyed during the war. He served as president of the Savannah branch of the Bank of the United States from 1802 until his death.

[3] For a biographical sketch of James, Jr., see Kenneth Coleman and Charles Stephen Curr, eds., Dictionary of Georgia Biography (Athens: ---; two volumes, 1983), I:378-79. [4] James Habersham to William Knox, 28 October and 4 December 1765, quoted in Amanda Johnson, “Georgia as Colony and State” (Atlanta: W.W. Brown Publishing Co., 1938), 128. [5] Wilson, Adelaide, “Historic and Picturesque Savannah” (Published by the Subscribers by the Boston Photogravure Company, 1889), 43. [6] See “Historical Collections of the Joseph Habersham Chapter, Daughters [of the] American Revolution” (Atlanta: Blosser Printing Co.; two volumes, 1902), II:237. [7] Jackson, Harvey H., “Lachlan McIntosh and the Politics of Revolutionary Georgia” (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 2003), 65. [8] Joseph Habersham official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay. pl?index=H000002. [9] Smith, W. Calvin, “The Habershams: The Merchant Experience in Georgia” in Harvey H. Jackson and Phinizy Spalding, eds., “Forty Years of Diversity: Essays on Colonial Georgia” (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1984), 210. [10] United States, Post Office Department, “The Post-Office Law with Instructions, Forms and Tables of Distances. Published for the Regulation of the Post Offices. 1798” (Philadelphia: Printed by Charles Cist, no. 104, North Second Street, 1798). [11] “Died,” New-York Herald, 9 December 1815, 1. This paper, along with many others, gave Habersham’s age as 65, an obvious error. [12] Jones, Charles C., Jr., “Biographical Sketches of the Delegates from Georgia to the Continental Congress” (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, 1891), 86-87.

Joseph Habersham died in Savannah on 17 November 1815 at the age of 64. [11] He was buried in Colonial Park Cemetery in Savannah, interred next to his wife. His tombstone lists his service as a major in the Continental Army before his tenure in the Continental Congress. Habersham County, in northeastern Georgia, was created in 1818 and named in Joseph Habersham’s honor. Biographer Charles C. Jones, Jr. stated in 1891 that an intimate of Joseph Habersham wrote of him, “Colonel Habersham was quick and ardent in temper; but, although quick to take offense, he was ready and anxious to make atonement for the slightest wrong; kind and indulgent to his slaves; humane and liberal to the poor; strict in the performance of all his contracts; tenacious of his own as he had been of the rights of his country. Allowing to others the same independent and frank expression of opinion which he always exercised for himself, he may with truth be pronounced to have been a fine specimen of that noble, generous, and chivalric race which achieved the liberty and independence of our happy country.” [12]

[1] Ashmore, Otis, “Joseph Habersham” in William J. Northen, ed., “Men of Mark in Georgia: A Complete and Elaborate History of the State from its Settlement to the Present Time, Chiefly Told in Biographies and Autobiographies of the Most Eminent Men of Each Period of Georgia’s Progress and Development” (Atlanta: A.B. Caldwell; six volumes, 1907-12), I:138. [2] Brooks, Robert Preston, “Habersham, Joseph” in Allen Johnson, et al., “Dictionary of American Biography” (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons; eleven volumes and five supplements, 1958-77), VIII:70.

John Hall (1729–1797)

An attorney in his native Maryland, John Hall served on his colony’s Council of Safety before

John Hall (1729–1797)529 being elected to the Continental Congress, serving during 1775. He was born near Annapolis, in Anne Arundel County, Maryland, on 27 November 1729, the son of Major Henry Hall, Jr., and his wife Martha (née Bateman) Hall. [1] The family was descended from a family that originated in England. [2] Historian Joshua Dorsey Warfield explained, “All Hallows and St. James parish records give many items of interest concerning both Halls and Harwoods. Rev. Henry Hall, the first to come over, was a priest of the Church of England. He was sent by Henry Lord Bishop, of London, w letters to Hon. Francis Nicholson, then governor of the Province, who inducted Re. Henry Hall as the First Rector of St. James. This office was held till his death, in 1722 . . . From Major Henry Hall, [Rev. Henry Hall’s] eldest son, who married Martha Howard, of Joseph, grandson of Captain Cornelius, were Henry, born [in] 1727, and John, born [in] 1729.” [3] He “completed preparatory studies; studied law; was admitted to the bar and commenced practice at Annapolis.” [4] It appears that John Hall was deeply involved in the controversies that began in the middle of the 1760s, initiated by a series of harsh economic measures enacted by the British Parliament against the American colonies, including The Sugar Act (1764) and The Stamp Act (1765), all of which led to increased anger and bitterness towards English rule in the colonies. A note on a movement in 1768 to oppose such royal dictates led to a convention, of which Hall was a member: The Assembly of Maryland was convened [on the] 27th day of May, 1768, and during the session took action in regard to a circular received from the Massachusetts Assembly, detailing its own operates in opposition to an Act of Parliament, passed on the 2d of July, 1767, imposing the new duties on paper, glass in all its varieties, tea, red and white lead, and painters’ colors; and said circular invited the concurrence of the Assemblies generally. In accordance w this invitation, the Maryland Assembly appointed a committee of gentlemen, distinguished for their abilities and attachment to the cause of the Colonies, to draft a petition to the King, remonstrating against the late impositions. The committee consisted of William Murdock of Prince George’s [County], Thomas

Johnson, Jr., of Anne Arundel, Thomas Ringgold of Kent, John Hall of Anne Arundel, James Hollyday of Queen Anne’s, Matthew Tilghman of Talbot, and Thomas Jennings of Frederick. [5] In 1774, John Hall became a member of the Maryland Council of Safety. The collapse of royal rule, which followed the British response to the Boston Massacre (1770) and the Boston Tea Party (1773), gave Hall, as well as other patriots, to cause that they wished to hitch their wagons to. In the colonies, there was a wait for additional measures to come from London to either improve the situation involving the punishment of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, or perhaps make it worse. Historian Edward Delaplaine, a leading biographer of fellow Marylander Thomas Johnson, wrote: Frequently holding meetings, they charged committees of their own selection to keep constant vigil for developments. For example, in the dead of winter (on January 16, 1775), a mass meeting was held in Annapolis, at which Johnson was placed on a Committee of Observation for Anne Arundel county . . . The second session of Congress was approaching, and the Maryland Convention proceeded to the choice of seven representatives. The five patriot leaders who had served so ably in the First [Continental] Congress — [Matthew] Tilghman, Johnson, [William] Paca, [Samuel] Chase, and [Robert] Alexander — were authorized to return to a second. To the delegation were added John Hall and Thomas Stone. Any three or more were authorized to join w the sister Colonies in any measures deemed necessary for the defense of the American Colonies. [6] When the Maryland General Assembly met from 8-12 December 1774, they elected Hall to a seat in the Continental Congress, which had just met in Philadelphia that September. Hall was subsequently reelected to that body on 14 August 1775; however, it appears that Hall sat in the Continental Congress for a short period during May 1775. Historian Edmund Cody Burnett, trying to pin down exactly when Hall served, wrote, “There is no positive record of Hall’s attendance in Congress at any time except upon the opening day of the session. There are, however, in John Adams’ Notes of Debates, 6 October 1775, some remarks made by ‘Hall’ . . . In the index to the Journals these remarks are credited to Lyman Hall of Georgia, but the evidence is rather clear that Lyman Hall did not attend Congress in the

530

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

autumn of 1775; besides, the character of the remarks definitely suggests Hall of Maryland.” [7] Although there is no official letters or other correspondence from Hall during his service, one thing that was found was a note dated 9 December 1775, when his service had ended, Hall asked the Maryland convention to allow him to not attend the Congress because at that time it was “very inconvenient to him at this time.” Robert Goldsborough was elected in his stead; however, Goldsborough begged off because of a “long indisposition.” With two of their elected delegates unable to serve, the Convention quickly named Robert Alexander and John Rogers to fill the two open vacancies.

George Plater, James Forbes, John Hall, Edward Lloyd, and John Hanson, esquires, or any two of more of them, be and they are hereby declared delegates to represent this state in Congress. True extract, J. Duckett, Clerk of the House of Delegates.’” [11] There is no evidence, however, that Hall was elected to this term, or that he ever accepted the additional tenure.

After leaving the Continental Congress, Hall remained involved in Maryland revolutionary politics. The Maryland convention that had sent him to Philadelphia made sure that he was elected to state offices, as reported in documents published in the first decades of the 19th century. For instance, the convention met on 22 August 1776 and, as it was stated, “The Convention appointed John Hall, Esquire, Judge of the Court of Admiralty, in the room of William Hayward, Esquire, who resigned.” [8] The following month, on 10 September 1776, “Mr. John Hall and Mr. Samuel Chase, Delegates[,] returned for Anne Arundel County, appeared and took their seats in the House.” [9] Finally, on 7 October 1776, “The Convention proceeded to elect a Judge of the Court of Admiralty, in the room of John Hall, Esq., who resigned that office; and John Rogers, Esq., was elected.” [10] Hall’s life appears to have been dedicated to the practice of the law, which he did for the remaining years of his life. On 14 June 1780, according to the Journals of the Continental Congress, “Mr. John Hanson, a delegate for the state of Maryland, attended and produced the credentials of his appointment, which were read as follows: ‘Maryland. House of Delegates, December 22d, 1779. The honourable Thomas Johnson, George Plater, James Forbes, John Hall, Edward Lloyd, and John Hanson, esquires, were chosen by a joint ballot of both houses to serve as delegates to Congress.’ Resolved therefore, That the said Thomas Johnson,

Hall died at his estate or plantation, “The Vineyard,” now known as “Iglehart,” located near Annapolis, the state capital, on 8 March 1797 at the age of 67. Hall was laid to rest in the family burial ground on that estate, which has since been added to the Maryland Register of Historical Sites and Landmarks.

[1] Newman, Harry Wright, “Mareen Duvall of Middle Plantation: A Genealogical History of Mareen Duvall and His Descendants with Histories of the Allied Families of Tyler, Clarke, Poole, Hall, and Merriken” (Washington, DC: Privately Published, 1952), 388. [2] Hall, Thomas John, “The Hall Family of West River and Kindred Families” (Denton, MD: Printed by Rue Publishing Co., 1941), 22-23, 139-40. [3] Warfield, Joshua Dorsey, “The Founders of Anne Arundel and Howard Counties, Maryland. A Genealogical and Biographical Review from Wills, Deeds and Church Records” (Baltimore: Kohn & Pollock, Publishers, 1905), 99. [4] Cushman, Clare, ed., “The Supreme Court Justices: Illustrated Biographies, 1789-2012” (Thousand Oaks, CA: CQ Press, 2012), 36. [5] Hollyday, George Tilghman, “Matthew Tilghman - His Home, His Kindred, and His Public Service,” Potter’s American Monthly, VI:54 (June 1876), 420. [6] Delaplaine, Edward S., “The Life of Thomas Johnson. Part Sixth,” Maryland Historical Magazine, XV:3 (September 1920), 260. [7] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), I:xliv, I:xlvi. [8] Peter Force, ed., “American Archives: Consisting of a Collection of Authentick Records, State Papers, Debates, and Letters and Other Notices of Publick Affairs, the Whole Forming a Documentary History of the Origin and Progress of the North America Colonies; of the Causes and Accomplishment of the American Revolution; and of the Constitution of Government for the United States, to the Final Ratification Thereof. In Six Series” (Washington, DC: Published by M. St. Clair Clarke and Peter Force; ten volumes, 1837-53), Fifth Series, III:93. [9] Ibid., III:107. [10] Force, op. cit., III:117. [11] “Journals of Congress, From January 1st, 1780, to January 1st, 1781. Published by Order of Congress” (Philadelphia: Printed by David C. Claypoole, Printer to the Honorable the Congress, 1781), 176.

Lyman Hall (1724–1790)531

Lyman Hall (1724–1790)

The son of a minister, Lyman Hall was a physician by trade, but remembered as one of the three members of the Continental Congress from Georgia who signed the Declaration of Independence. A leader in the state of Georgia following his service in the Continental Congress (1775-77), he later served as the governor of Georgia (1783), and as a local judge in Georgia shortly before his death. Hall was born in Wallingford, Connecticut, on 12 April 1724, the son of John Hall, a Congregationalist minister, and his wife Mary (née Street) Hall. John and Mary Hall had a total of nine children, five sons and four daughters. The elder Hall is known as John Hall III. [1] A Congregationalist minister in Wallingford, he was the product of many generations of a family that originated in England. Charles S. Hall, the Hall family genealogist, wrote in 1896, “The name Hall is of Savon origin. The settlers in England from the region about the city of Halle in Saxony were called for the sake of distraction before the use of surnames, de Halle, which shortened to Halle and again to Hall became the present surname. John Hall of Northall, in Shropshire, the father of the eminent early English historian, Edward Hall, who died in 1547, traces his name and lineage

to Frederick de Halle in Tyrol, the natural son of Albert of Austria.” [2] Other genealogists follow the line closer to more modern times, back to John Hall, the fourth great-grandfather of our subject, Lyman Hall. John Hall, born in Coventry, England, left to make a home in the colonies, crossing the Atlantic Ocean on the ship Griffin, and, after visiting Boston and then New Haven, established his new home in the town of Wallingford. It was here that his descendant, Lyman Hall, was born. Hall probably received his early education at home and later, entered Yale College (now Yale University), from which he graduated in 1747 with a degree in theology. He became an ordained Congressionalist minister, preaching in the nearby town of Fairfield. In 1753, he had turned completely away from the Church and took up the study of medicine by serving as the apprentice of a local doctor, and then opening a medical practice in Wallingford. (Hall’s official congressional biography states that he moved to Georgia in 1752.) [3] In 1752 he married a local girl, Abigail Burr, but she died a year into their marriage; Hall then remarried, to Mary Osborne. In 1757, with his wife, Hall moved to South Carolina, initially beginning in a Congregationalist settlement near Charlestown (later Charleston), and settling near the border with Georgia in St. John’s Parish three years later. Gradually, the couple migrated south until they reached Savannah, where in 1760 Hall received a plot of land on which he began to build a rice plantation, known as “Hall’s Knoll.” He also constructed another home in the nearby village of Sunbury. During the day, his plantation, which was staffed with a number of slaves, was turning out rice stores while he worked as a physician. In about 1762 he returned to South Carolina, moving to the village of Pon Pon, and practicing medicine there. Hall and his wife would remain in South Carolina until 1774. In South Carolina, he advertised his medical practice by calling himself as “practitioner in physic and surgery.” From the first years of the decade of the 1770s, Lyman Hall is counted as one of the earliest of revolutionary leaders. After moving back to Georgia in 1774, he became one of the most outspoken members of that colony in advocating not just colonial sovereignty from Great Britain

532

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

but a complete breakaway from England and full independence as a separate nation. The fact that many leaders in Georgia did not adhere to this line of thinking angered Hall immensely. On 21 March 1775, Hall was elected by the citizens of the Parish of St. John’s to a seat in the Georgia Provincial Congress, which succeeded the rubber-stamp colonial legislature that had existed under royal rule. Four months later, on 7 July, the delegates to the Provincial Congress elected Hall, Archibald Bulloch, and John Joachim Zubly to represent Georgia in the Continental Congress, being held that September in Philadelphia. He was ultimately reelected to the Continental Congress on 2 February 1776, and attended session from 13 May to 2 August 1775, and 20 May to 4 July 1776, before which he signed the Declaration of Independence. Historian Edmund Cody Burnett discovered missing dates in Hall’s service; he wrote, “In regard to the election in 1775 . . . in John Adams’ ‘Notes of Debates of Oct. 6, 1775,’ some remarks are assigned to ‘Hall.’ and this item is indexed in the Journals [of the Continental Congress] under Lyman Hall. There is, however, no evidence that Lyman Hall attended in the autumn of 1775; besides, the character of the remarks suggests [that it was in fact] John Hall of Maryland. It is to be noted on the other hand that there is no other record of the attendance of Hall of Maryland in the autumn of 1775. John Adams says in a letter to his wife, 17 September 1775, speaking of the Georgia delegates: ‘Mr. Jones and Dr. Hall are not yet arrived.’” [4] When he was sent to Philadelphia as a delegate, Hall was dispatched with 200 barrels of rice, and ₤50 in cash, raised to aid the poor people of Boston. He arrived in Philadelphia with the other delegates; one of the local newspapers, The Pennsylvania Evening Post, rptd, “Last night here the Georgia packet [a type of ship] from Georgia, in which passrs the hon. John Houstoun, Archibald Bullock, Noble Wimberly Jones, Lyman Hall, and dr. Zubly, Delegates appointed to represent that colony in the Continental Congress.” [5]

Georgian. Most, importantly, however, is a lengthy letter to the president of the Continental Congress, Peyton Randolph, on 5 April 1775, in which Hall and the other Georgia delegates penned:

There is only a smattering of correspondence to or from Hall in the collection by Burnett; in the secondary, but no less comprehensive collection of such letters, by editor Paul H. Smith, entitled “Letters of Delegates to Congress,” we do find not only letters from Hall but diary entries on the

The unworthy Part which the Province of Georgia has acted in the great and general Contest, leaves Room to expect little less than the Censure or even Indignation of every virtuous Man in America. Altho on the one hand we feel the Justice of such a Consequence with respect to the Province in General, yet on the other we claim an Exemption from it in favor of some Individuals who wished a better Conduct. Permit us therefore in Behalf of ourselves, and many others our Fellow Citizens warmly attached to the Cause, to lay before the respectable Body over which you preside, a few Facts which we trust will not only acquit us of Supineness [sic], but also render our Conduct to be approved by all candid and dispationate [sic] Men. At the Time the late Congress did this Province the Honor to transmit to it an Extract from their proceedings, inclosed in a friendly Letter from the Honble Mr. [Henry] Middleton, the Sense and Disposition of the People in general seemed to fluctuate, and as it were waver between Liberty and Conveniency [sic]. In order to bring on a Determination respecting the Measures recommended a few well affected Persons in Savannah by publick [sic] Advertisement in the Gazette, requested a Meeting of all the Parishes and Districts, by Delegates or Representatives in provincial Congress. On the Day appointed for this meeting with Concern they found, that only five out of twelve Parishes to which they had particularly wrote, had nominated and sent down Delegates and even some of these five had laid their Representatives under Injunctions as to the Form of an Association. Under those Circumstances those who met saw themselves a good deal embarassed, however one Expedient seemed still to present itself. The House of Assembly was then sitting, and it was hoped there wou’d [sic] be no doubt of a Majority in favour [sic] of American Freedom. The Plan therefore was to go thro’ what Business they cou’d [sic] in Provincial Congress, and then with a short Address present the same to the House of Assembly, who it was hoped wou’d [sic] by Vote, in a few Minutes, and before Prerogative shou’d [sic] interfere, make it the Act of the whole Province. Accordingly the Congress framed and agreed to such an Association and did such other Business as appeared practicable with the People, and had the whole just ready to be

Lyman Hall (1724–1790)533 presented, when The Governor, either treacherously informed of, or shrewdly suspecting the Step, put an End to the session. What then cou’d [sic] the Congress do. On the one hand Truth forbid them to call their Proceedings the Voice of the Province, there being but five out of twelve Parishes concerned, and on the other they wanted Strength sufficient to enforce them upon a Principle of Necessity to which all ought for a Time to submit. They found the Inhabitants of Savannah not likely soon to give Matters a favorable Turn. The Importers were mostly against any Interruption and the Consumers very much divided. There were some of the latter virtuously for the Measures, others strenuously against them, but more who called themselves Neutrals than either. Thus situated there appeared Nothing before us, but the Alternative of either immediately commencing a Civil War among ourselves, or else of patiently waiting the Measures to be recommended by the next General Congress. Among a powerful People, provided with Men Money and Conveniencies [sic], and by whose Conduct others were to be regulated the former wou’d [sic] certainly be the Resolution that wou’d [sic] suggest itself to every Man removed from the Condition of a Coward; but in a small Community like that of Savannah (where Members are mostly in their first Advance towards Wealth or Independence, destitute of even the Necessaries of Life within themselves, and from whose Junction or Silence so little wou’d [sic] be added or lost to the General Cause,) the latter presented itself as the most eligible Plan, and was adopted by the People. From that Time to the present nothing worthy of Notice in a publick [sic] Way has been done. Party disputes and Animosities have occasionally prevailed which shew [sic] that the Spirit of Freedom is not extinguished, but only restrained for a Time till an Opportunity shall offer for calling it forth. The Congress convened in Savannah did us the honor of choosing us Delegates to meet your respectable Body at Philadelphia on the tenth of next Month. We were sensible of the Honor and Weight of the Appointment and wou’d [sic] gladly have rendered our Country any Services our poor Abilities wou’d [sic] have admitted of, but alas! with what Face cou’d we have appeared for a Province whose Inhabitants had refused to sacrifice the most triffling [sic] advantage to the publick [sic] Cause, and in whose behalf we did not think we cou’d [sic] safely pledge ourselves for the Execution of any one Measure whatsoever. We do not mean to insinuate that those who appointed us wou’d [sic] prove Apostates, or desert their Opinion, but that the Tide of Opposition

and Interest were so great that all the Strength and Virtue of these our Friends might be insufficient for the Purpose. We very early saw the Difficulties that wou’d here occur, and therefore repeatedly and constantly requested the People to proceed to the Choice of other Delegates in our Stead, but this they refused to do.” The document was signed by Noble Wimberly Jones, John Houstoun, and Archibald Bulloch, but not Hall, even though it is more than likely that its contents reflected his thinking as well. [6] During his time in the Continental Congress, one of the most important documents signed by the delegates, aside from the Declaration of Independence, was the Olive Branch Petition, an open letter to King George III of England. Despite the fact that Hall was serving in the Continental Congress at the time that the petition was signed, he was not a signatory to it—for a very good reason. Historians Randolph Adams and Benjamin Stevens wrote, “At least seventeen members of the Congress did not sign then ‘Olive Branch’—and for a variety of reasons . . . Lyman Hall of the Parish of St. Johns, in Georgia, could not sign, as his state had not yet properly accredited its delegation to Congress.” [7] In early July 1776, Hall signed the Declaration of Independence, along with fellow delegates Button Gwinnett and George Walton. Hall had taken almost no role in the formation of the document or its ultimate drafting, save for one clause. Georgia at this time, and for another century, was dependent on slave labor for building and harvesting crops, Hall’s rice plantation for an example. When Thomas Jefferson, who penned most of the Declaration, included a denunciation in the document of King George III for not ending the slave trade in the colonies as a violation of human rights, Hall, along with Gwinnett and Walton, demanded that the phrase be stricken, or they would refuse to sign. If the delegation of an entire state, 1/13th of the entire country, refused to sign the document that declared American independence, the potential of a revolt against central authority seemed likely. And thus, due to the influence—or threats, depending on one’s viewpoint—of Lyman Hall, Button Gwinnett, and George Walton, Jefferson struck the section from the final document. All three men now signed the Declaration. Even though he had completed this historic task, Hall remained in

534

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

the Continental Congress until February 1777, finally returning home to Georgia, although he was reelected to his seat until 1780.

down and punishing the enemies of the cause; of the colonies, and his special efforts were directed against the Tories, of whom it is said that, with his own hands, he killed one hundred. He was an Irishman, and, when provoked, let his temper run high. His name was Patrick Carr, and he was a citizen of Jefferson County after the War, and there he is said to have lived many years, and met his death at the hands of some descendants of Tories whom he had offended. It is recorded that when once praised for his courage he replied that he would have made a good soldier, but God had given him too merciful.” Although there are no responses to Carr’s discussions about violence that he utilized, the letters that are printed show that Governor Hall may have the violence occur during his administration. [9]

In Georgia, however, Hall was involved in far more important matters. Historian Charles C. Jones wrote in 1891, “Upon the fall of Savannah in December 1778, and the capture of Sunbury [by British troops], the entire coast region of Georgia passed into the possession of the King’s forces, which overran, plundered, and exacted the most onerous tribute. To the families of those who maintained their allegiance to the rebel cause no mercy was shown. Stripped of property, their homes rendered desolate, often without food and clothing, they were dependent upon the charity of impoverished neighbors.” [8] One of the families hit hard by the British invasion was that of Lyman Hall: His rice plantation was burned to the ground, and his own residence was also sacked and looted. The British Crown had named all of the signers of the Declaration of Independence as traitors and would be subject to death by hanging if caught. Fearing for his own safety and that of his family, Hall fled Georgia and headed north, finding security first in Charleston and, even further north, to Connecticut, where his family moved in with his relatives. With a potential death sentence on his head, Hall remained in Connecticut, out of reach of the British, until 1782, when the British were forced to evacuate the city of Savannah, and it was safe once again for him to return to Georgia. For a short time after his return, Hall practiced medicine in Savannah. The following year, Hall was elected to a seat in the Georgia House of Assembly. Needing to form a new state government, the delegates in that body then elected Hall as their interim governor, for a period of one year. During this period, a man named Patrick Carr took it upon himself to use violence against “Loyalists”—those who continued to support, even after the American Revolution began, England, and used various methods to aid the Crown in the colonies and then in the United States after the Declaration of Independence was signed. Carr laid siege upon the Loyalists of Georgia, even bragging about it in letters to Hall and to his predecessor as governor. In a collection of letters to Hall from Carr, it was written, “During the American Revolution there was in Georgia a man who was most active in hunting

During his single year as governor, Hall tried to bring the state back to some degree of normality following the British withdrawal. Historian James F. Cook explained, “Hall faced the difficult tasks of restoring state government and rebuilding the state’s devastated economy. Demonstrating rare executive ability, he made a number of farsighted and constructive suggestions. He advocated exiling troublesome Tories and confiscating their estates while offering leniency to those who had fled to Florida during the war. He sought new land cessions from the Indians to reward soldiers and to lure more settlers to the state, but also tried to avoid war with the Indians by barring whites from their hunting grounds. Hall had only limited success in improving the state’s finances and defenses, but near the end of his term news arrived of the signing of a peace treaty in Paris officially ending the war.” [10] On 13 September 1783, the South Carolina Gazette reported, “The Hon. Lyman Hall, Governor of Georgia, has issued a Proclamation requiring all persons who may have certificates in their hands for monies loaned to that state, that they do make a return of the same to the Governor of that state, particularly describing the persons [sic] name or names to whom the same was granted, the date, the sum, and the payments, if any, thereon, and also requiring all persons who have in their possession any paper currency of that state, issued under the authority of the same . . . ” [11] After leaving the governorship, Hall remained in public service, elected as a judge of the inferior court (probably a civil rather than a criminal court) of Chatham County, Georgia, an office he resigned

Lyman Hall (1724–1790)535 in early 1790 when he moved his family to Burke County, and purchased the plantation known as Shell Bluff. Remaining in close contact with some of the men who served in the Continental Congress, Hall received a letter from Roger Sherman of Connecticut on 20 January 1784: I Sincerely congratulate you upon the return of Peace, whereby the rights we have long contended for are fully established on very honorable and beneficial terms. The definitive Treaty of peace between Great Britain and the United States was ratified in Congress last week, and the ratification forwarded to New York to go by a French Packet which was to sail this day. It was unanimously ratified by Nine States, no more being represented, a Proclamation & recommendations pursuant thereto have been agreed to, and ordered to be forwarded to the Several States by the Secretary. There are but 8 States now represented, one of the Members from Delaware went home last Saturday, on account of Sickness in his family. There are Several important matters to be transacted, interesting to all the States. I hope that members will come on from Georgia as soon as possible. The impost on foreign goods recommended by Congress for raising a revenue for payment of the interest of the monies borrowed on the Credit of the United States, is fully complied with by the States of Massachusets [sic], New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland and Virginia. New Hampshire has likewise Agreed to it in a Committee of the whole but the act was not compleated [sic] when the Delegate from that State came away. The Assemblys [sic] of Connecticut, and New York are now sitting. Congress are in hopes to adjourn by the first of May, and have a recess ‘till next fall, in case all the States transmit their acts for enabling Congress to levy and collect the Duties seasonably for them to make an ordinance for carrying it into effect, that being a matter of the utmost importance for Supporting the National Credit of the united States, and doing justice to the public Creditors both at home and in Europe; and I apprehend it will be impracticable to raise a Sufficient revenue in the ordinary way of taxing. Raising money by imposts, takes it at the fountain head, and the consumer pays it insensibly and without murmering [sic]. [12] In 1785, Hall was one of a number of state leaders who aided in the initiative that led eventually to the establishment of what is now the University of Georgia. Hall died suddenly at his home in Burke County on 19 October 1790 at the age of 66. [13] Hall

was initially laid to rest in the plantation’s burying ground, in a brick tomb that overlooked the Savannah River; however, in 1848, Hall’s remains were exhumed, and reburied on the grounds of the Augusta Courthouse, on Greene Street. Buried in the same burying ground is his fellow Declaration signer, George Walton. Hall’s wife, Mary, and his only son, John, who died at age 27, leaving no direct descendants. Historian Charles J. Jones, Jr., wrote of Lyman Hall, “In Sanderson’s ‘Lives of the Signers’ that Dr. Lyman Hall was six feet high and finely proportioned; that his manners were easy and polite; that his deportment was affable and dignified; that the force of his enthusiasm was tempered by discretion; that he was firm in purpose and principles; that the ascendency which he gained was engendered by a mild, persuasive manner coupled with a calm, unruffled temper; and that, possessing a strong, discriminating mind, he had the power of imparting his energy to others, and was peculiarly fitted to flourish in the perplexing and perilous scenes of the Revolution.” [14] The religious publication Christian Register said of this patriot, “He possessed a strong and discriminating mind, a sound judgment, a happy talent for conciliating esteem and confidence, and did much by his mild and persuasive manners to unite the citizens of Georgia in the defence of their liberties.” [15] See also: The Olive Branch Petition

[1] John Hall [also known as “The Elder” or John Hall III] family tree, online at http://www.geni.com/ people/John-Hall/6000000002387324083?through= 6000000003528374484. [2] Hall, Charles S., “Hall Ancestry. A Series of Sketches of the Lineal Ancestors of the Children of Samuel Holden Parsons Hall and his Wife Emeline Bulkeley of Binghamton, N. Y. With Some Account of Nearly One Hundred of the Early Puritan Families of New England. Also Tables Showing the Royal Descents of Mary Lyman and Sarah Chauncy and Their Descendants” (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1896), 79. [3] Hall official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=H000061. [4] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), I:lxiv. [5] See The Pennsylvania Evening Post [Philadelphia], 12 August 1775, 335. [6] “[The] Georgia Delegates to the President of the Continental Congress, Peyton Randolph, 6 April 1775” in Paul H. Smith, ed.,

536

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

“Letters of Delegates to Congress, 1774-1789” (Washington, DC: Library of Congress; 26 volumes, 1976-2000), I:326-28. [7] Adams, Randolph Greenfield, and Benjamin Stevens, “The ‘Olive Branch’ Petition to King George III of England From the Second Continental Congress, Signed by Forty-Six of its Members. The Property of George C. W. Fitzwilliam. Milton, Peterborough, England; Sold by His Order. Thursday Evening, January 28 [1932]” (New York: American Art Association, 1932), 12. [8] Jones, Charles C., Jr., “Biographical Sketches of the Delegates from Georgia to the Continental Congress” (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, 1891), 97. [9] “Letters of Patrick Carr, Terror to British Loyalists, to Governor John Martin and Lyman Hall, 1782 and 1783,” The Georgia Historical Quarterly, I:4 (December 1917), 337-41. [10] “Lyman Hall” in James F. Cook, ed., “The Governors of Georgia” (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 2005), 52. [11] South-Carolina Gazette and General Advertiser [Charleston], 9-13 September 1783, 4. [12] Roger Sherman to Lyman Hall, 20 January 1784, in “Letters of Delegates,” op. cit., XXI:296-97. [13] For instance, see the bare mention of Hall’s passing in The City Gazette, or Daily Advertiser [Charleston], 17 December 1790, 2. [14] Jones, Charles C., Jr., “Biographical Sketches of the Delegates from Georgia to the Continental Congress,” op. cit., 104-05. [15] “Lyman Hall,” Christian Register [Boston, Massachusetts], 3 December 1825, 192.

Aaron Burr, Hamilton played a key role in the shaping of the US Constitution in 1787, as well as establishing the financial backbone of the new constitutional government in the 1790s, specifically during his service as the first secretary of the treasury (1789-95) in the administration of President George Washington.

Alexander Hamilton (1757–1804)

Alexander Hamilton was born on the island of Nevis, in the Caribbean Sea, south of the island of Anguila, east of the British Virgin Islands, a part of the Leeward Islands on 11 January 1757. His father, rumored to be the Scotch merchant James Hamilton, abandoned his son before his birth. Hamilton’s mother, Rachel Faucett Lavien (some sources spell her maiden name as Fawcett), was not married to Hamilton’s father, a fact that would be used by Hamilton’s political enemies against him, but married to another man. Henry Cabot Lodge, the Massachusetts politician who served in the US Senate and was a leading opponent of American entry in the League of Nations in 1919, wrote of Hamilton, “He was a British subject born in the tropics, Scotch on his father’s side and of French Huguenot descent on his mother’s, and to this conjunction many of the qualities which Hamilton exhibited in after life may be traced.” [1] Hamilton’s genealogy is controversial. In 1889, historian Pierce Stevens Hamilton discovered that Hamilton’s father was indeed James Hamilton, “described as a proprietor in the West Indies,” He then followed Hamilton’s line back to Bernard, “a near kinsman of Rollo, the first Duke of Normandy. Rollo, previously to his decease, named him Governor to his son, Duke William,” who later invaded England and became William the Conqueror. He concluded, “Thus we find that General Alexander Hamilton, of the United States Revolutionary Army, was the twenty-seventh in direct and unbroken descent from Bernard, the near relative, trusted friend, and brother Viking of the celebrated Northman [sic], or Norman leader of men, Rollo, or Rolf-ganger.” [2]

Alexander Hamilton was a delegate to the Continental Congress in 1782, 1783, and 1788. In a duel at the hands of the US vice president

Historian Harold Larson unearthed Hamilton’s story in 1952. He explained, “If one asks how the mystery of Alexander Hamilton came about, the answer is that Hamilton himself revealed little of his family background, and then only in guarded language. As an illegitimate child, he could hardly be expected to stress his own immediate

Alexander Hamilton (1757–1804)537 origin. Indeed, on occasion political opponents had made capital of the irregularity of his birth; witness the oft-quoted allusions to Hamilton as the ‘bastard brat of a Scotch pedlar [sic]’ and as a ‘foreign bastard’ by John Adams and Thomas Jefferson.” What Larson discovered is that Rachel Faucett, the daughter of a physician and a planter on Nevis, married John Michael Lavien, a planter in his own right on the island of St. Croix, when she was just 16. 12 years later, she gave birth to her second child, this time by James Hamilton, the child who would become Alexander Hamilton. [3] With his mother’s husband unwilling to give her a divorce, and James Hamilton unwilling to marry the mother of his son, Alexander Hamilton grew up in a vacuum. At the age of 12, his mother suddenly died, leaving the young child as an orphan. Historian Emory Speer explained: We find him when twelve years old a clerk in a counting-room, and in the familiar letter to his friend, Edward Stephens, at that tender age it is discovered that he is already the possessor of a vocabulary well nigh Johnsonian. “I contemn,” he writes, “the grovelling [sic] condition of a clerk or the like to which my fortune condemns me, and would willingly risk my life though not my character, to exalt my station. I am confident, Ned, that my youth excludes me from any hopes of immediate preferment, nor do I desire it, but I mean to prepare the way for futurity.” So marked was his capacity at this time, that by friends or relatives, he was entrusted with the sole management of a mercantile business of importance, and it cannot be doubted that the familiarity he thus acquired with business methods and accounting, had the most important influence, when it devolved upon him to organize the treasury, and to utilize the untouched resources of our country for the establishment of national credit. Indeed I have long been convinced that no single accomplishment is of more practical value to the lawyer or statesman than a precise knowledge of accounting and the methods of successful business men.” [4] After receiving a rudimentary education, Hamilton, aided by his mother’s relatives, emigrated to the American colonies in 1773, where he received additional education in the schools of Elizabethtown, New Jersey. The leading institution of learning in New Jersey was Princeton College (now Princeton University), but Hamilton was unable to gain entrance to that

school. Instead, he applied and was accepted at King’s College in New York City in 1774. At the time, King’s College was a small school, although today it is Columbia University. As he was attending classes at King’s College, studying mathematics, Hamilton was in the middle of the American Revolution which began that same year. While he was quietly acting as a student at the college, he was secretly penning pamphlets in support of the Continental Congress, meeting in Philadelphia that September. Despite his apparent leanings in favor of the patriot cause, Hamilton was also a protector of those who wanted to stay allied with England. In April 1775, when a group came to King’s College to arrest Myles Cooper, the college’s president, who was a loyalist, Hamilton gave a speech against Cooper’s arrest, while he escaped to the British lines. In 1776, Hamilton entered the service of the Continental Army in New York, given the rank of captain of artillery. The following March, General George Washington, realizing the potential of this young man, named him as his aide-de-camp, a position he held until 16 February 1781. In the service of the American army, Hamilton saw action with Washington at Long Island, worked to fortify the fort emplacements at Harlem Heights, and suffered with Continental Army troops at Trenton and Princeton. At the same time that he was serving in the military, Hamilton was also keeping his name in the public eye through the publication of political pamphlets. He had originally written “A Full Vindication of the Measures of the Congress, from the Calumnies of their Enemies; in Answer to a Letter, Under the Signature of A. W. Farmer. Whereby his Sophistry is Exposed his Cavils Confuted, his Artifices Detected, and his Wit Ridiculed; In a General Address to the Inhabitants of America, and a Particular Address to Farmers of the Province of New York” (New York: Printed by James Rivington, 1774) as a protest against criticism of those who had condemned the meeting of the Continental Congress. When Samuel Seabury, a well-known New York Loyalist, answered Hamilton’s charge, Hamilton fired back. On 23 February 1775, he penned an essay, “The Farmer Refuted,” in which he refuted Seabury’s charges against the Continental Congress, and, as well, he

538

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

discussed the ongoing revolt against British rule in the American colonies. Addressing what he considered to be the rights of all people under the law, he explained:

Over the next several years, Hamilton was called into action—not to serve on the field of battle, but to assist in the formation and training of the American military. In January 1778 he submitted a report to the Continental Congress to reorganize the Continental Army; that May, he submitted a report on the Inspector General’s office, and the Continental Congress adopted his plans for reforming both. He ultimately served at Washington’s side until he resigned his commission on 16 February 1781. During this period, Hamilton was romancing Elizabeth Schuyler, the daughter of Philip Schuyler, a noted general, delegate to the Continental Congress, and a wealthy New York landowner. The two would eventually marry.

Upon this law, depend the natural rights of mankind, the supreme being gave existence to man, together with the means of preserving and beatifying that existence. He endowed him with rational faculties, by the help of which, to discern and pursue such things, as were consistent with his duty and interest, and invested him with an inviolable right to personal liberty, and personal safety. Hence, in a state of nature, no man had any moral power to deprive another of his life, limbs, property or liberty; nor the least authority to command, or exact obedience from him; except that which arose from the ties of consanguinity. Hence also, the origin of all civil government, justly established, must be a voluntary compact, between the rulers and the ruled; and must be liable to such limitations, as are necessary for the security of the absolute rights of the latter; for what original title can any man or set of men have, to govern others, except their own consent? To usurp dominion over a people, in their own despite, or to grasp at a more extensive power than they are willing to entrust, is to violate that law of nature, which gives every man a right to his personal liberty; and can, therefore, confer no obligation to obedience . . . There are some events in society, to which human laws cannot extend; but when applied to them lose all their force and efficacy. In short, when human laws contradict or discountenance the means, which are necessary to preserve the essential rights of any society, they defeat the proper end of all laws, and so become null and void. [5] This was not, as noted, Hamilton’s first attempts at pamphleteering: his pen had been active for two years when he wrote “The Farmer Refuted.” Historian Ora Davisson explained, “Of his persuasive writings, the Federalist papers are by far the best known; but two pamphlets, written at the age of seventeen, indicate the same specific qualities of deep analysis and logical coherence which appear in his later work. He wrote the pamphlets in the course of a pamphlet debate with Samuel Seabury in 1774 and 1775. The Continental Congress had recommended measures to cease all trade with Great Britain in order to force Britain to restore colonial privileges. Seabury attacked the measures, and Hamilton defended them.” [6]

Hamilton was such an important leader in the nation during the war that many in the Continental Congress saw him as a potential head of a department or some other vital position. John Sullivan wrote to General Washington on 6 March 1781, “I am happy to find your Excellency entertains the Same Sentiments of the virtues and abilities of Colo. Hamilton, as I have Ever Done myself. After I wrote your Excellency I found The Eyes of Congress Turned on Robert Morris, of this City as Financier. I did not therefore nominate Colo. Hamilton as I foresaw that it would be but a vain attempt. I shall this Day nominate him as Secretary of Foreign Affairs in which I think I shall meet the approbation of most of the States.” [7] Historian Worthington Chauncey Ford wrote, “His service at head- quarters during the most trying years of the Revolution had given him a grasp of the inherent weakness of the Confederation that was improved by his service in the Continental Congress.” [8] On 25 November 1782, the Journal of the Continental Congress reported the following: “Mr. Alexander Hamilton, a delegate for the state of New York, attended and produced a commission under the great seal of the state, dated at Poughkeepsie, the 25th of October, 1782, which was read, and by which it appears, that on the 22nd of July, 1782, the honorable James Duane, William Floyd, John Morin Scott, Ezra L’Hommedieu and Alexander Hamilton, were appointed delegates to represent the said said for one year from the first Monday in November, 1782.” [9] According to historian Edmund Cody Burnett, Hamilton was indeed

Alexander Hamilton (1757–1804)539 elected to the Continental Congress on 22 July 1782, and he attended sessions of the body from 25 November to 31 December 1782, from 1 January to 21 June 1783, and from 30 June to about 16 July 1783. As to the latter dates, Burnett explained, “Hamilton probably left Congress when [James] Duane arrived (16 July), but he was in Philadelphia [on] 22 July awaiting the definitive treaty [which ended the war].” [10] As with all of Hamilton’s life, his correspondence is voluminous. Many of his letters, including those to his friend and confidante General Washington, involve matters before the Continental Congress, most usually financial. In one letter, dated 7 February 1783, Hamilton discusses not only the financial situation of the nation, but why the Continental Congress was not addressing the problem: Flattering myself that your knowledge of me will induce you to receive the observations I make, as dictated by a regard to the public good, I take the liberty to suggest to you my ideas on some matters of delicacy and importance. I view the present juncture as a very interesting one. I need not observe how far the temper and situation of the army may make it so. The state of our finances was perhaps never more critical. I am under injunctions which will not permit me to disclose some facts that would at once demonstrate this position; but I think it probable you will be possessed of them through another channel. It is however certain that there has scarcely been a, period of the revolution which called more for wisdom and decision in Congress. Unfortunately for us, we are a body not governed by reason or foresight, but by circumstances. It is probable we shall [not] take the proper measures; and if we do not a few m[onths] may open an embarrassing scene. This will be the ca[se], whether we have peace or a continuance of the war. [11] Hamilton made similar allegations in a missive to George Clinton, the governor of New York, when he wrote on 14 February 1783 on one of the inherent weaknesses of the Articles of Confederation, “Congress have been for some time employed on matters of the 1st importance, devising a plan for carrying the 8th Article of the Confederation into execution, and for funding all the debts of the United States. General principles with respect to the 1st object have been agreed upon, and are referred to a Committee to be digested into form. The plan is crude, and will

be opposed in its last stage, but perhaps it will be adopted by a majority. With respect to funds we have made little progress, and from the turn of the debates, I have not sanguine hopes of proper measures. Whenever any thing [sic] has been matured it will be communicated to the State . . .” [12] Following up this letter, he wrote to Clinton on 24 February: In my letter of the 14th I informed your Excellency that Congress were employed in devising a plan for carrying the 8th article of the confederation into execution. This business is at length brought to a conclusion. I inclose [sic] for the information of the legislature the proceedings upon it in different stages by which they will see the part I have acted. But as I was ultimately left in a small minority, I think it my duty to explain the motives upon which my opposition to the general sense of the house was founded. I am of opinion, that the article of the confederation itself was illjudged. In the first place I do not believe there is any general representation of the wealth of a nation—the criterion of its ability to pay taxes. There are only two that can be thought of, land and numbers . . . The only possible way then of making them contribute to the general expence [sic] in an equal proportion to their means is by general taxes imposed under Continental authority. [13] The Continental Congress, which convened with Alexander Hamilton as a delegate came during the period of the last stages of the ratification of the Articles of Confederation. At the same time, Hamilton served with several men who would take a leading role in shaping America in the postrevolutionary era. Historian Leopold Launitz-Shurer wrote in 1966, “The Congress which convened on 4 November 1782 brought together men of varying political persuasions. Those who favored strong central government were a minority composed chiefly of Hamilton, James Madison, and James Wilson. A larger number of the members—men of more republican leanings, led by Arthur Lee, David Howell, and Theodorick Bland—believed that the future of the nation should be left to the states. It is easy to exaggerate the differences between the nationalists and the republicans for in many ways they shared a common outlook on life. They distrusted political parties, the people in general, and the lustful ambition they suspected lurked in the hearts of all men.” [14] What these men discovered during this period was that while the Articles of Confederation was

540

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

a good first start in the formation of a national government, a new blueprint, which gave the federal government specific powers over the states, was desperately needed, and Hamilton became one of those who called for just such a new governmental plan to be laid out. At the same time, once he left the Continental Congress, he remained busy in other areas: he helped to found the Bank of New York, as well as the New York Evening Post, and, in 1784, working with fellow New Yorker John Jay, helped to transform King’s College, Hamilton’s alma mater, into what is now Columbia University. Hamilton served as a regent of that institution from 1784 until 1787, and then as a trustee from 1787 until his death in 1804.

delegates in Philadelphia that he also wanted protections for the minority in both the proposed US Senate and US House of Representatives. He said, “The way to prevent a majority from having an interest to oppress the minority is to enlarge the sphere.” [16] As a member of the Committee of Style, he helped to draft protections for New York, one of the larger states, against the smaller states that threatened to walk out if they were bullied by the big states. Angered that his fellow New York delegates did not go far enough in giving stronger powers to the federal government, nevertheless Hamilton was satisfied with the final document and signed it in September 1787, despite obvious defects he felt needed to be addressed in the future. After returning home, he collaborated with John Jay, his fellow New York delegate to the Constitutional Convention, and James Madison of Virginia, to pen a series of articles that appeared in various national newspapers, calling for the ultimate ratification of the new US Constitution, on the promise that any “defects” would be fixed through the amendment process built into the document itself. Eventually published in book form in 1788, these essays, 85 in total, have come to be known as “The Federalist Papers.” The three men—Hamilton, Jay, and Madison—all used pseudonyms so as not to be identified with any particular policy. (It was not until 1818, when an edition published by Jacob Gideon was released, that the men’s true identities were revealed.) Hamilton’s essays were written under the name “Publius.” [17] Two of Hamilton’s most important essays are known as The Federalist 15 and The Federalist 78, so named because that it is the number assigned to them according to the date of publication. In the first, number 15, but entitled “The Insufficiency of the Present Confederation to Preserve the Union,” Hamilton explained:

Historian Leonard Bernstein wrote, “Hamilton, interested primarily in the legitimization of republican government and the development of a vigorous economy in the United States, succeeded in welding an urban coalition that triumphed in New York City before the Constitutional Convention of 1787.” [15] In 1786, Hamilton served as a delegate to the Annapolis Convention, better known as the Convention of the Commissioners to Remedy Defects in the Federal Government, which met in Maryland on 14 September 1786. States that attended gave notice that the Articles of Confederation, in operation only three years, was wholly inadequate to address the growing problems of the new nation, now in a postwar mode. One of the most outspoken members of that meeting, Hamilton made a direct challenge to the states to call a constitutional convention. In 1787, although working as an attorney in New York City, Hamilton was elected to the New York State legislature. When, that same summer, a constitutional convention was called, to be held in Philadelphia, the legislature elected Hamilton as one of New York’s delegates. Although previously he had been outspoken in his demands for certain financial powers to be given to a central federal government, Hamilton played little if any role in the floor debates in Philadelphia. At the Constitutional Convention, Hamilton took the lead in calling for limited powers for the chief executive. In random notes found by historian Worthington Chauncey Ford, Hamilton told the

In the course of the preceding papers, I have endeavored, my fellow-citizens, to place before you, in a clear and convincing light, the importance of Union to your political safety and happiness. I have unfolded to you a complication of dangers to which you would be exposed, should you permit that sacred knot which binds the people of America together be severed or dissolved by ambition or by avarice, by jealousy or by misrepresentation. In the sequel of the inquiry through which I propose to accompany you, the truths intended to be inculcated will receive further confirmation from

Alexander Hamilton (1757–1804)541 facts and arguments hitherto unnoticed. If the road over which you will still have to pass should in some places appear to you tedious or irksome, you will recollect that you are in quest of information on a subject the most momentous which can engage the attention of a free people, that the field through which you have to travel is in itself spacious, and that the difficulties of the journey have been unnecessarily increased by the mazes with which sophistry has beset the way. It will be my aim to remove the obstacles from your progress in as compendious a manner as it can be done, without sacrificing utility to dispatch [sic]. [18] On 10 November 1787, George Washington, in retirement at his home in Mount Vernon in Virginia, wrote to Hamilton, thanking him for his contributions to “The Federalist.” The man who would become the first president of the United States under the new US Constitution penned to Hamilton: I thank you for the Pamphlet and for the Gazette contained in your letter of the 30th Ult. For the remaining numbers of Publius, I shall acknowledge myself obliged, as I am persuaded the subject will be well handled by the Author. The new Constitution has, as the public prints will have informed you, been handed to the people of this state by a unanimous vote of the Assembly; but it is not to be inferred from hence that its opponants are silenced; on the contrary, there are many, and some powerful ones. Some of whom, it is said by overshooting the mark, have lessened their weight: be this as it may, their assiduity stands unrivalled, whilst the friends to the Constitution content themselves with barely avowing their approbation of it. Thus stands the matter with us, at present; yet, my opinion is, that the Major voice is favourable. [19] In another letter dated 28 August 1788, Washington praised Hamilton for the latest installment of the Federalist Papers. Washington writes, “As the perusal of the political papers under the signature of Publius has afforded me great satisfaction, I shall certainly consider them as claiming a most distinguished place in my Library. I have read every performance which has been printed on one side and the other of the great question lately agitated (so far as I have been able to obtain them) and, wo [sic] an unmeaning compliment, i will say that i have seen no other so well calculated (in my judgment) to produce conviction on an unbiased mind.” [20]

One of the stands that Hamilton took, both before the Constitutional Convention, but most notably during it and after it, was his vehement opposition to slavery. Having seen slaves in his native West Indies, Hamilton was acutely aware of the impact of such human suffering. Although historians focus on his opposition to the practice at the Constitutional Convention, in fact Hamilton had long opposed slavery. In February 1775, in the essay entitled “The Farmer Refuted,” Hamilton penned, “The idea of colony does not involve the idea of slavery. There is a wide difference, between the dependence of a free people, and the submission of slaves. The former I allow, the latter I reject with disdain. Nor does the notion of a colony imply any subordination to our fellow subjects, in the patent state, while there is one common sovereign established.” [21] Hamilton later wrote, “The existence of slavery makes us fancy many things that are founded neither in reason or experience.” Historian Michael Chan stated: Contemporary scholars tend to ignore Hamilton’s strong opposition to slavery. Some of the more sympathetic ones such as Forrest McDonald and Thomas West note Hamilton’s opposition, but the subject is usually treated in a perfunctory manner. Instead, the lingering influence of [others] of the era have conspired to leave us with a characterization of Hamilton as a nominally republican, but substantially anti-egalitarian defender of the commercial classes who was as token in his opposition to slavery as were his opponents. In his biography of Hamilton, Jacob Cooke concisely expresses the view held by many: “In his lack of deep concern about either slavery or its concomitant racism (prevalent in the North as well as the South), [Hamilton] joined the overwhelming majority of his countrymen, political foes and allies alike.” [22] As the US Constitution was being debated and, ultimately, ratified in all of the states, Hamilton was once again elected to a seat in the Continental Congress, soon to be succeeded by the bicameral us Congress, consisting of the US House of Representatives and the US Senate. Elected on 22 January 1788, he served in the dying body from 25 February to 4 March 1788, and then from 30 July to 10 October of that same year. When he left the Congress, it had but a few months left to be in operation. [23] During this period, Hamilton also served as a delegate to

542

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

the New York state Constitutional Convention, which ratified the Constitution.

manufactures. In a young country, of enormous potential resources, but sparsely populated, overwhelmingly agricultural and extractive in its pursuits, and fractioned into conflicting political and economic divisions, organization became his dearest object.” [25]

Hamilton kept in touch with many of the intimates he knew in the Continental Congress. Writing to James Wilson on 25 January 1789, he explained: A degree of anxiety about a matter of primary importance to the new government induces me to trouble you with this letter. I mean the election of the President. We all feel of how much moment it is that Washington should be the man; and I own I cannot think there is material room to doubt that this will be the unanimous sense. But as a failure in this object would be attended with the worst con sequences I cannot help concluding that even possibilities should be guarded against. Every body [sic] is aware of that defect in the constitution which renders it possible that the man intended for Vice President may in fact turn up President. Every body [sic] sees that unanimity in Adams as Vice President and a few votes insidiously witheld [sic] from Washington might substitute the former to the latter. And every body [sic] must perceive that there is something to fear from the machinations of Antifœderal [sic] malignity. What in this situation is wise? [24] With the full ratification of the Constitution, the new federal government went into operation on 4 March 1789: Hamilton’s close friend George Washington had been elected the first “President of the United States” under the dictates of the new document the previous November, and to assist him in carrying out the myriad of duties now assigned to the new “Commander-in-Chief,” a “cabinet,” fashioned on the British model, was established. One of the key advisors to the president was a “Secretary of the Treasury,” to handle all financial matters of the new government. Washington turned to his friend Hamilton, naming him as the first secretary of the treasury, where he ultimately served from 1789 until 1795, through the entirety of Washington’s first presidential term, and midway through his second. He set the stage for future secretaries of that department to try to fill the shoes of this master financial strategist. In 1957, in celebrating the 200th anniversary of Hamilton’s birth, historian Broadus Mitchell intoned on Hamilton’s service as secretary of the treasury, “If anything, Hamilton was more the prophet and practitioner of government than he was the patron of finance, trade and

On 16 January 1795, prior to his offering his resignation, Hamilton submitted a report that is considered one of the first major attempts to rein in massive government debt. In the report, sent to the US House of Representatives, Hamilton explained, “This plan embraces, a further provision for the unsubscribed debt, a provision for converting, with [the] consent of the Creditors, the foreign debt into Domestic Debt, a provision for augmenting the Sinking Fund so as to render it commensurate with the entire debt of the United States, suggestions for giving effect to the act of the last session for granting a million of dollars for the purposes of foreign intercourse; with some auxiliary proportions.” [26] After completing his service as the Secretary of the Treasury, Hamilton returned to his law practice in New York City. But in the intervening years, in and out of office, Hamilton had made many political enemies. In 1790, as secretary of the treasury, he took a rather large role in the founding of the First Bank of the United States. James Thomson Callender, in a history of the nation in the last years of the 18th century, wrote, “On the subject of this bank, Mr. Alexander Hamilton gave in to congress [sic] a report, dated 13th of December, 1790, and which fills twentyone folio pages. He says not a single word as to its being authorized by the constitution [sic], which undoubtedly gives no such power. But here we learn that it was directly negative by the framers of that instrument; and expressly contradicted the spirit and design of it.” [27] Many who opposed the establishment of the First Bank of the United States blamed Hamilton for its creation. In the 1800 presidential election, Hamilton used his pen, and his influence, to spread the word about what he saw was the unfitness for office of President John Adams, with whom he had served in the Washington administration, when Adams was Washington’s vice president. In a “Letter from Alexander Hamilton,” published in 1800, Hamilton wrote, “Some of the warm personal friends of

Alexander Hamilton (1757–1804)543 Mr. Adams are taking unwearied pains to disparage the motives of those Federalists, who advocate the equal support of Gen. [---] Pinckney, at the approaching election of president and vice president. They are exhibited under a variety of aspects equally derogatory. Sometimes they are versatile, factious spirits, who cannot be long satisfied with any chief, however meritorious . . . [i]t is necessary, for the public cause, to repel these slanders; by stating the real views of the persons who are calumniated, and the reasons of their conduct.” [28] But among those who came to oppose Hamilton, one man came to hate him: Aaron Burr. Burr, a leading New York politician who desired in the years after the ratification of the US Constitution to be elected president of the United States, saw Hamilton as the stumbling block to his ultimate ambition. Hamilton, for his part, came to see Burr as a scheming politician who could never be trusted getting even close to the corridors of power, and Hamilton used every weapon at his disposal to frustrate Burr’s efforts. In the 1800 presidential election, Jefferson and Burr both received the same number of electoral votes. Hamilton, believing that the election of Burr would mean calamity for America, set about to deny the New Yorker the presidential position. Corresponding with Federalists across the country, he called Burr a man “of unhallowed ambition,” “lacking in integrity,” and said that he was “a Cæsar, ready to mount to the highest position by any means, lawful or unlawful.” In a letter to Senator Harrison Gray Otis of Massachusetts, 23 December 1800, Hamilton penned: My opinion is, after mature reflection, that if Jefferson and Burr come with equal votes to the House of Representatives, the former ought to be preferred by the . . . Federalists. Mr. Jefferson is respectably known in Europe—Mr. Burr little and that little not advantageously for . . . President of the U[.] States— Mr. Jefferson is a man of easy fortune—Mr. Burr, as I believe, a bankrupt [man] beyond redemption, unless by some coup at the expence [sic] of the public, and his habits of expence [sic] are such that Wealth hemust have at any rate—Mr. Jefferson is a man of fair character for probity—Very different ideas are entertained of Mr. Burr by his enemies and what his friends think, you may collect from this anecdote . . . Mr. Jefferson, though too revolutionary in his

notions, is yet a lover of liberty and will be desirous of something like orderly Government—Mr. Burr loves nothing but himself—[he] thinks of nothing but his own aggrandizement—and will be content with nothing short of permanent power . . . in his own hands—No compact, that he should make with any . . . passion in his . . . breast except Ambition, could be relied upon by himself. [29] In the end, Jefferson was elected president, and Burr, coming in second place, was given the vice presidency. His being given that office seemed to have mollified Burr, at least for a time. Hamilton, however, was still not satisfied. Although he was one step from attaining his dream to become president, Burr soon became unhappy in the vice presidency, with its virtual powerlessness, and he looked for a way out of the office. The opportunity presented itself in early 1804, when New York held another election for governor. Burr tried to use his influence in the state to gain the Federalist nomination for the post, but Hamilton, perhaps finding some glee in Burr’s hatred of the vice presidency, urged the New York Federalists to block the nomination going to Burr. Historian John Lamberton Harper stated, “Fearing that Burr aimed to become the leader of a Northern secession from the union, Hamilton urged New York Federalists to back a Republican candidate and [he] renewed his attacks on the man of ‘talents intrigue and address.’” [30] Despite Hamilton’s influence, Burr received the nomination of both the Federalist Party and a segment of the Democratic-Republican Party, controlled by New York City’s Tammany Hall; Oliver Phelps, a former tavern keeper from Massachusetts, was paired with Burr as the candidate for lieutenant governor. In addition to the opposition of Hamilton, Burr also incurred the wrath of the Clinton and Livingston families, both of whom controlled the politics in New York State before and since the American Revolution. While Hamilton was working behind the scenes to undercut Burr, the Clinton and Livingston faction of the Democratic-Republican Party got Morgan Lewis and John Broome nominated on the state party ticket, and they employed newspaper editor James Cheetham to use the pages of his paper, American Citizen, to rail against Burr. The vice president tried to fend off the attacks, but to no avail: Lewis and Broome

544

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

won in a landslide, gaining 58% of the vote out of some 53,000 votes cast. And although Burr had been attacked from all sides, he blamed one person for his defeat: Alexander Hamilton. The vice president challenged the former secretary of the treasury to a duel, held just across from Manhattan, in Weehawken, New Jersey, on 11 July 1804.

I to give the narrative of some facts which have fallen under my own observation, during the time which elapsed between the fatal duel and his departure out of this world.” Moore then laid out the events before, during, and after Hamilton was shot. [33] The New-York Herald even printed an “Elegy on the Death of Gen. Hamilton,” intoning that “while the deep-ton’d, solemn, funeral bell, Proclaimed some Chief has bade the world farewell!” [34] Even years later, Hamilton’s name still evoked praise and honor. The Daily National Intelligencer of Washington, DC, said in an editorial published 13 years after Hamilton’s death, “There is no name perhaps so often lugged head and shoulders into the federal newspapers, as that of Alexander Hamilton. This is no time, if it were our wish, to detract from his political merits. But, as the old adage has it, one may have too much even of a good thing. It is perhaps to burlesque the absurdity of this perpetual chorus of praise of the exalted talents and godlike virtues of Alexander Hamilton . . .”

Hamilton did not shoot to hit Burr, but Burr made sure to hit Hamilton, mortally wounding him. Taken to a local inn, Hamilton suffered until the following day when he succumbed to his wounds. One article on Hamilton’s history of dueling, stated, “It is a well-known fact that a hundred and fifty years ago this month, on the morning of July 11, 1804, Alexander Hamilton of New York, attorney, former Secretary of the Treasury, and Federalist leader, was mortally wounded in a duel at Weehawken, New Jersey, by Aaron Burr the younger, Vice-President of the United States. It is a much less known fact that some two and a half years earlier, on November 24, 1801, Hamilton’s son and first born, Philip, was killed in a duel on the same spot at Weehawken where his father fell. Considerably less known is the fact that in the summer of 1795, Hamilton pére came uncomfortably close to fighting a duel with Commodore James Nicholson.” [31] There was universal outrage at the murder of Hamilton at the hands of the sitting vice president of the United States . . . but, more importantly, there was great distress and an outpouring of tributes for the deceased Hamilton. The New York Evening Post said, “In memory of Major-General Alexander Hamilton, whose death our Country has to deplore the loss of a Patriot, a Statesman, and a Soldier . . .” [32] The New-Hampshire Sentinel of Keene, New Hampshire, reported a firsthand account, by the Right Reverend Bishop Benjamin Moore, of New York, who was called to Hamilton’s side as he lay mortally wounded, and gave him the last rights in his final hours. In a letter from Moore, he wrote, “The public mind being extremely agitated by the melancholy fate of that great man, Alexander Hamilton, I have thought it would be grateful to my fellow-citizens, would provide against misrepresentation and, perhaps be conducive to the advancement of the cause of Religion, were

[35]

Hamilton’s body was taken back to New York City, and he was buried in the cemetery of the Trinity Churchyard in lower Manhattan. That graveyard, as well as the church, were heavily damaged when the World Trade Center towers collapsed after being struck by two aircraft piloted by terrorists on 11 September 2001, although Hamilton’s grave and tomb were undisturbed. More than two centuries after his murder, Hamilton continues to fascinate. Historian Donald Lee Walker wrote in 2005, “Few people in American history have aroused such hatred or admiration as Alexander Hamilton. Among the founding fathers he remains trapped in a stereotypical caricature that pits the advocates of ‘Jeffersonian democracy’ against ‘Hamiltonian aristocracy.’ The historical pendulum has swung back and forth between the two men and continues today. Last year Hamilton dominated the news lines. Ron Chemow published an 818 page biography, the bicentennial of the Hamilton-Burr duel was reenacted by the two mens’ descendants, and The New York Historical Society debuted the exhibit ‘Alexander Hamilton: The Man Who Made Modem America,’ on 10 September 2004.” [36] Historian Anson Morse wrote in 1890, nearly a century after Hamilton’s

Alexander Hamilton (1757–1804)545 murder, of the ultimate impact of this man: “‘One cannot note,’ writes Professor Bryce, ‘the disappearance of this brilliant figure, to Europeans the most interesting in the early history of the Republic, without the remark that his countrymen seem to have never, either in his lifetime or afterwards, duly recognized his splendid gifts.’ Our failure to do justice to Hamilton is undeniable; and it is all the more conspicuous and deplorable because it relates not alone to his gifts, but also, and in an even higher degree, to his services.” [37]

[1] Lodge, Henry Cabot, “Alexander Hamilton” (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin Co., 1882), 1. [2] Hamilton, Pierce Stevens, “Hamilton Lineage. The Lineage of Alexander Hamilton,” in Archibald Robertson Small, M.D., “Genealogy of the Robertson, Small and Related Families” (Indianapolis: Published by Albert Garrett Small, 1907), 34-36. [3] Larson, Harold, “Alexander Hamilton: The Fact and Fiction of His Early Years,” The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, IX:2 (April 1952), 139-41. [4] Speer, Emory, “Alexander Hamilton,” The Yale Law Journal, XVI:2 (December 1906), 95. [5] Alexander Hamilton, “The Farmer Refuted” in Harold C. Syrett, ed., et al., “The Papers of Alexander Hamilton” (New York: Columbia University Press; twenty-six volumes, 1961-79), I:8689, 121-22, 135-36. [6] Davisson, Ora B. De Vilbiss, “The Early Pamphlets of Alexander Hamilton,” Quarterly Journal of Speech, XXX:2 (1944), 168. [7] John Sullivan to George Washington, 6 March 1781, in Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VI:11. [8] Ford, Worthington Chauncey, “Alexander Hamilton’s Notes in the Federal Convention of 1787,” The American Historical Review, X:1 (October 1904), 98. For Hamilton’s election to the Continental Congress, see New York State, Assembly, “Votes and Proceedings of the Assembly, &c. At the First Meeting of the Sixth Session” (Poughkeepsie, NY: Printed by John Holt, 1782), 112, 123. [9] “Journal of the United States in Congress Assembled, Containing the Proceedings from the First Monday in November 1782, to the First Monday in November 1783. Volume VIII. Published by Order of Congress” (Philadelphia: Printed by David C. Claypoole, 1783), 18. [10] Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress,” op. cit., VI:xlviii; VII:lxxi. [11] Alexander Hamilton to George Washington, 7 February 1783, in ibid., VII:33. [12] Alexander Hamilton to George Clinton, 14 February 1783, in ibid., VII:44. [13] Alexander Hamilton to George Clinton, 24 February 1783, in ibid., VII:52. [14] Launitz-Schurer, Leopold S., Jr., “Alexander Hamilton, Delegate to Congress,” Master’s thesis, McGill University [Canada], 1966), 10. [15] Bernstein, Leonard H. “Alexander Hamilton and Political Factions in New York to 1787” (Ph.D. dissertation, New York University, 1970), v. [16] “Notes for 1 June 1787” in Ford, op. cit., 98.

[17] “The Federalist: a Collection of Essays, Written in Favour of the New Constitution, as Agreed Upon by the Federal Convention, September 17, 1787. In two volumes” (New York: Printed and Sold by J. and A. M’Lean, no. 41, Hanover-Square; two volumes, 1788). [18] See the essay by Hamilton in ibid., 86-87. [19] George Washington to Hamilton, 10 Nov 1787, in Series 2, “Letterbooks, The Papers of George Washington,” Library of Congress. [20] Washington to Hamilton, 29 August 1788, in Edward G. Lengel, ed., “A Companion to George Washington” (West Sussex, UK: Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 2012), 555. [21] Alexander Hamilton, “The Farmer Refuted,” in Harold C. Syrett, ed. et al., “The Papers of Alexander Hamilton” (New York: Columbia University Press; twenty-six volumes, 1961-79), I:90. [22] Chan, Michael D., “Alexander Hamilton on Slavery,” The Review of Politics, LXVI:2 (Spring 2004), 207-08. [23] Burnett, “Letters of Members,” op. cit., VIII:xci. [24] Alexander Hamilton to James Wilson, 25 January 1789, in “Letters of Hon. Alexander Hamilton and Rev. William Smith, D.D., to Hon. James Wilson, 1789,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, XXIX:2 (1905), 210. [25] Mitchell, Broadus, “Alexander Hamilton as Finance Minister,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, CII:2 (30 April 1958), 119. [26] United States Congress, House of Representatives, “Reports of Alexander Hamilton, Esq. Secretary of the Treasury, Read in the House of Representatives of the United States, January 19th, 1795; Containing, I. A Plan for the Further Support of Public Credit. II. For the Improvement and Better Management of the Revenues of the United States: to Which is Annexed, The Copy of an Act for Making Provision for the Support of Public Credit and the Redemption of the Debt. Printed by Order of the House of Representatives” (London: Reprinted for J. Debrett, Opposite Burlington-House, Piccadilly, 1795), 2. [27] Callender, James Thomson, “Sketches of the History of America. By James Thomson Callender. (Entered according to law.)” (Philadelphia: From the Press of Snowden & M’Corkle, no. 47, North Fourth-Street, 1798), 67-68. [28] “Letter from Alexander Hamilton, Concerning the Public Conduct and Character of John Adams, Esq. President of the United States” (New-York: Printed for John Lang, by George F. Hopkins, 1800), 3. [29] Alexander Hamilton to Harrison Gray Otis, 23 Dec 1800, in Herbert Sloan, “ ‘In a Choice of Evils . . . Jefferson Is in Every View Less Dangerous than Burr’: Alexander Hamilton to Harrison Gray Otis on the Deadlocked Presidential Election of 1800,” OAH Magazine of History, XVIII:5 (October 2004), 53-57. [30] Harper, John Lamberton, “American Machiavelli: Alexander Hamilton and the Origins of US Foreign Policy” (Cambridge, UK: Published by the Press Syndicate of the University of Cambridge Press, 2004), 268. [31] “Alexander Hamilton’s Unfought Duel of 1795,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, LXXVIII:3 (July 1954), 342-52. [32] New-York Evening Post [New York City], 24 July 1804, 3. [33] “Of Gen. Hamilton’s Death & Internment!,” New-Hampshire Sentinel [Keene], 28 July 1804, 1. [34] “Elegy on the Death of Gen. Hamilton,” New-York Herald, 25 July 1804, 3. [35] Daily National Intelligencer [Washington, DC], 8 April 1817, 3. [36] Walker, Donald Lee, Jr., “Alexander Hamilton’s American Empire: The Intellectual Foundations of Federalist Foreign Policy” (Ph.D. dissertation, The University of Nebraska—Lincoln, 2005), 1. [37] Morse, Anson D., “Alexander Hamilton,” Political Science Quarterly, V:1 (March 1890), 1.

546

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

John Hancock (c. 1737–1793)

miles to the south of Boston, where he remained for twenty-five years, until his death.” [2] The Reverend Hancock, the father of John Hancock, was born in Lexington, in Middlesex County, Massachusetts, in 1702, and was the pastor of the First Church of the North Precinct of Braintree, serving as the librarian of Harvard College (now Harvard University). In 1744, when he was just 41, the Reverend Hancock would die, leaving his widow to care for a rather large family when his son John was just seven years of age. The Reverend Hancock had learned the teaching and spreading of religion from his own father, also known as the Reverend John Hancock, the “Sr.,” born in Cambridge, Massachusetts, in 1671. This was the legacy—as well as the path—that lay ahead of John Hancock, who grew up without his father. At this time, his uncle, Thomas Hancock, who had become one of the wealthiest merchants in the American colonies, adopted his nephew and took him under his wing, teaching him not the business of religion but the business of business. He spent his own money to get his nephew the finest education that he could purchase, making sure that young John received what has been called a “classical education,” the teaching of languages, literature, mathematics, and other subjects, at the prestigious Boston Latin School, one of thethen most important centers of learning in the colonies. Through his influence, he got John into Harvard College, and Hancock graduated from that institution in 1754, when he was 17. He then entered his uncle’s shipping business, working in the office and gradually learning the trade of shipping goods to and from the colonies, mostly to England.

John Hancock’s signing of the Declaration of Independence with the largest signature is universally remembered for such. He contributed immensely to the building of the early years of the American nation, especially during his service in the Continental Congress (1775-78), and as president of that body (May 1775-October 1777). Hancock was born on his family’s farm in Braintree, now Quincy, Massachusetts, on 12 January 1737, the son of the Reverend John Hancock and his wife Mary (née Hawke) Hancock, John. (Some sources report the date as being 1736.) [1] Charles Francis Adams, the son of Continental Congress delegate John Adams, wrote in 1877, “John Hancock derived his descent from the Puritan fathers in Massachusetts. When the first of the family came out does not appear, but his son, the first recorded in the catalogue of the graduates of Harvard College, was born in 1670, and issued from that Institution to fit himself for the minis try in 1689. He soon became pastor of the parish of Lexington, a few miles from Boston, where he served with great acceptance until his decease in 1752, in the eighty second year of his age. He left three sons, the eldest of whom, inheriting his name and adopting the same profession, issued from Harvard College in 1719, and became the pastor of the parish of Braintree, also a few

Three years later, in 1760, John Hancock traveled to London to join his uncle in the attempt to sell products to the British Board of Admiralty. On 29 October 1760, John Hancock penned a letter to a family friend, the Reverend Daniel Perkins, and he wrote of the goings-in in London, much of which dealt with the sudden death of King George II, who died on 25 October 1760: I am very busy in getting my self [sic] mourning upon the Occasion of the Melancholy Event of the Death of his late Majesty King George the 2d, to which every person of any Note here Conforms even to the deepest mourning. His Death was very sudden last Saturday Morning, after Rising as well as usual, he felt not well,

John Hancock (c. 1737–1793)547 and fell down in a Fit of Apoplexy and died instantly. Every thing here now is very dull. All Plays are stopt [sic] and no Diversions are going forward, that I am at a loss how to dispose of my self. On Sunday last the Prince of Wales was proclaim’d King thro’ the City with great Pomp and Joy. His Coronation I am told will not be till April, that I can’t yet determine whether I shall stay to see it, but the rather think I shall, as it is the grandest thing I shall ever meet with. I am not more particular in the Circumstances of the King’s Death, as I imagine you will have the Accounts long before this Reaches you. [3] Hancock returned to Boston in October 1761, and less than fifteen months later, in January 1763, he was made a partner in the firm of Thomas Hancock & Company. However, when his uncle died on 1 August 1764 of apoplexy (a stroke), John Hancock became the head of the company. The next year, however, saw direct challenges to his rule as the head of one of Boston’s top mercantile house. 1765 saw the British Parliament enact The Stamp Act, a tax on all paper products, as well as other items, sold by British merchants in the colonies. At first, Hancock did not see any problem for his company, as he dealt with the shipping of products, not their sale. He wrote, “I seldom meddle in Politicks [sic], & indeed have not the Time now to Say something on that head.” However, as the legislation took effect and hit the colonial economy hard, Hancock soon changed his tune and decided to get involved. Historian Robert Finkelstein explained, “His mounting difficulties made Hancock more receptive to the Boston merchants and colonial legislators’ calls for unity of action against this oppressive tax; especially as he already considered himself over burdened with an excessively heavy tax load. Hancock calculated that in the last six years before his death, his uncle Thomas paid over ₤12,000 pounds sterling in accumulated taxes. Furthermore, ‘I believe I may venture to say that not a man in England in proportion to estate pays the tax that I do . . . I pay yearly to this Province and county near ₤300 Sterling, besides all duties, imposts, ministers and many other which are additional taxes.’” [4] Unable to see survival for his concern if he remained silent, Hancock turned to smuggling to make a living. Although the exact time and year of this smuggling began, it was in full

force by 1768, when Hancock was smuggling expensive Madeira wine from Spain into Boston Harbor. Historian O.M. Dickerson wrote, “Most recent histories, of the Revolutionary period represent John Hancock as a smuggler. In some accounts this is only an impression that is left; in others it is stated as a fact. One writer even vividly describes Hancock openly’ running his wine ashore in defiance of the customs officials in typical western movie gunman style.” [5] This led to the infamous “Liberty” riot, which occurred on board a ship, Liberty, owned and operated by Hancock, which was seized by British authorities in Massachusetts and towed out to sea. A riot on shore, 10 June 1768, at the seizure of the ship led to Hancock’s arrest. He retained famed Boston attorney John Adams to defend him, but after a few months the Crown dropped all charges and freed Hancock of any threat against his freedom. Although the British retained Hancock’s ship—it was later converted into a coast guard craft before being burned in the revolution—Hancock became a local hero for standing up to the British authorities. For this alone, in 1769 he was elected to a seat in the Massachusetts colonial General Court, the “legislature” of the royal government. Following the Boston Massacre, the murder of Americans by British soldiers in Boston in March 1770, Hancock was named to a committee of that town, along with John Adams, who became acquainted with Hancock and saw him as a rising star in Massachusetts politics. Due to the influence of Adams, as well as others with strong ties to those with growing anti-British feelings in the colony, asked Hancock to deliver an oration on 5 March 1774, the fourth anniversary of the massacre, at Boston’s Old South Meeting House; Hancock’s “oration,” delivered “the request of the inhabitants of the Town of Boston,” shifted between being a eulogy for the men murdered and the questioning the authority of Britain over the lives of the American colonists. He said: I have always, from my earliest youth, rejoiced in the felicity of my fellow-men; and have ever considered it as the indispensable able duty of every member of society to promote, as far as in him lies, the prosperity of every individual, but more especially of the community to which he belongs; and also, as a faithful subject of the State, to use his utmost endeavors to detect, and having detected, strenuously

548

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

to oppose every traitorous plot which its enemies may devise for its destruction. Security to the persons and properties of the governed is so obviously the design and end of civil government, that to attempt a logical proof of it would be like burning tapers at noonday, to assist the sun in enlightening the world; and it cannot be either virtuous or honorable to attempt to support a government of which this is not the great and principal basis; and it is to the last degree vicious and infamous to attempt to support a government which manifestly tends to render the persons and properties of the governed insecure. Some boast of being friends to government; I am a friend to righteous government, to a government founded upon the principles of reason and justice; but I glory in publicly avowing my eternal enmity to tyranny. Is the present system, which the British administration have adopted for the government of the Colonies, a righteous government— or is it tyranny? [6]

On 5 December 1774, the General Court elected Hancock to a seat in what had become the Second Continental Congress. Reelected on 6 February 1775, 11 November 1775, and 31 January 1776, he ultimately served from 10 may to 2 May to 2 August 1775, and from 5 September 1775 to 4 July 1776, when he signed the Declaration of Independence. Although elected to serve until 1 January 1777, it does not appear that he attended any sessions of the body in 1776 after he signed the Declaration. Historian Edmund Cody Burnett, who collected the letters and correspondence of the delegates to the Continental Congress from its inception in 1774 until it was superseded by the US Constitution in 1789, explained, “The Journals [of the Continental Congress] for 5 September 1775, do not record the names of those delegates who attended on that day. That Hancock was present, however, may be inferred from the following item from The Pennsylvania Packet [for] 8 September 1775: ‘Philadelphia, Sept. 6. Yesterday arrived here the Honourable John Hancock, Esq; and Lady from Connecticut; and the Honourable Peyton Randolph, Esq; and Lady from Virginia. The same day arrived here several other of the Delegates from the southward to attend the Congress. Yesterday the Honourable Continental Congress met agreeable to adjournment.’” [7]

The oration, which came just months after the Boston Tea Party (29 November 1773), ignited passions in Boston and in neighboring towns where it was reprinted in various newspapers. The speech served to increase Hancock’s visibility as one of the leaders of the movement against the harsh economic measures enacted against the colonies by the British Parliament. But the measures kept on coming: Later in 1774, the Parliament enacted a series of laws that the colonists dubbed “The Intolerable Acts,” which mainly punished the Massachusetts Bay Colony for the Boston Tea Party. One of these, the Boston Port Bill, closed Boston Harbor until the tea destroyed in the raiding party was paid for. In response to these acts, the General Court, a rubber stamp for the royal government, dissolved itself in defiance of the newly appointed royal governor, Thomas Gage, and reformed itself into the First Provisional Congress, with the members electing Hancock as their president; Hancock also served on the Massachusetts Committee of Safety, a group of patriots who assembled to act as a governing council in the wake of the end of royal government. It was a leading moment for the merchant-turned-politician, leading the way on the cusp of history. Each of the colonies proceeded to send delegates to a “national convention” styled as the First Continental Congress, held in Philadelphia.

Hancock was in the middle of several of the most important events of early American history. He was in Lexington, Massachusetts, on 18 April 1775 when Paul Revere, a silversmith, rode his horse to warn fellow colonists that the British were landing in Boston; Hancock was with Samuel Adams when they heard of the alarm. The advance warning allowed both men, targeted for arrest by the British authorities, to flee and ultimately escape, making their way to Philadelphia to attend the opening of the Continental Congress. When the body did convene on 10 May, the delegates set about to elect a president of the Congress. While many wanted to choose the president of the First Continental Congress, Peyton Randolph of Virginia, Randolph was unavailable, having returned home on private business. Henry Middleton of South Carolina had been elected to succeed him, but Middleton was in poor health and soon resigned. Unable to find another

John Hancock (c. 1737–1793)549 candidate, John Hancock was elected as the third president of the Continental Congress on 24 May 1775. Historian Edmund Cody Burnett, in a work on the presidency of the Continental Congress, explained, “[A]fter the election of John Hancock (24 May 1775) the duties and the expenses of the presidency increased, and by the time of Hancock’s retirement in the autumn of 1777 had grown to considerable magnitude. Hancock was, however, a man of means, genuinely proud of his distinction as President, and took a real delight in the performance of his duties, in bestowing such glory as he might upon the office, and perhaps in bearing the expenses thereof.” [8]

the drafting of the document that ultimately became the Declaration of Independence. Perhaps his greatest moment came when he signed the document on 4 July 1776 with the largest signature that would appear on the declaration. According to some historians, Hancock signed his name in a large, flowing manner because he wanted Britain’s King George III to see it and remember it. Others, however, believe that Hancock was more of a braggart who wished to take more credit for the declaration than he deserved, and this is why he signed his name larger than anyone else. It is impossible to know, and the exact cause is mere speculation.

Because he served as one of Massachusetts’s leading delegates to the Continental Congress, as well as serving as the president of the Congress from May 1775 to October 1777, there is a tremendous amount of correspondence from Hancock on all matters, important and trivial, before the congress as well as other issues in Philadelphia during the sessions of the body. Many of his dispatches involve inquiries for estimates on materiél, including ammunition and uniforms from colonial and then state officials. [9]

As we noted earlier, correspondence to and from Hancock during this period is rich and is contained in many works and institutions. For instance, in a letter to fellow Massachusetts politician Thomas Cushing, Hancock wrote on 1 February 1776:

When the Continental Congress adjourned in early August 1775, Hancock returned home to Massachusetts. After a short stay, he made his way back to Philadelphia, stopping in Connecticut. There, on 28 August 1775, Hancock married Dorothy Quincy, the daughter of Justice Edmund Quincy, a noted Massachusetts merchant and magistrate of Suffolk County, Massachusetts. Together, the couple had three children, two girls and a boy. Following John Hancock’s death in 1793, his widow, whom Hancock had called “Dolly,” remarried, to Captain James Scott. She was widowed a second time in 1809, and she lived alone until her death in 1830 at the age of 83, and was interred with her first husband in the Hancock family tomb in Boston. During his presidency, Hancock spent much of his time siding with the more radical element of the Congress and calling for an ultimate declaration of independence from Britain. Despite his feelings toward such a move, he was barely involved, if at all, with

I wrote you a long Letter by an Express under Cover to the General. The Letter I then mention’d to be Signing by the Dele gates will be Deliver’d you by Mr. Hooper who has Leave of Absence and is now on his way to the Camp, make a proper use of that Letter, and of some other Circumstances you are Acquainted with. Not having heard any thing from our Assembly with respect to a new Delegation, and our Time Expiring yesterday, we mention’d it to Congress, and I proposed to Resign my place, not looking upon our selves Authorized to appear in Congress again; the Congress appre hending it was not the intention of Massachusetts to be unrepresented and a News paper [sic] being produced wherein mention was made of a new Appointment they order’d the paper to be put on file, and Desir’d us to Attend in Congress as usual, untill [sic] we Rec’d the further Directions of our Assembly. How can it happen that no Account was forwarded, the Secretary ought to know his Duty. I cannot Reconcile it, but . . . [10] A month later he again wrote to Cushing: “I have nothing New to Communicate. Do write me often & give me every Occurrence. I hope you will Send me my Commission as Major General that I may Appear in Character I assure you this Appointmnt [sic] pleases me, I think I know a little of the Duty, & on my Return I will

550

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Endeavour under the Direction of your Board to put the Militia upon a Respectable footing, I will not be wanting.” [11] After he signed the Declaration, Hancock wrote to William Cooper:

have expected but ‘which he [had] never made himself’ in similar circumstances must have been related to the presidency of Congress.” [13]

Could you exactly know my particular Scituation [sic], and how much of the Day and Night I devote to the Execution of publick [sic] Business, I am Confident you and my Friends would readily excuse my not writing. I am really so greatly Engag’d [sic], and Business fast increasing in my Department that I have not a moment to myself, My Friendship, however, is as strong, my Zeal as great, and my Reliance, under God, that my Country will be Sav’d [sic] as firm as ever. I hope we shall be a free and happy people, totally unfettered, and Released from the Bonds of Slavery, That we may be thus free, Congress have done, and will still do, more, to promote it. Inclos’d [sic] you have the Declaration of Independence, to which Refer you. I write the Assembly, and it is the wish of Congress the Declaration may be proclaimed in the State of Massachusetts Bay. [12] In October 1777, Hancock told the Continental Congress that he would be resigning the presidency of the body and returning to Massachusetts for health reasons. He did return to Philadelphia during the summer of 1778 for a short period but, finding that Henry Laurens of South Carolina had been elected president in his place and was not going to hand the office back to Hancock, he again left Philadelphia, this time for good. By this time he had fallen out of favor with the Adamses—both Samuel and John. Abigail Adams, John’s wife, in a letter to John Thaxter, 23 April 1778, wrote of Hancock: “It is reported here that Mr. H[ancoc]k is returning out of Health. Is it really or politically so? Did he expect an offer, which he never made himself. I fancy he did, and his Disease is mortification. A little of it will do no injury.” The historians who collected the Adams family correspondence explained the situation behind Mrs. Adams’ remarks. Quoting the Boston Gazette of 28 July 1778, which stated, “Yesterday the Hon. John Hancock, Esq; one of [the] Delegates of this State; and the Hon. Richard Hudson [Hutson], Esq; one of the Delegates from the State of South Carolina, arrived here from Congress,” they explained, “The ‘offer’ which Adams thought Hancock may

Having arrived in Philadelphia days earlier, Hancock penned a letter to his wife on the situation in the city and in the nation as a whole. Only months earlier, the British had marched into Philadelphia, forcing the delegates to flee to York, Pennsylvania, where they established a new Continental Congress. The Continental Army had suffered a horrific winter at Valley Forge, but in the intervening months of 1778 had been able to fight the British to victory and had taken back control of Pennsylvania. Hancock had much on his mind: His daughter Lydia had died the previous summer, and his wife, in mourning, had returned to Boston and he had not seen her since the previous October. Thus, on 29 June 1778, Hancock penned to his wife: I arriv’d here on Saturday Eveng. [sic] The Day I reach’d [sic] Congress at York Town we had an Accott. [sic; account] of the Evacuation of Philada. [sic] Congress then Determin’d [sic] to Celebrate the 4th. July at Philada. & fix’d [sic] on a certain Day to Adjourn from York Town; & as it was necessary some Gentlemen of Congress should early repair to Philada. to order the necessary preparations for the Celebration of the Anniversary of Independence, they Appointed [missing word] Mr. [William] Duer [of New York], Mr. [John] Matthews of South Carolina & myself, & after tarrying one Week at York Town we Set off from thence & got here on Saturday Afternoon. I could not get Lodgings to my mind, & have been with Mr. Stephen Collins who has been kind enough to Lodge me untill [sic] I could Accommodate myself. I shall remove to Mrs. House’s in a day or two—The City is not much Injur’d [sic], but the amazing Quantity of Flies left in it makes the City very disagreeable, & it is moreover exceedingly hot; The Enemy are Marching thro’ part of the Jersies, their men Desert prodigiously fast, upwards of 500 have come into this City, & it is computed that near if not more than 1000 have already Deserted; General Washington is near the Enemy, several Skirmishes have happened; 8c this moment [missing word] an Express comes in who Says after he left the Army he heard a heavy firing which continued some time; that we momently expect important Advices. [14]

John Hancock (c. 1737–1793)551 After returning to Massachusetts, Hancock desired to stay in the public eye and keep himself in the political arena for the future. In the meantime, as the state needed additional funds to pay soldiers and purchase weaponry, Hancock used his personal fortune to assist in these areas, accepting promissory notes in return for lending to the state payments that were sorely needed. He also handed out food and firewood to the poor, at his own expense, and sometime invited poor people into his estate to live. In 1780, Hancock served as a member of the Massachusetts constitutional convention, a meeting that drew up the state’s first postroyal constitution. Later that year the state held its first gubernatorial election under that new state constitution. On 25 October 1780, John Hancock was elected as the first democratically elected governor of Massachusetts. He would hold this position for the remainder of his life, running for reelection each year, almost always without opposition, except for 1785 and 1786. On 29 January 1785, Hancock resigned as governor, citing ill health from gout as the reason, although the farmers’ rebellion and the poor economic condition of the state were more likely the true causes. His successor, James Bowdoin, was now faced with the rebellion by the farmers, led by Daniel Shays; his tough crackdown on the farmers led to his own downfall in popularity. A series of blunders, led by the state’s reaction to the farmers’ insurrection led by Daniel Shays, led to widespread opposition to Bowdoin’s leadership. In 1786, after nearly two years out of office, Hancock ran again for the chief executive seat and defeated Bowdoin. Once in office, the new governor pardoned all of the Shays protestors. On 6 May 1787, one Donald Campbell wrote to Hancock: Altho it is natural for a person to remember those things that partains [sic] to himself, better than other Persons; yet having the Honor of Acquaintance since May 1775; at Kingsbridge and happy in escorting the Eastern Delegates to Congress, and Yourself as the prime Supporter of the Measures that happily ended in the Establishment of Our Independence; and being particularly honor’d at Philad’a in July 1775 by your kind attention, when I had not an expectation of being Honored by Congress, I was informed by

Judge Mackean on Monday evening the 17th of July, 1775, that haveing been proposed and spoken of by Your Excellency in the House I was Unanimously Honored by Congress with being elected as Quarter Master General to General Schuylers Army; My particu lar thanks and Acknowledgement was then made to him for the Honor don me and that I should think myself happy in a Zealous Exertion, to support their partiality, and serve this My Country, to the best of my Abilities . . . [15] Hancock’s return to office coincided with the calls for a national convention to reform the moribund Articles of Confederation, the document which had served as a national governmental blueprint since being ratified in 1783. In the summer of 1787, delegates from the thirteen states met in Philadelphia and, instead of reforming the Articles, drafted an entirely new document, the US Constitution. Hancock summoned the Massachusetts legislature to Boston and asked for the body to ratify it. Instead, they formed a ratifying convention, in which Hancock served as a delegate. On 2 January 1788, that body named Hancock as its president, and proceeded to ratify the Constitution, although Hancock himself did not take part in the debate because of ill health. He remained in the governor’s chair, even as his health continued to fail. On 18 September 1793 he appeared before the state legislature, for what was the last time in his life. In his ninth term as governor, prior to his death he reconciled with his old friend, Samuel Adams, and in his final election as governor, Adams served as Hancock’s running mate and was elected as lieutenant governor. Following a lengthy illness, John Hancock died at his home in Quincy, Massachusetts, on 8 October 1793, at the age of 56. The Boston Gazette and the Country Journal of Massachusetts dedicated much of its issue of 14 October 1793 to the passing of Governor Hancock. “The cordial Sorrow of every friend to his Country, and the Tears of the indigent and distressed, at the Death of this Man, are the best Panegyric on his Life, and a plan and faithful History of it, will be the highest Eulogium to his Memory. The Gravity of his Manners, and the Politeness of his Deportment, portrayed him the Gentleman; the Classic Purity and chaste Elegance of his Language, announced him the Scholar; and the undeviating stability of

552

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

his Principles, the Charity of his Heart, and the Beneficence of his Hand, marked him, the Man of Virtue.” [16] The Independent Chronicle and The Universal Advertiser of Boston called Hancock “so illustrious a Patriot and Friend to Mankind.” [17] The Oracle of the Day of Portsmouth, New Hampshire, stated, “[T]he remains of his late Excellency John Hancock, Esq. Governor, and Commander in Chief of this Commonwealth, were interred with every mark of respect and honour, which affection and gratitude could inspire.” [18] Hancock was laid to rest in the Old Granary Burying Ground in Boston, where the victims of the Boston Massacre are also buried. A large obeliskshaped stone was placed on his grave, which reads, “This Memorial Erected A.D. MDCCCXCV [1895] by the Commonwealth of Massachusetts to Mark the Grave of John Hancock.”

Scribner’s Sons; eleven volumes and five supplements, 1958-77), VIII:218-19. [2] Adams, Charles Francis, “John Hancock,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, I:1 (1877), 73. See also the Hancock family tree, online at http://www.geni.com/people/RevJohn-Hancock/297412379900007916. [3] John Hancock to The Rev. Daniel Perkins, 29 October 1760, in “Letters of John Hancock, 1760, 1761,” Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Third Series, XLIII (December 1909, 193. [4] Finkelstein, Robert Zeus, “Merchant, Revolutionary, and Statesman: A Re-Appraisal of the Life and Public Service of John Hancock, 1737-1793” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of Massachusetts-Amherst, 1981), 125. [5] Dickerson, O.M., “John Hancock: Notorious Smuggler or Near Victim of British Revenue Racketeers?,” The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XII:4 (March 1946), 517. [6] “An Oration; Delivered March 5, 1774, at the Request of the Inhabitants of the Town of Boston: To Commemorate the Bloody Tragedy of the Fifth of March 1770. By the Honorable John Hancock, Esq.” (Boston: Printed by Edes and Gill, in Queen Street, 1774), 6. [7] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), I:xlviii. [8] Burnett, Edmund C., “Perquisites of the President of the Continental Congress,” The American Historical Review, XXXV:1 (October 1929), 70. [9] For instance, see Hancock to the Massachusetts Provincial Congress, 15 June [10 June] 1775, in ibid., I:119. [10] John Hancock to Thomas Cushing, 1 February 1776, in “Letters of John Hancock, 1776,” Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Third Series, LX (January 1927), 100-01. [11] John Hancock to Thomas Cushing, 7 March 1776, in “Six Letters of ‘Signers’ in ‘Active Service,’” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, XL:4 (1916), 486. [12] John Hancock to William Cooper, 6 July 1776, in “Letters of John Hancock, 1776,” op. cit., 112-13. [13] Abigail Adams to John Thaxter, 23 April 1778, in Lyman Henry Butterfield and Marc Friedlaender, eds., “The Adams Papers: Adams Family Correspondence” (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press; eleven volumes, 1963- ), III:64-66. [14] John Hancock to “Polly” Hancock, 29 June 1778, in John D. Cushing, “John Hancock in Philadelphia, September 1778,” Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Third Series, XLVII (1985), 146-48. [15] “Donald Campbell to John Hancock, 1787,” Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Third Series, XLVI (February 1913), 315-20. [16] “On Tuesday last Died, His Excellency John Hancock, Esquire, Governor and Commander in Chief of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, in the 57th Year of his Age,” The Boston Gazette and the Country Journal [Massachusetts], 14 October 1793, 3. [17] “Town Meeting,” The Independent Chronicle and The Universal Advertiser [Boston], 14 October 1793, 3. [18] “Internment of his late Excellency, The Governor of this Commonwealth,” The Oracle of the Day [Portsmouth, New Hampshire], 19 October 1793, 2. [19] Proctor, Donald J., “John Hancock: New Soundings on an Old Barrel,” The Journal of American History, LXIV:3 (December 1977), 652. [20] Thomas, Allen C., “Some Letters, Etc. of John Hancock and Thomas Cushing,” Proceedings of the American Antiquarian Society, XV (1 April 1902), 325.

Donald Proctor wrote in 1977 that history, “has not been kind to the reputation of John Hancock. In contrast to other Founding Fathers, whose public and private papers have been thoroughly edited and annotated, Hancock’s papers remain largely unpublished. Nor has any historian thus far produced on behalf of Hancock a definitive scholarly biography like those that now document the activities of other Revolutionary leaders. The man in the street identifies his name only with a ‘signature’ or ‘insurance company.’ Most American historians associate Hancock with a catch phrase, ‘empty barrel.’” [19] Historian Allen C. Thomas explained, “That Hancock has been neglected and undervalued, and neglected because [he is] undervalued, is partly due to the fact that for the average inquirer the sources of information are very limited, and because the fullest and most accessible accounts are hostile to him. Many, if not most, of our modern statements concerning him may be traced back to Wells’ Life of Samuel Adams. This work, a most interesting and valuable one, is written by the great-grandson of Adams, and no opportunity is lost to magnify his ancestor, even at the expense of others.” [20]

[1] Adams, James Truslow, “John Hancock,” in Allen Johnson, et al., “Dictionary of American Biography” (New York: Charles

Edward Hand (1744–1802)553

Edward Hand (1744–1802)

A physician by trade, Edward Hand was Irishborn, and a member of the Continental Congress (1783-84) who rose to become an important military leader during the American Revolution. Hand was born in Ireland 31 December 1744 [2]; some sources report the village as Clyduff, in County Kings (known since 1922 as County Offaly), in central Ireland, northeast of the city of Limerick [1]. His parents were John and Dorothy Hand, whose ancestors came from England and settled in Ireland in the middle of the 16th century. Historian Richard Reuben Forry explained, “The Hand family settled in Dublin approximately a century before Edward was born to John and Dorothy Hand. By 31 December 1744, the day of his birth, the Hand family had settled in the rural community of Clyduff . . . The countryside fifty miles southwest of Dublin—the physical setting of Hand’s early years—consisted of rolling hills spotted with the occasional stands of forest and bogs which separated pastures from more intensively cultivated acres.” [3] Edward Hand studied medicine at Trinity College in Dublin; however, desiring to bypass

the system that would make him train for five full years as an apprentice, Hand instead joined the British army, named as a surgeon’s mate, and attached to the 18th Royal Irish Regiment. In 1767, when he was 23, Hand was sent to the American colonies to serve with the British army in fighting the French and Indian War, between England and France. When he arrived in the colonies, he was assigned to Fort Pitt. Now located where the city of Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, is situated, Fort Pitt was, at the time, one of the most imposing, complex, and elaborate British installations in the Americas, making it one of the key defensive positions during the entire conflict. Hand would remain at Fort Pitt for the remainder of his time in the British army. In 1774, as the American Revolution was on the verge of bringing England into conflict with the colonies, Hand made a decision and decided to resign from the army (some sources report that he “sold” his commission), and he moved to Lancaster, Pennsylvania. There, he met Katherine (also spelled Catherine) Ewing, and the two were married in 1775. The couple would eventually have four children—three daughters and a son; one daughter and the son would survive to adulthood. By this time, Edward Hand had sided with the American cause against England, and in 1775 he was commissioned as a lieutenant colonel in the Continental Army, taking a spot in the Pennsylvania Battalion of Riflemen. Within a few months, he was promoted to the rank of Colonel in that same regiment. Two years later, in 1777, Hand was promoted to brigadier general, and, ironically, sent to Fort Pitt to become the commander of American forces in that area. The Independent Chronicle and The Universal Advertiser of Boston, Massachusetts, reported on 24 April 1777, “The Hon. The Continental Congress, have promoted Col. ___ Learned, of the Massachusetts-Bay, Col. George Clifton, of New-York, Col. Edward Hand, of Pennsylvania, and Col. Scott, of Virginia, to the rank of Brigadier’s-General [sic].” [4] Historians Hermann Wellenreuther and Carola Wessel wrote, “Reacting to increasing Indian attacks, the commanding officers of the militias of the frontier counties had sent a petition to the Continental Congress in which they requested that the army take over the forts and that an

554

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

experienced general be appointed for the region. The petition resulted on 10 April 1777 in the appointment of Brigadier General Edward Hand, an Irishman and a physician by profession, as commander of Fort Pitt. Between 1768 and 1772 Hand had been stationed at Fort Pitt as an officer of the 8th Royal Irish Regiment. On 1 June 1777 he arrived at Fort Pitt and initiated preparations for the improvement of the military protection of the settlements.” [5] According to historian Simon Gratz, who cataloged the generals who served in the Continental Army, Hand served in the service of the United States from 1 April 1777 to 3 November 1783. [6] However, a listing of the “[a]rrangement and rank of the Field Officers of the Twelve Pennsylvania regiments in Continental service, as agreed to by the Council of Safety, and confirmed by the Supreme Executive Council, March 12th, 1777” shows that in the First Regiment the commander is listed as “Colonel, Edward Hand.” [7] The dates may be slightly off, but we do know that Hand served from sometime in 1777 onwards. Of his service, historian Mary Theresa Carver Leiter wrote in 1889, “[On] 1 March 1776, he was promoted to be a colonel, and [he] took part with his regiment in the battles of Long Island and Trenton. [On] 1 April 1777, he was advanced to the rank of Brigadier General; in October, 1778, he succeeded General [John] Stark at Albany, and in 1780 commanded one brigade of the light infantry.” [8]

addressed as “Marquis de la Fayette”), which was headlined as a “return of the killed and wounded of the French troops since the beginning of the siege of York” during the month of October, 1781. The letter was signed by “Edward Hand, A.G.,” but also sent to Charles Thomson, the secretary of the Continental Congress, who published the document in the official papers of the body. [10] Two years later, with the war over, Washington resigned from the army, and it was Edward Hand who delivered a message of thanks to the general, if one could call it that. In an essay that was published in newspapers across the nation, Hand penned, “Before the Commander in Chief takes his final leave of those he holds most dear, he wishes to indulge himself a few moments in calling to mind a slight review of the past—he will then take the liberty of exploring, with his military friends, their future prospects—of advising the general line of conduct, which, in his opinion, might to be pursued; and he will conclude the address by expressing the obligations he feels himself under for the spirited and able assistance he has experienced from them, in the performance of an arduous office.” [11]

From varying pieces of correspondence from George Washington, it was obvious that he had gained the general’s complete admiration and trust. Washington wrote to General James Clinton, 20 November 1778. “General Hand received my directions to take the Command at the Minisink in which I have, (for the present) included Copl. Cortlandt’s Regiment now at Rochester. You will deliver him the inclosed letter, left open for your information, in which I have desired a free communication of sentiment, and co-operation of force—You will therefore consult with General Hand, on the plans he may have in contemplation, whether offensive against the Indians, or for giving greater security to the frontiers.” [9] In 1781, Hand was named as the adjutant general of the Continental Army, serving directly under George Washington. On 15 October 1781, he wrote an extensive letter to Lafayette (whom he

With the end of the American Revolution, Hand resigned his commission from the army and moved back to the place he now called home, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. There, he purchased an estate of several hundred acres, and built on it a mansion that he named “Rock Ford Plantation,” designed in the Georgian style so popular at the time. As if the war had not occurred, Hand went back to the practice of medicine, and raised his family. From all appearances, his “public” career seemed to be over. On 12 November 1783, the Pennsylvania legislature elected Hand to a seat in the Continental Congress. While he had no political experience, nevertheless he was a leading military hero and his name was attached to the confidence normally associated with such elections. He ultimately attended sessions of the body from 24-31 December 1783, 1 January to about 5 February 1784, 27 March to 4 June 1784, and 26 June to 13 August 1784. [12] Although his record in service is sparse, one thing that does stand out is his service as the Pennsylvania member of the prestigious Committee of States. On 13 August 1784, this committee assembled; a

Edward Hand (1744–1802)555 separate publication from the official Journals of the Continental Congress, documenting the activities of the members of that committee during that time, was published in 1784 by famed printer John Dunlap in Philadelphia. Lacking enough members on this date, the committee adjourned until a sufficient number of additional delegates could arrive. This finally occurred on 19 August. However, in a demonstration of the continuing problem of the lack of attendance of many of the members of the Continental Congress, the committee announced, “[T]he honorable the delegates from the states of New-Hampshire, Massachusetts and New Jersey, did on Wednesday the eleventh day of the present month of August, leave the city of Annapolis, and set out for their respective homes, whereas the Committee of the States hath been reduced to a number insufficient to do any more manner of business; and whereas the continuance to meet from day-to-day, of the remaining members without the power to do any public act will be unnecessary . . . ” The note is signed by Samuel Hardy, the chairman of the committee, and by Edward Hand, one of the committee members. [13] Fortunately, many original pieces of correspondence, both from and to Hand, survive. Hand, like many other delegates in the Continental Congress before and after him, seemed to bitterly complain about the almostmoribund activities happening because of a lack of the attendance of many members, either due to illness or their inability to get to where the Congress was holding sessions. In a letter to Jasper Yeates, 30 December 1783, Hand made such a complaint: “Dear Yeates, [N]othing material has been done in Congress, seven States only being represented, this places us in a disagreable [sic] situation. The definitive Treaty remains unratified and many other matters of consequence and one, which demand an early attention. It has been strenuously urged that Seven States are competent to the ratification, the debates ran high, but the Subject was drop’d with apparent conviction on either side . . .” [14] To Yeates he again wrote on 3 May 1784, “Congress have at length Determined to Adjourn on the 3d of next month to meet at Trenton in Octr. I am much mistaken if they return to the South of Pennsylvania[,] a Committee of

the States will Sit in the recess of Congress. Since our Adjournment we have passed the inclosed Act for the temporary Gouvernm’t of the Western territory. The hard names are left out but it is otherwise so much scratched and interlined, that I apprehend you can Scarcely read it. I say Interlined because the Marginal notes are to be taken in. [W]e have also call’d on the States for money to pay the Interest on the foreign Debt to the End of 1784 and the Domestic to the End of 1783, with the Current expences [sic] of this Year. We have also recommended to the States to vest a power in Congress to regulate Commerce generally.” [15] As part of his duties on the Committee of the States, Hand corresponded with the governors of the states to inform them of the official business in the Continental Congress. To John Dickinson, the president (with the powers of a governor) of Pennsylvania, Hand wrote on 23 July 1784, “Sir, I lately had the honor to inform your Excellency that the State of Connecticut had passed an act authorizing Congress to levy a duty of 5 pr. cent on all goods imported, except on certain enumerated articles, on which particular duties laid. I now enclose a copy of the act itself. You[r] Excellency will also find inclosed Copies of letters from Mr. de Marbois, General Muhlenberg, and Governor Chittenden. The two former I presume have already been in substance Communicated by the writers of them. The latter I take the liberty to present you with, merely for your amusement!” [16] In a letter from Cadwalader Morris to Hand, 30 April 1784, Morris penned to his friend: My Dear and Hon’d Colleague, Well may I call thee so, as we have both of us so punctually attended in the great Council of the Nation. Thy friend indeed has taken some small liberties, being very sensible his shoulders were not of the structure sufficient for a third part of the thirteen United States. Indeed they still act with the work already done. I being an American, thou can’st [sic] not suppose a weight proper for an Hibernian would by any means suit thy friend. Verily it giveth me much delight to hear that the Wise men have determined on an adjournment, and would be more delectable to me to know that a Committee was appointed, and that one of the present three Sweet Pennsylvanians did belong thereto, for my dear friend be thou assured I can not, and (as the Children say) I will not take a seat in that Assembly aforesaid, many solid and very substantial

556

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

reasons move me in this matter, but the health of my Help Mate is a Sufficient excuse . . . [17]

commander and leader. The resolution was signed by Major General Edward Hand, the president of the Pennsylvania Society of the Cincinnati. [23]

After leaving the Continental Congress, Hand returned to Pennsylvania, where he was elected to a seat in the Pennsylvania assembly, serving from 1785 to 1786. On 31 December 1789, The Newport Herald of Rhode Island reported, “[Y]esterday the following gentlemen were appointed [as] a committee to prepare a draught [draft] of the New [state] Constitution: William Findley, Edward Hand, Henry Miller, James Wilson, William Irvine, William Lewis, James Ross. Charles Smith, and Alexander Addison, Esquires.” [19] Hand served as a delegate to the Pennsylvania Constitutional Convention in 1790. [20] The following year, President George Washington appointed him as the Inspector of Revenue for Survey No. 3 in Pennsylvania; Hand also served as a tax collector for several districts in and around Lancaster. On 20 July 1792, The Federal Gazette and Philadelphia Advertiser newspaper reported that “[a]t a Meeting of the Proprietors of Shares in the Lancaster turn pike [sic] Road, on the 18th instant, pursuant to public notice given, The following Ticket was agreed to, viz.” Among the managers of the group was Edward Hand. [21] The association was called The Lancaster and Susquehanna Turnpike Road Company. On 1 June 1801, Poulson’s American Daily Advertiser, a newspaper printed in Philadelphia, reported that “[a]t a [meeting of] a Board of Managers of the Lancaster and Susquehanna Turnpike Road Company, held at the House of Mathias Slough, in the Borough of Lancaster, April 29th, 1801,” business was conducted; the report was signed by Edward Hand, President. [22] In December 1799, former President George Washington died, and Hand was one of those myriad number of Americans who wrote glowing memorials to the former military commander and leader. One publication reported that “[a] t a meeting of the Pennsylvania Society of the Cincinnati[,] held at the State-house, on the 22d of February, 1800, the following resolution was moved, and unanimously adopted.” It gave thanks to William Jackson, Washington’s aide-de-camp, who had delivered a memorial address the day before to the late military

On 4 September 1802, Edward Hand suddenly died at his home in Lancaster from cholera; he was just 57 years old. He was laid to rest in the Episcopal Burial Ground in Lancaster. While remembering his military service, the Kline’s Carlisle Weekly Gazette stated in eulogy, “As a physician, he was eminently useful; ever ready to the calls of necessity and distress; neither poverty nor condition were consulted in his visits. The benevolence and humanity he evinced, in gratuitously giving his professional aid to the Poor and Sick, Crown all the distinguished acts of his life . . .” [24] His grave states his name as “Ewd Hand, M.D.” A plaque placed next to his grave reads, “General Edward Hand, 17441802. Lancaster’s leading Soldier. During [the] Revolutionary War Friend and Companion-inArms of Gen. George Washington. Member of [the] Continental Congress. Chief Burgess of Lancaster. Warden and Vestryman of St. James Church. Rock Ford his Lancaster Home [is] Now a National Historical Site.” The National Intelligencer of Washington, DC, printed “On the Death of Major General Hand,” stating, “By the death of this worthy man the United States has lost one of her firmest props during the revolutionary war, the old soldier one of his best friends, and his country an awful and unassuming citizen, as well as an active and zealous supporter of her rights. In this gentleman’s character were happily blended, the religious sober citizen, the intelligent brave soldier, and the social virtuous man—and if we view him in a professional light, we shall find equal source of admiration and applause, being ever sedulous in his attentions to his patients, overflowing with humanity and tenderness for them in the hour of sickness and pain and in the eminent degree skilful in ministering to them relief . . .” [25]

[1] Johnston, Sarah Hall, comp., “Lineage Book. National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution. Volume XXX” (Washington, DC: The Daughters of the American Revolution, 1910), 172. [2] See “Pennsylvania Biographical Dictionary” (St. Clair Shores, MI: Somerset Publishers; three volumes, 1999), I:516.

John Hanson (1715–1783)557 [3] Forry, Richard Reuben, “Edward Hand: His Role in the American Revolution” (Ph.D. dissertation, Duke University, 1976), 2-5. [4] “Hartford, April 21,” The Independent Chronicle and The Universal Advertiser [Boston], 24 April 1777, 2. [5] Wellenreuther, Hermann, and Carola Wessel, eds., “The Moravian Mission Diaries of David Zeisberger: 1772-1781” (University Park, PA: The Pennsylvania State University Press, 2005), 381. [6] Gratz, Simon, “The Generals of the Continental Line in the Revolutionary War” (Philadelphia: Privately Published, 1903), 17. [7] “Philadelphia, March 13,” The Pennsylvania Evening Post, 13 March 1777, 140. [8] Leiter, Mary Theresa Carver, “Biographical Sketches of the Generals of the Continental Army of the Revolution” (Cambridge, MA: J. Wilson and Son, 1889), 115-16. [9] Washington to Clinton, 20 November 1779, in “The Unpublished Revolutionary Papers of Major-General Edward Hand of Pennsylvania, 1777-1784” (New York: Privately Published, 1907), 7. [10] For the entire letter, see “Major General the Marquis de la Fayette,” The Boston Evening Post [Massachusetts], 17 November 1781, 2-3. [11] “General Washington’s Farewell Order to the Armies of the United States,” The Independent Chronicle and The Universal Advertiser [Boston], 27 November 1783, 1. [12] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VII:lxxiii. [13] United States, Continental Congress, Committee of the States, “Journal of the Committee of the States: Containing the Proceedings from the First Friday in June, 1784, to the Second Friday in August, 1784. Published by Order of Congress” (Philadelphia: Printed by John Dunlap. Printer to the United States in Congress Assembled, 1784), 46-47. [14] Edward Hand to Jasper Yeates, 30 December 1783, in Burnett, op. cit., VIII:404. [15] Edward Hand to Jasper Yeates, 3 May 1784, in ibid., VII:511. [16] Edward Hand to John Dickinson, 23 July 1784, in ibid., VII:572. [17] Cadwalader Morris to Edward Hand, 30 April 1784, in ibid., VIII:507. [18] See “Laws Enacted in the First Sitting of the Tenth General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, which Commenced at Philadelphia, on Monday the Twenty-Fourth day of October, in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty-Five” (Philadelphia: Printed by T. Bradford, 1786). [19] The Newport Herald [Rhode Island], 31 December 1789, 2. See also The Vermont Journal, 20 January 1790, 3. [20] “Minutes of the Convention of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Which Commenced at Philadelphia, on Tuesday the TwentyFourth day of November, in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty-Nine, for the Purpose of Reviewing, and if They see Occasion, Altering and Amending, the Constitution of This State” (Philadelphia: Printed by Zachariah Poulson, Jun. in Fourth-Street, between Market-Street and ­Arch-Street, 1790). [21] The Federal Gazette and Philadelphia Advertiser, 20 July 1792, 2. [22] Poulson’s American Daily Advertiser [Philadelphia], 1 June 1801, 4. [23] “Eulogium, on the Character of General Washington, Late President of the United States; Pronounced before the Pennsylvania Society of the Cincinnati, on the Twenty-Second day of February, Eighteen Hundred. At the German Reformed Church, in the City of Philadelphia. By Major William Jackson, Aid[e]-de-Camp to the Late President of the United States, and Secretary-General of the Cincinnati” (Philadelphia: Printed by John Ormrod, no. 41, Chesnut-Street, 1800).

[24] “Obituary,” Kline’s Carlisle Weekly Gazette, 15 September 1802, 2. [25] “On the Death of Major General Hand,” The National Intelligencer [Washington, DC], 15 September 1802, 3.

John Hanson (1715–1783)

John Hanson was one of the presidents of the Continental Congress and the scion of a wellknown British family with Swedish roots. Hanson was born at his family’s estate, “Mulberry Grove,” in Port Tobacco Parish in Charles County, Maryland, on 3 April 1715. He was the son of Samuel Hanson, a planter and plantation owner whose property extended some 1,000 acres in rural Virginia, and Elizabeth (née Story) Hanson. Hanson’s official congressional biography gives the date as 1715. [1] “American National Biography” gives the date of birth as 3 April 1721, which would have the “O.S.,” or “Old Style” system listed, giving that true date as 14 April 1721. [2] The dates vary from 3 April 1715 to 3 April 1721. [3-6] John Hanson’s father, Samuel Hanson, was a planter, as noted, in rural Maryland. He was the descendant of a long line of first Swedish, and then English, men. Historian George Hanson, in a genealogical work on the family, wrote that

558

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

“Andrew Hanson . . . was born in Sweden, in 1618, the son of Col. Hanson, of the Swedish Army, and grandson of John Hanson, of London, was descended from Roger de Rastrick, who was seated at Rastrick, in the Parish of Halifax, York County, England, in the year 1251.” [7] Samuel Hanson’s father, John Hanson, was born in Sweden in 1630; he emigrated to Maryland and died there in July 1714. Elizabeth (Story) Hanson, the mother of John Hanson, was the child of a family that four generations earlier had come from England and had settled in the Maryland colony. By the time that John Hanson was born—in either 1715 or 1721, depending on the source—his father was an influential planter and a member of the Maryland colonial assembly. Historian Jacob Nelson explained, “The home into which he was born had an aristocratic air, even though his father had cultivated a wide local acquaintance and was looked upon as a man of simple traits . . . the best of society had partaken of the hospitality of that home, for very few in that County had quite so exalted a position as its master, Samuel Hanson.” [8]

march . . . Lieutenant Hanson was mortally wounded at Fort Washington while serving in the First Maryland Battalion . . . he died a few days later in November, 1775.” [9] Another son, Alexander Contee Hanson, Sr. (1749-1806) was a noted essayist of the late 18th century; his son, Alexander Contee Hanson, Jr. (1786-1819) served in the US Senate from Maryland (181316, 1816-19).

John Hanson did not attend a regular school, so we assume that he was tutored; his official congressional biography states that he “pursued an academic course,” although this gives no firm details as to what he studied. He then followed his father into running a plantation in Maryland, following what is called a course of “agricultural pursuits.” In about 1744 Hanson married 16-year-old Jane Contee, whose family also had a lengthy record in Maryland. The two would remain married until Hanson’s death in 1783; the couple would have nine children in total, of whom five would live to adulthood. An application by one James Herbert Moore, approved by the Sons of the American Revolution in 1965, shows him to the lineal descendant of Peter Contee Hanson, the son of James and Jane Hanson. In the application, Moore traces his ties back to James Hanson through his mother. According to the application, Peter Contee Hanson “joined one of two companies organised by his father, John Hanson, in Frederick County, mad in July, 1775. These were commanded by Michael Cresap and Thomas Price. They were the first southern troops to reach Boston. They arrived on 9 August 1775 after a 22 day

Even before the American Revolution broke out, John Hanson was deeply involved in the affairs of his community as well as his colony. He represented Charles County in the lower House of Assembly, the colonial legislature, in 1757, 1758, 1761, 1763, 1765, 1767 and 1773. Rising to a leading role in that body, he eventually became as important to Maryland as others, including the Carrolls and the Tilghmans, families who would contribute politicians and other assets to the patriot cause. Hanson was among those who agitated against a series of harsh economic measures enacted by the British Parliament against the colonies starting in the middle of the decade of the 176os, most notably The Sugar Act (1764) and The Stamp Act (1765), all of which served to punish the colonies and harm the business climate while aiding British businesses and filling England’s depleted financial coffers with colonial money. A meeting of citizens at the courthouse in Frederick, Maryland, on 20 June 1774, was convened to plot strategy on the colonial reaction. John Hanson was named as the presiding officer of the parley, and his son, Alexander Contee Hanson, served as a delegate. The citizens elected the junior Hanson, along with Philip Thomas, as delegates to a “General Congress” to be held in Annapolis. These two men were also elected as members of the “Committee of Observation,” an early Committee of Correspondence, established to correspond with other colonies to keep abreast of all actions; John Hanson was named as chairman of the committee, and he served as such until the committee was superseded by a newly instituted state government. To show his support for the citizens of the Massachusetts Bay Colony, John Hanson sent a payment of ₤200 British pounds Sterling, for the poor and indigent of the city of Boston. When the “General Congress” opened in Annapolis on 22 June 1774, John Hanson was in his seat as a

John Hanson (1715–1783)559 delegate from Frederick County, and he took the lead in drawing up and having the group adopt a resolution calling for the nonimportation of British goods into the Maryland colony. Hanson served for the remainder of that year, 1774, at various meetings; in January 1775, at another meeting at the courthouse in Frederick County, Hanson again served as chairman. He was selected as the chairman of the Maryland Committee of Correspondence, to hear the news from other colonies as well as orders from the Continental Congress, being held in Philadelphia. On 26 July 1775, the Maryland Council of Safety signed on to the Association of the Freemen of Maryland. The document condemned “[t]he long premeditated, and now avowed design of the British government, to raise a revenue from the property of the colonists without their consent, on the gift, grant and disposition of the Commons of Great Britain, the arbitrary and vindictive statutes passed under color of punishing a riot, to subdue by Military force, and by famine, the Massachusetts Bay, the unlimited power assumed by parliament to alter the charter of that province, and the constitution of all the colonies, thereby destroying the essential securities of the lives, liberties and properties of the colonists.” Among the signers of this document was John Hanson. [10] As the chairman of the Committee of Correspondence, Hanson was chiefly responsible for coordinating with other colonies the response of Maryland towards the British moves. This can be seen in his official correspondence: for instance, in a letter to John Hancock, the chairman of the Massachusetts Committee of Correspondence, dated 24 November 1775, Hanson penned, “I am directed, by the committee of this county, to transmit to you copies of the examinations of Allen Cameron, John Smith, John Connelly, and a letter to one Gibson from Connelly, and Lord Dunmore’s speech to White Eyes, and proposals by Connelly to General Gage for raising an army for the destruction of civil liberties of the colonies. Any orders relative to the prisoners will be strictly observed, the committee and inhabitants of this county being determined to pursue every measure with the Congress may recommend to them, as necessary for the preservation of these colonies, at this time of imminent danger.” [11]

Hanson inserted himself directly into the conflict that soon exploded into the American Revolution when he supported the rebellion that grew in response to the British attacks on the towns of Lexington and Concord. Historian Newton D. Mereness explained, “In July 1775 he wrote to the president of the Continental Congress warning him of an expedition by Loyalists and Indians against the Maryland frontier, a danger which was removed only by the arrest of the leaders, 19 November 1775, near Hagerstown. Under Hanson’s leadership the delegates from Frederick County to the Maryland Convention advocated independence several months before such sentiment was dominant in the other counties, and he held that every resolution of the Convention tending to separate Maryland from a majority of the colonies without the consent of the people was destructive of its internal safety.” [12] Hanson served, in addition to the above, in a series of colonial and then state offices: these include as a member of the Maryland state House of Delegates for nine terms, and as a member of the Maryland state Senate (1757-73). On 22 December 1779, the Maryland Assembly elected Hanson to a seat in the Continental Congress; he was re-elected on 3 February 1781, and ultimately attended sessions of that body from 14 June to about 21 August 1780, from about 21 September to about 12 December 1780, and 22 to 28 February 1781. [13] Historian Edmund Cody Burnett stated: An event of such importance as the final ratification of the Articles of Confederation, which had lain so long waiting for these last signatures, ught to be surrounded with an atmosphere of dignity, even of ceremonial formality. But in any case Congress must perforce await the coming of delegates from Maryland, authorized to sign. For at the time when the Maryland act of authorization was passed not a delegate from the state was in attendance at Congress. On the 12th of February Daniel Carroll appeared and laid before Congress the act of accession. Two signatures however were necessary, therefore there must be a further wait until another delegate arrived. Ten days later John Hanson attended; then, on the 24th, Congress set the 1st of March, at twelve o’clock, for the announcement to the public of 1the final ratification of the Confederation of the United States of America. [14]

560

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Maryland delegate to the Continental Congress John Henry wrote to fellow delegate Thomas Sim Lee of the same state on 5 September 1780, “Mr. Hanson has been very unwell for a week past and of course the State [is] unrepresented. It is now a very critical Time, and I wish not to be alone.” [15] Hanson wrote to Philip Thomas on 10 October 1780 on Maryland state matters— but, more importantly, on the hanging of John André, the British spy:

There had been a leader of the body since its inception in 1774 tasked with the office of “President,” however, these men were virtually without power, without prestige, and without the ability to do much other than serve as an officiator of the Continental Congress’ debates and deliberations. Under the Articles of Confederation, this changed—and while the “new” office of president of the Continental Congress is nothing compared to the powers and the prestige of the president of the United States under the US Constitution, nevertheless is was wholly different than the old office prior to the ratification of the Articles. On 5 November 1781, a day after President Thomas McKean resigned, John Hanson was elected—the ninth president overall, but the first elected under the Articles. In a letter to General George Washington, Hanson wrote on 14 December 1781, “It is with infinite satisfaction that I transmit the enclosed copy of an Act of Congress of the 10th instant; as I am satisfied the exertion called for is agreeable to your Excellency’s wish and expectation, and if punctually and properly complied with, will contribute in the highest degree to the final attainment of the great and glorious objects we are contending for, and towards which so many judicious and successful advances have lately been made both in Virginia and South Carolina.” [18] Historian Jennings Sanders wrote in 1930, “John Hanson, of Swedish ancestry, had the distinction of being the first to serve a full year as President of the Confederation Congress. Elected [on] 5 November 1781, he also had the honor of welcoming Washington to Philadelphia, after the surrender of Cornwallis at Yorktown. During his administration, the burdens of the Presidential office were somewhat lighter than formerly, due to the rise of the Executive Departments which took over much of the official correspondence.” [19]

As to the Election I care not how it has been determined and Shall never be anxious of representing a people who are to be alltogether [sic] influenced by two or three Ignorent [sic] Dutchmen. And while this is the Case in our Country, I apprehend we Shall be miserably represented. Andre was hanged on Monday last. He made no discoveries. He was asked at the Gallows if he had Any thing [sic] to Say. His answer was that he was not afraid to dye [sic], That he was prepared for it, but was Concerned at the manner, he would much rather have been Shot, desired that it might be taken notie that his behaviour at his Execution was Such as became a Gentleman and a Soldier. He was dressed in a new Suit of Regimentals with his Sword by his Side. His friend Smith it is said will share the Same fate in a few days. [16] One of the key moments of Hanson’s service in the Continental Congress was the ultimate passage of the Articles of Confederation, the first blueprint of a central federal government for the new American nation. Samuel Huntington of Connecticut wrote to Thomas Jefferson of Virginia on 1 March 1781: According to the order of the day[,] the honble John Hanson and Daniel Carrol[l][,] two of the delegates for the State of Maryland in pursuance of the act of the legislature of that State entitled An Act to empower the delegates of this State in Congress to subscribe and ratify the articles of confederation [sic] which was read in Congress the 12th. of February last and a copy thereof entered on the minutes did in behalf of the said State of Maryland sign and ratify the said articles of confederation by which act the confederation of the United States of America was completed each and every of the thirteen United States from New Hampshire to Georgia both included having adopted and confirmed and by their delegates in Congress ratified the same. [17] Under the Articles, the Continental Congress could elect a “President,” or presiding officer, to oversee all of its affairs and deliberations.

Hanson, as the president of the Continental Congress, signed off on virtually every document, every opinion, and every action of that body. For instance, in a publication entitled “Address and Recommendations to the States, by the United States in Congress Assembled,” this document states that “the five hundred contracts or engagements entered into by the honourable John Adams, esquire, minister plenipotentiary of the United States of America,

John Hanson (1715–1783)561 to their High Majesties the Lords the States General of the United Netherlands, in behalf of the said United States, bearing [the] date the eleventh day of June in the year 1782, and purposing to be securities each of them for the payment of a million of guilders, Dutch current money, by the United States to certain money lenders under the negociation [sic] of Messrs. Wmhelm and January Willink, Nicolaas and Jacob van Staphorst and del la Lande and Fynje, merchants in Amsterdam, were read in Congress, approved, and ratified.” The document is signed by John Hanson, President of the Continental Congress. [20] A controversy, two-plus centuries in the making, continues to rattle some historians: Was John Hanson the “first” actual “President of the United States? After all, he did have that title, even though in its totality it was “President of the Continental Congress of the United States, Assembled.” [21] Historian Richard Morris examined the evidence: There has been a good deal of brouhaha about the first President of the United States. Most vocal have been the supporters of the claim of John Hanson, of Mulberry Grove, Maryland, who held tenure during the year beginning November, 1781. The fact that Hanson was of Swedish origin made him stand out from most of the other incumbents of the Congressional presidency. Except for John Jay, who boasted that he did not have a drop of English blood in his veins (only Dutch and French), the remaining twelve claimed British ancestry. But ethnicity, with due obeisance to the enthusiasm of Scandinavian Americans, had little pertinence to the issue. It has been claimed that Hanson was the first President of the United States in Congress Assem bled. But the claim is tenuous. Hanson was the first of the Presidents of Congress to begin his Presidential service at the start of the federal year provided by the Articles of Confederation, but he was not the first President to serve under the newly adopted Articles of Confederation, since both Samuel Huntington of Connecticut and Thomas McKean of Delaware preceded him as Presidents under the new government. But even a stronger case could be made for Peyton Randolph of Virginia, the first President of the first and second Continental Congresses, or for John Hancock, the President of Congress when that body declared its independence. [22] Hanson does have the historical note of being the first president of the Continental Congress

under the Articles of Confederation. The Articles stipulated that Congress should “appoint one of their number to preside, provided that no person be allowed to serve in the office of president more than one year in any term of three years.” Thus, on 4 November 1782, with his single year in office completed, Hanson resigned, which allowed Elias Boudinot of New Jersey to be elected as the next president. Hanson wrote to Boudinot, 5 November 1782, “It gives me real pleasure, that among the first duties of my office, I am honoured with the agreeable commands of Congress, to communicate their unanimous vote of Thanks, for your valuable and important services, while in the chair of Congress. Be assured, Sir, that you can only form an Idea, of the satisfaction I enjoy on this occasion, by consulting your own feelings on receiving this grateful and honourable testimony of your Country’s approbation.” [23] Despite no longer serving as president, Hanson remained a delegate in the body of the Continental Congress. On 7 January 1783, the Journals of the Continental Congress reported that: [a] grand committee, consisting of Mr. [---] Rutledge, Mr. [Nicholas] Gilman, Mr. [---] Jackson, Mr. [David] Howell, Mr. [---] Dyer, Mr. [---] Duane, Mr. [---] Witherspoon, Mr. [---] Fitzsimmons, Mr. [Thomas] McKean, Mr. Hanson, Mr. [---] Lee, Mr. [---] Williams, and Mr. [Edward] Telfair, to whom they were referred a letter of the 21st of October, 1782, from the legislature of Massachusetts, and a motion of Mr. [Samuel] Osgood, having reported thereon as follows: ‘The individuals in each state, who are possessed of continental paper money, be entitled to receive from the commissioner who is or shall be appointed to settle the accounts of the several states, and of individuals therein, against the United States, a specie certificate for all such sums of the said money as they shall respectively pay into the hands of such commissioners, at the rate of one silver dollar for every ___ Continental dollars; the certificate to bear interest of fix per cent, from the date, and he provided for as other public debts; and that no money shall be received or certificates granted by the said commissioners after the last day of December, 1782 . . . [24] Retiring from the Continental Congress after his second elected term ended, Hanson returned to his nephew’s estate near Oxon Hill in Prince George’s County, Maryland. It was announced

562

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

in newspapers across the nations that he died in May 1783. He did not, and retractions had to be printed; one paper stated, “The account published in the Philadelphia papers, of the death of the Honorable John Hanson, Esq; late President of Congress, we have the pleasure of assuring the public is premature; that worthy patriot being now in perfect health.” [25]

[5] Smith, Seymour Wemyss, “John Hanson, Our First President” (New York: Brewer, Warren, and Putnam, 1932), 14. [6] Nelson, Jacob A., “John Hanson and the Inseparable Union; An Authentic Biography of a Revolutionary Leader, Patriot and Statesman” (Boston: Meador Publishing Company, 1939), 32. [7] Hanson, George Adolphus, “Old Kent: the Eastern Shore of Maryland; Notes Illustrative of the Most Ancient Records of Kent County, Maryland, and of the Parishes of St. Paul’s, Shrewsbury and I. U. and Genealogical Histories of Old and Distinguished Families of Maryland, and Their Connections by Marriage, &c., with an Introduction, by George A. Hanson” (Baltimore: John P. Des Forges, 1876), 110-11. [8] Nelson, “John Hanson and the Inseparable Union; An Authentic Biography of a Revolutionary Leader, Patriot and Statesman,”32. [9] Application of James Herbert Moore, 16 July 1965, “Sons of the American Revolution, Membership Applications, 1889-1970,” courtesy of the National Society of the Sons of the American Revolution, Louisville, Kentucky, National Membership Number 82437, State [Ohio] Number 4897. [10] Browne, William Hand, ed., “Archives of Maryland: Journal of the Maryland Convention, July 26-August 14, 1775. Journal and Correspondence of the Maryland Council of Safety, August 29, 1775-July 6, 1776. Published by Authority of the State, Under the Direction of the Maryland Historical Society” (Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1892), 66. [11] Hanson to John Hancock, 24 November 1775, in The Norwich Packet [Connecticut], 8-15 January 1776, 1. [12] Mereness, Newton D., “Hanson, John” in Allen Johnson, et al., “Dictionary of American Biography” (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons; eleven volumes and five supplements, 1958-77), VII:221-23. [13] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), V:lvii. [14] Ibid., V:xlii. [15] John Henry to Thomas Sim Lee, 5 September 1780, in Paul H. Smith, ed., “Letters of Delegates to Congress, 1774-1789” (Washington, DC: Library of Congress; 26 volumes, 1976-2000), XVI:19. [16] John Henry to Philip Thomas, 5 September 1780, in ibid., XVI:182-83. [17] Samuel Huntington to Thomas Jefferson, enclosing a Resolution of Congress Adopting the Articles of Confederation, 2 March 1781, in Julian Boyd, ed. et al., “The Papers of Thomas Jefferson” (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press; 38 volumes, 1950), XVIII:41. [18] John Hanson to George Washington, 14 December 1781, in Paul H. Smith, ed., “Letters of Delegates to Congress, 1774-1789” (Washington, DC: Library of Congress; 26 volumes, 1976-2000), XVIII:249. [19] Sanders, Jennings B., “The Presidency of the Continental Congress, 1774-89: A Study in American Institutional History” (Chicago: Privately Printed, 1930), 24. [20] United States, Continental Congress, “Address and Recommendations to the States, by the United States in Congress Assembled” (Philadelphia: Printed [by unknown], 1783; Reprinted, Boston: Re-printed, by Order of the Hon. House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, 1783), 38. [21] “John Hanson, President of the United States in Congress Assembled, 1781-1782” (Baltimore: Cushing, 1892?). [22] Morris, Richard B., “The Origins of the Presidency,” Presidential Studies Quarterly, XVII:4 (Fall 1987), 677. [23] Hanson to Elias Boudinot, 7 November 1782, in Jane J. Boudinot, ed., “The Life, Public Services, Addresses, and Letters of Elias Boudinot, LL.D., President of the Continental Congress” (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company; two volumes, 1896), I:265-66. [24] “Journals of Congress: Containing Their Proceedings From November 2, 1782, to November 1, 1783. Published by Authority. Volume VIII. From Folwell’s Press” (Philadelphia: From the Press of R. Folwell, 1800), 62.

A few months later, on 22 November 1783, Hanson did die. His passing was hailed in most newspapers, although they did not give his life story the space he deserved. The New-York Packet reported, “On Saturday the 25th viz., departed this life, in Prince George [sic] County, Maryland, the Honourable John Hanson, Esq; late president of the United States in Congress Assembled.” [26] Hanson was laid to rest in what is now called the Addison Burial Ground in Oxon Hill. Historian James Thomas Gay sums up Hanson as follows: John Hanson’s name is missing from most accounts of the American Revolutionary era, and he has received little mention as a prominent figure in the efforts to build the new nation. Yet he was the first man to hold the title ‘President of the United States in Congress Assembled,’ a case, perhaps, for suggesting that he, rather than George Washington, was the first president of the American nation. Under the direction of the ratified Articles of Confederation, John Hanson was elected President of the Congress of the American Confederacy on 5 November 1781, becoming the first leader under our nation’s initial Constitution some eight years before George Washington’s election under the nation’s second Constitution. He must have had some standing in 1781 to have been elected to such a position; yet John Hanson is almost forgotten today. [27] See also: Presidents of the Continental Congress

[1] Hanson official congressional biography, online at http:// bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=H000177. [2] “Hanson, John” in John A. Garraty and Mark C. Carnes, gen. eds., “American National Biography” (New York: Oxford University Press; 24 volumes, 1999), ---:---. [3] “Hanson, John” in Allen Johnson, et al., “Dictionary of American Biography” (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons; eleven volumes and five supplements, 1958-77), ---:---. [4] See the Hanson family tree, online at http://www.geni.com/ people/John-Hanson/6000000010660098873.

Samuel Hardy (c. 1758–1785)563 [25] “Baltimore, April 18,” The Providence Gazette [Rhode Island], 10 May 1783, 2. [26] The New-York Packet [New York City], 15 December 1783, 2. [27] Gay, James Thomas, “Americans: First President of the United States,” American History, XXXIV:2 (January 1999), 12.

Samuel Hardy (c. 1758–1785)

A planter from his native Virginia, Samuel Hardy was elected to a seat in the Continental Congress (1785) but died a few months later, at the age of 27. He was one of the youngest delegates to die while in office. He was born in 1758 in Isle of Wight County, Virginia, the son of William Richard Hardy and his wife Mary Elizabeth (née Wynne) Hardy. The Hardy family had been in the area since William Richard Hardy’s father, Richard Hardy, was born there in about 1699. [1] Both of Samuel Hardy’s parents survived him: his father died in 1791, his mother in 1798. Samuel Hardy “completed preparatory studies, and was graduated from the College of William and Mary, Williamsburg, Va., in 1781.” He then studied the law, and was admitted to the Virginia state bar. Starting in 1777, when he was about 19, Hardy, a planter in rural Virginia,

was elected and served in the Virginia state House of Delegates; he also served in that body in the session of 1780-82. In June 1781, he was appointed as a member of the state’s Executive Council, which aided the state’s governor in handling the affairs of state. On 29 May 1782, he was named as the lieutenant governor of Virginia, serving only the short period until 11 October of that same year. In this post, he signed the “Deed of Cession,” which transferred land in the Northwest Territory to the control of the Continental Congress. [2] On 6 June 1783, Hardy was elected to a seat in the Continental Congress, “for one year from the first Monday in November next”; he was subsequently reelected on 22 June 1784, and attended sessions of the body from 13 to about 20 December 1783, and from 24 February to 4 June 1784, 26 June to 13 August 1784, and 29 November to 24 December 1784. Historian Edmund Cody Burnett wrote of Hardy’s attendance, “Hardy was probably in attendance Dec. 27, 1783, as he appears to have been named that day on a committee . . . He may not, in fact, have left Philadelphia, for Jefferson mentions [on] 16 Jan. 1784 that Hardy was ill. Hardy was the Virginia member of the Committee of the States and was chosen to be its chairman. Returning to Congress after the break-up of the Committee of the States, he was in Philadelphia [on] 7 November and in Trenton the day after.” [3] The Committee of the States named Hardy as its chairman on 4 June, although it was not until July that a quorum could be established, and it was not until August that the requisite number of members present could allow business to go forth. A series of small pieces of correspondence from Hardy have been found and published; for instance, he wrote to Benjamin Harrison, the governor of Virginia (who also served as a delegate to the Continental Congress on his own) on the land cession that Hardy had overseen as lieutenant governor: “Sir, I have the honour to inform your Excellency that Congress have accepted the Cession of our Western Territory: and we have in conformity to the Act of the General Assembly of Virginia executed a deed for the same. This I trust will pave the way for similar Cessions from other States and lay the foundation for the discharge of our domestic debts. Congress have appointed commissioners

564

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

for the purpose of concluding treaties and making purchases for the benefit of the United States, from the Indians within the limits assigned us by the treaty. Gen. Clarke, GenI. Green, Genl. Butler, Mr. Woolcot and Mr. Higgi[n]son were appointed.” [4]

Benjamin Harrison of Virginia, when he wrote to him on 3 March 1784, “Sir, Mr. Hardy’s illness and Colo. Mercer’s absence deranged the order in which the office of corresponding member was to pass.” [8]

In another letter to Benjamin Harrison, dated 5 April 1784, he wrote, “The Cession of our Western territory seems to have removed that jealousy which many of the States indulged against Virginia. And I think nothing remains to prevent her forming an interest which will give her the respectable influence in the Councils of America to which She is entitled, but an amicable termination of the dispute with Pensylvania [sic]. Under this Idea I feel a degree of solicitude somewhat unusual that no impediment should take place on the part of Virga. which can be construed into an intention either to protract or defeat the business.” [5] In a sign at the power of Hardy’s chairmanship, the Secretary of the Continental Congress, Charles Thomson, wrote to him, “Mr. Robert Sewell is anxious to know the result of his petition respecting the detention of [the ship] L’Amiable Elizabeth. I think the Com’ee to whom it was referred recommended that the papers, as in the case of the schooner Nancy, should be transmitted to the Ministers for negotiating treaties of Commerce, that they might take measures for obtaining a restoration of the vessel and cargo. As the national honor as well as the interest of an individual is concerned in this matter, I am convinced, the Committee of the States will take the earliest opportunity of acting thereon as far as their powers will permit.” [6] Hardy corresponded with Alexander Martin, the governor of North Carolina, in officially publishing documents from his state: “In conformity to the direction of the Committee of the States, I do myself the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your Excellencie’s [sic] favour. The acts of the General Assembly of North Carolina are registered on the journals of the Committee and filed among the papers of Congress.” [7] Hardy may have been ill for some time while he attended the Continental Congress in Philadelphia. The city had several outbreaks of cholera that killed many, although there is no firm evidence as to what malady Hardy suffered from. An insight into how sick he was came in a letter from Thomas Jefferson to Governor

On 17 October 1785, while attending the Continental Congress in New York, Hardy died suddenly. The Independent Gazette of Philadelphia stated, “Died, on Monday the 17th instant, in New-York, the Honorable Samuel Hardy, Esq. a Delegate from the commonwealth of Virginia to Congress, and the next day his remains were interred in St. Paul’s Churchyard, in that city. The procession, solemn and splendid, was composed of all the members of Congress, public officers both continental and state, the foreign Ambassadors, and a prodigious concourse of emissaries; minute guns were fired on the mournful occasion, and every other funeral house and respect was paid to the remains of that amiable and distinguished statesman and senator [sic].” [9] The New-York Packet said of Hardy, “The patriotism, great abilities, and other manly virtues that so eminently distinguished this gentleman, renders his loss a very important one to Virginia, in particular, and to the United States in general.” [10] Hardy County, once in Hardy’s native Virginia but now located in West Virginia, was named in his honor. His buriel place is unknown.

[1] Hardy family genealogy, online at http://www.geni.com/ people/William-Hardy/6000000011016690340. [2] Hardy official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=H000199. [3] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VII:lxxvi. [4] Samuel Hardy to Benjamin Harrison, 5 March 1784, in ibid., VII:463. [5] Samuel Hardy to Benjamin Harrison, 30 April 1784, in ibid., VII:508-09. [6] Charles Thomson to Samuel Hardy, 24 June 1784, in ibid., VII:560. [7] Samuel Hardy to Alexander Martin, 17 July 1784, in North Carolina, “The State Records of North Carolina” (Raleigh, NC: P.M. Hale, 1886-1907), XVII:88. [8] Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Harrison, 3 March 1784, in Burnett, op. cit., VII:459. [9] “Died, on Monday,” The Independent Gazetteer [Philadelphia], 22 October 1785, 3. [10] “On Monday morning,” The New-York Packet, 20 October 1785, 3.

John Haring (1739–1809)565

John Haring (1739–1809)

A native of New York, attorney John Haring served twice in the Continental Congress—in 1774, at its start, and again from 1785-87, near its end. He also served in a series of public offices in New York. He was born in the village of Tappan, in Rockland County, in upstate New York, on 28 September 1739. Haring was the son of Abraham Haring and his wife, Grietje (née Bogert) Haring. Some sources list Abraham’s wife as Martina, or with a completely different maiden name; family descendant Peter Haring Judd, however, confirms her name, [1] as well as list the family back several generations, to Europe. Judd also writes: “John Haring the third son of Peter Haring of Hornin of North Holland was born the 26 day of December 1633 Anno Domini and was Married on Whitsuntide [in] 1662 to Margaret Cozine a Widow[.] The ceremony was performed in the New Dutch Church on Stuyvesants [sic] Bowery New York these were the first couple ever married in that Church the said John Haring departed this life December the 7th 1683 his Widow the said Margaret afterwards became the wife of Daniel DeClark. She lived to the age of Ninety.” [2] Although we do not know what Abraham Haring did for a living, his family appears to have lived with some wealth, in the village of Tappan. Abraham’s son John utilized

this wealth to further his career in the law. Haring “attended school in New York City.” [3] After studying the law, John Haring was admitted to the New York colonial bar, and he opened practices in New York City and Rockland County. In 1769, an election was held for seats in the New York royal assembly, one of which had been held by Abraham Haring, who was retiring. Historian Franklin Burdge explained in 1898, “Voters had to possess a freehold estate of ₤40. A man might vote in several counties if qualified in each, and to enable him to do so elections were at different times in different counties . . . the patriotic candidates in Orange Co. were John Haring and Henry Wisner, but two Tories (as supporters of the Government began to be called, John De Noyelles and Samuel Gale, were returned [to office].” [4] It appears from this early date that Haring cast his lot with those forces who eventually rebelled against British rule. But in 1769, there was little he or anyone else could do about the situation. Being an attorney in the region made John Haring an important figure, and his family soon became one of the best known in the area around Tappan. In 1770, John Haring was listed as being one of the original Trustees of New Brunswick College, now Rutgers University in New Jersey. He also handled private sales: one advertisement in a newspaper, a sale for a grist mill “standing on a good Stream,” states that “for further Particulars, inquire of John Haring, of Orange-Town [sic].” [5] On 30 October 1773, Haring married his cousin, Mary Haring, who was 12 years her husband’s junior. The couple had 10 children—seven sons and three daughters—eight of whom lived to adulthood. Outrage over the Boston Port Act, as well as other harsh economic measures enacted by Britain against the American colonies, grew to immense proportions. At a meeting held in a private home on 4 July 1774, resolutions were made against the King of England, one of which included: “That the following gentlemen, to wit: Colonel Abraham Lent, John Haring, Esq., Mr. Thomas Outwater, Mr. Gardner Jones, and Peter T. Haring be a committee from this town to correspond with the city of New York, and to conclude and agree upon such measures as they shall judge necessary in order to obtain repeal of said acts.” [6]

566

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

On 16 August 1774, Haring and Wisner were both elected to seats in the Continental Congress. Their commission certifying the election reads:

Abraham Lent, John Haring, Jeremiah Clarke, Israel Seeley, [and] Jesse Woodhull. [9]

“At a General Meeting of all the Committees of the County of Orange, Assembled at the House of Stephen ___ in said County on Tuesday the 16th August 1774. John Coe Esq. Chairman. Resolved that Henry Wisner and John Haring Esq. be the Delegates from this County to meet the Delegates from the other Colonies in the ensuing General Congress to consult on proper Measures to be taken for the promising the Redress of our Grievances for which Purpose they are devised to repair to the said Congress to be held at Philadelphia on or about the first Monday in September next or at such other Time and Place as shall be expedient for that Purpose. By Order of the Meeting. Balthas DeGroat[,] Clerk” [7] Haring attended sessions from 26 September 1774; however, the end of his service cannot be determined by the available documentation. Historian Edmund Cody Burnett noted, “There is no mention of Haring in the Journals beyond his attendance on Sept. 26, 1774. He does not appear to have signed the Association (20 October) or the petition to the king (26 October).” [8] At the end of 1774, Haring returned to New York, where he once again delved into local politics. Historian Frank Green wrote: The Sons of Liberty in New York City, taking the lead in the Revolution, advised the people of each county to meet and form committees of safety. Pursuant to that advice, the citizens of this County met, and after passing the resolutions given . . . selected Abraham Lent, John Haring, Thomas Outwater, Gardner Jones, and Peter T. Haring as a Committee of Correspondence and Safety. On the adopted by the Continental Congress of the articles of the American Association, the patriots in New York chose a Committee of Sixty to enforce the provisions of that act, and to exercise leadership in all political matters. At the recommendation of this Committee, the people of the various counties elected delegates for a Provincial Congress, which was to meet in New York on 22 May 1775. The election in this County [Rockland] too place on 17 April, and resulted in the choice of: John Coe, David Pye, Michael Jackson, Benjamin Tusteen, Peter Clowes, William Allison,

As a member of the Committee of Correspo‑ ndence, Haring “corresponded” with officials in other colonies to coordinate their responses to the British moves. These committees acted in secret: Such correspondence, if detected, would mean death sentences for treason. For an example of one such letter, written by Haring to the state Committee of Safety, 28 March 1776, Haring penned, “The Orangetown Regiment is chiefly composed of such as know but little of the English language, and nothing of military affairs; wherefore I must impute their backwardness and delays to ignorance, and ill-founded jealousies of being imposed upon by their commanders, and not to disaffection.” [10] In a diary, penned by one Richard Smith, a delegate to the Continental Congress from New Jersey, he wrote for 22 September 1775, “Friday 22. Andrew MacNair Doorkeeper’s Acct. ordered to be paid. [A] Letter from John Haring Chairman of the Comee of Safety in New York and a Letter from Lewis Morris and James Wilson at Fort Pitt read.” [11] In the next few years, Haring served as a delegate to several New York state Provincial Congresses, which established a post-independence constitution. On 21 January 1778, Haring was appointed as a County judge for Orange County, where he served until 1788. In 1780 he was elected as a state senator for the Middle District of New York, serving from 1781 to 1790. The New York State Assembly noted on 22 July 1782 that “John Haring, Esquire, one of the Senators from the Middle District . . . is hereby nominated and appointed one of the Council of Appointment.” [12] On 2 February 1784, in the New York Assembly, it was noted that “Mr. Lamb . . . made a Motion, that John Haring, Esquire, be nominated, by this House, one of the Dels to represent this State, in the United States in Congress Assembled, for the present Year.” [13] On 25 March 1785, Loudon’s New-York Packet reported that “[l]ast Saturday the Hon. John Haring, John Lawrance, and Melancton Smith, Esquires, were elected delegates to represent this state in Congress.” [14] In a “catalogue” of the students and trustees of Columbia College, now Columbia University, for 1784 is listed John Haring as a Regent of that institution. [15]

John Haring (1739–1809)567 Haring had been reelected to the Continental Congress on 19 March 1785, “from the Day of the Date hereof until the first Monday in November next.” [16] The Journals of the Continental Congress reported on 29 March 1785, “Congress assembled: Present as yesterday. Mr. Melancton Smith, a delegate for the state of New-York, attended and produced credentials under the seal of the state, by which it appears, that on the 19th of this present month, the hon. John Lawrance, John Haring and the said Melancton Smith, were appointed additional delegates to represent the said state in the United States in Congress Assembled, until the first Monday in November next.” [17] On 11 April 1785, the same Journals reported that “Mr. John Haring, a delegate for the state of New-York, attended, and took his seat in Congress.” [18] Haring was subsequently reelected on 24 February 1786 and 26 January 1787, and served in this second tenure in the Continental Congress from 11 to 27 April 1785, 6 to about 7 June 1785, 26 July to 14 November 1785, about 26 January to 31 January 1786, about 19 April to 31 May 1786, about 13 June to 24 November 1786, about 9 March to 10 April 1787, on 7 May 1787, and, finally, from 13 July to 29 October 1787. [19] Some of these dates come from contemporary sources: for instance, The New-York Packet reported on 27 February 1786, “On Friday last, the Honorable the Senate and Assembly, nominated and appointed the following gentlemen as Delegates to represent this State in the Congress of the United States, from the day of their appointment until the first Monday of November next, viz.” The list of men including Zephaniah Platt, Melancton Smith, Peter W. Yates, John Lawrance, and John Haring. [20] That same newspaper also reported on 15 May 1786 that “the said James Duane, Robert R. Livingston, Egbert Benson, John Haring, Melancton Smith, Robert Yates, and John Lansing . . . have a credit on the treasury for a sum not exceeding four thousand pounds to be paid them by the Treasurer of this State on account.” [21] Unfortunately, there is no correspondence from Haring during either of his tenures in the Continental Congress. In June of 1787, a notice in the New York newspapers reported that “[t]o such of the proprietors of lands in the patent of Wawayanda,

in the county of Orange and State of New-York, who were interested in the lands, disputed between the patents of Wawayanda and Cheescocks,” that commissioners were named to resolve the dispute: the story listed Robert Yates, Goldscrow Bapyar, Samuel Jones, and John Haring. [22] The following year, Haring served as a member of New York State ratifying convention that ratified the US Constitution, signed in Philadelphia in 1787. Haring, for reasons not available, voted to reject the document, but he was in the minority. Moving between public and private service, Haring continued to work as a judge and as an attorney. In 1799, in New York State, the legislature enacted “An Act directing certain Bills of Credit and Certificates belong to this State to be cancelled.” Once again, it noted that such certificates were signed by John Haring, Joseph Gasherie, and Thomas Moffat. [23] In a message to New York Governor John Jay, 14 January 1800, the New York state Assembly reported, “A certificate subscribed by Stephen Van Renseelaer, Dirck Ten Broeck and Daniel Hale, in pursuance of the law of this state in the said certificate mentioned, was read with the list therein mentioned is in the words and figures the following, to wit: List of bills of credit called new emission; and certificates figured by John Haring, Joseph Gasharie and Thomas Moffat, or two of them, and certificates signed by Gerard Bancker, late Treasurer of the State of NewYork, now in the possession of the Comptroller, and to be cancelled on the first Tuesday of June, 1799, pursuant to the directions of an act entitled ‘An act directing certain bills of credit and certificates belonging to this State be cancelled,’ passed the 23d [of] March, 1799.” [24] During the last years of his life, Haring remained in public service. The newspaper New-York Herald reported on 10 March 1804 on a series of appointments by the hon. Counsel of Appointments. One of these, as the paper noted, was for the office of Coroner, and mentioned that for Cayuga County, John Haring, Thomas North, and Charles Thompson had been selected. [25] In the 1804 presidential election, Haring served as a presidential delegate from Orangetown. [26] Two years later, in his final public service, Haring served as a member of the New York state Assembly.

568

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

John Haring died in Blauveltville, in Rockland County, New York, on 1 April 1809 at the age of 69. He was buried with his entire family, including his parents, in the Tappan Church Cemetery in Tappan, New York.

Volume X. From Folwell’s Press” (Philadelphia: From the Press of R. Folwell, 1800), 73. [18] Ibid., 82. [19] Burnett, “Letters of Members,” op. cit., VIII:xci. [20] The New-York Packet, 27 February 1786, 3. See the notice of Haring’s reelection, along with Melancton Smith, Abraham Yates, Jr., Egbert Benson, and John Lansing, Jr., in The New-Hampshire Spy [Portsmouth], 16 February 1787, 3. [21] The New-York Packet, 15 May 1787, 2. [22] The New-York Packet, 8 June 1787, 4. [23] New York, “Laws of the State of New-York. Passed at the Twenty-Second Session, Second Meeting, of the Legislature, Begun and Held at the City of Albany, the Second Day of January, 1799” (A Laws of the state of New-York. Passed at the twenty-second session, second meeting, of the Legislature, begun and held at the city of Albany, the second day of January, 1799) (Albany, NY: Printed by Loring Andrews, Printer to the State, 1799, 648-49. [24] New York Legislature, Assembly, “Journal of the Assembly of the State of New-York; at their Twenty-Third Session, Began and Held at the city of Albany, the Twenty-Eighth Day of January, 1800” (Albany, NY: Printed by Loring Andrews, Printer to the State, 1800), 30. [25] New-York Herald, 10 March 1804, 2. [26] See Mercantile Advertiser [New York City], 14 November 1804, 2.

[1] Judd, Peter Haring, “More Lasting Than Brass: A Thread of Family from Revolutionary New York to Industrial Connecticut” (Boston: Newbury Street Press, 2004), 5. [2] Judd, Peter Haring, “Genealogical and Biographical Notes of the Haring-Herring, Clark, Denton, White, Griggs, Judd, and Related Families” (New York: Privately Published, 2005), 19. [3] Haring official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=H000205. [4] Burdge, Franklin, “A Second Memorial of Henry Wisner” (New York?: Privately Published, 1898), 11. [5] See the advertisement in The New-York Journal; or, The General Advertiser, 26 April 1770, 19. [6] For the announcement, see The New-York Journal; or, The General Advertiser, 14 July 1774, 3. [7] Commission for Henry Wisner and John Haring, 16 August 1776, Manuscript and Special Collections, the Harold R. Decker Collection, the New York State Library. [8] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), I:liv. [9] Green, Frank Bertangue, “The History of Rockland County” (New York: A.S. Barnes, 1886), 67. [10] John Haring to the New York Committee of Safety, 28 March 1776, in Peter Force, ed., “American Archives: Consisting of a Collection of Authentick Records, State Papers, Debates, and Letters and Other Notices of Publick Affairs, the Whole Forming a Documentary History of the Origin and Progress of the North America Colonies; of the Causes and Accomplishment of the American Revolution; and of the Constitution of Government for the United States, to the Final Ratification Thereof. In Six Series” (Washington, DC: Published by M. St. Clair Clarke and Peter Force; ten volumes, 1837-53), Series IV:V:534. [11] “Diary of Richard Smith in the Continental Congress, 1775-1776,” The American Historical Review, I:2 (January 1896), 291. [12] New York State, Assembly, “Votes and Proceedings of the Assembly, &c. At the First Meeting of the Sixth Session” (Poughkeepsie, NY: Printed by John Holt, 1782), 121. [13] New York Legislature, Assembly, “Journal of the Assembly of the State of New-York, at Their First Meeting of the Seventh Session, Begun and Holden at the City-Hall in the City of New-York, on Tuesday the sixth day of January, 1784” (New-York: Printed by E. Holt, Printer to the State, 1784), 26. [14] See Loudon’s New-York Packet, 24 March 1785, 3. See also The Norwich Packet; Or, The Chronicle of Freedom [Connecticut], 31 March 1785, 3. [15] “Catalogue of Columbia College, in the City of New York, Embracing the Names of its Trustees, Officers, and Graduates, Together with a List of all Academical Honours Conferred by the Institution from A.D. 1758 to A.D. 1836, Inclusive” (New-York: Printed for Columbia College, by E.B. Clayton, 1836), 5. [16] Burnett, “Letters of Members,” op. cit., VIII:xci. [17] “Journals of Congress: Containing the Proceedings from November 1, 1784, to November 4, 1785. Published by Authority.

Cornelius Harnett (1723–1781)

Cornelius Hart served in the Continental Congress (1777-79) and was an important politician in his native North Carolina, following in the footsteps of his father, also named Cornelius Harnett. He was captured by the British, tortured, and eventually left to die. Better known as Cornelius Harnett, Jr., he was born in Edenton, in Chowan County, North

Cornelius Harnett (1723–1781)569 Carolina, on 20 April 1723, the son of Cornelius Harnett, Sr., a colonial official and planter, and his wife Elizabeth (maiden name unknown) Harnett. The elder Harnett, a native of Ireland, was a merchant there before he emigrated to the American colonies, settling in North Carolina. The National Archives in Kew, southwest of London, state, “Mr. Cornelius Harnett, another of the Council, was bred a merchant in Dublin and settled at Cape Fear in this Colony. I was assured by a letter I received in England that Harnett was worth six thousand pounds sterling, which induced me to place his name on the list of persons to be Councillors, when I came to this country he was reputed to be worth ₤7099, but now he is known to have traded with other men’s goods; and is not worth anything, and so reduced as to be compelled to keep a public house.” [1] However, other evidence belies the belief that the elder Harnett was poor, or in need of want. A sale of land from Cornelius Harnett, to one Christopher Gale, involved a “[t]ract of land recently bought of John Nairn on Queen Anne’s Creek; 120 acres; bounded to the North on said Creek; East by the land where Edward Wingate now lives and west by land of Wm. Conrad, Apl. [April] 7, 1722 . . .” [2] In 1726, when the younger Harnett was three, the family moved from Edenton to Brunswick Town, in Craven County (later New Hanover County), near what is now Cape Fear. Nearby was the city of Wilmington, where the junior Harnett became an important merchant like his father, operating distilleries and businesses on the wharfs of the Cape Fear area. Through these businesses as well as his operation of a schooner, Harnett was able to purchase a plantation, “Poplar Grove,” near Wilmington. In 1748, during the War of the Austrian Succession, when Spanish troops attempted to invade Brunswick Town, it was a 25-year old Harnett, along with other residents, who participated in fighting off the invasion. In 1750, recognizing Harnett’s contributions to the North Carolina colony, Harnett was elected as a member of the Wilmington city commission; that same year, Royal Governor Gabriel Johnston appointed him as a justice of the peace, where he served until 1777. In 1916, historian Robert Digges Wimberly Connor wrote, “Harnett first came into

prominence in the affairs of the province [of North Carolina] as the leader of the Cape Fear section.” [3] In 1754, Harnett was elected to a seat in the North Carolina General Assembly, where he sat through the remainder of the period of royal rule. He took a leading role in this body in 1765, following the passage in the British Parliament of the Stamp Act, which required all paper and paper products, as well as other items shipped and sold in the colonies, to bear a tax stamp to collect revenue for the British government. The act was extremely unpopular in the colonies, and, in North Carolina, Harnett joined such other notables as John Ashe and Hugh Waddell, among others, in the march in Brunswick Town in February 1766 to openly protest and defy the act. As a member of the General Assembly, Harnett became one of the leading voices against the administration of the royal governor, William Tryon. When organized resistance to the act formulated into the Sons of Liberty, Harnett was named as the Wilmington chairman of the group. In June 1770, when colonial resistance to duties imposed by London under the Townshend Acts rose up, Harnett was named as chairman of a group formed to enforce a nonimportation agreement, which forced merchants to boycott all imported British goods. Harnett became the chief spokesman of resistance in North Carolina against the Tryon administration, as well as his successor, Josiah Martin. Historian Donald Lennon wrote, “Throughout the Tryon and Josiah Martin gubernatorial administrations, Harnett was vocal on the major issues facing the province. He advocated government reforms that would curtail abuses complained of by the Regulators in the Piedmont, but at the same time he opposed the riots and excesses of the Regulators. In the Assembly debates over the civil court law, Harnett, along with Robert Howe, William Hooper, Samuel Johnston, and others, led the fight to retain the controversial attachment clause, much to the chagrin of royal Governor Martin.” [4] Harnett’s work in the North Carolina General Assembly can be seen through the published acts of that body. For instance, on 16 May 1757, the assembly enacted “by the Governor, Council, and Assembly, and by the authority of the same, that John DuBois, Cornelius Harnett, and

570

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

George Wakely, Esqrs. or the majority of them, be, and are hereby constituted and appointed commissioners for finishing the said church, in the room and stead of the commissioners appointed in and by the act here before recited, with full power and anchoring to them the said John DuBois, Cornelius Harnett, and George Wakely, or the majority of them, to account with the former commissioners . . .” [5] Further, on 25 January 1775, that same body ordered that “the Governor, Council, and Assembly, and by the authority of the same, That Cornelius Harnett, John Ancrum, and Robert Hogg, Esquires, be, and are hereby appointed trustees, for designing, constructing, building, and smithing a good and sufficient gaol [jail], and [a] gaoler’s house, of good brick or stone, at some convenient place in this said town . . .” [6]

Carolina Council of Safety was established by the Fourth North Carolina Provincial Congress, which convened in the city of Halifax in April and May 1776 with the colonies fully engaged in a war with England. Members named to this council included Harnett, Hezekiah Alexander, Samuel Ashe, Thomas Eaton, Whitmell Hill, Willie Jones, Samuel Johnston, Thomas Person, John Rand, and William Sharpe. With the collapse of the royal government and the institution of statehood, the council stepped in and for a brief time filled a vacuum of power, over all segments of North Carolina government and society. When the council met, Cornelius Harnett was elected unanimously as the group’s first president, making him in effect North Carolina’s first unelected chief executive under statehood. Harnett only served in this capacity for a short time, succeeded in order by Samuel Ashe and Willie Jones. [8] As the president of the Provincial Council, Harnett corresponded with political and military leaders. In one instance, Brigadier General James Moore wrote to Harnett, 2 March 1776:

The Boston Massacre in 1770, followed by the Boston Tea Party in 1773, led to ever increasing tensions between England and the American colonies. Foreseeing that conflict could be inevitable, colonies began to form small groups to handle security while others corresponded with other colonies to coordinate activities. The first group, known as Councils of Safety, in some cases took full control over administrative matters from the royal entities which had been previously running the colonies with orders from London. The latter groups, called Committees of Correspondence, sent secret messages to various members in the colonies to supply news and, as noted, coordinate responses to the growing threat from British economic and military measures. [7] The first Committee of Correspondence formed in North Carolina came in December 1773, when the colonial assembly formulated the group, naming John Ashe, John Harvey, Robert Howe, Richard Caswell, Joseph Hewes, William Hooper, Samuel Johnston, Edward Vail, and Cornelius Harnett as members. As with the other colonial Committees of Correspondence, the North Carolina unit was tasked with corresponding with the other colonial bodies and giving updated reports on their activities to the North Carolina Assembly. It would be through the machinations of these committees that a “colonialwide assembly” would be called to meet in Philadelphia in September 1774, styled as the First Continental Congress. The North

On the earliest Intelligence that the Tories were collecting and embodying at Cross- Creek, which I received on the 9th of February, I proceeded to take possession of Rock fish-Bridge, within seven miles of Cross-Creek, which I considered as an important post. This I effected on the 15th, with my own regiment, five pieces of artillery, and a part of the Bladen Militia; but as our numbers were by no means equal to that of the Tories, I thought it most advisable to intrench [sic] and fortify that pass, and wait for a reinforcement. By the 19th, I was joined by Colonel Lillington, with one hundred and fifty of the Wilmington Minute-men, Colonel Kenon, with two hundred of the Duplin Militia, and Colonel Ashe, with about one hundred of the Volunteer Independent Rangers-making our numbers, then, in the whole, about eleven hundred; and from the best information I was able to procure, the Tory Army, under the command of General McDonald, amounted to about fourteen or fifteen hundred. [9] But while Cornelius Harnett was a political leader, he also served as a military leader as well. In 1775, as a member of the combined Wilmington-New Hanover Council of Safety, he marched along with General John Ashe on Fort Johnston, in Brunswick County, occupied by British forces, and with additional American troops sacked the encampment and then burned

Cornelius Harnett (1723–1781)571 it. This single act put Cornelius Harnett in the sights of the British: In 1776, when British General Henry Clinton extended a pardon to all American fighters in the Cape Fear area, Cornelius Harnett, along with Robert Howe, were left off the list, and instead a bounty was placed on their heads. [10] This did not seem to harm Harnett’s political career, at least not immediately. He had served in all of the North Carolina provincial congresses; in the fourth, held in 1776, he served as the chairman of the committee that drafted the new North Carolina state constitution. Additionally, under his direction, the committee formulated the “Halifax Resolves,” which called on the Continental Congress to declare American independence from England. The document that eventually came out of the Continental Congress, the Declaration of Independence, is based, at least in part, on the Halifax Resolves. At the fifth Provincial Congress, Harnett served as the vice president of the parley, and was then elected as a member of the first Council of State, an advisory group that aided the elected state governor. On 4 May 1777, the North Carolina General Assembly elected Harnett to a seat in the Continental Congress, serving from 22 July to 31 December 1777. [11] Very little has been written about Harnett’s service in the Continental Congress; some correspondence from him to other North Carolina politicians does exist. To Richard Caswell, elected governor of North Carolina, he wrote on 23 August 1777, “I have the honor to enclose your Excellency a hand-bill published by order of Congress. Gen’l. [John] Stark has in some measure retrieved our affairs in the Northern Department: he is a Militia Brigadier from N. Hampshire, and has acquired great honor. The fleet of the enemy are arrived in Chesapeak [sic] Bay, what may be their intentions Congress is not informed, but are prepared, I hope, to disconcert their plan whichever way it may be pointed. As Congress seem at present inclinable to fortify seaports at the Continental expence [sic], I could wish your Excellency would be pleased to forward to the Delegates of your State, the plans of Cape Lookout Bay and of C. Fear river [sic]. I hope for the assistance of Congress in this business.” [12] Following the forced withdrawal

of the Continental Congress from Philadelphia in the face of a British invasion, Harnett wrote to William Wilkinson, “Congress have been Obliged to leave Philadelphia and it is supposed Genl. Howe is now in possession of it, altho’ every effort in Genl. Washingtons [sic] Power has been made use of to prevent it . . . The Congress are not yet met here several of the Members not being arrived, as soon as they do meet, and an oppertunity [sic] offers I shall write you again more fully.” [13] To Governor Richard Caswell, Harnett wrote on 27 September 1777 from Lancaster, where the Continental Congress had fled to and reassembled, “I did myself the Honor of writing Your Excellency a few days ago from Philadelphia, since which Congress have been obliged to Decamp, Genl How [sic] having by many different Maneouvers [sic] got between Our Army and the City, and can when he pleases take possession of it. But it seems his intention is to Come to another Battle with Our Army first . . . Congress intends to proceed to business this day. I can send Your Excellency no Newspapers as yet. Messrs. [Thomas] Burke and [John] Penn are neither of them Arrived I expect them to-day.” [14] Although most sources report that Harnett served in the Continental Congress until 1779 [15] or even as late as 1780 [16], he only served until the end of 1777. Hartnett left the Congress to return to North Carolina; he was angered by the inability of the Continental Congress to get any business done, due to it being forced to retreat from the British, along with massive absences by many members that caused a lack of a quorum to allow business to be conducted. This would be his fatal mistake: 1778, 1779, and 1780 were years in which the British took control over vast swaths of the southern United States, including North Carolina, and Harnett became a target for the retaliation promised to be on his head. In January 1781, the British occupied Wilmington. Historian Hugh Rankin wrote that Harnett, burdened with gout, “accepted the hospitality of Colonel James Spicer of Onslow County, whose home was some thirty miles above Wilmington. Captured by [British Major James] Craig’s marauders, his hands and feet trussed with rope, Harnett was carried back to

572

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

town, slung across a horse like a sack of meal. He was thrown into a blockhouse that had no roof. There, exposed to the elements, the frail fifty-eight year old Harnett died on 18 April 1781.” [17] He was laid to rest in St. James’ Churchyard in Wilmington. Buried under a nondescript stone, his epitaph, which bears the wrong date of death, reads, “Cornelius Harnett. Died April 20, 1781. Aged 58 years.” Harnett County, in central North Carolina, was named in his honor. Harnett had married one Mary Holt; the couple had no known children. Mary Harnett died in 1792.

[12] Cornelius Harnett to Richard Caswell, 23 August 1777, in ibid., II:466. [13] Harnett to William Wilkinson, 25 September 1777, in ibid., II:501. [14] Harnett to Richard Caswell, 27 September 1777, in ibid., II:502. [15] For this date, see Harnett’s official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay. pl?index=H000218. [16] Lennon, Donald R., “Harnett, Cornelius,” in Powell, ed., “Dictionary of North Carolina Biography,” op. cit., III:37. [17] Rankin, Hugh F., “The North Carolina Continentals” (Raleigh: The University of North Carolina Press, 1971), 321.

[1] Letter of George Burrington, Governor of the North Carolina colony, to the Duke of Newcastle, 20 February 1732, in John Hill Wheeler, “Reminiscences and Memoirs of North Carolina and Eminent North Carolinians” (Washington, DC: Henkle & Co., 1885), 46. [2] See James Robert Bent Hathaway, “Abstract of Conveyances,” The North Carolina Historical and Genealogical Register, II:1 (January 1901), 144. [3] Connor, Richard Digges Wimberly, “Revolutionary Leaders of North Carolina” (Greensboro, North Carolina: [Published for the North Carolina State Normal & Industrial College], 1916), 49. [4] Lennon, Donald R., “Harnett, Cornelius,” in William S. Powell, ed., “Dictionary of North Carolina Biography” (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press; four volumes, 1979-96), III:36. [5] “A Collection of the Private Acts of the General Assembly of the State of North-Carolina, from the Year 1715, to the Year 1790, Inclusive, Now in Force and Use. North Carolina” (Newbern, NC: Francois-Xavier Martin, 1794), 29. [6] Ibid., 69. [7] “Journal of the Proceedings of the Provincial Congress of North Carolina, Held at Halifax on the Fourth Day of April 1776” (Raleigh, NC: Lawrence & Lemay. 1831), 59. [8] Whitaker, Bessie Lewis, “The Provincial Council and Committees of Safety in North Carolina” (Chapel Hill, NC: The University Press. 1908), 44. [9] Peter Force, ed., “American Archives: Consisting of a Collection of Authentick Records, State Papers, Debates, and Letters and Other Notices of Publick Affairs, the Whole Forming a Documentary History of the Origin and Progress of the North America Colonies; of the Causes and Accomplishment of the American Revolution; and of the Constitution of Government for the United States, to the Final Ratification Thereof. In Six Series” (Washington. DC: Published by M. St. Clair Clarke and Peter Force; ten volumes, 1837-53), Fourth Series, V:61-62. See also “North-Carolina: Extract of a Letter from Brigadier General James Moore, in the Continental Service, to the Hon. Cornelius Harnet [sic], Esq., President of the Provincial Council, North-Carolina, Dated Wilmington, March 2, 1776” (Philadelphia: Printed and sold by William and Thomas Bradford, 1776). [10] See “By Major-Gen. Clinton, Commander of His Majesty’s Forces in the Southern Provinces of North-America,” Supplement to The Pennsylvania Evening Post, No. 219 (15 June 1776), 301. [11] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), II:lx-lxi.

Benjamin Harrison (c. 1726–1791)

Benjamin Harrison was the father of US president William Henry Harrison (served 1841), and the great-grandfather of US president Benjamin Harrison (served 1889-93). This Benjamin Harrison, a son of Virginia, was the first to report the official independence of the American colonies from England, then later to sign the Declaration of Independence. Benjamin Harrison was born in 1726 [1] in Berkeley Plantation, Charles City County, Virginia, the son of Benjamin Harrison, a plantation owner in rural Virginia, and his wife Anne (née Carter) Harrison. Historian Harry Sievers explained, “On his father’s side he came of a long line of stern stuff. The record is fairly complete. From the landing of Benjamin

Benjamin Harrison (c. 1726–1791) 573 Harrison, the English emigrant, who came to Virginia within two and a half decades of the Jamestown settlement, down through four successive generations of Benjamin Harrisons, the ancestral line of the President manifested an average sturdiness of character and a more than average prosperity in the goods of this life.” [2] Of one of the originators of the family, also named Benjamin Harrison, it was noted in an 1855 work, “He was born in this Parish, the 20th day of September, 1645, and departed this Life the 30th day [of] January, 1712/13. This Benjamin Harrison, born in Southwark parish, Surrey, Virginia, in 1645, during the civil war in England, could not be the son of Col. [Thomas] Harrison, the regicide. He may, however, have been a collateral relation. That this Benjamin Harrison, of Surrey, was the first of the family in Virginia, is confirmed by some ancient wills still preserved. He had three sons, of whom Benjamin, the eldest, settled at Berkley. He married Elizabeth, daughter of Louis Burwell of Gloucester, and was an eminent lawyer and sometime Speaker of the House of Burgesses. He died in April, 1710, aged 37, leaving an only son, Benjamin, and an only daughter, Elizabeth.” [3] Of Benjamin Harrison, the father of the subject of this biography, it was written in 1941, “Benjamin Harrison the fourth, better known as Benjamin II of Berkeley [sic], was [the] sheriff, a major of Charles City County militia, and for 10 years a member of the House of Burgesses. With two of his daughters he was killed by lightning in his home, Berkeley [sic] Manor, in 1745, when his son, Benjamin the fifth or Benjamin III of Berkeley, was 19 years old.” Through his mother, Benjamin Harrison, our subject, was the grandson of Robert “King” Carter, the president and treasurer of the Virginia colonial Council, who served as the acting governor of the colony, as well as the rector of The College of William and Mary. [4] Benjamin Harrison, left to care for his family by his father’s and his sisters’ tragic deaths, was educated in the “classical studies”—usually the study of languages, mostly French, mathematics, and other studies. Harrison then attended The College of William and Mary, in Williamsburg, Virginia, although he did not graduate. [5] Instead, in 1749, upon his father’s death, Harrison ran for and was elected to a seat in the

Virginia Colonel House of Burgesses, where he served until 1775. Historian Lew Wallace, the author of “Ben-Hur: A Tale of the Christ,” wrote, “This was in provincial days. Attracting notice of the royal governor, that worthy sought to win him to his side. Directly that the excitement caused by The Stamp Act arose, young Harrison was offered a seat in the Executive Council. He rejected the overture. Throwing off all reserve, he proclaimed himself a Republican, and from that time he was a leader in the opposition to British oppression.” [6] Although some sources state that Harrison left college after his father’s death and then married, records show that he actually married Elizabeth Bassett in 1745, four years before the tragic family accident. The couple would have nine children, including William Henry Harrison (1773-1841), who would become a military hero during the War of 1812, and, as a politician, would serve in the US House of Representatives (1799-1800, 1816-19) and the US Senate (1825-28) from Ohio, as the territorial governor of Indiana (1801-13), and would be elected the 9th president of the United States (served 1841), as well as Carter Bassett Harrison (c. 1756-1808), who sat as an antiAdministration and Republican member of the US House of Representatives (1793-99) from Virginia. In the House of Burgesses, Harrison took a cautious path, supporting the royal government as long as he possibly could. He served as Speaker of the body, and, even through the controversies over The Stamp Act and The Sugar Act and the Boston Massacre, he remained loyal to England. But, inside, it appears that doubts were growing as to the path he should take. Eventually, that path led to the patriot movement, which eventually opposed the British Crown and the British Parliament. An announcement in newspapers in May 1768, long before the Boston Massacre or the Boston Tea Party, Harrison was named by the Virginia House of Burgesses as a member of a committee to draw up “a remonstrance [petition] on the same subject, and to the like effect, to be laid before the Hon. House of Commons . . . .[t]hat [the committee] do draw up an humble and dutiful petition to his Majesty . . . to intreat [sic] their Lordships, the hereditary guardians of British Liberty, to interpose their power in procuring a repeal

574

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

of those acts, sand in preserving to us, his Majesty’s distant subjects, the full enjoyment of our natural and constitutional rights.” [7]

Randolph, Esq; Robert Carter Nicholas, Richard Bland, Richard Henry Lee, Benjamin Harrison, Edmund Pendleton, Patrick Henry, Dudley Digges, Dabney Carr, Archibald Cary, and Thomas Jefferson, Esquires, and six of whom to be a committee, whose business it shall be to obtain the most early and authentic intelligence of all such acts and resolutions of the British Parliament, or proceedings of Administration, as may relate to, or effect the British colonies in America; and to keep up and maintain a correspondence North Dakota communication with our sister colonies, respecting these important considerations; and the result of such proceedings, from time to time, to lay before this house. [10]

According to a history of the county committees (of safety, of correspondence) in Virginia, one historian wrote: In a meeting of the inhabitants of Boston, 2 November 1772, committees of correspondence were established, on motion of Samuel Adams, between the towns of Massachusetts. On the 6th of January following, the Speaker of the Massachusetts Assembly transmitted to Richard Henry Lee a report of the Boston meeting, and on the 12th of March, 1773, the latter offered resolutions in the Virginia Assembly for the appointment of a Committee of Correspondence to invite the co-operation of the other colonies. Thus, to quote [historian George] Bancroft, “Massachusetts organized a province; Virginia promoted a confederacy.” Upon the adoption of Lee’s resolutions, the Virginia Assembly appointed the following members to act as a Committee of Correspondence: Hon. Peyton Randolph, Esq., Robert Carter Nicholas, Richard Bland, Richard Henry Lee, Benjamin Harrison, Edmond Pendleton. Patrick Henry, Dudley Digges, Dabney Carr, Archibald Cary, Thomas Jefferson. [8] Historian E.I. Miller added: By the list of burgesses . . . it appears that only six members of the old committee of correspondence were members of the house of burgesses in 1773. Of these six, four became members of the new committee, and one of the four; Peyton Randolph, the Speaker, became chairman of the committee. Along with these four were seven other members, mostly young but very able men. Several of these seven new members had come into prominence by reason of the pronounced stand they had taken in the dispute with England over taxation. Four of them, Richard Henry Lee, Benjamin Harrison, Edmund Pendleton and Archibald Cary had been members of the committee to draw up the address and memorial of protest against the stamp tax in 1764. Their stand on this and similar questions doubtless led to their appointment on this committee, where courage, almost boldness, and devotion to the American cause were so necessary. [9] On 12 March 1773, as reported in the Journals of the Virginia House of Burgesses, it was noted that: [b]e it resolved, that a standing committee of correspondence and inquiry be appointed, to consist of eleven persons, to wit, the Honourable Peyton

John Adams, one of the leading voices against the British in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, wrote of Harrison and his fellow members of the House of Burgesses, “These gentlemen of Virginia appear to be the most spirited and consistent of any.” [11] In the summer of 1774, colonists from differing colonies openly called for a general meeting of delegates from every colony in the Americas to meet in convention in Philadelphia to discuss what should be done to address the growing tensions between England and the colonies. On 5 August 1774, the Virginia House of Burgesses elected Harrison as one of its first delegates to this parley. Reelected on 20 March 1775, 11 August 1775, 10 October 1776 (“in the [place of] Thomas Jefferson”), and 22 May 1777 (“from one year from the 11th of August next”). Harrison ultimately attended sessions of the body from its opening day, 5 September 1774, to 22 October 1774, from 10 May to 29 July 1775, from about 11 September 1775 to 4 July 1776, 5 July to about 2 August 1776, from 5 November 1776 to about 2 May 1777, and from about 30 May to 9 October 1777. [12] Harrison was in the Continental Congress in June and July 1776, when he signed the Declaration of Independence. Alas, Harrison was one of the signers not only of the Declaration of Independence, but of the Olive Branch Petition, an appeal, an entreaty, from the members of the Continental Congress to King George III of England to end the harsh economic measures that had brought the colonies to the brink of war with the “Mother Country.” In one history of the petition, it was noted that this was “practically the last official effort of the United

Benjamin Harrison (c. 1726–1791) 575 Colonies to head off the American Revolution. Lexington, Concord, and Bunker Hill had already been fought. The second Continental Congress had assembled in Philadelphia, to decide what should be done next.” The Olive Branch Petition was the result—and, as noted, Benjamin Harrison was one of the men who affixed his signature to this document. It made Harrison, along with his fellow signers, targets of potential retaliation by British forces on a charge of treason, months before Harrison signed the Declaration of Independence. [13] John Adams, in his diary of the first days of the Congress, wrote on 2 September 1774 of his first meeting with the Virginian: 2 [Sept]. Friday. Dined at Mr. Thomas Mifflin’s, with Mr. Lynch, Mr. Middleton, and the two Rutledges [Edward and John, both of South Carolina] with their ladies. The two Rutledges are good lawyers. Governor [Stephen] Hopkis and Governor [Samuel] Ward [both of Rhode Island] were in company. Mr. [Thomas] Lynch [of South Carolina] gave us a sentiment: “The brave Dantzickers, who declare they will be free in the face of the greatest monarch in Europe.” We were very sociable and happy. After coffee, we went to the tavern, where we were introduced to Peyton Randolph, Esquire, Speaker of Virginia, Colonel Harrison, Richard Henry Lee, Esquire, and Colonel Bland. Randolph is a large, well looking man; Lee is a tall, spare man; Bland is a learned, bookish man. These gentlemen from Virginia appear to be the most spirited and consistent of any. Harrison said he would have come on foot rather than not come. Bland said he would have gone, upon this occasion, if it had been to Jericho. [14] Aside from the Olive Branch Petition and the Declaration of Independence that he signed, Harrison participated in the debates and arguments of the delegates on major matters and concerns. Delegate James Duane of New York, in transcribing the debates, wrote on 6 September 1774, “Col. Harrison from Virginia insisted strongly on the injustice that Virginia should have no greater Weight in the determination than one of the smallest Colonies. That he should be censured by his constituents and unable to excuse his want of attention to their Interest. And that he was very apprehensive that if such a disrespect should be put upon his Country—men we shoud [sic] never see

them at another Convention.” [15] Delegate Silas Deane of Connecticut, in a letter to his wife, wrote, “I gave you the character of the South Carolina delegates, or rather a sketch. I will now pursue the plan I designed. Mr. Randolph, our worthy President, may be rising of sixty, of noble appearance, and presides with dignity. Col. Harrison may be fifty; an uncommonly large man, and appears rather rough in his address and speech.” [16] Two letters from Harrison during his tenure in the Continental Congress are worthy of note. The first letter, to General George Washington on 21 July 1775, gives Harrison’s opinion of the military situation against the British at that time: We think the Season too far advanc’d to Send you any more Men from the Southward, but it seems to be the general Opinion to Send some Thousands early in the spring. Should this be the case, if I have the honour of being here, you may Depend on my Care of Mr Johnston. We have an imperfect Accott of an Attack on New York by some of the over lake Indians. I hope it is not true, (indeed between you and I) I give very little Credit to any thing [sic] from that Quarter, and wish I could Say I had no Reason to be suspicious of those people. We yesterday Received Dispatches from Georgia. [T]hey have Come into the Union, and have Appointed Delegates to the Congress. [T]hey have even done more. [T]hey with the South Carolinians Armed a Vessell [sic], and have Taken a Ship with 14o barrs. [barrels] of King’s powder which they have Divided betwixt them. [17] In the second letter, from Harrison to Thomas Jefferson, Harrison discusses some of the activities of the Continental Congress: “We had to-Day a warm Debate in Congress about taking the whole Battalions raised in Virga. into Continental pay. [T]he determination is put off till to-morrow so that you will not get the result by this Post, but I am inclined to think they will not take more than the six formerly Voted. [Y]our Delegates will leave no stone unturned to carry the Point, but I wish the Congress had been treated with more Delicacy. [E]very Country has the same right to judge for themselves that Virginia has, and I really doubt if we should carry our point whether Virga. will not pay more money in the end than she will if we do not, as we must In

576

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

justice take at least twelve thousand men from the Different Colonies into pay that have been hitherto refused . . .” [18]

affixing their signatures to the declaration of independence. While signing the document, he noticed Mr. [Elbridge] Gerry of Massachusetts standing beside him. Mr. Harrison himself was quite corpulent [fat]; Mr. Gerry was slender and spare. As the former raised his Hand, having inscribed his name on the roll, he turned to Mr. Gerry and facetiously observed, that when the time of hanging should come, he should have the advantage over him. ‘It will be over e me,’ said he, ‘in a minute, but you will be kicking in the air [for] half an hour after I am gone.’” [20]

During his Continental Congress service, Harrison returned home to Virginia and participated in activities there. For instance, delegates met in convention in Richmond in March 1775 to respond to the growing threat of a British invasion of the colonies, as well as the much-hated Boston Port Bill and other harsh measures enacted by the British Parliament. Historian W.F. Dunaway, Jr., explained: On the fourth day resolutions were adopted thanking the Assembly of Jamaica for their memorial to the King in behalf of the colonies, and expressing an ardent desire for peace, “a speedy return of those halcyon days when we lived a free and happy people.” These resolutions were couched in such terms as to savor of servility in the eyes of Henry and his party, whose patriotism was aroused. Henry thereupon offered his famous resolutions for putting the colony in a posture of defence: “that a well regulated militia, composed of gentlemen and yeomen, is the natural strength and security of a free government;” “that the establishment of such a militia is at this time peculiarly necessary for the protection and defence of the country;” “that this colony be immediately put into a posture of defence, and that Patrick Henry, Richard Henry Lee, Robert Carter Nicholas, Benj. Harrison, Lemuel Riddick, George Washington, Adam Stevens, Andrew Lewis, William Christian, Edmund Pendleton, Thomas Jefferson, and Isaac Zane, esquires, be appointed a committee to prepare a plan for the embodying, arming and disciplining, such a number of men as may be sufficient for that purpose.” [19] While Benjamin Harrison served as a delegate to the Continental Congress—he also served as chairman of the Committee of the Whole House, during which he reported he resolution designed by him calling for a declaration of independence from England, made on 10 June 1776, three days before Richard Henry Lee introduced a similar resolution, as well as reporting the completion of the actual Declaration itself—his signing of the Declaration of Independence puts him in a select group, one of only 56 men to have that high honor. Historian Charles Goodrich wrote in 1842, “An interesting anecdote is related of him, on the occasion of the members

Many of the men Harrison served with in the Continental Congress were related through marriage. Historian Karen Barzilay explained, “Charles Thomson’s new wife was future delegate John Dickinson’s niece, strengthening the already significant pre-existing relationship between himself and the famous ‘Farmer.’ George Read was married to George Ross’s sister, Benjamin Harrison’s wife was a cousin of Richard Henry Lee, and Harrison’s sister Elizabeth married Peyton Randolph. Edward Rutledge had recently married Henry Middleton’s daughter and John Jay, the young delegate from New York, was married to William Livingston’s daughter.” [21] With the end of his service in the Continental Congress, Harrison returned home; however, he remained a vital force in Virginia politics long after his time on the national stage had faded. Although he was twice recommended for a seat on Executive Council, he was never selected. He did, however, remain in the House of Delegates, serving almost continuously until his death. He served as Speaker of that body from 1778 to 1781, and again in 1785. The Pennsylvania Packet of Philadelphia reported on 10 January 1782, that on the previous 29 December, “the honourable the general assembly of this commonwealth, at their present sitting . . . [t] he honourable Thomas Nelson, junr. esquire, our late governor, having resigned on account of ill state of his health, the honourable Benjamin Harrison, esq. speaker [sic] of the House of Delegates, is elected in his room; and John Tyler, esq. is chosen speaker [sic].” [22] On 2 July 1783, Harrison, as governor, issued a proclamation that:

Benjamin Harrison (c. 1726–1791) 577 [w]hereas by reason of the late suspension of hostilities between the United States and his Britannic majesty, and an abuse of those indulgences granted to British commerce at the last session of [the] general assembly, many evil disposed persons, still obnoxious to the laws of this commonwealth, have found means to introduce themselves into the same; and whereas it is probable [that] many others will follow their example, to the disturbance of the peace and harmony of the state unless speedily prevented by a vigorous execution of the law: I have therefore thought fit, with the advice of the council of state, to issue this my proclamation, hereby commanding all such persons as have either voluntarily left this country and adhered to the enemy since the 19th of April, 1775, or have been expelled the same by any act of the legislature or order of the executive, or such natives which have at any time borne the arms in the service of the enemy against this commonwealth, and have since returned without being authorized by law so to do, forthwith to depart the state. And I do further hereby strictly inhibit the return, as well as those as all others coming within the like description, until the determination of the legislature on this subject can be known. [23] Harrison remained as governor until 1784. In September 1787, Harrison’s wife, Elizabeth, died in Richmond. “She sustained her last illness (though most severe and afflicting) with that fortitude and resignation, which evince the good woman, in the hour of pain and death. Ever remarkable for gentleness of manners, humanity and probity, she conciliated the affection, friendship, and confidence of all who knew her . . .” [24] Benjamin Harrison remained a member of the House of Delegates; in June 1788, he was named as a member of a house committee on privileges, established to “examine and report the returns for electing delegates to serve in this convention.” [25] The “convention” was a state ratifying convention to either accede to or reject the new us constitution, signed in Philadelphia the previous year. Harrison railed against the document as being unable to defend the rights that Americans had fought England for in a horrific war just ended, and he voted against its ratification. However, once those who drafted the document saw that reforms would need to be—and promised such as soon as it was ratified by all of the states—Harrison came out and supported its ultimate passage. Although he remained a member of the House

of Delegates until his death, the constitutional ratifying convention was his final true service. He died at his estate, “Berkely,” on the James River in Charles City County, on 24 April 1791. The Boston Gazette of Massachusetts stated, “[Died], [a]t Berkely, in Charles City County, Virginia, the Hon. Benjamin Harrison, Esq. formerly a respectable Delegate to Congress from, and Governor of, that State.” [26] Harrison was laid to rest in the family burial ground. Harrison’s great-grandson, Benjamin Harrison (1833-1901) served in the US Senate from Indiana (1881-87) and as the 23rd president of the United States (1889-93); his great-great-grandson, William Henry Harrison (1896-1990), who served in the US House of Representatives (1951-55, 1961-65) as a Republican from Wyoming. In 1846, Harrison’s heirs asked the US government to reimburse the family for pay, bounty land, and other expenses incurred by Harrison from the time of the American Revolution to his death. [27] According to a history of the myriad members of the Harrison family, the role of these patriots was summed up in 1941 as follows: “The Harrison family is justly believed to have given more distinguished men to American history than any other family.” [28] See also: The Olive Branch Petition

[1] The exact date of Harrison’s birth is unknown; he was baptized in August 1726, so it is assumed that he was born sometime in that year. Some sources list his birthdate as 5 April, or 5 August, but this is mere speculation. See Charles P. Keith, “The Ancestry of Benjamin Harrison, President of the United States of America, 1889-1893. In Chart Form Showing Also the Descendants of William Henry Harrison, President of the United States of America in 1841, and Notes on Families Related” (Philadelphia: Privately Published, 1891). [2] Sievers, Harry J., “Benjamin Harrison: Hoosier Warrior: Through the Civil War Years, 1833-1865” (New York: University Publishers, Inc., 1960), 12-13. According to Sievers, one of the Harrison ancestors served in the House of Commons in London during the so-called “Long Parliament” in 1649, while another ancestor was Major General Thomas Harrison (1606-1660) of the Parliamentary Army, serving under Oliver Cromwell, which fought Charles I in the English Civil War. He confirmed these relations while studying President Benjamin Harrison’s official papers, which lists genealogical materials collected by the family. Samuel Pepys, the famed English diarist, wrote on 1 October 1660, “I went out to Charing Cross [in London] to see Major-General Harrison hanged, drawn and quartered; which was done there, he looking as cheerful as any man could do in that condition . . . It is said that he said that he was sure to come shortly at the right

578 hand of Christ, to judge them that now had judged him; and that his wife do expect his coming again.” See Samuel Pepys, “Diary,” quoted in John T. Butt, ed., “Diary of Thomas Burton, Esq., member in the Parliaments of Oliver and Richard Cromwell, From 1656 to 1659: Now First Published from the Original Autograph Manuscript. With an Introduction, Containing an Account of the Parliament of 1654; From the Journal of Guibon Goddard, Esq. M.P. Also Now First Printed. Edited and Illustrated with Notes Historical and Biographical by John Towill Butt. In Four Volumes” (London: Henry Colburn, New Burlington Street; four volumes, 1828), IV:432. [3] Balch, Thomas; and Edward Shippen, “Letters and Papers Relating Chiefly to the Provincial History of Pennsylvania, With Some Notices of Some of the Writers. Privately Printed” (Philadelphia: Crissy & Markley, Printers, Goldsmiths Hall, Library St., 1855), cxxxii. A “regicide,” in English history, is one who participated in the hunting down, arrest, trial, and execution of King Charles I of England in 1648 and 1649. [4] “Benjamin Harrison Memorial. Letter From the Benjamin Harrison Memorial Commission, Indianapolis, Ind. Transmitting the Report of the Memorial Commission, in Compliance with the Provisions of Section 3 of Public Law No. 352, Seventy-Sixth Congress, Approved August 9, 1939” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1941), 28. See also Application of John Scott Harrison 4th, 10 April 1901, “Sons of the American Revolution, Membership Applications, 1889-1970,” courtesy of the National Society of the Sons of the American Revolution, Louisville, Kentucky, National Membership Number 13572, State [West Virginia] Number 722. [5] For more on Harrison’s time at The College of William and Mary, see Barbara T. Courtney, “Students and Graduates of the College of William and Mary, 1756 to 1765: Plantation Owners, Planters, Merchants, and Politicians” (Ph.D. dissertation, George Washington University, 2011). [6] Wallace, Lew, “Life of Gen. Ben Harrison” (Philadelphia: Hubbard Brothers, Publishers, 1888), 23. [7] “Williamsburg, April 21,” The New-York Journal; Or, The General Advertiser, The New-York Journal, 26 May 1768, 1. [8] Coleman, Charles Washington, “The County Committees of 1774-’75 in Virginia,” The William and Mary Quarterly, V:2 (October 1896), 94-95 [9] Miller, E.I., “The Virginia Committee of Correspondence of 1773-1775,” The William and Mary Quarterly, XXII:2 (October 1913), 101. See also Hazelton, John H., “The Declaration of Independence, Its History” (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company, 1906), 18. [10] “Extracts from the Journal of the Honourable the House of Burgesses, Friday, March 12, 1773,” The New-York Journal, or, The General Advertiser, 15 April 1773, 3. [11] Adams, Charles Francis, “The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States: With a Life of the Author, Notes and Illustrations” (Boston: Charles C. Little and James Brown; two volumes, 1850), II:362. [12] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), I:lxiv; II:lxix. [13] Adams, Randolph Greenfield; and Benjamin Stevens, “The ‘Olive Branch’ Petition to King George III of England From the Second Continental Congress, Signed by Forty-Six of its Members. The Property of George C. W. Fitzwilliam. Milton, Peterborough, England; Sold by His Order. Thursday Evening, January 28 [1932]” (New York: American Art Association, 1932), 1, 11. [14] John Adams, Diary, entry for 2 September 1774, in Burnett, “Letters of Members,” op. cit., I:2. [15] James Duane, “Notes of Proceedings, 6 September [1774],” in ibid., I:13.

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses [16] Silas Deane to Mrs. Deane, 10 September 1774, in ibid., I:28. [17] Benjamin Harrison to George Washington, 21 July 1775, in ibid., I:169. [18] Benjamin Harrison to Thomas Jefferson, 13 February 1776, in ibid., I:347. “Virga” is the hyphenated name for “Virginia.” [19] Dunaway, W.F., Jr., “The Virginia Conventions of the Revolution,” The Virginia Law Register, X:7 (November 1904), 574. [20] Goodrich, The Rev. Charles A., “Lives of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence” (Hartford, CT: R.G.H. Huntington, 1842), 407. Harrison was referring to the threat by the British that every man who signed the Declaration of Independence would be hanged for treason against the Crown. [21] Barzilay, Karen Northrop, “Fifty Gentlemen Total Strangers: A Portrait of the First Continental Congress” (Ph.D. dissertation, The College of William and Mary, 2009), 40. [22] “Richmond, (Virginia), December. 29,” The Pennsylvania Packet [Philadelphia], 10 January 1782, 2. [23] The Pennsylvania Evening Post [Philadelphia], 17 July 1783, 120. [24] “Tuesday morning the 28th ult.,” The Pennsylvania Packet [Philadelphia], 13 September 1787, 2. [25] The Pennsylvania Packet [Philadelphia], 11 June 1788, 2. [26] “Deaths,” The Boston Gazette, and The Country Journal, Containing the latest Occurrences, Foreign and Domestic, 16 May 1791, 3. For an additional obituary, see also the Gazette of the United States [Philadelphia], 7 May 1791, 11. [27] See “Supplemental Memorial of the Heirs and Legal Representatives of Captain Benjamin Harrison, for Commutation pay, bounty land, &c. May 6, 1846. Referred to the Committee on Revolutionary Claims, and ordered to be granted” (Senate Document 332, 29th Congress, 1st Session [1846], 1-6. [28] “Benjamin Harrison Memorial,” op. cit., 21.

William Harrison, Jr. (c. 1750–1812)

A shipbuilder from Maryland, William Harrison, Jr., served as a member of the Maryland militia

William Harrison, Jr. (c. 1750–1812) 579 during the War of 1812, and as a delegate from Maryland to the Continental Congress (1786). He was born in Maryland, and is believed to be related to the famed Harrison family of Virginia, which includes Benjamin Harrison, a delegate to the Continental Congress, William Henry Harrison, the ninth president of the United States, and William Henry’s grandson, Benjamin Harrison, the 23rd president of the United States. Historian James H. Stone, in an 1874 genealogical work, claims that William Harrison, Jr., was the brother of Continental Congress delegate Benjamin Harrison: Writing of the ancestry of Judge Bazel Harrison, Stone explained: Judge Harrison came of not only hardy stock, but patriotic ancestry. His paternal grandfather, William Harrison, was a native of Scotland, and his grandmother of Welsh birth. William Harrison was a descendant of the great Gen. Harrison who held a commission under Cromwell. These grandparents immigrated to Virginia and settled in either Berkeley or Charles City County, early in the last century. His father’s name was also William Harrison, and he was born in Berkeley, Virginia, about 1730. William Harrison, Jr. was twice married and by his two wives was the father of 23 children, our centenarian being a son of the second wife, whose name was Worlenda Davis. His father married her in Maryland about the same time his younger brother, Benjamin Harrison (father of President Harrison and uncle of the Judge), married her mother, Clara Davis, a widow. [1] If true, the question then remains: if William Harrison, Jr., is related to the famed Harrison clan, and is the brother of Benjamin Harrison, why was William born in Maryland, while the others come from Virginia? Much of William Harrison, Jr.’s life remains unknown. The state of Maryland, in an assessment of lands for tax purposes in 1783, lists a “William Harrison, Jr.” living at a locale in the state called “Upper Fork & Bear Ground Hundred.” [2] On 6 November 1785, Harrison was elected to a seat in the Continental Congress, “for one whole year from the second Monday in December next”; he was subsequently re-elected on 2 December 1786, and 4 January 1788, and attended sessions of the body from 24

March to about 20 September 1786, and from 24 November to 4 December 1786, apparently not attending any sessions in either 1787 or 1788. [3] According to several letters of the period, Harrison’s attendance in 1786 brought a moribund Continental Congress alive with enough delegates to make a quorum. Delegate William Grayson of Virginia wrote to James Madison on 22 March 1786, “I should have done myself the pleasure of writing to you sooner, but really nothing occurred here of sufficient consequence to communicate. Congress from the small number of States that have come forward have remained in a kind of political torpor: they have of course taken no active steps till lately that they have addressed the States on the subject of commerce . . .” [4] On the same day, Grayson wrote to Richard Henry Lee, “I have had the pleasure of receiving both your letters, and for which I am much obliged to you though I am sorry to observe you do not speak more decidedly on your intended junction with your brother delegates: if it depends on our removal to Philada. some time must necessarily elapse, as there is but little hopes that such an event will take effect with’t a full representation of the Southern States: N. Carolina, Delawar[e] and Georgia are still absent and we do not know when they will appear; it seems as if many of the States had forgot the relation in which they stood to the Union as well as to foreign powers. Congress have done very little since their last meeting indeed with so few States it is out of their power to do any thing of material consequence . . .” [5] Responding to the clarion calls for more delegates to arrive to get business accomplished, historian Edmund Cody Burnett stated about Grayson’s complaints, “On 24 March [1786], William Harrison of Maryland arrived, thereby for the first time since the beginning of the Congressional year completing the representation of nine states.” [6] A single piece of correspondence from Harrison during his Continental Congress service, addressed to William Smallwood, the governor of Maryland and dated 7 September 1787, reads: “I now do myself the honor to acknowledge the receipt of your letter of the 16th July, and 27th ult[i] mo. Be assured, Sir, that it gives me pain to hear of the embarrassed situation of Congress, owing to a Want of representation, more

580

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

especially as Maryland is one of the States unrepresented. A sense of my duty would have long ago carried me to Congress, had my State of Health admitted. But I was forced to absent myself from the Senate, at the Spring Session, on acco’t [account] of indisposition, of which I have not yet recovered. This being the reason of my non-attendance, I have thought proper to trouble your Excellency with it, that a neglect of duty may not be imputed to me.” [7]

[3] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VIII:;lxxxvi. [4] William Grayson to James Madison, 22 March 1786, in ibid., VIII:332 [5] William Grayson to Richard Henry Lee, 22 March 1786, in ibid., VIII:333. [6] Ibid., VIII:xxiii. [7] William Harrison, Jr., to William Smallwood, the governor of Maryland, 7 September 1787, in ibid., VIII:644. [8] “Archives of Maryland” (Annapolis: Printed for the State [by Various Printers]; 863 volumes, 1883-2013), 561:92. [9] “American State Papers. Documents, Legislative and Executive, of the Congress of the United States, From the First Session of the First to the Second Session of the Fifteenth Congress, Inclusive: Commencing March 3, 1789, and Ending March 3, 1819. Selected and Edited, Under the Authority of Congress, by Walter Lowrie, Secretary of the Senate, and Matthew St. Clair Clarke, Clerk of the House of Representatives” (Washington, DC: Printed by Gales and Seaton; 38 volumes, 1833-38), Class V:I:364. [10] Harrison official congressional biography, op. cit.

After his service in the Continental Congress, Harrison returned home to Maryland, where he became a judge. A listing by the state of Maryland, listing “Justices of the Peace,” includes the name of William Harrison, Jr. [8] According to Harrison’s official congressional biography, Harrison “engaged in shipbuilding at St. Michaels, Talbot County, Md., in 1810.” In the “American State Papers,” volume 1 of the papers of Class V, “Military Affairs,” is a note signed by Harrison, from Talbot County, MD, which reads, “On the 20th July, 1813, came Jacob Gibson, Esquire, before me, one of the justices of the peace for the State of Maryland, and for Talbot County aforesaid, and made oath, on the Holy Evangelists of Almighty God, that what is contained in the within instrument is just and true, as stated, as near as he can ascertain. William Harrison, Jr.” [9]

John Hart (c. 1713–1779)

During the War of 1812, Harrison “served as [a] first lieutenant in Capt. Robert H. Goldsborough’s Troop of Horse, called the Independent Light Dragoons, Ninth Regiment of Cavalry, [of the] Maryland Militia”; he later “commanded this troop as [a] captain.” [10] Harrison died soon after. A close examination of both Maryland and national newspapers show no notice of death or place of burial.

[1] Stone, James H., “A Biographical Sketch of Judge Bazel Harrison, The First White Settler in Kalamazoo County, Who Departed This Life at Prairie Ronde, Kalamazoo County, Mich., August 30, 1874, Aged One Hundred and Three Years, Five Months and Fifteen Days” (Privately Published, 1874; reprint, Schoolcraft, MI: Printed by The Express, 1913), 5-6. [2] “William Harrison, Jr., Upper Fork & Bear Ground Hundred,” Maryland Tax Indexes, MSA S 1437, Maryland State Archives, Annapolis, 3.

A delegate from New Jersey to the Continental Congress, John Hart was one of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence in 1776. He was born in 1713 or 1714—sources vary [1]— in Stonington, Connecticut, the son of Edward Hart and his wife, Martha (Furman) Hart, both farmers in rural Connecticut. Both Harts had

John Hart (c. 1713–1779)581 been Presbyterians in the village of Newtown, on New York’s Long Island, moving prior to their son’s birth to a farm in Connecticut. Edward Hart also served as a justice of the peace, but, more importantly, he came from a family with a long line leading back to the 16th century. According to Hart family historian William Watts Hart Davis, “One of the most reputable families, whose ancestors came from England at the close of the sixteenth century and settled in Pennsylvania, under the mild sway of its great founder, is that which bears the name of Hart, late of Warminster township, in the county of Bucks, Pennsylvania. The birth-place was Witney, in Oxfordshire . . . The first progenitor of this family who settled here was John Hart, son of Christopher and Mary Hart, who was born the 16th of November, 10/51. There were four children.” [2] The Hart family had been farming on the land that John Hart was born on since at least 1699. The family did not struggle financially; they were able to give John Hart a prosperous upbringing, and at some point the family moved to a nicer home in Hopewell Township, in Hunterdon County, New Jersey. John Hart would be identified with this colony and state for the remainder of his life, and contribute to its political fortunes. Hart attended private schools in New Jersey, then following his family into farming. In 1739, when he was about 15, his family’s wealth allowed him to purchase an estate of nearly 200 acres in Hopewell. That same year, he married Deborah Scudder, and, together, the couple had 13 children. Hart lived on this land for the remainder of his life, save for the time when he was away in political service, and he would be buried here when he died. On this estate, he operated a feed mill, owned horses, and, unfortunately, three slaves. Historian W. L. Whittlesey stated that Hart’s financial and property holdings “includ[ed] an interest in fulling mills at Glen Moore and grist and fulling mills at Rocky Hill.” [3] In 1761 Hart entered the arena of politics, beginning service as a member of the New Jersey Provincial Assembly, serving until 1771. Although there is no evidence that he ever studied the law, nevertheless in 1768 he was appointed as a judge of the Hunterdon County

courts, where he served until 1775. In the Assembly, he worked on messages sent by that body to the royal governor. [4] During this period, tensions between the colonies and the “Mother Country,” England, grew to explosive proportions. In New Jersey, Hart had been one of the early voices against excessive British taxation, as well as the series of harsh economic measures enacted by the British Parliament, including the Sugar Act and the Stamp Act, the Boston Port Bill, and the “Coercive Acts.” In 1774, Hart helped in forming Hunterdon County’s Committee of Correspondence, which kept all of the colonies in touch with each other to coordinate colonial wide responses to the British moves. One historian discovered a letter that Hart wrote in 1777, as the Speaker of the New Jersey Assembly, to Governor William Livingston of New Jersey, riddled with spelling errors: “Sir: The House of Assembly Request that your Exelency Direct Mr. Collings [should be “Collins”] to print fifty Coppies of the Law for purching [purchasing] Cloathing for the New Jersey Regiment, and transmit the same to your Exelency as soon as possible.” [5] Hart opposed additional taxation by the British government, and he expressed this opposition when he was elected on 8 July 1774 to the First Provincial Congress of New Jersey, serving in this body, which took control of the colony after the collapse of royal rule, from 23 May 1775 to 22 June 1776, and, on 16 June 1776, Hart was elected as the vice president of the body. John Hart may have remained a little-known New Jersey politician, except for his election on 22 June 1776 as a delegate to the Continental Congress. According to historian Edmund Cody Burnett, Hart did not attend any session of the body prior to 4 July 1776—and on that day he signed the Declaration of Independence. Hart’s single day of attendance before he affixed his signature to the Declaration makes him perhaps the signer with the least amount of experience. After he signed that document, Hart did serve from July to August 1776 and then from about 25 October to about 5 November 1776. Burnett explained, “Hart’s attendance is recorded only twice in the Journals, namely, 25 October and 5 November (committee appointments). That

582

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

he attended in July is, however, attested by his signature to the resolution of secrecy . . . for it immediately precedes that of Benjamin Rush, who appended to his signature the date [of] 22 July 1777. Immediately preceding the signature of Hart are those of [Abraham] Clark and [George] Walton, which must have been appended early in July, and probably 1 July. That he was in Congress [on] 6 August is learned from a letter of Abraham Clark of that date.” [6] Clark’s letter, dated 8 February 1777, was sent to Hart in his position as Speaker of the New Jersey Assembly, the post that Hart accepted by leaving the Continental Congress. [7]

On 10 November 1779, a little more than three years after he signed the Declaration of Independence, John Hart died after being bedridden with stomach and intestinal pain. Hart was laid to rest in the Old School Baptist Meeting House Burial Ground in Hopewell; over his grave is a large obelisk, which simply reads, “John Hart. A Signer of the Declaration of Independence from New Jersey.” Hart’s greatgreat-great-grandson, John Hart Brewer (18441900), served in the US House of Representatives from New Jersey (1881-85) as a Republican.

Except for his limited service in the New Jersey legislature, Hart never held public office again. Elected, as noted, as the body’s first democratically elected Speaker in the postroyal era, he was forced for a short period to step aside that October when his wife became ill and subsequently died. Alone, forced to raise his children by himself, Hart came under additional strain when, in December 1776, the British invaded New Jersey and offered a bounty on Hart’s head for his signing the Declaration of Independence. He scattered his children with close relations, buried his valuables near his home, and then hid in the wilderness near Trenton during the harsh winter that year. He remained in hiding for some days, under the Continental Army. General George Washington dealt the British severe defeats at Trenton and Princeton, driving them out of the Garden State and allowing Hart to come out of hiding. He found his estate plundered by retreating British forces and their Hessian allies, who also robbed his flour mills of their stores as they departed the area. He tried to find his children, but they had been scattered, and he never saw some of them ever again. Hart’s health was never the same. Historian Samuel George Arnold explained, “The ruthless devastations of the Hessians, bad as they proved to be, were, however, much more easily repaired than the injuries sustained by his shattered constitution. Indeed his frequent exposures and great anxiety of mind, had seriously underminded [sic] his health, and although the restoration of comparative quiet, brought some temporary relief, yet there was not sufficient elasticity in his constitution, to bring back the current of life to its original vigor.” [8]

[1] Hart’s official congressional biography states that he was born “about 1713”; see http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay. pl?index=H000288. Another source, an online family tree, gives his date of birth as “circa 21 February 1713,” but also states that he was born in Burlington, New Jersey; see http://www.geni. com/people/John-Hart-Signer-of-the-Declaration-of-Independence/6000000006712109764. Shockingly, historian W.L. Whittlesey, in the “Dictionary of American Biography,” uses the date of 1711 with a question mark, perhaps the earliest birth date posed. However, it is possible that both of the most used dates, 1713 and 1714, could be right: Hart’s sole biographer, historian Cleon E. Hammond, wrote in 1977, “The date of Signer John Hart’s birth is unknown, but the Baptismal Records indicate that he was baptized ‘1713:21-21’ in Maidenhead (Lawrenceville). This date, if adjusted to the calendar change adopted in 1751, would have been noted as March 4, 1714 [Hammond’s emphasis.]” See Hammond, Cleon E., “John Hart: The Biography of a Signer of the Declaration of Independence” (Newfane, VT: Pioneer Press, 1977), 4. [2] Davis, William Watts Hart, “History of the Hart family, of Warminster, Bucks County, Pennsylvania: To Which is Added the Genealogy of the Family, From its First Settlement in America” (Doylestown, PA: Privately Printed, 1867), 9-10. [3] Whittlesey, W.L., “Hart, John,” in Allen Johnson, et al., “Dictionary of American Biography” (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons; eleven volumes and five supplements, 1958-77), VIII:359. [4] Hart official congressional biography, online, op. cit. [5] Arnold, Samuel George, “Biographical Sketches of Distinguished Jerseymen. By S.G. Arnold” (Trenton, NJ: Press of the Emporium, 1845), 50. [FN] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), I:l, II:lv. [7] See Abraham Clark to John Hart, the Speaker of the New Jersey Assembly, 8 February 1777, in ibid., II:242. [8] Arnold, “Biographical Sketches of Distinguished Jerseymen,” op. cit., 59.

The Hartford Convention Also known as The Convention of the States, this parley met in Hartford, Connecticut, on 8 November 1780. This important assemblage discussed the issue of giving the Continental Congress powers over the states.

The Hartford Convention583 While the Articles of Confederation did not come into effect until 1783, when all of the states had ratified it, nevertheless it did little to change the situation that gave the Continental Congress few powers to dictate to the states on how and when to levy taxes, to send monies to Philadelphia for national uses, to raise soldiers, to feed, clothe, and arm them, or any other matter where a central government has implicit power over the individual states. By 1780, the American Revolution had been going on for six years, and the situation regarding these powers, or lack thereof, was a dire one, to say the least. Historian Hugh Jameson detailed the situation when he wrote of the problems that General Henry Clinton was having in keeping his men properly fed: In July, 1780, Clinton issued warrants to several officers empowering them to impress teams, wagons, flour and beef for the use of the militia. In August, the officers were ordered to see that each man carried at least ten days’ provisions, or if they had no meat, each should bring flour sufficient for twenty days. On another call, Clinton told the officers quite frankly that they could anticipate trouble in securing provisions. He did not, however, know how to prevent it because the state had neither commissaries, nor magazines. He suggested that the men be urged to turn out with provisions sufficient for a few days, and when they exhausted their store that they be sent home, and another detachment be called to relieve them. If the officers could find some person who would undertake to provide the militia, Clinton said he would order a sum from the treasury for that purpose, though he doubted that his requisition would be honored. [1] The Continental Congress had been established in 1774 not so much as a national legislature but as a national outlet for delegates from all of the colonies to meet and discuss and plan what could be done to face the threat of a fullscale British invasion. No idea was even given that this body would have to order the states to pay taxes into a national treasury, or to raise troops, or to send provisions from one state to another to aid the war effort. In essence, there was a Continental Congress and there were 13 individual states coexisting with it rather than being subservient to it. The enactment of the Articles of Confederation in 1778 was intended, to some degree, to amend and ameliorate these problems. Historian and environmentalist Franklin Benjamin Hough wrote in 1872:

The Articles of Confederation had scarcely been adopted when their defects became apparent, and although they might serve their purpose in some degree so long as the States were menaced by common dangers, yet, in time of peace, they were soon found altogether inadequate for the wants of an effective government. Congress had no power to enforce its own ordnances, and it could only recommend such measures as it deemed important, leaving the several States to adopt them, if they found it convenient to do so. An effort was early made to obtain a concession of power to Congress sufficient to meet the necessities of the government, and urgent appeals were made to the patriotism of the States, for the maintenance of the public faith at home and abroad, but without satisfactory result. [2] However, even before all of the states could ratify the Articles, the problems associated with the overall structure of the America government as it was at the time began to become rather clear. Historian Ray Raphael explained: While Americans as diverse as Henry Laurens and Mercy Otis Warren, Joseph Plumb Martin and George Washington feared that the Revolution was becoming unhinged, some patriots of practical bent focused on what might possibly be done to turn things around. On 3 September 1780, Alexander Hamilton, Washington’s aide-de-camp and john Laurens’ best friend, detailed a prescription for healing the ailing nation: discard the Articles of Confederation (they had yet to be ratified in any case, because Maryland was still holding out) and start anew, creating a governmental structure with centralized authority. Give Congress the power of the purse. Through land taxes, poll taxes, and most of all the revenue from the disposal of all Western lands, Congress would be able to raise and support a decent army — not just for the moment, but after the war as well, a standing army. [3] In Hamilton’s view, Congress should be given wide-ranging powers to control most of the economic functions of the nation. In a letter to James Duane on 3 September 1780, Hamilton outlined the new central government as he saw it: The confederation in my opinion should give Congress complete sovereignty; except as to that part of internal police, which relates to the rights of property and life among individuals and to raising money by internal taxes. It is necessary, that every thing [sic], belonging to this, should be regulated by

584

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

the state legislatures. Congress should have complete sovereignty in all that relates to war, peace, trade, finance, and to the management of foreign affairs, the right of declaring war of raising armies, officering, paying them, directing their motions in every respect, of equipping fleets and doing the same with them, of building fortifications arsenals magazines &c. &c., of making peace on such conditions as they think proper, of regulating trade, determining with what countries it shall be carried on, granting indulgencies laying prohibitions on all the articles of export or import, imposing duties granting bounties & premiums for raising exporting importing and applying to their own use the product of these duties, only giving credit to the states on whom they are raised in the general account of revenues and expences [sic], instituting Admiralty courts &c., of coining money, establishing banks on such terms, and with such privileges as they think proper, appropriating funds and doing whatever else relates to the operations of finance, transacting every thing [sic] with foreign nations, making alliances offensive and defensive, treaties of commerce, &c. &c. [4]

of men, money, or supplies, Congress should ‘compel it to furnish its deficiency’ through military force. The legislature further instructed that the resolution should be sent to Congress and discussed at the Hartford convention where New York commissioners were directed to ‘propose and agree to’ the plan.” [6]

To this end, the various New England states invited leading citizens to attend a conference to be held in Hartford as delegates. In inviting John Taylor Gilman of New Hampshire to the parley, John Langdon, the Speaker of the New Hampshire state House of Representatives, stated that the reason for the meeting was in “advising and consulting upon measures for furnishing the necessary supplies of men and provision for the army.” [5] Chief among their concerns was a way to force the states to listen to the Continental Congress and contribute to the national welfare without opposing its dictates, the key to a functioning central government. This concept is known as the “coercive powers,” granting the Continental Congress the right to “coerce” the states into following its laws and rules. The idea of “coercive powers” originated in 1780, as the war dragged into its seventh year and the Continental Army was finding it harder and harder to get states to contribute manpower, arms, ammunition, and other materiél to the war effort. Historian Keith L. Dougherty wrote, “[T] he New York legislature introduced the idea [of coercive powers] when Washington was asked to liberate New York City without resources to attack. In Oct 1780, the legislature resolved that whenever a state was deficient in its quota

Thus, all roads lead to Hartford, and that meeting took place in November 1780. The New York legislature, directing its delegates that it dispatched to Connecticut, gave explicit instructions: that it push for a new governmental blueprint that gave the Continental Congress strong centralized powers. Further, it directed its delegates to demand “that the Commander in Chief of the army of the United States be authorized and empowered to take such measures as he may deem proper and the public service may render necessary to induce the several states to a punctual compliance with the regulations which have been or may be made by Congress for supplies for the years 1780 and 1781.” The meeting opened in Hartford on 8 November 1780, and continued for a week, until closing on 15 November. The following men, and the states they represented, served as delegates to this conference: John Taylor Gilman: New Hampshire Thomas Cushing: Massachusetts Azor Orne: Massachusetts George Partridge: Massachusetts William Bradford: Rhode Island Eliphalet Dyer: Connecticut William Williams: Connecticut John Sloss Hobart: New York Egbert Benson: New York William Bradford of Rhode Island was elected as the president of the convention; Hezekiah Wyllys was named as the meeting’s official secretary. In the week that the delegates met, the meeting got little media attention: even the paper in the city where the parley was being held, The Connecticut Courant and Weekly Intelligencer, did not even mention the conference or its

The Hartford Convention585 debates. [7] Despite this, the debates that were conducted aimed directly at the heart of whether or not the federal government, in the guise of the Continental Congress, would ultimately survive. Historian Merrill Jensen wrote in 1943: [I]n November 1780, groups of delegates from New York and the New England states met at Hartford, ostensibly to deal with the problem of raising troops in the North. Far more than this was involved, for General [Philip] Schuyler had said before the convention met that there would be a proposal to ask for the appointment of a dictator, with “Vice-Dictators” in each of the thirteen states. The convention did not go that far, but it did urge that Washington be given dictatorial power to collect supplies from the states and that Congress be given the power of taxation, in order to pay the interest on the public debt. It declared that the lack of coercive power in the “General Government of the Continent” was the greatest defect. To remedy it, the idea of implied powers was propounded. The powers of Congress had never been defined, said the convention, but there was a “necessarily implied compact” between the states at the beginning of the war. From this it “may certainly be inferred that Congress was vested with every power essential to the common defense . . .” [8] In the end, little was accomplished at the Hartford conference: Some minor changes to the Articles of Confederation were recommended. The wording of the several resolutions was as follows: Resolved, That it be recommended to the several States Represented in this Convention punctually to Comply with any Requisitions which the Commander in Chief of the Army shall find it necessary to make for Detachments from the Militia to strengthen the Battalions of the Lines of the respective States untill [sic] they shall be filled up with Recruits for three Years or during the War. Resolved, That it be most earnestly recommended to the several States represented in this Convention punctually to Comply with every Requisition from Congress for Men Money Provisions or other supplies for the War. Whereas in Consequence of the neglect of many if not all the United States in not seasonably furnishing their respective Quotas of Supplies required by Congress the Army has greatly suffered and been frequently brought into a very Critical and dangerous situation, and those Offensive Operations against the Enemy have been prevented which might otherwise

have been prosecuted to great advantage, And Whereas there is great Danger that in Case some of the States should be deficient in their Supplies while others furnish their full Quotas, such Jealousies and distrusts will arise as may prove very detrimental to the common Cause and possibly destructive of the Union. Therefore, Resolved, That it be earnestly recommended to the several States represented in this Convention to Instruct Their respective Delegates to use their Influence in Congress that the Commander in Chief of the Army of the United States be Authorized and Impowered [sic] to take such Measures as he may deem proper and the public Service may render necessary to induce the several States to a punctual Compliance with the Requisitions which have been or may be made by Congress for Supplies for the Years 1780 and 1781. This Convention having received Information That large Quantities of Cloathing [sic] for the Army are lying in Store at Boston and Springfield: Resolved, That it be recommended to the States of Massachusets [sic], Connecticut and New York to Impress Teams if they cannot be otherwise readily obtained and forward the Cloathing [sic] by the most direct Rout[e] through their respective Territories to the Army. Resolved, That it be recommended to the several States represented in this Convention to Instruct their Delegates to propose and agree in Congress That an Estimate should be made of the annual Amount of the Interest of the Loan Office Certificates heretofore Issued, and also of all other Debts already due from the several Continental purchasing Officers, and which can conveniently be funded. That Congress should then propose certain Taxes upon Specific Articles or Duties or Imposts or all or Either of them as Congress may think proper and Deem to operate in the most equal Manner among the several States the nett [sic] product of which Congress may Judge sufficient for discharging such Interest. That the several States should thereupon make the necessary Provisions by Law to enable Congress to Levy and Collect such Taxes Duties or Imposts within them respectively and that the Delegates should be Authorized to Pledge the Faith of their respective States that they will pass the requisite Laws for the purpose with a Restriction that the Delegates shall not have Authority to bind their respective States unless the Delegates from all the States except such who are so in the Power of the Enemy as to be deprived of a Legislature should

586

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

have simular [sic] Powers. That such Taxes Duties or Imposts should be applied solely to the Payment of such Interest. And that inasmuch as it will be Impossible to ascertain precisely the sum, which such Taxes Duties or Imposts may annually Yield, That therefore if during any Year the product should exceed the Amount of such Interest that such excess shall nevertheless be retained in the Continental Treasury, and in the ensuing Years to be appropriated to the payment of such Interest, as shall then have accrued and to no other purpose.

Writing to Thomas Jefferson on the meeting, William Bradford explained, “By the direction of the Convention held at this Place, I have the Honour to transmit to your Excellency their Proceedings with a Request that you will please to lay them before the Legislature of your State. As the measures we have recommended to the States by whose Appointment we met will depend for their Effacacy [sic] upon the Concurrence of the other States, we conceive it our Duty to communicate them Immediately in order that if they should be deemed Elegible [sic] they might with the greater Dispatch be carried into Effect.” [10]

Whereas through the neglect of many States in the Union in a full and seasonable compliance with the Requisition of Congress of the 18th of March last Congress have not been able to avail themselves of the Money which they expected to pay their Troops, and transport the necessary supplies to the Army which has Occasioned not only discontent in Our Army but Great Embarrasments [sic] in Our Affairs, Therefore Resolved that it be most earnestly recommended to the several States represented in this Convention to take effectual Measures to sink their Full Quotas of the Continental Bills by the Time and in the manner prescribed by Congress. Whereas the Laws heretofore passed by the several States have proved ineffectual for the purpose, Resolved that it be earnestly recommended to the States represented in this Convention to take such farther Measures as may be effectual to prevent any unlawfull [sic] Commerce or Intercourse with the Enemy. Resolved, That it be recommended to the States represented in this Convention to appoint a Commissioner or Commissioners to meet for the purpose of entering into Contracts for supplying the Fleet and Army of his most Christian Majesty with Provisions, that the Commissioners from the respective States should be fully Authorized to enter into such Contracts and that the Commissioners should meet at such Time and Place as the Governor of Connecticut shall Certify for that purpose. To the End that Congress untill [sic] the Confederation shall be agreed to, may be furnished with a Rule for making an appointment [sic; should be “apportionment”] of Men Money or other Supplies among the several States, Resolved that it be recommended to the States Represented in this Convention to Instruct their Delegates to propose and agree in Congress That Congress should require of the several States forthwith to return the number of persons[,] Blacks as well as Whites within them respectively . . . [9]

There was anger on all sides in reaction to the lack of major movement in the Hartford convention. On one side, the reaction was harsh at the inability to fix the almost-moribund central government. John Witherspoon wrote to William Livingston, the governor of New Jersey, on 16 December 1780: I have written twice to Mr. Houston [sic; should read Houstoun] since I came here, but I believe I have been unlucky in the manner of conveyance. The first was written a week ago to go by a private hand, and I am uncertain whether it has gone yet. The other I am told went yesterday by Mr. Chalmers of Trenton. referring to it for what else it contains I shall send you a copy of a resolution recommended by a convention that met at Hartford consisting of the N. England States and New York; “resolved that the Commander in Chief of the army of the United States be authorized and empowered to take such measures as he may deem proper and the public service may render necessary to induce the several states to a punctual compliance with the regulations which have been or may be made by Congress for supplies for the years 178o and 1781. Though it is well known to you that few persons have a higher opinion of or confidence in Gen. Washington than myself or a greater desire of having vigorous executive powers put into the hands of persons at the head of affairs either in the military or civil department, yet that resolution is of such a nature that I should never give my voice for it unless you or my constituents should specifically direct it, perhaps even not then, and I have that opinion of Gen. Washington that I do not think he would accept or act in consequence of such powers. What could induce that Convention to recommend such a measure is a mystery to me, but I believe it will

The Hartford Convention587 have few advocates . . . The distress of our finances is the most important and alarming circumstance in our situation. A committee have it under consideration but whether their measures will be radical and effectual it is impossible to say. My opinion is that relief must come from the particular states, and they must do it by giving up attachment to paper money and by loans and contracts being in the credit of individuals to assist the public. This is the case in England for all their taxes would be too late, if monied men did not step forth and advance in the mean time what was necessary.” [11] On the other hand, Abigail Adams, the wife of Continental Congress delegate John Adams, penned a letter to her husband, 24 November 1780, in which she expressed distress at the potential for such national action allowing anyone to embrace “dictatorial powers,” no matter what they would be utilized for: “The burden is greater I fear than the people will bear — and while the New England states are crushed by this weight, others are lagging behind, without any exertions, which has produced a convention from the New England States. A motion has been made, but which I sincerely hope will not be adopted by our Goverment [sic], I mean to vest General Washington with the power of marching his Army into the state that refuses supplies and exacting it by Martial Law. Is not this a most dangerous step, fraught with Evils of many kinds [?] I tremble at the Idea. I hope Congress will never adopt such a measure, tho [sic] our delegates should receive such Instructions.” [12] On 11 June 1781, the Chevalier de la Luzerne wrote a multipage missive to the Comte de Vergennes. He wrote, “I attribute the promptness with which Congress has yielded to my representations to two principal causes. The first is the absence of Mr. Samuel Adams. I think I have succeeded, by means of my correspondent, in making him known to the most important of his compatriots, and if the present dispositions continue, he will no longer be returned to Congress. The second is the rupture of the League of the New England States and the annihilation of the System that it had proposed for prolongation of the War.” This appears to be the only time that the Hartford convention was given a formal title, if one could call it that; never again would it be considered a “league.” [13]

Anticipating that the parley would call for stricter measures to lay and collect taxes to be used by the Continental Congress, on 7 November 1780 the Continental Congress appointed a committee “to prepare and lay before Congress a plan for arranging the finances [and] paying the debt, and economizing the Revenue of the United States. The members chosen [were] Mr. [John] Sullivan [of New Hampshire], Mr. [Theodorick] Bland [of Virginia], Mr. [John] Mathews [of South Carolina], Mr. [Timothy] Matlack [of Pennsylvania] and Mr. [Abraham] Clarke [sic; should be “Clark”]. The committee appointed to prepare a circular letter to the states brought in a draught [draft], which was read . . .” [14] Within a few months, the need for one man to finance the war, collect taxes, and give the nation financial stability came into being. William Graham Sumner penned, “They gave to [this man] the title of Superintendent of Finance, which was generally abbreviated to Financier. On the 20th of February, Morris was elected Superintendent of Finance, without a vote against him, although Samuel Adams and Artemas Ward declined to vote. Samuel Adams refused, because of a ‘jealousy of delegated powers.’ He was therefore still stanchly determined to sacrifice all the real interests at stake for the sake of a dogmatic whim.” [15] While Morris helped to stabilize the collection of taxes as well as the overall American economy, he became increasingly frustrated with his job and its limitations. He resigned in 1783. By this time, the Articles of Confederation had been ratified, but over the next four years its built-in flaws gave rise to more and more calls for it being amended. In the summer of 1787, delegates from the thirteen states met in convention in Philadelphia and, instead of amending the Articles, tossed them aside completely and drafted a whole new document: the US Constitution. Many of the arguments aired at the Hartford convention seven years earlier were heard again in Philadelphia, and answers this time came by writing specific powers into the document, making for a strong central government while granting other powers to the states. Perhaps, in the end, the delegates to the Hartford meeting had more of an impact than they thought at the time.

588

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

See also: John Taylor Gilman

John Harvie (c. 1742–1807)

[1] Jameson, Hugh, “Subsistence for Middle States Militia, 17761781,” Military Affairs, XXX:3 (Winter 1966), 129. [2] Hough, Benjamin Franklin, “American Constitutions: Comprising the Constitution of Each State in the Union, and of the United States, With the Declaration of Independence and Articles of Confederation; Each Accompanied by a Historical Introduction and Notes, Together with a Classified Analysis of the Constitutions, According to Their Subjects, Showing by Comparative Arrangement, Every Constitutional Provision Now in Force in the United States; With References to Judicial Decisions, and an Analytical Index. Illustrated by Carefully Engraved Fac-Similies of the Great Seals of the United States, and of Each State and Territory” (Albany, NY: Weed, Parsons & Company; two volumes, 1872), I:20. [3] Raphael, Ray, “The Founders: The People Who Brought You a Nation” (New York: The New Press, 2009). [4] Alexander Hamilton to James Duane, 3 September 1780, in Harold C. Syrett, ed., et al., “The Papers of Alexander Hamilton” (New York: Columbia University Press; twenty-six volumes, 196179), I:153. [5] John Langdon, Speaker, to John Taylor Gilman, 28 October 1780, in Charles J. Hoadley, comp., “The Public Records of the State of Connecticut, From May, 1780, to October, 1781, Inclusive. With the Journal of the Council of Safety from May 15, 1780, to December 27, 1781, Inclusive. And an Appendix” (Hartford, CT: Press of The Case, Lockwood & Brainard Company, 1922), 565. [6] Dougherty, Keith L., “Collective Action under the Articles of Confederation” (Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press, 2001), 133. [7] See The Connecticut Courant and Weekly Intelligencer [Hartford], 14 November 1780, where there is no mention whatsoever in the entire issue. [8] Jensen, Merrill, “The Idea of a National Government During the American Revolution,” Political Science Quarterly, LVIII:3 (September 1943), 370. [9] Hoadley, comp., “The Public Records of the State of Connecticut,” op. cit., 561-64. [10] William Bradford to Thomas Jefferson, 22 November 1780, in “Original Documents,” Magazine of American History, VIII:10 (October 1882), 697. [11] John Witherspoon to the Governor of New Jersey, William Livingston, 16 December 1780, in Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), V:487-88. [12] Abigail Adams to John Adams, 24 November 1780, in Lyman Henry Butterfield and Marc Friedlaender, eds., “The Adams Papers: Adams Family Correspondence” (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press; eleven volumes, 1963- ), IV:15-16. [13] The Chevalier de la Luzerne to Comte de Vergennes, 11 June 1781, in Mary Guina, ed.-in-chief, “The Emerging Nation: A Documentary History of the Foreign Relations of the United States under the Articles of Confederation, 1780-1789” (Washington, DC: National Historical Publications and Records Commission; three volumes, 1996), I:189. [14] “Journals of Congress, From January 1st, 1780, to January 1st, 1781. Published by Order of Congress” (Philadelphia: Printed by David C. Claypoole, Printer to the Honorable the Congress, 1781), 362. [15] Sumner, William Graham, “Robert Morris: The Financier and the Finances of the American Revolution” (New York: Dodd, Mead; two volumes, 1891), I:261-62.

A delegate to the Continental Congress from his native Virginia (1777-78), John Harvie signed the Articles of Confederation and was a staunch advocate of the Bill of Rights, the first ten amendments to the US Constitution. Harvie was born in Albemarle County, Virginia, 1742. A 1949 work, however, states that Harvie was born on 23 October 1747 in Virginia, the son of John Harvie (who hailed from Gargunnock, Scotland) and his wife Martha Elizabeth (née Gaines) Harvie. John Harvie’s grandfather, also named John Harvie (and sometime noted as “John Harvie I”), was baptized in Gargunnock, and departed for the New World, settling in what is now rural Virginia. [1] John Harvie apparently studied the law, as he was admitted to the colonial bar and opened a practice in his native County. He married Margaret Jones. When the American Revolution broke out, Harvie sided completely with the patriot forces, aiding in the raising of troops for the local militias; in 1776, he was named as a colonel and a member of the colonial militia itself. In 1775 and 1776, he served as a delegate to provincial conventions held in both years, first from Augusta and then West Augusta counties; at the

John Harvie (c. 1742–1807)589 latter convention, he was named to a committee ordered to draft a colonial declaration of rights while also establishing a postroyal government. Historian Edmund Cody Burnett, in a biography of Harvie, stated, “In these conventions also he had an important share in the proceedings relative to Indian affairs, and it may have been this fact which led to his appointment by the Continental Congress, 11 May 1776, as one of the commissioners for Indian affairs in the middle department.” [2] Following a clash between Virginia colonists and Native Americans at Point Pleasant on 10 October 1774, Harvie was named by the Virginia Provincial Congress, meeting in place of the royal government, as a commissioner to treat, or deal with, the Native American nations in the western part of the colony, and try to bridge a cease-fire with them. On 4 July 1776, as the Continental Congress was signing the Declaration of Independence, in Virginia Harvie was being appointed, along with a coterie of other state leaders, as commissioners to “take and collect evidence in behalf of Virginia against persons pretending to have claims for lands within the terry thereof, under deeds & purchases from the Indians.” [3] In March 1777, he had an agent “put an authenticated Copy of their Grant from the Six Nations into the Hands of John Harvie[,] Esqr, One of the Commissioners appointed to take Depositions respecting the said Grant, sometime in the Fall of the year 1776 desiring that the same should be admitted to record in the State of Virginia, which Mr. Harvie promised would be done.” [4] On 22 May 1777, this same legislative body elected Harvie to a seat in the Continental Congress; he ultimately was reelected on 29 May 1778, and attended sessions from 15 October to 31 December 1777, from 1 to 23 January 1778, and from about 27 February to about 18 March 1778, and from 3 July to 19 October 1778. [5] During the time of his attendance, he complained about being the sole representative of Virginia in the entire Continental Congress; on 29 December 1777 he wrote to Thomas Jefferson, “Our State is at present unrepresented, Mr. [Joseph] Jones having left us a few days ago.” Aside from this small note, two other letters appear to have been penned by Harvie during his Continental Congress service: both of them are to Jefferson. On 17 October 1777, in which he stated, “This morning the Inclosed

Interesting Intelligence was received by Congress from General Gates . . . Our Worthy president withdraws from Congress in abt. 1o days; will you be Surprized if F[rancis]. L[ightfoot]. Lee Esqr. Succeeds him that he will is the Genl. Opinion at present I wish in a publick Assembly no Gent. was fond of high Offices.” [6] In the second, dated 15 September 1778, Harvie wrote of his chafing to leave Philadelphia, but being forced to remain or leave the state without any representation whatsoever. He penned, “I intended to have been at the Octo. General Court early in the Session, but there is such a remissness in our Delegates if I leave Congress now our State will be Unrepresented at a time two [sic] when Business of the Utmost Consequence to us particularly is in Agitation. I must therefore Sacrifice my own private Interests to a publick Duty. The Moment F[rancis Lightfoot] Lee or M[eriwether] Smith arrive I quit this place I hope for Good.” [7] In December 1778, Harvie quickly resigned his seat, having signed the Articles of Confederation, the first blueprint of a centralized federal government in the infant United States, and returned to Virginia. On 19 February 1789, The New York Journal announced that elections for electors had been held in several states, including Virginia. For that state, it proclaimed that the following men had been elected to that position: John Pride, Zachariah Johnston, John Rossie, Jun., David Stuart, William Fitzhugh. Anthony Walker, Patrick Henry, Edward Stevens, Warner Lewis, James Woods, and John Harvie. [8] For the next several years, Harvie fit in among other state officers in Virginia: he served as the official purchasing agent for the state, with the rank of colonel; as the register of the Public Land Office for the state from 1780 to 1791, and as secretary of the Virginia Commonwealth in 1788. From this point until his death, he worked in building businesses around the Richmond area. [9] In 1805, two years before his death, Harvie’s name came to the public attention when he was mentioned in official hearings before the US Senate. In 1804, US Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase was impeached by the US House of Representatives, and during his trial the following year in the US Senate John Randolph, a representative from Virginia, who served as one of the managers both of the Chase impeachment

590

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

as well as that in 1804 of Judge John Pickering, questioned one of the witnesses, and the name of John Harvie came up:

On 6 February 1807, Harvie died in an accident in Richmond. The Enquirer of Richmond said, “This gentleman cannot be said to have completed that period of years, which a constitution, naturally strong, and habits free from excess, seemed to promise. For the purposes, however, of private virtue and public utility, his time was not too short, nor were the proofs which he gave of both, few in number, or limited to a narrow sphere.” The newspaper also reported that Harvie died on his estate, “Belvidere.” [12]

Mr. Randolph. You mentioned that no person of Mr. [William Branch] Giles’ politics was on the jury; did I understand you, when speaking of Mr. John Harvie as being of those politics, as meaning Mr. Harvie of Belvidere? Mr. [William] Marshall. Yes Sir. Mr. Randolph. What do you conceive to have been his politics at that time? Mr. Marshall. I thought, from his opinion on the sedition law, which I had understood was, that it was unconstitutional, he might have been of the same politics as Mr. Giles. Mr. Randolph. What was your opinion of Mr. Radford? Mr. Marshall. I understood his politics to have been of the same kind. Mr. Randolph. Did you ever hear that Mr. Mark Vanderval had denied that he was summoned on the jury for the trial of [James] Callendar [a newspaper editor tried under the Alien & Sedition Acts]? Mr. Marshall. I have understood that he denied ever having been summoned.

John Harvie was laid to rest under a large stone. In 1982, one of Harvie’s descendants, James Beverly Harvie, Jr., placed a plaque near his ancestor’s grave, which reads: “Within, and without, these walls rest members of the family of Col. John Harvie, 1742-1807. A guardian of Thomas Jefferson, and signers of the Articles of Confederation and the Bill of Rights. Here, too, lie his son, Jacquelin, and Mary, his wife, daughter of Chief Justice John Marshall. This area, part of the Harvie lands, became Hollywood Cemetery in 1847.” In the third week of April 1807, less than three months after Harvie died, his eldest son, Lewis Harvie, died at the Exchange in Norfolk, while making his way to France. His age was not given, but the short story noted that Lewis Harvie was “a member of the Executive Council of State.” [13]

Mr. Randolph. Did Mr. Harvie answer to his name when called on the jury list? Mr. Marshall. Yes Sir, and he was excused as being [the] high sheriff of the County of Henrico. Mr. Randolph. Did Mr. Radford answer to his name? Mr. Marshall. I believe that Sir. Mr. Vanderval I am certain did not. Mr. Randolph. Were you well acquainted at the time with Mr. Radford and Mr. Harvie? Mr. Marshall. I was with Mr. Harvie, and tolerably well with Mr. Radford. [10] In one of the last mention of Harvie prior to his death, The Enquirer of Richmond noted that certain “volunteer toasts” were being given “at the Eagle-Tavern, 4th Marc 1805.” One of them, attributed to John Harvie, says that he toasted “Patriotism, the first and noblest sentiment of a freeman.” [11]

[1] Creecy, John Harvie, “The Harvie Family of Virginia” (Richmond, Virginia: Privately Published, 1949), 1-2. The entire work, more a pamphlet than a book or even an article, contains four total pages. [2] Burnett, Edmund Cody, “Harvie, John” in Allen Johnson, et al., “Dictionary of American Biography” (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons; eleven volumes and five supplements, 1958-77), VIII:375. [3] See the documents in William Pitt Palmer, ed.-in-chief, “Calendar of Virginia State Papers and Other Manuscripts, 16521781, Preserved in the Capitol at Richmond. Arranged and Edited by Wm. P. Palmer, M.D., Under Authority of the Legislature of Virginia” (Richmond, VA: R.F. Walker, Superintendent of Public Printing; eleven volumes, 1875-93), I:272. [4] Ibid., I:277. [5] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), II:lxx; III:lxii. [6] John Harvie to Thomas Jefferson, 17 October 1777, in ibid., II:524. [7] John Harvie to Thomas Jefferson, in ibid., III:411-12. [8] “Federal Register: Electors,” The New-York Journal, and Weekly Register, 19 February 1789, 2. [9] Harvie official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=H000311.

Benjamin Hawkins (1754–1816)591 [10] “Impeachment of Judge Chase: Friday, February 15, 1805,” National Intelligencer and Washington Advertiser [Washington, DC], 3 April 1805, 2. [11] “Volunteer Toasts,” The Enquirer, 8 March 1805, 3. [12] “Communication. On the Late John Harvie, Esq.,” The Enquirer [Richmond, Virginia], 13 February 1807, 3. [13] “Died, on Tuesday morning,” The Enquirer [Richmond, Virginia], 21 April 1807, 3.

Benjamin Hawkins (1754–1816)

Benjamin Hawkins served in the Continental Congress (1781-83 and 1787), in the US Senate under the Constitution (1789-95), and as an agent to several Native American tribes located south of the Ohio River from 1796 until his death in 1816. Hawkins was born on his family’s estate, known as Pleasant Hill plantation, in what was at that time Granville, and is now Warren, County, in rural North Carolina, on 15 August 1754, one of four sons of Philemon Hawkins and his wife Delia (née Martin) Hawkins. All of the Hawkins sons would serve in the American Revolution, just 20 years in the future. The family originated in England: Benjamin’s grandfather, Philemon Hawkins, was born in Devon, Devonshire, England, in 1690; he emigrated to the American colonies, where he settled in Virginia before his

untimely death in 1725 at age 35. [1] Benjamin Hawkins’ grandfather was the first “American” Hawkins; an oration by family genealogist John D. Hawkins, in 1906, stated that Benjamin’s grandfather Philemon was “the oldest [sic] child of his parents, Philemon and Ann, and his father died when he was of tender years, leaving three children, Philemon, John and Ann.” [2] Hawkins received his education from local county schools in rural North Carolina, and then at the College of New Jersey (now Princeton University). He married Lavinia Downs, and together the couple had five children—four girls and one boy—one of whom lived until the start of the US Civil War in 1861. (Some sources list seven children.) Hawkins left college when the American Revolution broke out in 1775, and volunteered for military service. General George Washington, the commander-in-chief of the Continental Army, saw Hawkins’ ability to speak fluent French as a tremendous asset in dealing with America’s French allies, as well as the French-speaking tribes of Native Americans, and the North Carolinian was appointed as one of Washington’s staff. At the side of one of the greatest military minds in American history, Hawkins saw action at the Battle of Monmouth (28 June 1778), fighting alongside his personal slave and attendant, known as “Old Mingo” or “Daddy Mingo.” At the end of the conflict, Hawkins gave “Old Mingo” his complete freedom, but the former slave refused this offer and instead moved with Hawkins’ family to Georgia. He lived for several years after Hawkins passed away; upon his own death, as per his wishes, he was buried at the feet of the man who had once owned him. After only a short period on Washington’s staff as his aide-de-camp, Hawkins left the service when he was elected to a seat in the North Carolina state House of Commons, where he served until 1779; he would later serve an additional term in that body in 1784. In 1780, after completing his first tenure in the House of Commons, Hawkins was appointed as an agent for the state of North Carolina to “procure arms and munitions of war to defend the State.” [3] Historian William E. Dodd wrote of Hawkins in relation to another North Carolina politician, Nathaniel Macon (who was later elected as the Speaker of the US

592

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

House of Representatives): “Macon’s friend and college mate, Benjamin Hawkins, became such a proficient in that language that good Doctor Witherspoon recommended him to Washington for a position on his staff as interpreter of French, and that, too, before Hawkins had completed the course.” He added in respect to Hawkins’ election to the Continental Congress, “Benjamin Hawkins, who was leaning more and more toward the Conservatives, was . . . chosen [as] a delegate to Congress. This indicates the change of sentiment which began [in North Carolina] about this time.” [4]

at Charlestown, by a regular form until we shall be able to reduce them.” [7]

On 14 July 1781, that same state House of Commons elected Hawkins to a seat in the Continental Congress “for [the period of] one year.” He was subsequently reelected on 13 May 1782 and 27 April 1783 (the latter, again, for a period of “one year to be computed from the thirteenth Day of May next”), and he attended sessions of the body from 4 October 1781 to about 1 March 1782, from 21 to 31 December 1782, and 1 January to about 20 December 1783. [5] The date of Hawkins’ arrival can be found in a letter from Elias Boudinot to one Lewis Pintard, 3 October 1781, in which Boudinot writes, “This has been an important day for News both foreign and domestic. What I can inform you of, is that a Member from North Carolina arrived here last Night and informs that he see a Dr. Brown who was on furlough from the Army, and to whom an Express came from Genl. Green urging his speedy return, informing that he had had a general Action, in which he lost upwards of 3oo killed and wounded . . . on the whole the Enemy were totally routed, with the loss of upwards of 7oo killed and taken . . .” The “member” that Boudinot refers to is Hawkins. [6] In a letter to Abner Nash, 5 December 1781, Hawkins demonstrates that he was continuing his work, done previously, of gaining arms and ammunition for the state: “I have obtained from Congress for our State one thousand stand of arms, in addition to the thousand furnished by the Commander in Chief, to be delivered immediately to our [or]der at Richmond with Cartridge boxes, Flints, Cartridges, powder and Musket Ball, in proportion to the muskets,’ tho I hope by this you do not need them, as I expect the post at Wilmington will be this month reduced or evacuated, and the enemy be pent up

In 1783, as the threat of war ended completely with the signing of the Treaty of Paris between the United States and England, Hawkins was in the final years of what turned out to be the first of two tenures in the Continental Congress. That same year, he was one of the driving forces behind the establishment of the Society of the Cincinnati, a veterans’ group which became, prior to the US Civil War, the most important military advocacy organize in America. At the same time, however, troops serving in the Continental Congress who had not been paid marched on the body’s members in Philadelphia and forced them to flee to Princeton, New Jersey. As historian Varnum Lansing Collins explained, “There was but little doubt in the minds of many members of Congress that more than mere discontent lay behind the attitude of the troops. That private individuals, whose names have been successfully concealed, but who as public creditors were ill affected toward the government because of unpaid and overdue interest on certificates, were conniving at this discontent, if not actually encouraging it, was clearly the opinion of men like Benjamin Hawkins and Hugh Williamson, of North Carolina, Elias Boudinot, of New Jersey, Colonel Richard Butler, of Lancaster [Pennsylvania], and General [Arthur] St. Clair, of Philadelphia.” [8] Hawkins penned a letter to North Carolina Governor Alexander Martin, giving a firsthand report on the “coup,” if one could call it that: On Saturday about 12 o’clock two hundred and eighty armed Soldiers led by Serjeants [sic] marched to and surrounded the State House while six States were there and several other members and the President and Council of this State. They sent in a very indecent letter to the latter, demanding an answer in fifteen minutes or they would let in an enraged Soldiery on them, about three o’clock the members of Congress returned to their respective Houses without meeting any personal insult, and a short time after the Soldiers returned to the Barracks. Congress have expressed their sense of this mutiny and insult, to the Executive who are either too timid or undecisive [sic] to quell the mutiny and bring the heads of the mutineers to punishment[,] and what is more surprising and perhaps fatal to the Union, it is said that there could not be a force collected in this City to effect it. In this State of things what can

Benjamin Hawkins (1754–1816)593 Congress do, without the means of paying those Debts they Constitutionally contracted for the safety of the United States, responsible for every thing [sic], and unable to do any thing [sic], hated by the public creditors, insulted by the Soldiery and unsupported by the citizens? [9] Hawkins served, during this first tenure in the Continental Congress, alongside fellow North Carolinians Richard Dobbs Spaight and Hugh Williamson. In a biography of Spaight, historian John H. Wheeler wrote in 1879, that the three shared common experiences during their time in the Continental Congress. He said of Spaight, “Here he witnessed the memorable scene of the resignation by General Washington of his commission, as Commander-in-Chief of the armies of America.” [10] Returning to North Carolina, in 1784, as stated, Hawkins served in the North Carolina state House of Commons. The following year, the delegates to the Continental Congress appointed him as their official agent to deal with and negotiate treaties with the Creek and Cherokee Indian nations. This work, dangerous and with few rewards, nevertheless became the focus of the remainder of Hawkins’ life. Albert Gallatin, who served in the cabinet of President Thomas Jefferson as secretary of the treasury, wrote in 1836, “Mr. Hawkins, under the modest name of ‘Beloved Man of the Four Nations,’ did, during his life, govern, or at least exercise a very considerable influence over the Creeks, Choctaws, and even Chicasas and Cherokees.” [11] On 16 December 1786, as he was busily working among the Native Americans, Hawkins was again elected to a seat in the Continental Congress. Reelected on 18 December 1786 after Abner Nash, Hawkins’ good friend who had also been elected, suddenly died, the second election was “from the day of the date of these present untill [sic] the first Monday in November next,” as well as on 17 December 1787, Hawkins served from 13 December to 17 June 1786, and 5 July to 3 August 1787. According to historian Edmund Cody Burnett, Hawkins did not serve in 1788 and 1789. [12] During this second tenure in the Continental Congress, Hawkins spent more time being placed in charge of the body’s affairs with the myriad of Native American nations. Following a report to the Continental Congress on the affairs of Native

Americans in the southern states, the entire Congress moved to name a commission of three delegates to negotiate with them, eventually lifting the number of commissioners to five. On 21 March 1785, in an election in which only the results were published, three men were initially selected: Daniel Carroll of Maryland, William Peery of Delaware, and Hawkins; later that same day, Joseph Martin of Virginia and Andrew Pickens of South Carolina were named to the group. Writing to William Blount six days later, Richard Dobbs Spaight stated: I informed you, that the Delegation had nominated Benj’n Hawkins as one of the Indian Commissioners for the southern department. [T]he Election came on on monday [sic] last—when he was almost Unanimously appointed, eleven out of twelve States voting for him[,] the Jealousy of the circumscribed States, who thought that under the Idea of making peace with the Indians we had some under hand designs, which might be fatal to their claim of an eaqual [sic] partition of unlocated [sic] western territory among the members of the Union, Occationed a Mr. Danl. Carrol [sic] and a Mr. Perry [sic] to be elected his colleagues, the first from Maryland the other from Delaware State. they thought these two persons would be a check upon any designs that the southern States might have[,] this of course gave very great dissatisfaction to the southern States, and occationed [sic] a motion to be brought forward, for the Appointment of two additional commissioners, as neither Virginia, So. Carolina or Georgia had one, which after considerable opposition was at last agreed to-the persons elected were Genl. Pickens of So. Carolina and Colo. Jos[ep]h Martin of our State, he being nominated by the State of Virginia. [13] In 1789, after completing his congressional service, Hawkins served as a delegate to the North Carolina state Constitutional Convention that ratified the new US Constitution in November of that same year. Under the auspices of that document, elections were held for seats in the new US Senate and US House of Representatives. Hawkins, one of the leading politicians in the state, was elected to one of the two seats in the US Senate—the other was Samuel Johnston, who, like Hawkins, also served in the Continental Congress—and Hawkins took his seat, serving from 8 December 1789 until 3 March 1795. William Maclay, a US senator from Pennsylvania, kept a meticulous diary of the activities in the US Senate during the years

594

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

that he served there, from 1789 to 1791. In the entry for 13 Jan 1790, he penned, “This was a day of small importance in the Senate. Mr. Hawkins, a Senator from North Carolina, took his seat.” During a floor debate on 27 January, Hawkins stood for the first time to participate. Maclay wrote, “Hawkins, the new member from North Carolina, rose and objected to the clause respecting the benefit of clergy. He was not very clear. I, however, rose—really from motives of friendship, I will not say compassion, for a stranger. I stated that, as far as I could collect the sentiments of the honorable gentleman, he was opposed to our copying the law language of Great Britain; that, for my part, I wished to see a code of criminal law for the continent, and I wished to see a tone of originality running through the whole of it.” [14]

Mr. [Thomas] Jefferson, ‘principal agent for Indian affairs south of the Ohio [River],’ and as joint commissioner with General [James] Wilkinson and Andrew Pickens, he negotiated treaties with the Chicasaws, Choctaws and Natchez.” [16]

During the period that he was sitting in the US Senate in New York—Washington, D.C., the national capital, had yet to be plotted, much less built—Hawkins continued his work among the Native American nations. Historian Jack Holmes explained: Although the 1793 Treaty of Nogales seemed to give Spain an advantage in winning over the southern Indians, the United States continued the pressure and on 29 June 1796 Benjamin Hawkins negotiated with the Creeks the Treaty of Colerain, by which Georgia pressure succeeded in making the Creeks give up additional land. It was a no-win situation for the Creeks; either give in to the United States or let the Georgians grab their lands. Obviously, the Creeks felt the United States was the lesser of the two evils. From this point on Hawkins established American influence over the Creeks and attempted to carry out the Plan of Civilization. He succeeded James Seagrove, who had more than his share of difficulties with McGillivray and the Creeks. [15] One of the more difficult tasks in the area of Native Americans was the relations between the United States and the Creek confederacy. As stated in a biography of Hawkins published in 1848, “This . . . led to the appointment, by General Washington, of three commissioners to treat with the Creek confederacy. Accordingly, he nominated to the Senate, in June, 1795, Benjamin Hawkins, of North Carolina, George Clymer, of Pennsylvania, and Andrew Pickens, of South Carolina, as commissioners for that object . . . in the year 1801, he was appointed by

In 1800, several newspapers across the United States published an open letter from Hawkins, dated 18 July of that same year; in the missive, Hawkins wrote, to Governor James Jackson of Georgia, “I informed your Excellency in my last by Tarvin, of the unexpected surrender of the fort of St. Mark’s, to Bowles and his partizans [sic]. As soon as this shameful transaction was made known to the Officers of his Catholic Majesty in Pensacola, they unanimously determined in a council of war, that his Excellency Don Vicente Folch, should form an expedition, for the purpose of retaking that fort: and for its better success, he should command it in person.” [17] Hawkins held the title of Indian Agent to all of the Native American tribes south of the Ohio River until his death. At that time, one has to realize the enormity of travels in areas now considered as mere forest, or open fields—those areas are now parts of states, entities that did not exist from 1795 to 1816. Moving from Native American nation to nation and from town to town was a hazardous and backbreaking post, not to mention simply dangerous. Unfortunately, many of Hawkins’ personal papers, including his diary of his voyages, were lost when a band of Creek Indians burned his home to the ground just after the conclusion of the War of 1812. [18] However, Hawkins’ work during his time among the Native Americans—can be seen in his “Sketch of the Creek Country,” first published in the Georgia Historical Society Collections, volume three, in 1848. From his base at Fort Hawkins (later Fort Macon), Georgia, he was able to work and live among the Native American people like few have, before or since. With his wife, Lavinia, and his children, they were inundated by Native American culture at a time when it was almost completely free of white influence. He established the Creek Agency Reserve along the Flint River, in what is now Crawford County, Georgia, and he used his ties to higher-ups in the federal government to gain food and tools for the natives. Believing that the Indians would be doomed if they did not accept the creeping growth of the white settlers

Benjamin Hawkins (1754–1816)595 who would soon populate the land, pushing ever father west, Hawkins convinced some, but not all, that capitulation and acceptance of the whites was the only way that the natives could survive being harmed by starvation or killed off in a war they could not win. One group he could not convince of this policy were the Red Sticks nation of Creeks, who went to war in 1813 to aid the British during the War of 1812. After a group of rebel Red Sticks attacked Fort Mims in Alabama, the federal government sent General Andrew Jackson to attack them. As Hawkins had warned, such conflict was bound to end with the Indians on the losing side; Jackson defeated the Creeks, then burned their homes to the ground to punish them. [19] Although Hawkins understood the reasons for the retaliation by Jackson, nevertheless he was hurt by the fighting, and he handed in his resignation. Before it could be accepted, Jackson forced the Red Sticks as well as other bands of the Creek nation to sign the Treaty of Fort Jackson, which ceded lands held dear by the Creeks to the federal government. Hawkins later wrote that he was “struck forcibly” by the utter unfairness of the treaty, as it punished members of the Creek nation who had not gone to war. Sickened by the totality of the action against people he had come to trust and admire, Hawkins became ill, although he continued to work. In fact, it appears as if he worked until he was felled by his final illness. In 1815, in what turned out to be the final dealings he had with the issue of the Native Americans, correspondence from Hawkins regarding this field was published in national newspapers; some related to “the buccaneering Col. Nicholls [sic; should be Col. Edward Nicolls], whose insolent letter, warning the citizens of the United States from entering the Creek nation on any pretext, [which] has been published.” In response, Hawkins, writing from the Creek Agency, on 24 March 1815, stated, “The documents you enclosed, signed by three Chiefs, purporting to be the agreement of the Muscogee nation to the 9th article of the Treaty of Peace, I shall lay before the Chiefs of the nation at a convention soon to be held at Cowetau, and send you the result of their deliberations on it. The result of my reflections with due deference I give you, as on the envelope it purports to be on his Britannic Majesty’s service. It is within my knowledge, one of the

Chiefs is a Seminole of East Florida, has never resided in the U. States; and that neither of the three has ever attended the national councils of the Creeks, or are in any way a part of their Executive government.” [20] On 6 June 1816, Benjamin Hawkins died at his home near Roberta, in Crawford County, Georgia, which overlooked the Flint River. Niles Weekly Register stated in its issue for 29 June 1816, “Col. Benjamin Hawkins—the good, the benevolent and venerable Hawkins, agent for Indian affairs, died at his post among the Creeks on the 6th inst. The Indians have indeed lost a ‘father,’ and the United States one of their most faithful and respectable agents. It appears he died as he lived—with complacency and firmness.” [21] A more contemporary source, writer Mark E. Fretwell, wrote in 1980, “With his passing there vanished from the Chattahoochee lands and from its people young America’s first ‘noble experiment.’” [22] The Daily National Intelligencer of Washington, D.C., said, “He was one of those revolutionary patriots who had spent in the service of his country, to which no man was more devoted, nearly his whole life. At an advanced age, and with a constitution greatly exhausted, he continued to discharge with undiminished zeal the important and perplexing duties of Agent, as well as Commissioner for marking the limits prescribed to the Creek nation by the late treaty. With a philanthropy worthy of all praise, he had relinquished the enjoyments of polished society in which he shone conspicuously, with the sanguine hope of civilizing our savage neighbors.” [23] Hawkins was laid to rest in the Hawkins plantation cemetery in Roberta, in Crawford County, Georgia. His gravestone, placed on his tomb within the last century, states: Col Benjamin Hawkins General George Washington’s Staff Revolutionary War Aug 15 1754 Jun 6 1816 Hawkins’ younger brother, William (1770-1819) served as the seventeenth governor of North Carolina (1811-14).

596

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

A year after Hawkins’ death, the Daily National Intelligencer reported that:

[2] Hawkins, John D., “An Oration, Commemorative of Col. Philemon Hawkins, Senior, Deceased, Born on the 28th of September, 1717: and Which was Delivered on the 28th Day of September, 1829, at his Late Residence in the County of Warren, North Carolina” (Raleigh, North Carolina: A.B. Hawkins, 1906), 4, 7. See also Dorothy Ford Wulfeck, “Hawkins of Virginia, the Carolinas, and Kentucky; Court Records, Queries, Brief Lineages, Genealogical Notes” (Naugatuck, CT: Privately Published, 1962?). [3] Hawkins official congressional biography, online at http:// bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=H000368. [4] Dodd, William E., “The Life of Nathaniel Macon” (Raleigh, N.C. : Edwards & Broughton, Printers, 1903), 10, 35. See also the NC State Records, XVII (---), 858, 872. [5] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VI:xlix; VII:lxxii. [6] Elias Boudinot to Lewis Pintard, 3 October 1781, in ibid., VI:233. [7] Benjamin Hawkins to Abner Nash, 5 December 1781, in ibid., VI:274. [8] Collins, Varnum Lansing, “The Continental Congress at Princeton” (Princeton, NJ: The University Library, 1908), 12. [9] Benjamin Hawkins to Gov. Alexander Martin, 24 June 1783, in Burnett, “Letters of Members,” op. cit., VII:199. [10] Wheeler, John H., “Richard Dobbs Spaight, of North Carolina,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, III:4 (1879), 427. [11] Gallatin, Albert, “A Synopsis of the Indian Tribes Within the United States East of the Rocky Mountains, and in the British and Russian Possessions in North America. By the Hon. Albert Gallatin,” Archaeologia Americana, II (1836), 112. [12] Burnett, “Letters of Members,” op. cit., VIII:xciii. [13] Richard Dobbs Spaight to William Blount, 27 March 1785, in ibid., VIII:75. [14] Edgar S. Maclay, ed., “Journal of William Maclay, United States Senator from Pennsylvania, 1789-1791” (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1890), 176, 187. [15] Holmes, Jack D.L., “Benjamin Hawkins and United States Attempts to Teach Farming to Southeastern Indians,” Agricultural History, LX:2 (Spring 1986), 219. [16] Hawkins, Benjamin, “A Combination of A Sketch of the Creek Country, in the Years 1798 and 1799, by Benjamin Hawkins (1848), And Letters of Benjamin Hawkins, 1786-1806 (1916)” (Spartanburg, SC: The Reprint Co., Publishers, 1974), 5-6. [17] Raleigh Register, and North-Carolina Weekly Advertiser, 12 August 1800, 3. [18] De Pauw, Linda Grant, ed., “Documentary History of the First Federal Congress of the United States of America, March 4, 1789-March 3, 1791” (Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press; fourteen volumes, 1972- ), XV:xv. [19] Davis, Karl, “‘Remember Fort Mims:’ Reinterpreting the Origins of the Creek War,” Journal of the Early Republic, XXII:4 (Winter 2002), 611-36. [20] “Indian Affairs. From the Georgia Journal,” Raleigh Register, and North-Carolina Weekly Advertiser, 30 June 1815, 4. “Cowetau,” now modern Coweta, was the principal town of the Creek nation. It is located on the Chattahoochee River, some 500 miles north of what is now Columbus, Georgia. [21] Niles’ Weekly Register, X:19 (29 June 1816), 304. [22] Fretwell, Mark E., “This So Remote Frontier: The Chattahoochee Country of Alabama and Georgia” (Eufala, AL: Historical Chattahoochee Commission, 1980), 185. [23] “Died, at the Creek Agency,” Daily National Intelligencer [Washington, DC], 25 June 1816, 3. [24] Daily National Intelligencer [Washington, DC], 28 April 1817, 2. See also Raleigh Register, and North-Carolina Weekly Advertiser, 2 May 1817, 3.

[t]he accounts of the late Col. Benjamin Hawkins, Agent of Indian affairs [sic] in the Creek nation, exceeding (according to the Auditor’s and Comptroller’s reports) two hundred thou dollars, were, on the 23d inst[ant] closed with government, by his executor, Wm. Hawkins, Esq.[,] late Governor of the state of North Carolina. The balance, though not very large, was in favor of the Colonel’s estate. During the last session of Congress, many of the members were impressed with the opinion that there was a general delinquency on the part of the Agents in the Indian Department. We notice this settlement, with a view to do away any sentiment that might have been entertained unfavorable to the wellearned fame of that valuable and distinguished officer. [24]

Biographer Merritt Pound, wrote, “Hawkins, more than any other, was responsible for whatever national policy of Indian relations evolved between the Treaty of Paris of 1783 and the end of the War of 1812. Possibly had he lived longer our subsequent treatment of the Southern Indians would have reflected greater credit upon our national character.” [25] The Native Americans who dealt one-on-one with Hawkins came to revere him as one who kept his word. To this end, just prior to his death he was given a unique reward: a plot of land in the Creek nation. In 1826, in a congressional report, the true feelings of the Creek nation towards Hawkins were published, perhaps for the first time: “Our nation feel under obligations [sic] to Colonel Benjamin Hawkins, our Agent, and Mrs. Lavinia Hawkins[,] his wife, for the unwearied pains they have both of them, for a long time, taken, to introduce the plan of civilization among us, and to be useful to us: and as their children are born on our land, we, as a token of gratitude, give and grant to Colonel Hawkins, for himself, his wife, and children, three miles square of land to him and his heirs forever, to be located in such parts of the retained land as Colonel Hawkins may select, in one tract, or surveys of one mile square each.” [26]

[1] See the Hawkins family tree, online at http://www.geni.com/ people/Sen-Col-Benjamin-Hawkins/385102510800007755.

Jonathan J. Hazard (c. 1731–c. 1812)597 [25] Pound, Merritt Bloodworth, “Benjamin Hawkins, Indian Agent” (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1951; reprint, Athens: University of Georgia Press, 2009), ix. [26] “Donations by Indians to Government Agents: Message from the President of the United States, Transmitting the Information Required by a Resolution of the House of Representatives, Respecting Proposed Donations of Land, by Indian Tribes, to Any Agent or Commissioner of the United States. December 8, 1826. Read, and Laid Upon the Table” House Document No. 5, 19th Congress, 2nd Session [1826], 11.

Jonathan J. Hazard (c. 1731–c. 1812)

Jonathan Hazard was a delegate to the Continental Congress from Rhode Island (1788). He was born in 1744 and died “later than 1824” [1]; his gravestone lists a date of birth as 1731 and a date of death as 1812. In a 1896 work, genealogist Caroline Elizabeth Robinson, documenting the history of the Hazard family of Rhode Island, states that Hazard was born in Newport, Rhode Island in 1744, “as he was the last child mentioned in his father’s will.” He was the son of Jonathan Hazard, who was in turn the son of Thomas Hazard. Of Thomas, Robinson penned, “Thomas Hazard, the progenitor of the Hazard family in the United States of America, was born in 1610; he died in 1680 . . . His name is first found in Boston, Massachusetts, in 1635. In 1638, March 25, he was admitted [as a] freeman of Boston. Two years later he was admitted [as a] freeman of Portsmouth, Rhode Island.”

Jonathan Hazard, the father, was born in 1704 and died in 1746, having been, during his short life, a landowner in Rhode Island. He was married to Abigail, the daughter of Daniel and Sarah MacCoon.

[2]

Historian William Updike in his 1907 work, “A History of the Episcopal Church in Narragansett, Rhode Island,” wrote that Jonathan Hazard’s brother Thomas was a Tory—a British sympathizer during the earliest years of the American Revolution, and that “[i] n the Revolution, Mr. Hazard adhered to the cause of the Crown, and fled to the enemy, his estates being seized and subsequently confiscated. The great destitution to which his family was reduced by this unfortunate election is very expressively described in a petition to the [Rhode Island] General Assembly, in 1782.” When he attempted to return to the United States, he was offered back his lands “if a satisfactory submission be made,” but he refused, and again fled to England, and was given 5,000 acres of land in St. John’s, Newfoundland, where he died in 1804, never seeing again the land that his brother, and his family, would fight for. As for Jonathan Hazard, Updike explains, “He took an early and decided stand in favour of liberty in the Revolutionary struggle.” [3] Hazard married his cousin, Patience Hazard (?-1809). In 1776, he was elected to the Rhode Island state House of Representatives; the following year, he was named as the official paymaster of the Continental Battalion representing Rhode Island in the Continental Army. That same year, he joined the army under General George Washington, and served with Washington in New Jersey during the harsh winter of 1777. In 1778, he was reelected to his seat in the General Assembly, and was named as a member of the Council of War, an advisory group that aided in both the running of the state as well as the prosecution of the conflict with Great Britain. [4] On 2 May 1787, the Rhode Island Assembly elected Hazard to a seat in the Continental Congress. At the time, Rhode Island was not participating in the debates and functions of the body; further, the state boycotted sending any delegates to the Constitutional

598

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Convention, held in Philadelphia from 14 May to 17 September 1787, to draw up a new US Constitution to supersede the moribund Articles of Confederation. In fact, Rhode Island was the only state during 1787 to boycott both the Constitutional Convention as well as the Continental Congress. Historian William Read Staples wrote in 1870:

upright, and respectable State of Rhode Island is her associate. This circumstance, however, does not, I hope, render it necessary that the delegates from North Carolina should profess a particular affection for the delegates from Rhode Island. And he proceeds to express his opinion of the late delegates from Rhode Island, Messrs. Arnold and Hazard, in terms which no one could mistake for either affection or esteem. He then pays his further respects to those gentlemen by relating an incident of the proceedings that does not appear in the record: These two respectable delegates, with the innate desire of promoting a bad measure, lately voted on several questions respecting the organization of the new government, in order to fix it in New York, a corner of the Union; but before the final question was taken on the ordinance, they caused a member to move in Congress for a vote “that nothing which the delegates from Rhode Island or North Carolina had done, or might do in voting on the subject, should be construed as in any measure affecting the rights of their constituents.” [8]

At the May session of the General Assembly, Peleg Arnold, Jonathan J. Hazard, Daniel Manton and Sylvester Gardner were elected [as] delegates to Congress for one year from the first Monday in November, 1787. This Congress should have assembled on the 5th day of November. On that day, South Carolina and Georgia were the only states in attendance; one other delegate, and he from New Hampshire, was also present. A quorum of states appeared on the 21st of January, 1788, and on the day following, Cyrus Griffin, a delegate from Virginia, was elected President. As neither of the delegates [from Rhode Island] had left to discharge their duties in Congress, the Assembly at their February session, 1788, Voted and Resolved, That Peleg Arnold and Jonathan J. Hazard, Esqrs., two of the delegates to represent this State in the Congress of the United States, be, and they are, hereby requested to take their seats in Congress as soon as may be. [5] Due to the controversy over Rhode Island’s refusal to send delegates, coupled with the Continental Congress unable to seat a quorum, Hazard did not serve at all during 1787 or for the first portion of 1788, and he ultimately only sat in the Continental Congress from 2 June to 7 August 1788, a period of about eight weeks. [6] Historian Edmund Cody Burnett wrote of this situation, “The early days of May, strange to tell, saw the beginning of a flood tide of members flowing over the doorsill of the Congress chamber. By the 2d of June there were actually eleven states in attendance, only Connecticut and Maryland being absent. Remarkably enough, Rhode Island had ceased for a brief space of time to sulk and had duly deposited her requisite two members, in the persons of Peleg Arnold and Jonathan Hazard.” [7] North Carolina delegate to the Continental Congress Hugh Williamson, writing a letter to fellow North Carolinian James Iredell, said of this situation: By letters from sundry correspondents it appears that North Carolina has at length thrown herself out of the Union, but she happily is not alone; the large,

At the same time, James Madison, who had played such an integral role the previous year at the Constitutional Convention, wrote to Thomas Jefferson, 23 August 1788, “Congress have not yet decided on the arrangements for inaugurating the new Government. The place of its first meeting continues to divide the Northern & Southern members, though with a few exceptions to this general description of the parties. The departure of Rho. Island, and the refusal of N. Carolina in consequence of the late event there to vote in the question, threatens a disagreeable issue to the business, there being now an apparent impossibility of obtaining seven States for any one place.” [9] Newspapers from the time period give brief information on his service in the Continental Congress; a notation in The Providence Gazette on 10 May 1788 merely noted that on that date, in the Rhode Island capital, Providence, “Wednesday last the annual General Election was held at Newport, when the following Gentlemen were elected to the Offices annexed to their respective Names,” including John Collins as governor, Daniel Owen as deputy governor, and, as delegates to the Continental Congress, Peleg Arnold, Jonathan J. Hazard, Thomas Holden, and John Gardner. [10] In a follow-up report, on 24 September 1788 The Independent Gazetteer; Or, The Chronicle of Freedom of Philadelphia noted that “[t]he

Jonathan J. Hazard (c. 1731–c. 1812) 599 Honorable Peleg Arnold, Esquire, Delegate from this state to Congress, failed on Saturday last to resume his seat in that Honorable body. The Honorable Jonathan Hazard, Esq. is his associate, but hath not yet gone forward [to take his seat].” [11] The Newport Herald listed, on 7 May 1789, after the Continental Congress had gone out of existence, the name of Jonathan Hazard as a “delegate to the old Congress.” [12] In 1788, Rhode Island, along with the other states, debated in the convention whether or not to ratify the new US Constitution. At the ratifying convention, Jonathan Hazard served as a delegate. A member of the anti-Federalists, he was among the most radical of those members, decrying the ratification of the Constitution without a Bill of Rights to preserve the rights of the people, including the right to free speech, religion, to own guns, and other inherent rights that those who had fought the British believed that should be preserved and protected by the new government. In the General Assembly, Hazard took control of the debate, becoming the leading, while at the same time the most vociferous, voice in demanding that Rhode Island not ratify the document. In fact, even though the US government went into operation in March 1789—which could only be done with all of the states ratifying the Constitution—the Rhode Island Constitutional Convention did not assemble until March 1790, in South Kingstown. Historian William Updike wrote: As a delegate to the convention assembled at South Kingstown, in March 1790 to take into consideration the adoption of that document, he successfully resisted the measure, and, upon an informal vote, it was ascertained that there was a majority of seventeen against its adoption. Upon this event, the popular party chaired Mr. Hazard as their leader. The friends of the Constitution, however, obtained an adjournment to meet at Newport in May following. In the meantime, all the influence and wealth of the State were brought to bear upon the members of the Convention, and whether Mr. Hazard was actually influenced by other means than conviction cannot be ascertained, but his opposition became neutralized, and the Constitution was adopted by a bare majority of either one or two, depending on the state records that still exist. The defection of Hazard from the original majority shook confidence in his leadership, and he never regained his former position. [13]

Despite Updike’s insistence that the effort completely harmed Hazard’s political career, on 8 May 1790, The Providence Gazette and Country Journal reported that “Mr. Jonathan Hazard,” along with “Mr. Rowland Brown,” were elected deputies for “South-Kingstown.” [14] Hazard remained in the Rhode Island state House of Representatives until 1805, when he left his home with his wife, Patience, and some of his younger children, and moved to New York, becoming a member of the Society of Friends, better known as the Quakers, and he settled on a settlement belonging to the group outside of Verona, in Oneida County, New York. One of the younger children was Abigail Hazard Shearman (1780-1838), who is buried near her parents. A number of records show that Patience Hazard predeceased her husband, in about 1812, and that Jonathan Hazard remarried to a woman named Hannah Brown and, then again, to a woman named Miriam Gage. After his passing, Hazard was buried in City Hill Cemetery in Penn Yan, in Yates County, New York. A stone on his grave reads, “In Memory of Jonathan J. Hazard, Esqr. who died July 29th 1812, E. st. years [sic].” Another plaque, placed below this original stone, misspells his name as “Jonathon J. Hazard,” but lists his official office as “Paymaster 1 RI BN [Rhode Island Battalion], Revolutionary War, 1731-1812.”

[1] Hazard official congressional biography, online at http:// bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=H000414. [2] Robinson, Caroline Elizabeth, “The Hazard Family of Rhode Island, 1635-1894: Being a Genealogy and History of the Descendants of Thomas Hazard, with Sketches of the Worthies of this Family, and Anecdotes Illustrative of their Traits and Also of the Times in which They Lived. Embellish’d with Portraits and Fac-Similes, and with Map and Index” (Boston: Printed for the Author, 1896), 1, 48. [3] Updike, William, “A History of the Episcopal Church in Narragansett, Rhode Island: Including a History of Other Episcopal Churches in the State. With a Transcript of the Narragansett Parish Register, from 1718 to 1774; an Appendix Containing a Reprint of a Work entitled America Dissected by the Revd. James MacSparran, D.D., and Copies of Other Old Papers; Together with Notes Containing Genealogical and Biographical Accounts of Distinguished Men, Families, &c.” (Boston: Printed and Published by D.B. Updike, The Merrymount Press; three volumes, 1907), II:71-72. [4] Herndon, Ruth Wallis, and Ella Wilcox Sekatau, “The Right to a Name: The Narragansett People and Rhode Island Officials in the Revolutionary Era,” Ethnohistory, XLIV:3 (Summer 1997), 433-62. [5] Staples, William Read, “Rhode Island in the Continental Congress, With the Journal of the Convention That Adopted the Constitution. 1765-1790. By Hon. William R. Staples, LL.D. Edited by Reuben Aldridge Guild, A.M.” (Providence, RI: Providence Press Company, Printers to the State, 1870), 585-86.

600

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

[6] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VIII:xcv. [7] Ibid., VIII:lii. [8] Hugh Williamson to James Iredell, 7 August 1788, in Merrill Jensen and Robert A. Becker, eds., “The Documentary History of the First Federal Elections, 1788-1790” (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press; four volumes, 1976), I:78-79. [9] James Madison to Thomas Jefferson, 23 August 1788, in United States, Bureau of Rolls and Library, “Documentary History of the Constitution of the United States of America, 17861870. Derived from Records, Manuscripts, and Rolls Deposited in the Bureau of Rolls and Library of the Department of State” (Washington, DC: Department of State; five volumes, 18941902), V:27. [10] The Providence Gazette and Country Journal [Rhode Island], 10 May 1788, 3. [11] “Newport, September 11,” The Independent Gazetteer; Or, The Chronicle of Freedom [Philadelphia], 24 September 1788, 2. [12] The Newport Herald [Rhode Island], 7 May 1789, 3. [13] Updike, op. cit., 72. [14] The Providence Gazette and Country Journal [Rhode Island], 8 May 1790, 3. For an alternate theory of his trajectory of his career, see Kaminski, John P., “Political Sacrifice and Demise—John Collins and Jonathan J. Hazard, 1786-1790,” Rhode Island History, XXXV (August 1976), 91-93.

that colony, he held various local offices, as well as serving as a justice of the peace.

William Hemsley (c. 1736–1812)

Hemsley was born at his family’s plantation, “Clover Fields Farm,” near the town of Queenstown, in Queen Anne’s County, Maryland; the date of birth is given as 1736 or 1737. His grave, in Maryland, gives a date of birth of 23 January 1737. Maryland’s official records gives out information on Hemsley under the dates of “1736/7-1812.” [1] Family genealogist Richard Henry Spencer published a history of the family in 1914, in which the family can be traced back to the completion of the “Domesday Book,” the historical work finished in 1086 by William the Conqueror to keep an historical record of all of the lands, animals, and other items in the English kingdom. Members of the clan who became leading citizens included Sir Richard Helmysley, the chaplain of Thrisk, Yorkshire, at the end of the 15th century, and William Helmesley, the abbot of Rievaulx Abbey (now, ironically, in the village of Helmsley, in North Yorkshire). The first members of the Hemsley family to settle in the Province of Maryland were William Hemsley, a chirurgeon, his wife Judith and his daughter Penelope Hemsley, in 1658. [2] Hemsley’s parents were William Hemsley (17031736), and wife Anna Maria (née Tilghman) Hemsley (1709-1763). His father served in the Maryland colonial legislature, and, at his death, he was a large landowner in Queen Anne’s County, also owning 33 slaves and employing eight servants. [3] Upon the death of her first husband, the widow Hemsley married Robert Lloyd, and with him she had one child before her death. [4] William Hemsley’s official congressional biography states that until the American Revolution war broke out he “engaged in planting.” [5] He was, his Maryland biography states, at his death “one of the five largest subscribers to the endowment of Washington College, Chestertown, Kent County, Maryland.” [6] During this period, Hemsley opened two mills, one of which became the Wye Mills in Talbot County, Maryland.

Hemsley served as a delegate to the Continental Congress in 1782-83 from Maryland. A native of

In 1773, when he was nearly 40 years of age, Hemsley was elected as the provincial treasurer of Eastern Shore, Maryland; sometime near

William Hemsley (c. 1736–1812)601 that time, he was named as the surveyor of Talbot County, the lands surrounding one of his mills. During the early years of the American Revolution, he was a privateer (a sailor who sailed small and mostly unseaworthy boats) who harassed British shipping along what is now the eastern coast of the United States. In 1777, perhaps because of his service, he was named as a colonel of the Twentieth Battalion of the Queen Anne’s County Militia. That same year, he was either appointed or elected as a justice of the peace for Queen Anne’s County. Two years later, he was elected to a seat in the Maryland state Senate, where he sat until 1781. On 15 June 1782, the lower house of the Maryland legislature elected Hemsley to a seat in the Continental Congress; he was subsequently reelected on 27 November 1782, and he attended the body from 28 September to about 20 November 1782, 25 February to about 1 April 1783, 21 April to about 6 May 1783, and 12 May to about 23 May 1783. [7] Only one letter from Hemsley during this period appears to be extant and printed: a missive to William Paca, who served in the Continental Congress from Maryland as well, and dated 25 March 1783, in which Hemsley explained, “The Enclosed paper will inform your Excell’y of the joyfull [sic] News of the preliminaries of a general Peace being signed the 2oth [of] January. Our American Nobleman the Marquis L’Fayette [sic] dispatched a Cutter with the happy tidings, and the Official Accounts may be expected every Day. The Marquis informed Congress that Count D’Estaing with 49 Ships of the Line and twenty thousand troops were ready to sail for the attack of Jamaica, and he was to have entered the River St. Lawrence with a french [sic] Corps for the Reduction of Canada-My most cordial Congratulations attend you, on the establishment of our Independence by a most honorable and advantageous peace.” [8] One mention, one which we must take note of, comes in a short letter from James Duane, delegate to the Continental Congress from New York, to Alexander Hamilton, 17 February 1783, in which Duane states:

I have but one anxiety remaining and that respects a better Establishment of our General Government on a Basis that will secure the permanent Union of the States, and a punctual Payment of the publick [sic] Debts. I do no think our Legislature will be averse to a reasonable System. The Assembly have agreed to the Requisitions of Congress and to press for the Arrears of Taxes, and a Joint Committee of both Houses have taken Measures to compel the immediate production of the Accounts of all who have been entrusted with publick [sic] money. This last Step became so necessary that I found no difficulty, in getting it adopted. I woud [sic] even hazard an attempt to introduce an Intendant if I had proper Materials: but I am disappointed in not receiving the Maryland plan which was promised me by Mr. [Turbutt] Wright and Mr. Hemsley. If possible I still wish you woud [sic] forward their Act on this Subject and for the Collection of Taxes. [9] After his congressional serve ended, Hemsley returned to Maryland, where he once again served in the state Senate in 1786, 1790, and 1800. Little else appears to have given Hemsley a public platform, as he was involved in what his official congressional biography called “agricultural pursuits.” Despite the fact that Hemsley was for the freedom of his fellow colonists, nevertheless he was, like others in what is now the American South, an advocate of slavery. This is best expressed in an advertisement in a newspaper on 9 February 1804, in which Hemsley offered a reward of one hundred American dollars, for a “runaway . . . negro man named Joe Gardner, and [a] mulatto man named Charles Cooper.” Hemsley then described the two men, then added, “Whoever takes up and secures the above slaves, so that they can be had again, shall receive fifty dollars for each, if taken out of the state, and forty dollars for each if taken in the state, paid by William Hemsley, Queen-Ann’s [sic] County, Maryland.” [10] The following year, in an advertisement for the Chesapeake and Delaware Canal Company, a general meeting of the stockholders of the corporation was held in Wilmington on 3 June; Hemsley, along with eight others, were elected as directors of the company. [11] Finally, in 1810, just before his death, in the Federal Republican & Commercial Gazette of Baltimore, appeared on 4 December 1810 a “notice” that the creditors of

602

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

captain [sic] Philemon Tilghman, deceased, are requested to attend at Centreville, on the second Monday in May next, to receive a dividend of the effects of the said Philemon Tilghman, which will be made on that day, by William Hemsley, Administrator.” [12]

James Henry (1731–1804)

William Hemsley died at his home at “Clover Fields Farm” or “Cloverfields Farm,” in Queen Anne’s County, on 5 June 1812, in his early-tomid 60s. A large stone, which gives his dates of birth and death, as well as those of his wife and children, who, presumably, are buried with him, covers the vault holding his remains.

[1] A search of the Maryland State Archives comes up with this date structure; see http://query.mdarchives.state.md.us/ texis/search?mode=&opts=adv&dropXSL=html&prox=page &rorder=500&rprox=500&rdfreq=500&rwfreq=500&rlead =500&rdepth=0&sufs=0&order=r&pr=All&query=William+ Hemsley&submit=Submit. [2] Spencer, Richard Henry, “Thomas Family of Talbot County, Maryland, and Allied Families” (Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins Co., 1914), 142-46. A “chirurgeon” is an archaic term for a surgeon, from the Latin chrurgia, “surgery.” [3] “Hemsley, William (1703-1736)” in Edward C. Papenfuse, Alan F. Day, David W. Jordan, and Gregory A. Stiverson, eds., “A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789” (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press; two volumes, 1979), I:431. [4] Hanson, George Adolphus, “Old Kent: the Eastern Shore of Maryland; Notes Illustrative of the Most Ancient Records of Kent County, Maryland, and of the Parishes of St. Paul’s, Shrewsbury and I. U. and Genealogical Histories of Old and Distinguished Families of Maryland, and Their Connections by Marriage, &c., with an Introduction, by George A. Hanson” (Baltimore: Des Forges, 1876), 40. [5] Hemsley official congressional biography, online at http:// bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=H000473. [6] “Hemsley, William (1737-1812)” in Papenfuse, “A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789,” op. cit., I:433. [7] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VI:xlv; VII:lxvii. [8] William Hemsley to William pace, 25 March 1783, in ibid., VII:105 [9] James Duane to Alexander Hamilton, 17 February 1783, in ibid., VII:45-46. [10] “One Hundred Dollars Reward,” Poulson’s American Daily Advertiser [Philadelphia], 9 February 1804, 4. The advert also appeared in the same paper on 4 February 1804, also on page four. [11] “Chesapeake and Delaware Canal Company,” Aurora General Advertiser [Philadelphia], 10 June 1805, 3. [12] “Notice,” Federal Republican & Commercial Gazette [Philadelphia], 4 December 1810, 1. The same advertisement also appeared in the same newspaper on 13 December 1810, but on page two.

A minor state official, James Henry served in the Continental Congress (1780) and was also a judge in his native Virginia. He was born in Accomac County (now Accomack County), Virginia, in 1731 [1], the son of a James Henry, who was the older brother of John Henry, who was the father of the famed orator Patrick Henry; James Henry’s mother is simply listed as “Elizabeth.” [2] Family genealogist William Henry Eldridge wrote in 1915, “Judge James Henry, the progenitor of the Henry family in Accomac county, Virginia, was born either in Accomac county or in Aberdeen, Scotland. He is supposed to have been the grandson of Alexander Henry of Scotland, who married jean Robertson, whose genealogy can be traced to James I of Scotland. James Henry was born in 1731.” [3] James Henry attended the University of Edinburgh, where he studied the law, then returned to Virginia after his time at the university and opened a law practice there. He married Sarah Scarborough. Entering the political field, in 1772 Henry was elected as a burgess, to the colonial House of Burgesses, and he sat from that year until 1774. Following his service in the colonial House of Burgesses, when statehood occurred in 1776, he continued to serve as a burgess, in 1776, 1777, and 1779.

John Henry, Jr. (1750–1798)603 On 14 December 1779, this same House of Burgesses elected Henry to a seat in the Continental Congress, “until the first Monday in November next.” He was reelected on 21 June 1780 “for one year from the first Monday in November.” He attended sessions of the body only from 21 April to 6 July 1780, after which he resigned. [4] We can corroborate the date of Henry’s election from a contemporary source, The Pennsylvania Evening Post of Philadelphia, which reported in its 10 January 1780 edition, “The following gentlemen are chosen to fill up the delegation of this commonwealth [sic] in congress [sic] until the snd [second] day of November next, to wit, James Henry, Joseph Jones of King George [County], James Madison, jun. and John Walker, esqrs. Cyrus Griffin, esq; continues under his former appointment.” [5] In another newspaper, we find the following notice: “A correspondent tells us, that the State of Virginia have reduced their number of Delegates to Congress from seven to five, any one to represent the State: and probably will reduce them to three at the next session, compelling two to be always present when Congress are sitting.” [6] One letter from Henry during his Continental Congress service, to George Washington, is extant. He wrote, “Permit me to intrude upon your more important Avocations for a moment, and to inclose [sic] to you a Copy of a letter from Col. Buford to the Virga. [Virginia] Assembly, which your Friend Col. B[enjamin] Harrison has requested me to forward to you. I wish I could send you better tidings; but ‘tis necessary to know the danger, to enable us to make more effectual preparations to avert it. With every wish for your Safety and Success.” [7] The approximate date of Henry’s resignation from the Continental Congress is known from a letter of Virginia delegate Joseph Jones to James Madison, dated 2 December 1780, in which Jones wrote, “Mr. Henry has sent in his resignation; no proposal yet of filling his place and am doubtful whether it will be done, as some think to save expence [sic] the number should be lessened.” [8] Returning to Virginia, Henry served his state in various capacities for the remainder of his life: In 1782, he was named as a judge of the state Court of Admiralty, where he served until 1788, and then he served as a judge of the state’s General Court from December 1788 until he resigned in January 1800. He then spent the rest of his life

at his estate, “Fleet Bay,” in Northumberland County, Virginia. Henry died on Feet Bay on 9 December 1804, at age 57. A Virginia newspaper related, “This respectable gentleman was a member of the old Congress, and was within a few years past a Judge on the General Court Bench of this state.” [9]

[1] James Henry official congressional biography, online at http:// bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=H000506. [2] Coltrane, Jenn Winslow, comp., “Lineage Book. National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution. Volume LXI” (Washington, DC: The Daughters of the American Revolution, 1922), 172. [3] Eldridge, William Henry, “Henry Genealogy: the Descendants of Samuel Henry of Hadley and Amherst, Mass., 1734-1790 and Lurana (Cady) Henry, His Wife (Boston: Press of T.R. Marvin & Son, 1915), 204. [4] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), V:lxiv. [5] “Williamsburg, Dec. 18,” The Pennsylvania Evening Post, 10 January 1780, 4. [6] The Pennsylvania Packet [Philadelphia], 20 January 1780, 3. [7] James Henry to George Washington, 16 June 1780, in Burnett, “Letters of Members,” op. cit., V:221. [8] Joseph Jones to James Madison, 2 December 1780, in “Letters of Joseph Jones of Virginia, 1777-1787” (Washington, DC: Department of State, 1889), 59. [9] “Died,” The Enquirer [Richmond, Virginia], 18 January 1805, 3. See an additional obituary in Poulson’s American Daily Advertiser [Philadelphia], 30 January 1805, 3.

John Henry, Jr. (1750–1798)

A delegate to the Continental Congress from his native Maryland (1778-81, 1784-87), John

604

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Henry later served as a US senator (1789-97), and, finally, as the governor of Maryland (179798), his term cut short by ill health that led to his sudden death at the young age of 48.

the President has written you fully upon that head. The Commissary is likewise to purchase such quantities as he may think necessary . . .” [4]

A lawyer by trade, Henry was born in November 1750 at his family’s estate, “Weston,” located on the Nanticoke River, near Vienna, in Dorchester County, Maryland, the son of Col. John Henry, a plantation owner, and Dorothy (née Rider) Henry. The elder Henry, a wealthy landowner, had represented Dorchester County in the colonial legislature. [1] Dorothy Rider Henry was the daughter of a Colonel Rider, who came from England in the 18th century and settled in Maryland. [2] The younger Henry was sent at an early age to the West Nottingham Academy, located in Cecil County, Maryland; he then attend College of New Jersey (now Princeton University), from which he graduated in 1769. Henry was then sent abroad, as many young men of his time were; an Anglican (a member of the Church of England), he studied law at the Middle Temple, one of the four Inns of Court of the British legal system. In 1775, Henry returned to the American colonies, and opened a law practice in Dorchester County. In 1787, he would marry Margaret Campbell, and together the couple would have two children. In 1777, after only two years of legal practice, John Henry threw himself into the political arena of the state of Maryland. He ran for and was elected to a seat in the Maryland House of Delegates, serving until he resigned in 1780. At the same time that he took his seat in the House of Delegates, on 22 December 1777, he was elected to a seat in the Continental Congress. Reelected on 13 November 1778, he served in the body from 20 January to 30 May 1778, and then from 29 August to 31 December 1778. [3] Several letters from the period that Henry served for the first tenure in the Continental Congress are extant. In a letter to Governor Thomas Johnson of Maryland, dated 27 January 1778, he thanked the leader for salt sent to the Continental Congress: “Congress is extremely sorry the sale could not procured; at the same time they highly approve of your Excellency’s conduct, and desired the President to turn to you and the Council the thanks of Congress for your respect and attention to their resolve. Congress has accepted the salt you offered, and I expect

In another missive to Johnson, this one dated 10 March 1778, Henry wrote: Upon the representation of Col. Samuel Smith who was here last week, I obtained from Congress ten thousand Dollars for the recruiting Service. I sent it by him to you, and I expect you have received it before this time. If that sum will not do, I beg you will be kind enough to acquaint me. I am informed the Committee of Congress at Camp have among other States, applied to the State of Maryland for the purchase of a number Horses for the purpose of forming a Body of light Cavalry. If you should approve of the plan or should you lay it before the Assembly, and it is adopted by them; I trust some estimate of the expence will be made, that the money may be forwarded from this place. Should the recruiting Service require a greater number of Dollars I believe they may be had. [5] Then, in a communication to Nicholas Thomas, the Speaker of the Maryland House of Delegates, he wrote on 17 March 1778, “I should have done myself the pleasure of writing to you by the last post, but as the Confederation was to be taken up on the Day he left this place, I deferred writing untill [sic] I could have it in my power to acquaint you what was said upon that Subject, but before Congress rose the post had left Town.” Henry then delved into the politics surrounding the drafting of the Articles of Confederation: Virginia ever desirous of taking the lead in this great Contest, was prepared and offered to ratify the Confederation. She stood single, and enjoyed a secret pride in having laid the corner stone of a confederated World. Massachusetts Bay, Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Pensylvania [sic], and South Carolina will confederate. The Delegates of some of these States have not yet received their Instructions, but are in daily expectation of them. New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Deleware [sic], and Georgia could give Congress no satisfactory information of what had been done in their several states, as they had received no authentic Intelligence upon this subject. There can be no doubt but these States will confederate. The Instructions which the Delegates of Maryland received from the Genl. Assembly were stated upon this occasion to Congress. Several of the States being unrepresented, and few Members prepared to combat our objections, produced but a short Debate. The Matter now stands pos[t]

John Henry, Jr. (1750–1798)605 poned till the twenty fifth of this month. As to the two first objections, from the present Temper of the House I believe they will meet with very little opposition. But as to the last, which requires Congress to be invested with full power to ascertain and fix the western Limits of those states which claim to the Mississippi or South Sea all attempts will be vain and fruitless; Equally unsuccessful will prove the Efforts made to obtain a right in common to that extensive Country which lies to the Westward of the frontiers of the United States, the property of which was not vested in Individuals at the commencement of the present war. Much has been already said in Congress upon this subject, and the opinions of those who will have the determination of it, has been long made up. The Argument may be renewed but the Decision will be the same The bare mentioning of this subject rouses Virginia, and conscious of her own importance, she views her vast Dominion with the surest expectations of holding it unimpaired. [7] From 1778, until 1787, excepting for an interregnum of three years (1781-84), Henry served in the Continental Congress, standing in support for Maryland’s role in the war. During the period that he was away from the Continental Congress, he served in the Maryland state Senate. In the Continental Congress, he complained incessantly that his state was paying more than it was getting back, a constant refrain from every member of that body. He wrote to Governor Johnson that the because of the poor financial conditions in the infant nation, the ability of the Continental Army to fight the war was declining, because the number of troops properly fed, clothed, and armed was “decreasing every hour, not by one or two at a time, but from seven to twelve . . . ” He added that “[t]he avarice of our people and the extravagant prices of all commodities, joined with the imperfect management of our affairs, would expend the mines of Chili [sic; he meant “Chile”] and Peru.” [8] In Maryland, Henry was a member of a committee tasked to prepare the order for the government that would become the Northwest Territory. And, when the US Constitution was drafted, ending the Continental Congress as an entity, it appeared that Henry’s national service was over—but it was not. In late 1788, each state elected representatives for the new US House of Representatives, the lower body of the new bicameral federal legislature, while the state legislature elected two men to the US Senate, the upper body of the new government’s legislative

branch. When the elections were held, Charles Carroll of Carrollton, who like Henry had served in the Continental Congress, and Henry himself had been elected to both of the seats, the first men to represent the state. Reelected in 1795, Henry served from the US Senate’s first day, 4 March 1789, until his resignation on 10 December 1797, when he left that body having been elected governor of Maryland. Historian Newton D. Mereness wrote, “Disregarding instructions by the Assembly, he voted, in March 1792, against a resolution for open sessions of the Senate. The House of Delegates censured him, but he was reelected for the term commencing 4 March 1795.” [9] In November 1797, Henry was elected governor, succeeding John Hoskins Stone. Historian Heinrich Ewald Buchholz wrote in 1908, “Henry was elected the successor of Governor Stone on 13 November 1797, on the joint ballot of the two houses. But he was not altogether to the liking of the entire body of legislators, and some daring opponent of his moved that the words ‘unanimously elected,’ customarily entered upon the record when a candidate was unopposed, be stricken from the minutes. In other words, the election was not unanimous; but the majority of the members of the legislature decided that it should be entered as ‘unanimous’ and refused to grant the requested change in the journal of the legislature.” [10] Henry served in office but a year, due to ill health. The few accomplishments he had were overshadowed by his resignation, although his reorganization of the state’s militia was his crowning achievement during his short tenure. On 12 November 1798, he resigned, having been in office only eight months, and Thomas Sim Lee, who had also served in the Continental Congress, was elected governor in his stead. [11] John Henry died at Weston on 16 December 1798, a month after leaving office. He was buried in Christ Episcopal Church Cemetery in Cambridge, Dorchester County, Maryland. The obelisk on his grave reads, “John Henry. Lawyer, Statesman, Governor. Born in Dorchester Co. 1750. Died 1798. Honored for His Wisdom and Political Integrity.”

[1] “John Henry” in Frank F. White, Jr., “The Governors of Maryland 1777-1970” (Annapolis: The Hall of Records Commission of Maryland, 1970), 39-41.

606

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

[2] “Henry, John” in Edward C. Papenfuse, Alan F. Day, David W. Jordan, and Gregory A. Stiverson, eds., “A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789” (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press; two volumes, 1979), I:436-37. [3] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), III:liii. [4] John Henry to Governor Thomas Johnson, 27 January 1778, in J. Winfield Henry, ed., “Letters and Papers of Governor John Henry of Maryland. With Some Account of His Life, Genealogy and Descendants, as Shown by Extracts from Records and Papers in the Maryland Historical Society, and Original Letters and Memoranda in the Hands of the Compiler, One of his GreatGrandsons” (Baltimore: George W. King Printing Co., 1904), 1. [5] John Henry to Thomas Johnson, Jr., in Burnett, “Letters of Members,” op. cit., III:122. [6] John Henry to Nicholas Thomas, 17 March 1778, in ibid., III:132-33. [7] Ibid. [8] John Henry to Governor Thomas Johnson, 27 January 1778, in J. Winfield Henry, “Letters and Papers,” op. cit., 4. [9] Mereness, Newton D., “Henry, John” in Allen Johnson, et al., “Dictionary of American Biography” (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons; eleven volumes and five supplements, 1958-77), VIII:549. [10] Buchholz, Heinrich Ewald, “Governors of Maryland from the Revolution to the Year 1908” (Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins Company, 1908), 44-45. [11] “Votes and Proceedings of the House of Delegates of the State of Maryland. November Session, 1798. Being the First Session of This Assembly, Wednesday, November 7, 1798” (Annapolis: Printed for the Maryland General Assembly, 1799), 7-8.

a seminal moment in the gathering movement to gain American independence from England, one that has been captured by history, and one which has set Patrick Henry aside as a founder of the American nation.

Patrick Henry (1736–1799)

Patrick Henry is connected forever with his words, “Give me liberty or give me death.” It was

Born at his family’s estate, Studley Plantation, in Hanover County, Virginia, on 29 May 1736, Henry was the son and one of 15 children of John Hendries Henry, a planter and local politician who served as a justice of the peace, and his wife Sarah (née Winston) Syme Henry. John Henry, known as Colonel Henry, was born about 1704 in Foveran Parish, Aberdeenshire, Scotland, and received his education at King’s College in Aberdeen before he emigrated to the Virginia colony, where he married Sarah Syme, the widow of Col. John Syme. [1] Patrick Henry’s grandson, William Wirt Henry, gathered his grandfather’s personal papers and correspondence and published them in three volumes in 1891. He wrote, “There . . . emigrated to Virginia, some time prior to 1730, John Henry, the son of Alexander Henry and Jean Robertson, of Aberdeen, Scotland. John Henry was a friend of Robert Dinwiddie, who became governor of Virginia in 1752, and it is said [he] brought a letter of introduction from him to Colonel John Syme. it is very probable that the families were at this time connected in Scotland, and that this fact caused John Henry to make his way to Hanover on his arrival in Virginia. However this may be, it is certain that he soon became domesticated in the family of Colonel Syme.” [2] When Syme died in 1731 at 31 years of age, John Henry married his widow, the 22-year-old Sarah Winston Syme, and they remained married until John Henry’s death in 1773. Patrick Henry, the second child of the family, was given a sheltered education by both his father and his uncle, the Reverend Patrick Henry, for whom he was named and rector of Saint Paul’s Church in Hanover. However, as far as his religious upbringing was concerned, Patrick Henry came under the influence of his mother, a Presbyterian, whose brother, The Rev. William Robertson, was assigned to the Old Grey Friars Church in Aberdeen. Although he remained an Anglican, his father’s religion, for many years, after the American Revolution Patrick Henry converted to become an Episcopalian. Tutored at home, he received what is usually referred to by historians as a

Patrick Henry (1736–1799)607 “classical education”—in short, the teaching of math, science, languages, and literature and music. Patrick Henry learned to read and write Latin with great fluency, while also learning Greek and French, as well as mathematics. In October 1754, when he was 18, Patrick Henry married Sarah Shelton, a 16-year-old daughter of an estate owner; the marriage bestowed on Henry a large plantation, “Pine Slash,” in Rural Plains, Virginia, near Henry’s family’s home; with the plantation came six slaves. Henry would later write about the contradiction of his owning slaves, while eventually demanding liberty for the colonies. He explained in a letter to Robert Pleasants on 18 January 1773, “Would anyone believe I am the master of slaves of my own purchase! I am drawn along by the general inconvenience of living here without them. I will not, I cannot justify it. However culpable my conduct, I will go so far pay my devoir to virtue as to own the excellence and rectitude of her precepts, and lament my want of conformity to them.” [3] Sarah Henry would predecease her husband; Patrick Henry then married Dorothea West Dandridge in October 1777, and, finally, to Dorothea Spotswood, the daughter of Alexander Spotswood, who served as the royal governor of Virginia. Together, with his three wives, Patrick Henry would have numerous children. As a plantation owner in 18th century Virginia, Patrick Henry learned the ways of planting, although he expanded his pursuits to include business in mercantile activities, including commercial trades and sales of various commodities. All of these failed. At the same time, he studied the law, and was admitted to the Virginia colonial bar in April 1760, at age 23, and he began a practice in local courts. Three years later, he took on one of early Virginia’s most important cases, known as the Parsons’ Cause case, or the Parsons’ Cause controversy. This case demonstrated Henry’s natural sense of oratory and argument. The case involved Anglican (Church of England) clergymen, who had been paid in tobacco, which sold for a certain price; under an edicts enacted in 1755 and 1758, they were to be paid in currency, which had less value, especially in t­obaccogrowing Virginia. The Virginia royal governor vetoed the measure in 1759, and he called on the clergymen to sue for back pay and damages. Patrick Henry took the case of the Church, decrying the state’s interference in religion.

Henry defended the Parish of Hanover County in a lawsuit filed by the Reverend James Maury. In the case heard by the local court, Henry argued that any King who would interfere in religion was “a tyrant who forfeits the allegiance of his subjects.” Henry asked the jury that if they were find for Maury to only return damages of one penny instead of the amount Maury was asking for. The jury agreed with Henry’s plea, and returned with one penny in damages. Based on the case, the Virginia colonial legislature enacted a Twopenny Act in 1769 which changed the way that clergymen were paid, and the controversy ended. Henry, however, had made his name synonymous with reasoned argument and oration in a public setting. Historian Moses Coit Tyler stated that Henry’s address to the jury was “a piece of oratory altogether surpassing anything ever before heard in Virginia.” [4] Based solely on his speech before the jury, the people of the area where Henry lived elected him to a seat in the Virginia House of Burgesses, and he entered that body on 20 May 1765. Before a month could pass, the impact of another piece of legislation would bring Patrick Henry additional fame. The British Parliament enacted The Stamp Act, which taxed the colonists for every piece of paper—be it newspaper, playing cards, etc.—sold in the American colonies, and this tax would be paid via a stamp affixed on the document. Whereas Patrick Henry believed that the Crown had infringed on religious liberty, now he believed that it was harming everyone’s liberty. Taking to the floor of the House of Burgesses on 29 May 1765, Henry denounced the King of England as a tyrant who would be undone by such horrendous legislation. One source noted the speech: “Speaking in a great colonial meeting, which he was carrying along with him in his vehement denunciations of the policy of George III, and his Government, he suddenly went beyond himself. ‘Caesar had his Brutus, Charles the First his Cromwell, and George the Third . . .’ Ere he could finish the perilous sentence, the audience caught the alarm, and [cries of] ‘Treason! Treason!’ rang from every part of the hall where there were any loyalists. The orator stopped a moment, and then slowly, but w a voice that quelled the uproar, repeated his words. ‘Caesar, I say, had his Brutus, Charles the First his Cromwell, and George the Third . . . may profit by their example. If this be treason, make the most of

608

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

it.’” [5] Henry pushed for seven (some sources report five) resolutions undoing the effects of The Stamp Act to be enacted; these were quickly approved, although one of them was revoted on and defeated after Henry departed. Henry, now labeled as a traitor to the Crown, quickly left Williamsburg and returned home.

practice before the Virginia General Court, and he continued to handle criminal cases even while serving in the House of Burgesses. The Stamp Act was repealed in 1766, and many historians believed that it was the speech that Patrick Henry gave that was the ultimate impetus for its abolition. But Henry was not satisfied; after all, the royal government structure that supported the act was still in place. A friend of Henry’s, a Judge Tyler, wrote in a letter, “In a conversation with him once at his own house, upon his first essay into the political world, I asked him how he ventured to lift his voice against so terrible a junto as that he had to oppose, when he first stirred the country to assert its political rights. His reply was, that he was convinced of the rectitude of the cause and his own views, and that although he well know that many a just cause had been lost, and for wise purposes Providence might not interfere for its safety, yet he was well acquainted with the great extent of our back country, which would always afford him a safe retreat from tyranny, but he was always satisfied that a united sentiment and sound patriotism, would carry us safety to the wished for port . . .” [9]

The reaction to Henry’s speech was electric; Thomas Jefferson later wrote that Henry’s speech “gave the earliest impulse to the ball of revolution.” [6] Despite all of this, it appears that there are few actual contemporary reports on Henry’s speech. Historian Edmund S. Morgan discovered only four such instances, with one being in a British newspaper. This report, in The Gazetteer and New Daily Advertiser, printed part of the speech as part of “[a] private letter from Virginia” on 13 August 1765: “Mr. _____ has lately blazed out in the Assembly, where he compared _____ to a Tarquin, a Caesar, a Charles the First, threatening him with a Brutus, or an Oliver Cromwell; yet Mr. _____ was not sent to the Tower: but having prevailed to get some ridiculous violent Resolutions passed, rode off in triumph, some of which Resolves were passed one day, and erased the next; and the G___, advised by the Council, thought proper to dissolve the Assembly.” [7] Morgan discovered another source: a letter from Virginia royal Governor Francis Fauquier, who penned, “The most strenuous opposers of this rash hear were the late Speaker, the King’s Attorney and Mr. [George] Wythe; but they were overpowered by the young hot and giddy members. In the course of the debate I have heard that very indecent language was used by a Mr. Henry[,] a young lawyer who had not been a month a Member of the House; who carryed [sic] all the young Members with him; so that I hope I am authorised in saying there is a cause at least to doubt whether this would have been the sense of the Colony if more of their Representatives had done their duty for attending to the end of the Session.” [8] Patrick Henry was now the undisputed leader in Virginia among those who chafed under British rule. Henry was not arrested, nor tried for treason, and he remained at his seat in the House of Burgesses throughout the 1760s and into the decade of the 1770s. in 1769, he was admitted to

Over the next several years, the clash between the colonies and the British government moved ever closer, as a number of incidents, starting off with the Boston Massacre in 1770, and culminating in the Boston Tea Party in 1773, pushed the two sides towards what would become the American Revolution. In 1773, just prior to the Tea Party, Patrick Henry was one of the Virginia leaders who called for a colonial group that could correspond secretly, to keep up on local events and happenings, and to inform on what measures were being taken to oppose British rule. The Tea Party in December 1773, which was followed by the British Parliament’s enactment of the “Coercive Acts,” several pieces of harmful legislation designed to punish the Massachusetts Bay Colony, gave new motivation for the groups to go into operation—these became the Committees of Correspondence. In Virginia, Henry became a member of that colony’s committee, and from several sources it appears that he spent a great deal of time corresponding with the committees from the other colonies. In one piece of correspondence, Henry wrote, “Sir, as the Committee of Safety is not sitting,

Patrick Henry (1736–1799)609 I take the Liberty to enclose you a Copy of the Proclamations issued by Lord Dunmore; the Design and Tendency of which, you will observe, is fatal to the publick Safety. An early and unremitting Attention to the Government of the SLAVES may, I hope, counteract this dangerous Attempt. Constant, and well directed Patrols, seem indispensably necessary. I doubt not of every possible Exertion, in your Power, for the publick Good; and have the Honor to be, Sir, Your most obedient and very humble Servant, P. Henry.” [10] In response to The Coercive Acts, there was called a meeting of delegates from all of the 13 colonies, to assemble in Philadelphia in September 1774. On 5 August 1774, Virginia voted to send seven delegates to this parley: Patrick Henry was one of the seven. He would be reelected on 20 March 1775, attending sessions of the body from 5 September 1774, its first day of operation, to 22 October 1774, and from 18 May to 29 July 1775. [11] Perhaps Henry’s most important duty during what would be his first tenure in the Continental Congress was his signing, on 26 October 1774, the petition to King George III asking for him to undo the series of measures that had driven the colonies to form such a congress. The document read in part, “The apprehension of being degraded into a state of servitude, from the pre-eminent rank of English freemen, while our minds retain the strongest love of liberty, and clearly foresee the miseries preparing for us and our posterity, excites emotions in our breasts, which, though we cannot describe, we should not wish to conceal. Feeling as men, and thinking as subjects in the manner we do, silence would be disloyalty. By giving this faithful information, we do all in our power to promote the great objects of your royal cares, the tranquility of your government, and the welfare of your people.” [12] John Adams, the famed delegate from the Massachusetts Bay Colony, took note of Henry, his fellow delegate from Virginia. Later, Adams wrote to Thomas Jefferson, also from Virginia, on his impressions of Henry: “In the Congress of 1774, there was not one member, except Patrick Henry, who appeared to me sensible of the precipice, or rather the pinnacle on which we stood, and had candor and courage enough to acknowledge it. America is in total ignorance,

or under infinite deception concerning that assembly. To draw the characters of them all would require a volume, and would now be considered as a characatured [sic] print. One-third Tories another Whigs and the rest Mongrels.” [13] Adams also kept a detailed record of the speeches and debates on the floor of the First Continental Congress. On 6 September 1774, he recorded the speech given by Patrick Henry to the other delegates: Government is dissolved. Fleets and armies and the present state of things show that government is dissolved. Where are your landmarks, your boundaries of Colonies? We are in a state of nature, sir. I did propose that a scale should be laid down; that part of North America which was once Massachusetts Bay, and that part which was once Vir-ginia, ought to be considered as having a weight. Will not people complain? Ten thousand Virginians have not outweighed one thousand others. I will submit, however; I am determined to submit, if I am overruled. A worthy gentleman (ego) near me seemed to admit the necessity of obtaining a more adequate representation. I hope future ages will quote our proceedings with applause. It is one of the great duties of the democratical [sic] part of the constitution to keep itself pure. It is known in my Province that some other Colonies are not so numerous or rich as they are. I am for giving all the satisfaction in my power. The distinctions between Virginians, Pennsylvanians, New Yorkers, and New Englanders, are no more. I am not a Virginian, but an American. [14] Despite his reputation and his ability to give a stirring speech, Henry did not play a large role in that first Continental Congress. Believing that their petition could make the King change his government’s position, the Continental Congress adjourned on 22 October 1774, 51 days after opening. The delegates called for the body to reconvene on 10 May 1775 if matters had not changed. On 29 June 1775, The London Gazette reported that the previous 30 November, from Williamsburg, Virginia, that “[l]ate on Wednesday night Colonel Carter Braxton arrived in town from a number of armed people, all men of property, led by Patrick Henry, Esquire; on their march for this city, from the counties of Hanover, New Kent, and King William.” [15]

610

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

By that time, events had changed: war had broken out between “Minute Men” and British troops at Lexington and Concord in the Massachusetts Bay Colony, and now the Second Continental Congress, which opened again in Philadelphia, took on the demeanor of a war congress. Patrick Henry served as a delegate to this session; returning to Virginia, he also served in a series of Virginia conventions—in 1774, in March 1775, from July to August 1775, in May 1776, and later in 1788. All of these were dry affairs where war business, or local Virginia matters, were discussed and debated. However, the true moment of Patrick Henry’s career came on 23 March 1775, when he rose and made the speech that survives, at least in a single phrase, to this day, more than two centuries later. Henry’s discourse was not one line, however—in it, delivered at the Henrico County Parish (later renamed St. John’s Church) in Richmond, Virginia, Henry gave remarks considered as one of the ten greatest speeches ever made. Historian Charles Cohen wrote, “Henry delivered an oration so powerful that Colonel Edward Carrington, standing outside the Henrico church and listening through an open window, reportedly exclaimed, ‘Right here I wish to be buried’—a desire his widow later satisfied. Another listener remembered feeling ‘sick with excitement.’” [16]

I consider it as nothing less than a question of freedom or slavery; and in proportion to the magnitude of the subject ought to be the freedom of the debate. It is only in this way that we can hope to arrive at truth, and fulfill the great responsibility which we hold to God and our country. Should I keep back my opinions at such a time, through fear of giving offense, I should consider myself as guilty of treason towards my country, and of an act of disloyalty toward the Majesty of Heaven, which I revere above all earthly kings.

Unfortunately, a true copy of the speech was never taken down. Instead, in 1816, when historian—and US attorney general nominee— William Wirt was putting together the first biography of Patrick Henry, he contacted contemporaries of Henry and, through them, pieced together what serves as the “speech” that Henry gave. Although somewhat lengthy, this portion demonstrates, to the best of its potential, the fire and determination of Patrick Henry on that day: No man thinks more highly than I do of the patriotism, as well as abilities, of the very worthy gentlemen who have just addressed the House. But different men often see the same subject in different lights; and, therefore, I hope it will not be thought disrespectful to those gentlemen if, entertaining as I do opinions of a character very opposite to theirs, I shall speak forth my sentiments freely and without reserve. This is no time for ceremony. The question before the House is one of awful moment to this country. For my own part,

Mr. President, it is natural to man to indulge in the illusions of hope. We are apt to shut our eyes against a painful truth, and listen to the song of that siren till she transforms us into beasts. Is this the part of wise men, engaged in a great and arduous struggle for liberty? Are we disposed to be of the number of those who, having eyes, see not, and, having ears, hear not, the things which so nearly concern their temporal salvation? For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth; to know the worst, and to provide for it. I have but one lamp by which my feet are guided, and that is the lamp of experience. I know of no way of judging of the future but by the past. And judging by the past, I wish to know what there has been in the conduct of the British ministry for the last ten years to justify those hopes with which gentlemen have been pleased to solace themselves and the House. Is it that insidious smile with which our petition has been lately received? Trust it not, sir; it will prove a snare to your feet. Suffer not yourselves to be betrayed with a kiss. Ask yourselves how this gracious reception of our petition comports with those warlike preparations which cover our waters and darken our land. Are fleets and armies necessary to a work of love and reconciliation? Have we shown ourselves so unwilling to be reconciled that force must be called in to win back our love? Let us not deceive ourselves, sir. These are the implements of war and subjugation; the last arguments to which kings resort. I ask gentlemen, sir, what means this martial array, if its purpose be not to force us to submission? Can gentlemen assign any other possible motive for it? Has Great Britain any enemy, in this quarter of the world, to call for all this accumulation of navies and armies? No, sir, she has none. They are meant for us: they can be meant for no other. They are sent over to bind and rivet upon us those chains which the British ministry have been so long forging. And what have we to oppose to them? Shall we try argument? Sir, we have been trying that for the last ten years. Have we anything new to offer upon the subject? Nothing. We

Patrick Henry (1736–1799)611 have held the subject up in every light of which it is capable; but it has been all in vain. Shall we resort to entreaty and humble supplication? What terms shall we find which have not been already exhausted? Let us not, I beseech you, sir, deceive ourselves. Sir, we have done everything that could be done to avert the storm which is now coming on. We have petitioned; we have remonstrated; we have supplicated; we have prostrated ourselves before the throne, and have implored its interposition to arrest the tyrannical hands of the ministry and Parliament. Our petitions have been slighted; our remonstrances have produced additional violence and insult; our supplications have been disregarded; and we have been spurned, with contempt, from the foot of the throne! In vain, after these things, may we indulge the fond hope of peace and reconciliation. There is no longer any room for hope. If we wish to be free—if we mean to preserve inviolate those inestimable privileges for which we have been so long contending—if we mean not basely to abandon the noble struggle in which we have been so long engaged, and which we have pledged ourselves never to abandon until the glorious object of our contest shall be obtained—we must fight! I repeat it, sir, we must fight! An appeal to arms and to the God of hosts is all that is left us! They tell us Sir, that we are weak; unable to cope with so formidable an adversary. But when shall we be stronger? Will it be the next week, or the next year? Will it be when we are totally disarmed, and when a British guard shall be stationed in every house? Shall we gather strength by irresolution and inaction? Shall we acquire the means of effectual resistance by lying supinely on our backs and hugging the delusive phantom of hope, until our enemies shall have bound us hand and foot? Sir, we are not weak if we make a proper use of those means which the God of nature hath placed in our power. The millions of people, armed in the holy cause of liberty, and in such a country as that which we possess, are invincible by any force which our enemy can send against us. Besides, sir, we shall not fight our battles alone. There is a just God who presides over the destinies of nations, and who will raise up friends to fight our battles for us. The battle, sir, is not to the strong alone; it is to the vigilant, the active, the brave. Besides, sir, we have no election. If we were base enough to desire it, it is now too late to retire from the contest. There is no retreat but in submission and slavery! Our chains are forged! Their clanking may be heard on the plains of Boston! The war is inevitable— and let it come! I repeat it, sir, let it come.

It is in vain, sir, to extenuate the matter. Gentlemen may cry, Peace, Peace—but there is no peace. The war is actually begun! The next gale that sweeps from the north will bring to our ears the clash of resounding arms! Our brethren are already in the field! Why stand we here idle? What is it that gentlemen wish? What would they have? Is life so dear, or peace so sweet, as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it, Almighty God! I know not what course others may take; but as for me, give me liberty or give me death! [17] Henry would serve in the first months of the Second Continental Congress; however, as he did in the first such gathering, he did not stand and deliver any major speech, or push for any specific legislation. When the Congress adjourned on 1 August, Henry returned home to Virginia, where he remained for the remainder of his life. A British newspaper, The Public Advertiser of London, stated on 19 May 1775 that in March 1775, the Virginia House of Delegates resolved “[t]hat a Committee be appointed to enquire whether his Majesty may, of Right, advance the Terms of granting Lands in this Colony, and make Report thereof to the next General Assembly, or Convention; and that in the mean Time [sic] it be recommended to all Persons whatever to forbear purchasing or accepting Grants of Lands on the Conditions before mentioned; and that Patrick Henry, Richard Bland, Thomas Jefferson, Robert Nicholas Carter, and Edmund Pendleton, Esqrs. be appointed of the said Committee.” [18] Henry was also elected to the Virginia convention in May 1776, which met after the Royal Governor John Murray, the 4th Earl of Dunmore, fled the colony in the wake of full-scale revolution and the burning of the city of Norfolk. The delegates to this meeting formulated a new constitution, written in large part by Patrick Henry, which included the landmark Declaration of Rights, the precursor for the Declaration of Independence which would be drafted the following year by the Continental Congress. Finally, needing a chief executive of the colony, the body elected Patrick Henry as the governor on 29 June 1776. This would be the pinnacle of Henry’s political career. He would be re-elected to this governorship in 1777, 1778, 1784 and 1785. In 1786, he declined running for a sixth term in office.

612

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

As the first governor of the Commonwealth of Virginia, Henry took the state through a tumultuous period that went through to the end of the war with Britain. On 31 October 1777, he issued a proclamation that established a period of thanksgiving for the surrender of the British General Horatio Gates. His order stated:

were are informed, Mr. Henry has opened his objection to the plan of government proposed and has been answered by Mr. Randolph most fully.” [21] Having been elected to the state House of Delegates in 1780, Henry remained in that body until his retirement in 1790. He retired from public life the following year. In the last years of his life, despite his advancing age, Henry remained a popular man in the hearts of the American people: In 1794, he declined an appointment from the Virginia legislature to serve as a US senator; the following year, President George Washington, his old friend, offered him the portfolio of the secretary of state, but, alas, Henry refused this honor as well. In 1794, when Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court John Jay was sent to England to negotiate a treaty with Great Britain, President Washington asked Henry to serve in the office. (Jay later formally resigned the chief justiceship on 29 June 1795, to be replaced by John Rutledge of South Carolina.) President John Adams asked him to serve as the American minister to France in 1799, but, due to failing health, Henry declined. His last public action came in 1798, when former President Washington asked him to speak out against the Alien and Sedition Acts, enacted by the US Congress to crack down on dissent in the United States. In the spring of 1799, Henry was elected to the Virginia General Assembly, a seat he intended to take, but death intervened.

Whereas I have received certain intelligence that General Gates, after repeated advantages gained over General Burgoyne, compelled him on the 14th day of this month to surrender himself and the whole army prisoners of war: NOW, to the end that we may not, through a vain and presumptuous confidence in our own strength, be led away to forget the hand of Heaven, whose assistance we have so often in times of distress implored, and which, as frequently before, so more especially now, we have experienced in this signal success of the arms of the United States, whereby the divine sanction of the righteousness of our cause is most illustriously displayed, I have thought proper, by and with the advice of the Council of State, to appoint Thursday the thirteenth day of the next month to be observed, in all churches and congregations of Christians throughout the State, as a day of general and solemn thanksgiving. [19] Working with General George Washington, the commander-in-chief of the Continental Army, in 1778 Henry dispatched the military leader George Rogers Clark and his army to Ohio to fight Native American forces allied with the British. The following year, he was elected as a delegate again to the Continental Congress, but he refused the honor this time, instead leaving the governor’s office, to be replaced by Thomas Jefferson. Elected again as governor in 1784, Henry served until 1786. The Newport Mercury of Rhode Island reported on 11 December 1784, “His Excellency Patrick Henry, Esq; is elected Governor of Virginia; and His Excellency William Paca, Esq; is unanimously re-elected Governor of the State of Maryland, for the ensuing Year.” [20] After leaving the governor’s office a second time, in 1787 Henry was invited to attend the Constitutional Convention, held in Philadelphia, as a delegate, but he declined. While he did serve as a member of the Virginia convention which ratified the US Constitution in 1788, Henry remained a leading figure in Virginia politics. In 1788, it was reported that “ ‘[t]here was warm debating in the convention to day [sic], between the Governour [sic] and my old friend[,] Patrick Henry, Esq.’ by a gentleman from Virginia

Henry died at his plantation, “Red Hill,” near Red Hill, Virginia, on 6 June 1799. The Mercantile Advertiser of New York stated, “Henry [was] one of the earliest and one of the most able, eloquent, and stedfast [sic] assertors of American Independence.” [22] Henry was buried on his estate, located in Charlotte County, Virginia. A simple tombstone reads, “His Fame His Best Epitaph.” Henry County, Virginia, was named in his honor. His grandson, William Henry Roane (1787-1845), served in the US House of Representatives (1815-17) as a Republican, and in the US Senate (1837-41) as a Democrat; his great-grandson, Robert Lee Henry (1864-1931), served in the US House of Representatives (1897-1917) as a Democrat.

[1] Henry family tree and genealogy online at http://www.geni. com/people/Patrick-Henry/6000000002746326589. See also

William Henry (1729–1786)613 Eldridge, William Henry, “Henry Genealogy: The descendants of Samuel Henry of Hadley and Amherst, Mass., 1734-1790, and Lurania (Cady) Henry, his Wife” (Boston: Press of T.R. Marvin & Son, 1915). [2] Henry, William Wirt, “Patrick Henry. Life, Correspondence and Speeches” (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons; three volumes, 1891), I:1-2. [3] Patrick Henry to Robert Pleasants, 18 January 1773, in Meade, Robert Douthat, “Patrick Henry: Patriot in the Making” (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott Co., 1957), 299-300. [4] Tyler, Moses Coit, “Patrick Henry” (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Co., 1894), 53. [5] “Happy Hits in Oratory,” Temple Bar: A London Magazine for Town and Country Readers, CXVI (February 1899), 285. For information on Henry’s service in the House of Burgesses, see David Ramsay, “The History of the American Revolution. By David Ramsay, M.D. of South-Carolina. In Two Volumes” (Dublin, Ireland: Printed for William Jones; two volumes, 1793), I:53. [6] Rayner, B.L., “Sketches of the Life, Writings, and Opinions of Thomas Jefferson. With Selections of the Most Valuable Portions of His Voluminous and Unrivaled Private Correspondence” (New York: Published by A. Francis and W. Boardman, 1832), 27. See also Charles Stedman, “The History of the Origin, Progress, and Termination of the American War. By C. Stedman, who Served Under Sir W. Howe, Sir H. Clinton, and the Marquis Cornwallis. In Two Volumes” (Dublin, Ireland: Printed for Messrs. P. Wogan, P. Byrne, J. Moore, and W. Jones; two volumes, 1794), I:37. [7] The Gazetteer and New Daily Advertiser [London], 13 August 1765, 2. [8] Edmund S. Morgan, “Prologue to Revolution: Sources and Documents on the Stamp Act Crisis, 1764-1766” (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1959), 47. [9] A Judge Tyler, undated manuscript letter, in William Wirt Henry, “Patrick Henry,” op. cit., I:109-10. [10] Henry, Patrick, “Sir, As the Committee of Safety is Not Sitting . . .” (Williamsburg, VA: Printed by John Pinckney, 1775), 1. [11] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), I:lxv. [12] “Philadelphia, October 26th, 1774. To the King’s Most Excellent Majesty,” in “Journal of the Proceedings of the Congress, Held at Philadelphia, September 5th, 1774, Containing The Bill of Rights; A List of Grievances; Occasional Resolves; The Association; An Address to the People of Great Britain; A Memorial to the Inhabitants of the British American Colonies; and, An Address to the Inhabitants of the Province of Quebec. Published by Order of the Congress. To Which is Added, (Being Now First Printed by Authority) An Authentic Copy of the Petition to the King” (London: Printed for J. Almon, Opposite Burlington-House, in Piccadilly, 1775), 57-66. [13] John Adams to Thomas Jefferson, 12 November 1813, in Henry Augustine Washington, ed., “The Writings of Thomas Jefferson: Being his Autobiography, Correspondence, Reports, Messages, Addresses, and Other Writings, Official and Private: Published by the Order of the Joint Committee of Congress on the Library, from the Original Manuscripts, Deposited in the Department of State” (Washington, DC: Taylor & Maury; nine volumes, 1853-1854), VI:249. [14] John Adams, “Notes of Debates, 6 September 1774,” in Burnett, “Letters of Members,” op. cit., I:14. [15] “Wednesday, June 28,” The London Gazette, quoted in Lloyd’s Evening Post [London, United Kingdom], 26-28 June 1775, 613. [16] Cohen, Charles L., “The ‘Liberty or Death’ Speech: A Note on Religion and Revolutionary Rhetoric,” The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, XXXVIII:4 (October 1981), 702-17. [17] “Patrick Henry: ‘Give Me Liberty, or Give Me Death!’ in Lewis Copeland, Lawrence W. Lamm, and Stephen J. McKenna, eds., “The World’s Great Speeches: Fourth Enlarged (1999) Edition” (New York: Dover Publications, 1999), 232-34.

[18] “London. From the Virginia Gazette,” The Public Advertiser [London, United Kingdom], 19 May 1777, 2. [19] “Proclamation of Patrick Henry,” The William and Mary Quarterly, XV:3 (January 1907), 21-22. [20] The Newport Mercury [Rhode Island], 11 December 1784, 2. [21] “Extract of a letter from Richmond, dated June 9,” The New Haven Gazette and the Connecticut Magazine, for 1788 [Connecticut], 28 June 1788, 4. [22] Mercantile Advertiser [New York], 22 June 1799, 2.

William Henry (1729–1786)

William Henry, who represented Pennsylvania, was a delegate to the Continental Congress from 1784 to 1785. Henry was also an important merchant, business owner, and inventor. He was born near the town of Downington, in Chester County, Pennsylvania, on 19 May 1729, the son of John Henry, whose family had operated a munitions and gun making factory in Pennsylvania for five generations, and his wife Elizabeth (née De Vinney) Henry. His father, John Henry, was born in Scotland in 1700. Biographer Francis Jordan wrote in 1910, “Henry’s grandparents, Robert and Mary Ann Henry, who were of Scotch ancestry, sailed for America, via Coleraine, Ireland, with their three adult sons John, Robert and James in the year 1722, arriving the same year at New Castle, Delaware, whence, after a brief stop,

614

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

they proceeded to their plantation in West Cain Township, in the charming environment of Chester County, Province of Pennsylvania.” [1] The Henrys were, as noted, involved in gunmaking in that part of Pennsylvania where they had settled; William Henry, after attending the common schools, went to work in the family business, and soon became an expert arms maker, as well as a part-time inventor. [2]

such as metal, to allow for differing pieces to be screwed together. At the same time, Henry also experimented with powering ships through steam, instead of sail power, which in itself was a radically different design. While Henry designed such a ship, he never tested it, and he died before a prototype could be built. Some historians believe that Robert Fulton, who is credited with actually inventing the steam-powered boat, copied, or “borrowed,” from Henry’s design, although that is mere speculation.

William Henry married Ann Wood, who survived him, in 1756; together, the couple had 13 children, seven of whom survived into adulthood. To earn a living, Henry supplied arms to the British forces during the French and Indian War (1754-63), in which England battled France, and her Native American allies, for control of the areas that would, one day, be added to the United States. Henry, despite having his family’s factory steadily pumping out rifles for the British, also volunteered for service, and he saw action with General Edward Braddock’s troops, which met an inglorious military disaster trying to wrest control of Fort Duquesne in 1755 (Braddock was killed in the action), as well as with General John Forbes military action three years later. [3] Following the end of that conflict, Henry returned home, where he went back to his business as a gunsmith. In 1770, however, he entered the political realm when he was elected as a justice of the court of common pleas (there is no record that he ever studied the law), where he served in 1770, 1773, and, later, in 1777. During these years, Henry also served in a series in local and then colonial and state offices, including as the Canal commissioner in 1771, as a member of the Pennsylvania state Assembly in 1776, as a member of the Council of Safety of Pennsylvania in 1777, as treasurer of Lancaster County from 1777 to 1785, and as the presiding judge of the Court of Common Pleas in 1780. During the American Revolution, Henry served as an assistant commissary general, with the rank of colonel, for the district of Lancaster. [4] In the years prior to, during, and after the American Revolution, Henry not only continued his business in arms making, but he also became an inventor, designing a screw auger, a specialized hand tool for boring holes in hard surfaces,

In addition to his business, and his inventions, William Henry was an active member of his community. In an advertisement in 1782, for the Lancaster Academy, an educational institution, it was noted that “[t]he Subscriber, finding his mode of Instruction had given Satisfaction, and desirous of establishing his School on the most advantageous and solid Basis, at the last public Examination of the Scholars, requested a general meeting of the Parents and Encouragers of it. The meeting was accordingly held in the New School House, on Saturday the 22d instant, when, with many other Matters then transacted respecting the School, the following Gentlemen were unanimously chosen Directors, and entitled the Curators of Lancaster Academy, in Pennsylvania, viz. the Rev. Mr. Muhlenberg, the Honourable William A. Ayler, Esq; Jasper Yeates, Esq; John Hubley, Esq; William Henry, Esq; and Matthias Slough, Esq.” [5] Three years later, The Freeman’s Journal: Or, The North-American Intelligencer of Philadelphia reported on 16 March 1785 that “[t]he American Philosophical Society, at their last meeting, received from William Henry, esq. of Lancaster, the following piece of mechanism, and other curiosities, communicated by Mr. [David] Rittenhouse.” [6] Once again, although he had served in various local offices, William Henry had no experience in national politics. Nevertheless, on 16 November 1784, he was elected by the Pennsylvania legislature to a seat in the Continental Congress. Reelected on 16 November 1784, Henry served in sessions of the body from 29 November to 24 December 1784, and from 25 January to about 24 June 1785. Historian Edmund Cody Burnett wrote, “In the printed Journals William Henry of Pennsylvania is sometimes confused with John Henry of Maryland. All references to William

William Henry (1729–1786)615 Henry in 1786 should be to John Henry.” [7] Burnett noted of the single reference to Henry in the annals of the Continental Congress: On Thursday, 19 June [1785], the executive council of Pennsylvania communicated to Congress a letter from Colonel Richard Butler of the third Pennsylvania regiment, stationed at Lancaster, and another from William Henry, both letters dated at Lancaster June 17 and directed to President Dickinson, conveying the information that about eighty men of that regiment, despite the fact that the necessary steps toward a settlement of their accounts were then in progress, had broken away from their officers and, under command of their sergeants, were on the way to Philadelphia, determined, as they said, “to obtain justice.” Some of the men had even thrown out threats that they would rob the bank. Congress at once appointed a committee ([Alexander] Hamilton, [---] Peters, and [Oliver] Ellsworth) to confer with the executive council and take such measures as they should find necessary. The council indicated to the committee that the Philadelphia militia would probably not be willing to take up arms unless provoked by some actual outrage and “that it would hazard the authority of government” to attempt to prevent the troops from entering the city. Upon hearing the committee’s report­ some-members of Congress declared that, “if the City would not support Congress, it was high time to remove to some other place.” On the following day (Friday, 20 June) the soldiers entered the city and took possession of the barracks, professing that they had no other object than to obtain a settlement of their accounts. As matters now “seemed tolerably easy,” Congress adjourned until Monday. [8] Henry’s reelection to the Continental Congress in 1785 was reported in national newspapers. For instance, The Carlisle Gazette of Pennsylvania reported in its editions of 23 November 1785, “Friday, the 11th instant, came on the house [sic] of Representatives, the election of Delegates to represent this state in Congress, when the following Gentlemen were chosen, Charles Petit, John Bayard, Arthur St. Clair, James Wilson, Esqrs. of this city, and William Henry Lee, Esq. of Lancaster.” A check of the Biographical Directory of the US Congress, a printed as well as online listing of every person who ever served in either the Continental Congress or the US Congress, has no listing for a “William

Henry Lee,” which means that the newspaper printed William Henry’s name incorrectly. [9] A more accurate report—as well as a more accurate spelling of William Henry’s name, came a year later in Thomas’s Massachusetts Spy, Or, American Oracle of Liberty of Worcester, Massachusetts, which stated on 8 December 1785 that it was William Henry, and not “William Henry Lee,” who was elected as a delegate to the Continental Congress. [10] By the end of June 1785, Henry left the Continental Congress and returned home to Lancaster. On 15 December 1786, less than 18 months later, Henry died in Lancaster. He was buried in the Moravian Cemetery in Lancaster; his body was exhumed, and reburied in Greenwood Cemetery in that same city; his grave can be found in the Stevens section of that burial ground. His gravestone simply reads, “In Memory of William Henry. Lancaster, PA. May 19, 1729. Dec. 15, 1786.” After her husband’s passing, Ann Wood Henry took William Henry’s position as the treasurer of Lancaster County, later appointed to serve out his term. She lived until 1790, and is buried alongside her husband.

[1] Jordan, Francis, “The Life of William Henry, of Lancaster, Pennsylvania, 1729-1786, Patriot, Military Officer, Inventor of the Steamboat; A Contribution to Revolutionary History” (Lancaster, PA: Press of the New Era Printing Company, 1910), 3. [2] William Henry is listed by the Daughters of the American Revolution as an Ancestor; his official number of Ao53873, while his national number is 24915. [3] For more on Forbes’ mission, see “Letters of Gen. John Forbes, 1758,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, XXXIII:1 (1909), 86-98. [4] Henry official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=H000519. [5] “Lancaster Academy,” The Independent Gazetteer; Or, The Chronicle of Freedom [Philadelphia], 27 July 1782, 1. [6] The Freeman’s Journal: Or, The North-American Intelligencer [Philadelphia], 16 March 1785, 2. See also The Maryland Journal [Baltimore], 18 November 1785, 2. [7] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VII:lxxiii; VIII:xciv. [8] Ibid., VII:xxi-xxii. [9] “Friday the 11th instant,” The Carlisle Gazette, And The Western Repository of Knowledge [Pennsylvania], 23 November 1785, 3. [10] see Thomas’s Massachusetts Spy, Or, American Oracle of Liberty [Worcester, Massachusetts], 8 December 1785, 3.

616

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Joseph Hewes (1730–1779)

who, with his wife Deborah, moved to New Jersey sometime in the 1670s and settled in that colony’s Salem County. The family is also descended from a Lieutenant Joshua Hewes, who was a pioneer in New England. [1] Hewes’ mother is best remembered, for her pie recipe, published for the first time (and attached to her son’s name), in 2004. [2] )

Twice a member of the Continental Congress (1774-76, 1779), Joseph Hewes was a leader of the revolutionary movement in his state of North Carolina, he signed the Declaration of Independence, and he was one of the men who formulated and signed the Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence (1775). Hewes was born of a Quaker family on his family’s 400-acre estate, “Mayberry Hill,” located near Kingston, New Jersey, on 23 January 1730, the eldest son of Aaron Hewes and his wife Providence (née Worth) Hewes. Aaron Hewes, who like his son would die rather young (at age 53 in 1753), was a rich planter in New Jersey. He and his wife Providence were devout Quakers, and had moved from their native Connecticut to New Jersey to flee religious prejudice. They were both from strong New England stock; according to several genealogical works, the Hewes clan were descended from Rognwald, the Count of Maere, in Normandy, in France, who was born about 850 AD. At some point, the family moved to England, where records show that they inhabited areas in what is now Somerset. The direct ancestor who emigrated to America was William Hewes (1623-c. 1698),

Joseph Hewes received what is called a “classical education” (the teaching of languages, literature, and other studies) at the Kingston Friends’ Grammar School, a Quaker educational facility, from which he graduated in 1749—after which he attended The College of New Jersey (now Princeton University) in New Jersey, but did not graduate. Instead, he moved to Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, where he was apprenticed to a Philadelphia merchant and learned business techniques. In 1755, at the age of 25, he moved further south, this time to Edenton, North Carolina, where he settled and would remain for the rest of his life. In North Carolina, he fell in love with Isabella, the sister of Samuel Johnston (1733-1816), a leading planter and attorney in North Carolina who would also serve in the Continental Congress (1780-81) and in the US Senate under the US Constitution (1789-93). In 1766, just before Hewes was to marry Isabella, she became sick and died. Hewes was emotionally destroyed, and he would never marry. [3] Hewes’ move to North Carolina, where he settled in the town of Edenton, and soon became an important businessman and leader there. Soon after setting up his business in North Carolina, Hewes began a commercial relationship with two local merchants, George Blair and Charles Worth Blount, and they formed a firm, Vlount, Hewes, & Company, which soon became financially successful. Historian Michael G. Martin, Jr., wrote, “Young Hewes inherited many traditions that would serve him well throughout life. The more important of these were a love of the land, a belief in the duty of public service, and a firm indoctrination in the ‘Puritan Ethic’ of diligence, hard work, and thrift as the prerequisites for success.” [4] The Reverend Charles A. Goodrich wrote in 1859, “Mr. Hewes, both before and after his removal to North Carolina, sustained the reputation of a man of probity [“the quality of having strong moral principles; honesty

Joseph Hewes (1730–1779)617 and decency”] and honour. He acquired the confidence and esteem of the people among whom he lived, and [he] was soon called to represent them in the colonial legislature of the province. This distinction was conferred upon him for several successive years, with increasing usefulness to his constituents, and increasing credit to himself.” [5] By 1757, only two years after his move to Edenton, Hewes was not only financially stable but he had made many friends in the area, friends who pushed him to enter the political arena. That same year, the Royal Governor appointed Hewes as a justice of the peace for Chowan County, as well as an inspector for the Port of Roanoke. Hewes, who realized the value of education, was also a leader in helping to establish an academy for Edenton. The The New-York Journal reported on 29 June 1769 from Williamsburg, Virginia, “Last Saturday his Excellency William Tryon, Esq; Governor of North-Carolina, and his Lady, arrived at the Palace in this City, on a Visit to his Excellency Lord Botetourt, and we hear they propose some Time with his Lordship. The same day Joseph Hewes and Edmund Fanning, Esqrs, and Mr. Edwards, Secretary to his Excellency, arrived here; and we are told, his Excellency Robert Eden, Esq; Governor of Maryland, is expected here in a short Time.” [6] The series of harsh economic measures enacted by the British Parliament against the colonies, starting with the Stamp Act (1765) and continuing for nearly a decade, drove a spirit of unity and purpose against the English, particularly among men like Joseph Hewes, who saw the land of his brethren as bullies out to harm America and Americans. From early in the controversy, he became involved in the movement first to confront Britain about changing their laws and, when that failed to work, pushing for increased sovereignty for the colonies, away from the rigid royal governments running each colony. Hewes made his mark in the colonial assembly. Historian Levi Carroll Judson wrote in 1854, “[He] became a substantial and useful member [of the Assembly]. He made no pretensions to public speaking, was a faithful working man, a correct voter and punctually in his place. When the revolutionary storm commenced he faced its fury without the

umbrella of doubt or the overcoat of fear.” [7] At New Bern, the-then capital of the NorthCarolina colony, on 25 August 1774, a general meeting of deputies was held. They enacted a series of resolutions. The newspaper The NewHampshire Gazette reported on 6 January 1775 that on 14 September 1774: [T]he congress met according to adjournment. William Hooper, & Joseph Hewes, Esqrs two of the delegates from North Carolina, attended the congress and produced their credentials as follows: At a general meeting of deputies of the inhabitants of this province at Newbern, the 25th day of August, Anno Domini 1774. Resolved, That we approve of the proposal of a general congress to be held in the city of Philadelphia on the 20th day of Sept. next, then and there to deliberate upon the present state of British America, and to take such measures they may deem prudent to effect the purpose of describing with certainly the rights of Americans, repairing the breaches made in those rights, and for guarding them for the future from any such violations done under the sanction of public authority. Resolved, That William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, and Richard Caswell, Esqrs; and every of them be deputies to attend such congress, and they are hereby invested with such powers as they may make any acts done by them or consent given in behalf of this province, obligatory in honour upon every inhabitant hereof who is not an alien to his country’s good, and an apostate to the liberties of America. [8] The document was signed by John Harvey, the Moderator of the North Carolina Assembly. Hewes was elected, along with fellow North Carolinians William Hooper and Richard Caswell, to the First Continental Congress on 25 August 1775; Hewes was subsequently reelected to that body, which soon became the Second Continental Congress, on 5 April 1775, 2 September 1775, 20 December 1776, and, later, on 4 February 1779, the latter election “for the term of one year next ensuing the date of their appointment, unless otherwise ordered by a Subsequent Assembly.” He attended sessions of the body from 14 September to 26 October 1774, 10 May to sometime in July (the exact date is unknown) 1775, from about 21 to about 27 September 1775, to 4 July 1776 (when he signed the Declaration of Independence), 5 July to 26 September 1776, and, in his second tenure in that body, from 22 July to about 2 September

618

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

1779, and from 20 September to 29 October 1779. [9]

injure ourselves, so the whole matter was p[ostponed] for some days, in order to debate the latter part of th[e resolve.] The first part being agreed to unanimously. [11]

There is a rather large collection of Hewes correspondence, mostly from him to various subjects, most notably his friend and one-time potential brother-in-law, Samuel Johnston, although there are several letters to fellow North Carolinian James Iredell, who would later serve on the US Supreme Court. In one of these messages to Iredell, and dated 31 October 1774, Hewes explained: The Congress broke up on Thursday last, their proceedings are now in the press, part of which is published, and which I now send directed to myself as postmaster at Edenton. I have the pleasure to inform you that they are generally approved of here by all ranks of people; the Germans who compose a large part of the inhabitants of this province are all on our side; the sweets of liberty little known in their own country are here enjoyed by them in its utmost latitude. Our friends are under apprehension that administration will endeavor to lay hold of as many delegates as possible, and have them carried to England and tried as rebels; this induced the Congress to enter into a resolve in such cases to make a reprisal. I have no fears on that head, but should it be my lot, no man on earth could be better spared. Were I to suffer in the cause of American liberty, should I not be translated immediately to heaven as Enoch was of old? [10] Hewes complained to Johnston about the slow pace of doing business in the Continental Congress, with the blanket of secrecy enveloping all the moves that the delegates attempted to make. He penned: We have done very little in Congress. The secrecy injoined the Members puts it out of my power to communicate anything worth your attention. The Congress had entered into a resolve, that no vessel shall be suffered to Load for Newfoundland, St. John’s Nova Scotia, or the British Fishery on any of the [coas] ts of America; to take place immediately; thereby to prevent the British [fisheries] from being supplied with provisions and Stores. It was moved to amend this resolve by prohibiting all importation from these places; to take place im[mediately.] To this it was objected and very justly too, that many pe[rsons i]n those places were indebted to the other colonies; and that suc[h a reso]Ilve would prevent them from sending their effects to this, [or any] of our ports; and would

Hewes followed this up with more complaints to Johnston, using the name of the Lord in response to his uneasiness at the situation the delegates were in: I wrote a long Letter to you by Captain Gilles, and now would write a much longer if I was at liberty to mention the business taken up by the Congress, but that I cannot do till the injunction of Secrecy is taken of[f]. They have much before them, scarce a day passes without the Arival of an express from some quarter, and altho’ Necessity strongly urges that they should be speedy in their determinations, yet they proceed very slowly. I wish to God you was here that I might advise with you on some matters of great importance. I could say a thousand things to you in my Chamber that I cannot by any means put on paper. I am exceedingly uneasy (so are my Colleagues) not that I think we are doing any thing but what Necessity will Justify, but I fear we shall be obliged to promise for our Colony much more than it will perform and perhaps more than it is able to bear. [12] On 20 May 1775, the leaders of North Carolina moved to declare independence from Great Britain—a radical step considering that there was no national government (the Continental Congress had yet to meet in Philadelphia), and there was no guarantee that the other colonies would side with North Carolina in their movement. The document that the leaders signed that day is known as the Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence, marking the first time that any of the colonies sought to obtain complete independence from England. Historian Archibald Henderson explained, “In a circular letter dated June 19, 1775, addressed to the town and county committees of safety, written by Richard Caswell and signed with his own name and those of his North Carolina colleagues in the continental congress, William Hooper and Joseph Hewes, Caswell urged his constituents to form themselves into militia companies and to be in readiness to resist force by force.” [13] Unfortunately, Hewes’ role in the drafting and signing of the Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence is hazy, so, combined with his early death, he does not get the credit for not only signing this historic document, but the

Joseph Hewes (1730–1779)619 actual national Declaration of Independence as well. On 1 September 1775, Hewes, along with the other delegates attending the Continental Congress in Philadelphia, signed a petition “from the General Congress” to King George III, the “Olive Branch Petition.” The petition was republished in many publications, in both the colony and England, and yet it drew no response from the Crown. [14] Sometime in the early days of 1776, just after it was first published, Hewes read Thomas Paine’s landmark work, “Common Sense,” although he questioned who had truly written it. In a letter to Samuel Johnston, 11 February 1776, he penned, “The only pamphlet that has been published here for a long time I now send [to] you, it is a Curiosity [sic], we have not put up any to go by the Waggon [sic], not knowing how you might relish independency. The Author is not known. Some say Doctor [Benjamin] Franklin had a hand in it, [but] he denies it.” [15] Historian Albert Ellery Bergh, in a collection of the papers of Thomas Jefferson, offers one source that explains what Hewes did as a delegate: “[Hewes] was a member of the committee that had charge of the whole Naval Department, and practically fulfilled the services of a Secretary of the Navy.” [16] By March 1776, the continued hostile actions of the British against the colonies precipitated Hewes to move into the camp advocating complete independence from London. He expressed his feelings to Johnston on 20 March 1776, writing, “The act of Parliament prohibiting all Trade and Commerce between Great Britain and the Colonies has been lately brought here by a Mr. Temple from London. It makes all American property found on the Sea liable to Seizure and confiscation and I fear it will make the Breach between the two Countries so wide as never more to be reconciled. We have heard much talk of Commissioners to be sent to treat with us. I do not expect any.” [17] Despite having the massive question of independence before him and the rest of the delegates, Hewes wrote little about this fundamental question facing the American nation. In the one missive where he addressed the issue he explained to James Iredell, “On Monday the great question of independency and total separation from all

political intercourse with Great Britain will come on. It will be carried, I expect, by a great majority, and then, I suppose we shall take upon us a new name.” [18] Hewes signed the Declaration—the exact date is unknown—along with Hooper and Caswell. In October 1776, Johnston was defeated for a seat in the General Assembly because he did not agree with the majority’s views to confiscate loyalist land from Tories who continued to sympathize with Great Britain. Hewes had similar doubts about any violent reaction towards the Tories, instead believing in a more humane policy. Hewes’ fellow delegate from North Carolina, William Hooper wrote to him on this matter: I lament the late changes in your Convention, To what strange infatuation has been owing the removal of Mr. Johnston from your Councils; at a time when the Abilities of the first Character is the State are necessary to give you a Constitution which will secure happiness, Life, Liberty, and property to the inhabitants, you have deprived yourself of the most able head in North Carolina and as good a heart as God ever made. Is it become criminal then to stretch forth the hand of compassion, and shed the tear of pity upon suffering weakness—Is not liberty the same to one class of beings as to another, or are a few of us God’s Elect who have a right to think and act as we please, without suffering any others to step within the pale of our Privileges. I confess there are few incidents which have taken place since my entrance into public life which have given me equal distress; Past services seem to be no security for future preferment and a life far exhausted in promoting the public good is to close under the greatest Example of Ingratitude that ever marked a people.—In dust and ashes may they attone [sic] for it, to God and to my friend, and the friend of his Country. [19] From November 1774 onwards, Hewes was apparently unwell—his health became poor, and he struggled to stay in Philadelphia. The increasing workload of the Continental Congress, as well as the poor Philadelphia weather, certainly did not help. In mid-1777, he traveled north for his health, heading to Massachusetts. John Adams wrote to James Warren, 11 June 1777, “The honourable Samuel [sic[ Hewes, Esqr., a Delegate in Congress from North Carolina from 1774 to 1777, being bound on a Journey [sic], to Boston for the Recovery of

620

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

his Health, I do myself the Honour to introduce him to you. He has a large share in the Conduct of our naval and commercial affairs, having been a member of the naval and marine Committes, and of the Secret Committe from the first. I wish you would be kind enough to introduce him to some of our best Company, and give him a line to Dr. Winthrop, that he may have an opportunity of seeing the curiousities [sic] of Harvard Colledge [sic]. I have not time to write the Doctor.” [20]

the Massachusetts Council, almost as an afterthought, “P. S. Yesterday the Hon’ble Mr. Hughes [sic], one of the delegates from North Carolina, deceas’d.” [23]

Returning to the Continental Congress may have been Hewes’ undoing; his letters reflected the feelings of a man swamped with responsibilities: Much of our time is taken up in forming and debating a Confederation for the united States [sic]. What we shall make of it God only knows. I am inclined to think we shall never modell [sic] it so as to be agreed to by all the Colonies a plan for foreign Alliances is also formed and I expect will be the subject of much debate before it is agreed to. These two Capital points ought to have been settled before our declaration of Independence went forth to the world, this was my opinion long ago and every days experience serves to confirm me in that opinion. I think it probable that we may Split on these great points, if so our mighty Colossus falls to pieces when (as our old friend Mr. Gordon used to say) we shall be in a whimsical Situation. [21] In the last two years of his life, Joseph Hewes served on the Continental Congress’ Treasury and Marine Committees, becoming an expert in both sea and fiscal matters. Had he lived, he would most likely have served in the federal government under the US Constitution which went into effect in 1789. In August 1779, Hewes complained of severe headaches, and was soon confined to his Philadelphia boardinghouse so that he could not attend sessions of the Continental Congress regularly. On 29 October, he sent word that he would resign his seat to return to North Carolina, but he was too weak to leave the city. On 10 November, Joseph Hewes succumbed at the age of 49. William Sharpe, a delegate to the Continental Congress from North Carolina, wrote to Hewes friend, Richard Caswell, now the governor of the state, “I have to give you the disagreeable news of the death of Mr. Hewes, whose remains was interred last evening.” [22] Samuel Holten, a delegate from Massachusetts, wrote to Jeremiah Powell, the President of

The Pennsylvania Packet stated: On the 10th of November instant, Congress being informed that Mr. Joseph Hewes, one of the Delegates for the State of North-Carolina, died that morning, and that it was proposed to inter him to morrow [sic] evening; Resolved that Congress would in a body attend the funeral to morrow [sic] evening at three o’clock, as mourner, with a crape round the left arm, and would continue in mourning for the space of one month. They further resolved, that Mr. [Cornelius] Harnett, Mr. [William] Sharpe and Mr. [Cyrus] Griffin, be a committee to superintend the funeral; and that the Rev. Mr. White, the attending Chaplain, should be notified to officiate on the occasion. They also directed the committee to invite the General Assembly, the President and Supreme Executive Council of Pennsylvania, the Minister Plenipotentiary of France, and other persons of distinction in town, to attend the funeral. [24] Hewes was buried in the Christ Church Burial Ground in Philadelphia. A plaque currently sits aside Hewes’ tomb, which reads simply, “Joseph Hewes. Delegate to All Five Provisional Congresses. Member Continental Congress 1774-1777-1779.” The plaque was installed by the National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution of North Carolina in April 1963. In 1846, more than half a century after Joseph Hewes’ death, Robert Conrad wrote, “Mr. Hewes possessed a prepossessing figure and countenance, with great amenity of manners, and an unblemished reputation for probity and honour. He left a considerable fortune, but no children to inherit it.” [25] In fact, Hewes was one of only two bachelors—Caesar Rodney of Delaware was the other—of the 56 men who signed the Declaration. See also: The Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence

[1] Hughes-Jacoby, Joy L., comp., “The English Ancestral family and American descendants of William and Deborah Hewes: of Ouldman’s Creek Plantation, Salem County, New Jersey and of Marcus Hook, Chester County, Pennsylvania” (Bowie, MD:

Thomas Heyward, Jr. (1746–1809)621 Heritage Books, 2000); see also Frank Hewes Chick, “Ancestors and Descendants of Andrew J. Hewes of Pompey, New York; Delavan, Wisconsin; and Lime Springs, Iowa; including Information on Earlier Generations of the Hewes Family in New England” (Edmonds, WA: Privately Printed, 1964), and Putnam Eben, “Lieutenant Joshua Hewes; a New England pioneer, and Some of His Descendants, with Materials for a Genealogical History of Other Families of the Name, and a Sketch of Joseph Hewes, the Signer (New York: Privately Printed by J.F. Tapley Co., 1913). [2] “Transparent Pie Crust - Made by the Mother of Joseph Hewes” in Robert W. Pelton, “Baking Recipes From the Wives and Mothers of the Founding Fathers: Authentic Baking Recipes From the Wives and Mothers of, & Trivia About, the Signers of the Declaration of Independence and Our Constitution” (West Conshohocken, PA: Infinity Publishing.com, 2004), 234. [3] Connor, Robert Digges Wimberly, “Samuel Johnston, Governor of North Carolina, 1787-1789” (Raleigh, NC: Edward & Broughton Printing Co., 1912). [4] Martin, Michael G., Jr., “Hewes, Joseph” in William S. Powell, ed., “Dictionary of North Carolina Biography” (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press; four volumes, 1979-96), III:123-25. [5] Goodrich, The Rev. Charles A., “Lives of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence” (Hartford, CT: R.G.H. Huntington, 1842), 428. [6] “Williamsburg, June 25,” The New-York Journal, 29 June 1769, 2. [7] Judson, Levi Carroll, “The Sages and Heroes of the American Revolution, Including the Signers of the Declaration of Independence. Two Hundred and Forty Three of the Sages and Heroes are Presented in Due Form and Many Others are Named Incidentally” (Philadelphia: Moss, 1854), 163. [8] “Continental Congress continu’d,” The New-Hampshire Gazette, and Historical Chronicle [Portsmouth], 6 January 1775, 2. See also “Newbern (North-Carolina), At a General Meeting of Deputies,” The Philadelphia Gazette, 16 September 1774, 1-2. [9] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), I:lviii; II:lxi, IV:lx. [10] Joseph Hewes to James Iredell, 31 October 1774, in ibid., I:83. [11] Joseph Hewes to Samuel Johnston, 23 May 1775, in ibid., I:97. [12] Joseph Hewes to Samuel Johnston, 5 June 1775, in ibid., I:112. [13] Henderson, Archibald, “The Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence,” The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, V:2 (September 1918), 213. [14] For instance, see “Aratus,” “From the London Evening Post of February 4, 1775” (London]: Printed for J. Miller, No.6, in the Old Bailey, 1775). [15] Hewes to Samuel Johnston, 11 February 1776, in Scott Liell, “46 Pages: Thomas Paine, Common Sense, and the Turning Point to Independence” (Philadelphia: Running Press Book Publishers, 2003), 89. [16] See Albert Ellery Bergh, managing ed., “The Writings of Thomas Jefferson. Monticello Edition, Containing his Autobiography, Notes on Virginia, Parliamentary Manual, Official Papers, Messages and Addresses, and Other Writings, Official and Private, Now Collected and Published in Their Entirety for the First Time, Including All of the Original Manuscripts, Deposited in the Department of State and Published in 1853 by Order of the Joint Committee of Congress; with Numerous Illustrations and a Comprehensive Analytical Index. Andrew A. Lipscomb, Chairman Board of Governors, Ed.-in-Chief. Albert Ellery Bergh, Managing Editor” (Washington, DC: Issued under the Auspices of The Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association of the United States; twenty volumes, 1903-04), X:xxi.

[17] Joseph Hewes to Samuel Johnston, 20 March 1776, in Burnett, op. cit., I:401. [18] Joseph Hewes to James Iredell, 28 June 1776, in ibid., I:514. [19] William Hooper to Joseph Hewes, undated—but probably November 1776, in Ganyard, Robert L., “Radicals and Conservatives in Revolutionary North Carolina: A Point at Issue, The October Election, 1776,” The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, XXIV:4 (October 1967), 577. [20] John Adams to James Warren, 11 June 1777, in “WarrenAdams Letters: Being Chiefly a Correspondence Among John Adams, Samuel Adams, and James Warren” (Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society; two volumes, 1917-25), I:328. Adams is referring to John Winthrop (1714-1779), who was the Hollis Professor of Mathematics and Natural Philosophy at Harvard. [21] Hewes to Samuel Johnston, 28 July 1776, in Burnett, op. cit., II:28. [22] William Sharpe to Governor Richard Caswell, 12 November 1779, in ibid., IV:515. [23] Samuel Holten to Jeremiah Powell, President of the Massachusetts Council, 11 November 1779, in ibid., IV:514-15. [24] “Philadelphia, November 16,” The Pennsylvania Packet, 16 November 1779, 2. There is a mention of Hewes’ death in The Pennsylvania Evening Post, 16 November 1779, 250. [25] Conrad, Robert T., ed., “Sanderson’s Biography of the Signers to the Declaration of Independence” (Philadelphia: Thomas, Cowperthwait & Co., 1846), 669.

Thomas Heyward, Jr. (1746–1809)

The scion of a wealthy estate owner and planter in South Carolina, Thomas Heyward, Jr. was one of the 56 signers of the Declaration of Independence during his tenure in the

622

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Continental Congress (1776-78), as well as a signer of the Articles of Confederation. He was a leading jurist on his own in his native state, and had a lengthy political career.

British Parliament and government Heyward was elected to a seat in the South Carolina Commons House of Assembly, where, over the next several years, he became one of that body’s most important members. Historian Jack P. Greene explained, “The importance of members was determined by an analysis of committee assignments for the entire period, 1769-1775. The other three most important leaders in this House were merchant Henry Laurens, lawyer Charles Pinckney, and planter Rawlins Lowndes, who later became speaker. In subsequent Houses, lawyers Thomas Bee, Thomas Heyward, Jr., and Charles Cotesworth Pinckney and merchant Miles Brewton also played prominent roles.” [4]

The son of Daniel Heyward, a wealthy planter in rural South Carolina, and his wife Mary (née Miles) Heyward, Thomas Heyward, Jr., was born at his family estate, “Old House,” near Beaufort, in St. Helena’s Parish (later St. Luke’s Parish, and now located in Jasper County), South Carolina, on 28 July 1746. [1] Strangely, Daniel Heyward and his wife already had a son named Thomas, so, to distinguish himself from his older brother, our Thomas Heyward added a “Jr.” to his name, despite the fact that Thomas was not his father’s name. The Heyward family originated in Little Eaton, on the River Derwent in Derbyshire [2]; after his great-greatgrandfather, Daniel Heyward, came to America in 1670, he was among the first whites to settle in what was then Carolina. Over the next several generations, the family established a planting business that earned them extraordinary wealth by the time Thomas Heyward was born. Of the family of Mary Miles Heyward, all that appears to be known is that she died in 1761, and that her parents were William Miles and Mary (née Martin) Miles. Thomas Heyward, Jr., decided to study the law in London, which still controlled the colonies. He studied the law at the Middle Temple, one of the four Inns of Court of the English legal system. Legal historian Cyril Edward Alfred Bedwell wrote in 1920 that the Middle Temple also oversaw the education of other South Carolinians who served in the Continental Congress: “There are the four representatives of South Carolina, Edward Rutledge, afterwards governor, Thomas Lynch, Jr., Thomas Heyward, Jr., afterwards a judge, and Arthur Middleton who declined the post of governor.” [3] Admitted to the Middle Temple on 10 January 1765, he was called before the bar by the Inn of Court on 25 May 1770. In 1771, Heyward returned to South Carolina and was admitted to the colonial bar. He worked as an attorney, but also as a planter and farmer, following in his family’s footsteps. In 1772, as relations between England and her colonies continued to deteriorate over a series of harsh economic measures enacted by the

Two years later, when royal rule disintegrated in the face of the opening shots of what would become the American Revolution, Heyward was elected as a delegate to the South Carolina provincial convention, assembled in Charleston near the end of that year. Historian Lawrence Rowland wrote of this body, “As the royal administration in South Carolina gradually unraveled, the opposition party throughout the province began to form extralegal bodies which eventually became the organs of the first effective government of the independent state of South Carolina. The process of forging a working organization from demonstrations and mob actions took place late 1774 and early 1775 . . . as if to inaugurate the new provincial organization, a great celebration was held in Charleston on 7 November 1774. This was not merely a demonstration by the active and partisan group of Charleston workers and ‘mechanics’ . . .” [5] It was during this time that Heyward married Elizabeth Matthews of Charleston, whose brother, John Mathews (1744-1782), later served as the governor of South Carolina (177881); together the couple had two children, both sons. Despite the fact that the onrushing revolt among the colony would damage his own fortune—the Heywards were deeply invested in rice and indigo, much of which was sold to England—Thomas Heyward sided with the patriotic movement. During the 1760s he had spoken out against The Stamp Act and other measures, so when a chance came to oppose the royal government in South Carolina, Heyward stepped forward, being elected to the first General Assembly

Thomas Heyward, Jr. (1746–1809)623 to form a new government. (The last named Royal Governor, Charles Greville Montagu, was, for several periods, away from his office, and the colony had been run by his “assistants,” William Bull II and Lord William Campbell.) In the General Assembly, Heyward was elected to the Council of Safety, a body formed in all of the colonies to advise and plot a blueprint for a postroyal government, a plan needed in the wake of the collapse of all of the governing institutions. Heyward served on the Council of Safety in 1775 and 1776. He took a leading role in the colony’s response to the British aggression. Historian David Ramsay wrote in 1785: In this manner, in [the] few weeks after the Lexington battle, the popular leaders became possessed of an army and treasury at their command. The militia officers also having resigned their commissions under the royal governor were, by their own consent, subjected to the orders of the provincial [sic] Congress. The following gentlemen were chosen a council of safety: col. [sic] Henry Laurens, col. [sic] Charles Pinckney, the hon. Rawlins Lowndes, Thomas Ferguson, Miles Brewton, Arthur Middleton, Thomas Heyward, junior, Thomas Bee, and John Huger, esqrs. col. James Parsons, hon. William Henry Drayton, Benjamin Elliott, and William Williamson, esquires. To this council the provincial [sic] Congress delegated authority to certify commissions, to suspend officers, and to order courts-martial for their trial . . . [6] Regarding the period June to November 1775, the South Carolina Historical and Genealogical Magazine noted in January 1900, that “[t] his first Council of Safety consisted of Henry Laurens, President, Charles Pinckney, Sr., Rawlins Lowndes, Thomas Ferguson, Miles Brewton, Arthur Middleton, Thomas Heyward, Jr., Thomas Bee, John Huger, James Parsons, William Henry Drayton, Benjamin Elliott and William Williamson.” [7] In November 1775, a second Council of Safety was elected: 10 of the members of the old council were continued on the new; the old council had 13 members, while the new one had fourteen. A history of that second body stated, “The Second Provincial Congress of South Carolina . . . met in Charles Town on Wednesday. 1 November 1775, and selected William Henry Drayton for its president and Peter Timothy, who had been secretary of the First Provincial Congress, as its secretary. On 16

November the Congress elected a new Council of Safety consisting of Henry Laurens, Charles Pinckney, Thomas Ferguson, Arthur Middleton, Thomas Heyward, Jr., William Henry Dray ton, Rawlins Lowndes, Thomas Bee, James Parsons, David Oliphant, Thomas Savage, John Rutledge, Benjamin Elliott and Henry Middleton.” [8] On 16 February 1776, Heyward was elected by the General Assembly to a seat in the Continental Congress. He was reelected on 10 January 1777, and he ultimately attended sessions from about 24 April 1776 to 4 July 1776, when he signed the Declaration of Independence, then from 5 July to 4 September 1776, from about 24 December 1776 to about 31 October 1777. Historian Edmund Cody Burnett, one of the leading documentarians of the Continental Congress and the men who served in that body, wrote, “The only record in the Journals of Heyward’s attendance prior to 4 July is a committee appointment [on] 18 June. That he was in attendance prior to 20 May is, however, indicated by his signature to the resolution of secrecy, adopted 9 November 1775, for it precedes those of Lyman Hall and Button Gwinnett, which are accompanied by the date ‘20 May.’ Whether Heyward signed the document before or after Thomas Lynch, Jr., and Arthur Middleton[,] is not certain, for his signature is in the right-hand column, while theirs is in the left. The Journals record the presentation of the South Carolina credentials [on] 24 April, but do not record which of the delegates attended.” [9] In between his service in Philadelphia at the Continental Congress, Heyward returned home to South Carolina to assist in the running of that colony. In early 1776, even though he was a duly elected delegate to the Continental Congress, Heyward was in South Carolina serving that colony’s General Assembly. On 2 February 1776, that body resolved “[t]hat for the more expeditious publication of the proceedings of Congress, Col. [Henry] Laurens, Mr. [Thomas] Bee, and Mr. Thomas Heyward, jun. be a Committee to extract from the journals, and send to the press from day to day, such parts thereof as are proper to be made public; and to cause a sufficient number of copies to be printed for the use of the members.” [10] On 11 February 1776, the Provincial Congress met again; according to the journals of that body, “The Congress then proceeded to ballot, for the members of

624

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

the Committee, to prepare a plan or form of government. And the following gentlemen were, by Mr. President, declared duly elected, by a majory [sic] of votes, &c. Major Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, John Rutledge, Esq; Col. Charles Pinckney, Col. Henry Laurens, Col. Christopher Gadsden, Hon. Rawlins Lowndes, Arthur Middleton, Esq; Hon. Henry Middleton, Thomas Bee, Esq; Thomas Lynch, jun. Esq; Thomas Heyward, jun. Esq.” [11] Of these men, Lynch, John Rutledge, Edward Rutledge, Arthur Middleton, and Heyward were eventually elected as delegates to the Continental Congress in the coming months. [12] Historian Alexander Salley stated, “After the adjournment of the General Assembly on 11 April 1776, [Heyward] repaired to Philadelphia assumed his duties as a delegate to the Continental Congress, and was so acting when the Declaration was adopted [on] 4 July 1776. Soon after he, with three others of the five delegates from South Carolina, affixed his signature to the document.” [13] As historian Glendon Thomson wrote, “On July 4, 1776, four planters from the South Carolina low country, Arthur Middleton, Edward Rutledge, Thomas Heyward, and Thomas Lynch, attached their signatures to the Declaration of Independence and pledged to each other their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honour . . .” [14]

your several Letters have been laid before the Medical Committee and Congress have come into several Resolutions which I imagine you must have received long before this time. I wish they may answer the good Purposes intended by them and be equally satisfactory to you and the Gentlemen in the different Departments. Your Commands I shall always be glad to recieve [sic] but it will for some- time be out of my Power to execute any of them in Congress as I purpose to set out for So. Carolina in the Morning.” [15]

Like the other 55 men who signed the Declaration, Thomas Heyward pledged his fortune, his reputation, and his life to the cause of American independence. At the same time, many of these men owned slaves, and yet they could sign a document that proclaimed that “all men are created equal” at the same time that they purchased and sold their fellow human beings. However, one has to remember the period that the Declaration was signed in, and not judge it according to 21st century norms. These men were all human and had individual frailties, yet their ultimate bravery in lending their name to a movement, which could lead to their being at the bad end of a hangman’s noose, must still be celebrated. There appears to be only one letter from Heyward during his Continental Congress service. This letter was to John Morgan, and dated 4 September 1776, which makes no mention of Heyward’s signing of the Declaration or of other business in the Continental Congress itself: “The Contents of

In September 1777, as British troops moved closer to Philadelphia, the delegates packed up and fled that “capital” city, reassembling in nearby York, Pennsylvania. Historian Lynn Montross explained: A sober and thoughtful Congress was summoned to the first meetings in York by the courthouse bell which Martin Brenise rang each morning for a daily stipend of two-thirds of a dollar. The easy victory won by Howe and the capture of Philadelphia had demonstrated the material weakness of the states. The need for combining their strength was never more apparent, and on the 3rd the delegates sternly resolved “that the articles of confederation be taken into consideration tomorrow morning.” Only twenty-five members, according to the Journals, were in attendance: Folsom of New Hampshire; John and Samuel Adams, Gerry, Lovell and Hancock of Massachusetts; Marchant of Rhode Island: Dyer, Williams and Law of Connecticut; Duer and Duane of New York; Roberdeau of Pennsylvania; Chase and Carroll of Maryland; Harrison, Jones and the Lee brothers of Virginia; Penn and Harnett of North Carolina; Brownson of Georgia; and Middleton, Laurens and Thomas Heyward, Jr., of South Carolina. [16] After the conclusion of his Continental Congress service, Heyward continued to work on his plantation, alternating between his home in Charleston and the estate, “White Hall” (also called “Whitehall” by some sources). In 1779, Heyward was caught flatfooted when the British invaded South Carolina. Fighting alongside Brigadier General William Moultrie’s American forces, Heyward was badly wounded, and was unable to leave the city of Charleston before it fell to the enemy, led by Admiral Mariot Arbuthnot and Sir Henry Clinton. Heyward was captured, and his estate, White Hall, was burned down and all of Heyward’s slaves were taken as war booty. From early 1780 until July 1781, Heyward

Thomas Heyward, Jr. (1746–1809)625 was imprisoned on a British ship, converted into a prison ship, stationed off the coast of St. Augustine, Florida. While in captivity, Heyward took the British song “God Save the King” and rewrote it to reflect an American version, changing the title to “God Save the Thirteen States.” During his imprisonment, Heyward’s wife lived in Philadelphia, using whatever contacts she could to get her husband released. In 1783, after four years, Heyward was finally released when the British signed the Treaty of Paris, which ended the war and left American as an independent nation. Before he could reunite with his wife, however, Elizabeth Heyward died in Philadelphia, as did one of the couple’s sons. In 1786, Heyward remarried, this time to Elizabeth Savage, and together they had three children. Because Heyward’s son from his first marriage had no children, all Heyward descendants alive today trace their lineage from the second Mrs. Thomas Heyward. From 1785 until his death, Thomas Heyward remained busy at differing agricultural pursuits. As historian Glendon Thomson related: In attempts to stimulate the economy, the great planters [of the American South] tried a variety of experiments. In 1785, they formed the South Carolina Society for Promoting & Improving Agriculture &. Other Rural Concerns. In its initial address, the Society wanted to “endeavour to promote and enjoy the blessings of peace.” The Society echoed the sentiments of the great planters when it declared that, “This cannot be effected by any means more interesting and advantageous, than by turning our attention to the cultivation and improvement of our fields.” The objective of the Society was to encourage the planters to “select a small part of his grounds in order to make experiments on it by various methods.” Thomas Heyward, Jr., who signed the Declaration of Independence with Arthur Middleton, also signed the Society’s first address. A committee was chosen to serve as an executive of sorts and among its members were other planter aristocrats: Hon. William Drayton, Hon. John Mathews, Hon. John Rutledge, Gen. Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Ralph Izard, Edward Rutledge, Isaac Harlcston, and Aaron Loocock. [17] In September 1786, a report was found of “a meeting of a number of gentlemen concerned in the planting interest, at the State House in Charleston, on the 3d day of August, 1786,” in which the group “[r]esolved unanimously, [a]s the opinion of this meeting, that it is

indispensably necessary the credit of the Paper Medium, issued under the authority of the legislature, should be supported as equal in value to the specie; and we the subscribers to therefore engage, and bind ourselves to each other, in the most solemn manner on our honors, and declare, that we will receive the same equal to gold and silver, making no distinction in receiving payment for debts due to us, or for any articles hereafter to be sold by us, and that we will not directly nor indirectly purchase or suffer to be purchased by us, of any person any articles whatever, in which an abatement is offered to be made for the payment of the same in gold or silver.” The resolution was signed by “Thomas Heyward, Jr. Chairman.” [18] Two years later, on 9 May 1788, newspapers reported from Charleston that “[y]esterday the delegates to represent the Parishes of St. Philip and St. Michael in the state convention, appointed to meet in this city the 12th May next, were declared by the managers to be as follows.” The list included Thomas Pinckney, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Christopher Gadsden, Dr. David Ramsay, and Thomas Heyward, Jr. [19] In October 1795, Heyward’s older brother, named Thomas Heyward, Sr., died at his home in Prince William’s Parish, South Carolina. One newspaper said that he passed away “after a long and painful illness, which he bore with christian [sic] fortitude.” [20] In the years before his death, Heyward tried to make a financial comeback by serving as an associate law judge for the state of South Carolina, and, in 1790, he served as a delegate to the convention that drafted and approved a new state constitution. One of the founding members of the South Carolina Agricultural Society, in 1785 he became its first president. Because of the wounds he suffered during the siege of Charleston, he was in constant pain, and in 1799 he withdrew from public life. A decade later, on 17 April 1809, Thomas Heyward died at his estate, “Whitehall,” in St. Luke’s Parish, South Carolina. The City Gazette & Daily Advertiser of Charleston stated, “Died, on the 17th inst. at his residence at White-Hall [sic], St. Luke’s Parish, Thomas Heyward, Esq. in the 63rd year of his age. This gentleman was the last survivor of the Delegates of this state who signed the Declaration of Independence.” [21] Heyward

626

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

was interred in the Heyward Family Cemetery in what is known as “The Old House” in Jasper County, South Carolina. His tomb, which is that of a short obelisk, says, “1746 [to] 1800. In Memory of Thomas Heyward Jr. Patriot-Statesman Soldier Jurist. Member of the Continental Congress, 177576. Member of the Council of Safety of S.C. 177475. Signer of the Declaration of Independence . . .” A marker near his tomb reads, “Tomb of Thomas Heyward, Jr. 1746-1809. Member of South Carolina Provincial Congress and Council of Safety and of Continental Congress. Signer of Declaration of Independence and Articles of Confederation and captain of militia at Battle of Port Royal and Siege of Charleston. Prisoner of war 1780-81. Circuit Court Judge 1778-89.” Of his children, one, James Hamilton Heyward (17921828), followed in his father’s footsteps and became a well-known planter and agricultural expert in South Carolina.

ce/6000000008231439276. [2] De Salis, Henry Rodolph, “Bradshaw’s Canals and Navigable Rivers of England and Wales. A Handbook of Inland Navigation for Manufacturers, Merchants, Traders, and Others: Compiled, after a Personal Survey of the Whole of the Waterways, by Henry Rodolph De Salis” (London: Henry Blacklock & Co., Ltd., 1904), 102. [3] Bedwell, Cyril Edward Alfred, “American Middle Templars,” The American Historical Review, XXV:4 (July 1920), 681. [4] Greene, Jack P., “Bridge to Revolution: The Wilkes Fund Controversy in South Carolina, 1769- 1775,” The Journal of Southern History, XXIX:1 (February 1963), 24. [5] Rowland, Lawrence Sanders, “The History of Beaufort County, South Carolina: 1514-1861” (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1996), 202. [6] Ramsay, David, “The History of the Revolution of SouthCarolina, From a British Province to an Independent State. By David Ramsay, M.D. Member of the American Congress. In Two volumes.” (Trenton, NJ: Printed by Isaac Collins; two cols, 1785), I:38. [7] “Papers of the First Council of Safety of the Revolutionary Party in South Carolina, June-November, 1775,” The South Carolina Historical and Genealogical Magazine, i:1 1 (January 1900), 41. While this article and the one that follows documents the Councils of Safety and their work in South Carolina, they do not mention specific work or speeches or debates by any of the councils’ members, including Heyward. [8] “Papers of the Second Council of Safety of the Revolutionary Party in South Carolina November 1775-March 1776,” The South Carolina Historical and Genealogical Magazine, III:4 (October 1902), 193-99, 201. [9] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), I:lxii; II:lcvii. [10] “Journal of the Provincial Congress of South Carolina, 1776. Published by Order of the Congress” (Charles-Town: Printed; London: Reprinted for J. Almon, 1776), 5. [11] Ibid., 22. [12] Ibid., 32. [13] Salley, Alexander Samuel, “Delegates to the Continental Congress from South Carolina, 1774-1789. With Sketches of the Four Who Signed the Declaration of Independence” (Columbia, SC: Printed for the Commission by the State Company, 1927), 20. [14] Thomson, Glendon Bruce. “‘Our Sacred Honor’: The Great Planters of the South Carolina Low Country, 1780-1810” (Master of Arts Thesis, University of New Brunswick [Canada], 1993), ii. [15] Thomas Heyward, Jr., to John Morgan, 4 September 1776, in ibid., II:69. [16] Montross, Lynn, “The Reluctant Rebels: The Story of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789” (New York: Harper’s, 1950), 211. [17] Thomson, Glendon Bruce. “‘Our Sacred Honor’,” op. cit., 38-39. See also “Address & Rules of the South Carolina Society for Promoting & Improving Agriculture & Other Rural Concerns” (Charleston, SC: A. Timothy, 1785), 3. [18] “The following, take from the Massachusetts Centinel,” The New-Hampshire Gazette, and Historical Chronicle, Containing the Freshest Advices, Foreign and Domestic, 7 September 1786, 1. [19] The Independent Gazetteer; Or, The Chronicle of Freedom [Philadelphia], 9 May 1788, 1. [20] “Died, at an advanced age,” The City Gazette, or Daily Advertiser [Charleston], 24 October 1795, 2. [21] “Died,” City Gazette & Daily Advertiser [Charleston], 22 April 1809, 3. [22] Original. For the Mountaineer. Revolutionary Incidents, No. 24: Thomas Heyward,” Greenville Mountaineer [South Carolina], 25 July 1835, 3.

In 1835, a quarter century after his death, Heyward’s services to his nation were heralded in several American newspapers: He was at that a very young man, not more than twenty-five or thirty . . . he was, perhaps, the wealthiest planter in the Southern country. His estate consisted entirely of land and negroes [sic], a species of property very easily got hold of by the goods, he heard of the Declaration of Independence. To him, it appeared to be an act of great indiscretion, and altogether premature. The total conquest of the country, with a confiscation of all of the property belonging to the rebels, was to be, he feared, the sad result of this effort to throw off the yoke of the mother country . . . Thomas Heyward was one of the few Signers of the Declaration of Independence who returned home, and took up arms in defence [sic] of that Independence which they had declared . . . in fighting for his country, Thomas Heyward was severely wounded. He had the honor of sealing with his blood the written appeal which he had signed with his hand. [22]

[1] Heyward family tree, online at http://www.geni.com/people/ Thomas-Heyward-Signer-of-the-Declaration-of-Independen-

Stephen Higginson (1743–1828)627

Stephen Higginson (1743–1828)

A leading Boston merchant “reputed to be worth one half a million dollars” [1] Stephen Higginson rose from a family of merchants, including his father, who served in several important colonial offices, Higginson played a key role in the earliest years of the movement towards independence in the Massachusetts Bay Colony. He was born at Salem, Massachusetts, on 28 November 1743, the son of Stephen Higginson, a merchant and politician in colonial Massachusetts, and his wife Elizabeth Mary (née Cabot) Higginson. Higginson’s son, Thomas Wentworth Higginson, wrote, “My father came of a line of Puritan clergymen, officials, militia officers, and latterly East India merchants, all dating back to the Rev. Francis Higginson, who landed at Salem in 1629, in charge of the first large party for the Massachusetts Bay Colony, and who made that historic farewell recorded by Cotton Mather, as his native shores faded away: ‘We will not say, as the Separatists said, Farewell, Rome! Farewell, Babylon! But we will say, Farewell, dear England! Farewell, the Christian Church in England, and all the Christian friends there!’” [2] Stephen Higginson’s great-great-

grandfather, John Higginson (1616-1708), born in Leicestershire, England, also immigrated to the American colonies, settling in Salem, in Essex County, Massachusetts, where he died in 1708, aged 92. [3] Elizabeth Mary Cabot Higginson, the mother of Stephen Higginson, was a member of the Cabots, one of America’s great early families, who at one time ranked alongside the Adamses for their power in the Massachusetts Bay Colony; her father, John Cabot, was the progenitor of the American wing of the family. Born in the Channel Islands in 1670, he came to the New World and set up as a merchant. It was once said of him and his clan and another famed Massachusetts family, “And this is good old Boston, The home of the bean and the cod, Where the Lowells talk only to Cabots, And the Cabots talk only to God.” [4] Stephen Higginson attended what was called “common schools”—usually a local schoolhouse— and it does not appear that he received any higher education. Known as “Stephen the Second” to distinguish him from his father, the younger Higginson married at the age of 21 in 1764, to Susanna Cleveland, and together the couple had nine children before her death in 1788 at the age of 47. Stephen Higginson would marry twice more—to Elizabeth Perkins, who died in 1791 at age 44, and to Sarah Perkins, who survived him upon his death. [5] Learning the mercantile trade in Boston, Stephen Higginson was soon able to purchase his own ships, and rapidly became one of the wealthiest men in the colony, if not all of the American colonies. In the period between 1765 and 1775, shipping in America to all points around the world and the name of Stephen Higginson became synonymous. In fact, Higginson played such a role in the trans-Atlantic trade that in 1775, when the British Parliament held hearings on a bill before the Parliament “to restrain the Trade, &c. of the Northern Colonies,” questions were asked specifically on the holdings of Higginson and his power in these northern colonies, as well as the impact it would have if Higginson’s enterprise were put out of business; Higginson himself, in England on business, was called before the committee: Q. “Of what country is he?” A. “From Salem, in the Massachusetts Bay; a Merchant.”

628

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Q. “Whether there is as much Corn and other Provisions produced in that Province as will supply the inhabitants?”

area. Historian Chaim Rosenberg, claiming that the year of this was 1783 rather than 1778, explained, “In 1783, Jonathan Jackson tried to restore his wealth through a partnership with Stephen Higginson. From an old Salem family . . . his sister Sarah was the first of the three wives of Judge John Lowell. It is likely that Lowell introduced his dear friend to his brotherin-law, Stephen Higginson, who had made a profit of $70,000 from his privates during the Revolutionary War. Jonathan Jackson traveled to Britain, Ireland and France to buy goods for Jackson & Higginson. Because there were few buyers in war-exhausted America for these goods, the firm was dissolved in 1786, leaving Jackson almost penniless.” [8]

A. “ Apprehend not.” Q. “Whether these is sufficient Corn and other Provisions produced in all the New England Provinces for their support?” A. “No.” Q.  “From whence do they receive additional support?” A.  “From the Carolinas, Virginia, Maryland, and New-York, chiefly.” Q. “Whether he is acquainted with the trade of the Fisheries carried on in New England?” A. “No much acquainted with the Whale Fishery, but have considerable knowledge of the Cod Fishery.” Q. “How many Vessels are employed in the Cod Fishery?” A. “About seven hundred Vessels.” [6] In 1779, an advertisement ran in numerous newspapers in the New England region, advertising “New-England and West-India RUM, Coffee, Madeira [Spanish] and Port Wines, Cordage, &c. To Be Sold by Stephen Higginson, At his Store [at] the Bottom of State-Street.” [7] Returning to the land of his birth, Higginson was arrested when he landed at Marblehead, Massachusetts, and realized that it had been reported that he had aided the British to harm American trade by enriching himself, rather than his merely giving answers to questions. Showing the reports both from the Parliament as well as English newspapers, he demonstrated that he was innocent of the charges, and they were dismissed. He further demonstrated his love of his country when, with war between the colonies and England breaking out, he used his large fleet of ships to serve as privateers, helping to smuggle food, arms, and ammunition around the colonies where they could be used by militias and the Continental Army. In 1778, as part of this exercise, he formed a partnership in Boston with a friend, Jonathan Jackson, and their mercantile concern became one of the largest, at least for a time, in the New England

In the prerevolutionary years, the circle of merchants in the Massachusetts Bay Colony gave way to an informal group known to American history as “The Essex Junto.” Formulated around the city of Essex, it was composed of men who commanded trade and thus commanded politics. Of this “informal” group, historian David H. Fischer penned, “Marriage bonds reinforced this union of social and economic interests. John Lowell married one of Stephen Higginson’s sisters, George Cabot the other. Cabots were wed to Lowells, Lowells to Jacksons, Jacksons to Tracys. Besides such direct relationships, there were ‘uncles and cousins, reckoned by dozens.’ In the absence of political parties, this extended cousinage, this ‘union of political influence’ as Theophilus Parsons called it, constituted an important locus of power in the narrow circle of Essex County affairs. The label ‘Essex Junto’ would have been accurate and descriptive had it been applied before 178o.” [9] In 1782, Higginson entered the political arena, serving for a single one-year term in the Massachusetts legislature. Then, on 24 October 1782, the delegates with whom Higginson served elected him to a seat in the Continental Congress, “for One Year commencing the first Monday of November 1782.” Elected to that body with Nathaniel Gorham, Samuel Holten, and Samuel Osgood, Higginson took his seat on 27 February 1783, serving from that date until 21 June 1783, and then from 30 June to 20 September 1783. He did not receive an additional term. [10] A collection of Higginson’s correspondence, published in 1897, introduced the letters with a

Stephen Higginson (1743–1828)629 short biography of the Massachusetts merchant, stating, “He took an active part in [the Continental Congress’] deliberations, and served on some important committees, chiefly those having to do with the finances of the Confederation. He voted for the half-pay compromise. Alone with [Alexander] Hamilton and the Rhode Island members he voted against the impost of 1783 . . . He is found frequently acting with Hamilton, as he did in later years.” [11] There are a series of letters from Higginson during his tenure in the Continental Congress. To Theophilus Parsons, one of the great legal minds of early Massachusetts, Higginson wrote on or about 7 April 1783: I have given, in some of my letters to Lowell and Jackson, a partial view of the state of politics; those letters I suppose you have seen, as I desired them to be communicated to you and a few others. They will show you how far the opinions of our politicians in Massachusetts have been right, as to the views and conduct of the powers in alliance with us. There has been for a long time a party in Congress so thoroughly in the interest of France as to have preferred her interest to ours, whenever they came into competition. They carried through the memorable instructions to our ministers, which threw them entirely into the hands of Mons. Vergennes. Their views, however, by the inadvertence of Vergennes and the firmness of Jay and Adams, have been completely defeated. Their surprise and chagrin when the despatches [sic] were read, they could not conceal; and, finding that these instructions would no longer bind those ministers, and that if they remained in Europe commercial negotiations would next engage their attention, though not sufficiently commissioned to complete them, they have endeavored to remove such dangerous persons, by passing an unjust censure on their conduct during the negotiations for peace; but in this also have they failed. [12] To Samuel Adams, the famed Massachusetts revolutionary, Higginson penned on 20 May 1783: The impost I always was opposed to, and being now confirmed in my opinion, as to the danger of too great an influence resulting from it to individuals, already too influential by far, I am now as much or more opposed to it than ever. it is the avowed intention of some to create a Congressional influence by the disposal of places of honor and of proffit [sic], but the effect of this plan if adopted will be a very great increase of particular individual influence and not

Congressional. Congress may appear to appoint but it will be of such persons only as may be nominated by others. some late instances will shew [sic] you what extensive influence some Gentlemen have, and many I dare say wonder that after what has passed Mr. Morris should remain in Office. it is however not an easy matter to set him aside, his Friends in Congress are many and powerful, his continuance in Office is by others deemed absolutely necessary at present, it is supposed, and perhaps justly, that if any other person was to be appointed to his Office, or if the business was attempted by a Board, he would be able so to obstruct and oppose Their measures that no success could be expected. I confess that I am much of that opinion myself. [13] Again, to Samuel Adams, Higginson reiterated this low opinion of events occurring in the Continental Congress: The report on the old money has been several times called up, but the disposition of Congress is clearly not to decide upon the matter at present, nor will they come to any Question as to the former requisitions and supplies, every thing [sic] of the kind is opposed and by some means or other set aside, many motions have been made since I have been here to bring forward Questions of that kind and have failed, the rules of Congress make it easy to get rid of disagreable [sic] motions! There are so many States that are delinquent, such a variety of Sentiments as to what is right or eligible, that I very much doubt whether any of those Questions will be ever settled. They seem to be afraid of promoting dissensions and uneasiness among the States by deciding on such Subjects, but I think much more danger will arise from a delay of such decissions [sic]. [I]t has been Our intention to push them to some decission [sic] as to the old money, but no good opening has presented since the business of finance has been finished, and while that was on the Table they would not attend to any other matter. [14] During his time in the Continental Congress, Higginson opposed Robert Morris being named as the “Superintendent of Finance,” given almost full control over the financial matters of the new nation. He wrote that Morris should be fired or forced to resign, as the Continental Congress “would be free of his dangerous influence and might with much more safety be intrusted [sic] with the power of assessing and collecting Moneys in the States, or of imposing and collecting Duties.” [15]

630

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

“The centralist energies of the nationalist faction aroused a republican opposition that was united more in opposition to nationalist programs than in support of any policies of its own. This ‘parochialist coalition’ included Elbridge Gerry, Stephen Higginson, and Samuel Osgood of Massachusetts, David Howell and William Ellery of Rhode Island, Arthur Lee and Theodorick Bland of Virginia, and Ralph Izard and John Gervais of South Carolina. Although the coalition was a negative if not artificial alliance, motivated primarily by the political challenge of the nationalist ascendancy, it reflected the multiple ideological and sectional strains that affected congressional politics during the 1780s.” [16]

to this Idea, as I was to the measures they were then pursuing, to effect, as they said, the same thing. They have, however, now adopted the Idea, and have come forward with a proposition to attempt practising [sic] upon it.” [18]

Higginson returned to Massachusetts, where he went back to being more of a businessman than a politician. The Boston Gazette of Massachusetts reported on 29 March 1784 that “[a]t a meeting of the Stockholders at the Massachusetts Bank, on Thursday [the] 18th inst. the following Gentlemen were chosen [as] Directors.” Among the names stated were James Bowdoin, George Cabot, John Lowell, Samuel Otis, and Stephen Higginson. [17] He was not finished with politics, however. In 1786, he played a key role in the election of James Bowdoin as governor of Massachusetts, and then became one of the governor’s leading advisors. When a farmers’ rebellion against heavy taxation and other policies—led by Daniel Shays—broke out in western Massachusetts, Higginson recommended to Bowdoin to use the state’s militia to crush the revolt. Although the destruction by military means was highly unpopular, it was a successful operation due to the machinations of Stephen Higginson. In 1787, when the states called for a constitutional convention to be held in Philadelphia to address serious defects to the Articles of Confederation, or draft a whole new constitution, Higginson saw his dream of such a meeting come true—a plan he had been voicing since 1783. On 8 February 1787, Higginson wrote to General Henry Knox, “As early as ‘83, while I was at Congress, I pressed upon Mr. Madison and others the Idea of a special Convention, for the purpose of revising the Confederation, and increasing the powers of the Union; the obtaining of which, we all agreed to be essential to our national dignity and happiness. But they were as much opposed

After the new Constitution was signed and the submitted to the states for ratification, Higginson wrote a series of articles for the Columbian Centinel, one of the leading Federalist newspapers in the nation, based in Boston, which he signed “Laco,” calling for the election of John Hancock for governor. Although widely reprinted in 1789, it was not until 1857, when they were again reprinted, that the true author of the “Laco Letters” was known. Thus, in party politics in the post revolutionary period, Higginson identified with the Federalist Party, strong as it was in Massachusetts in the first years under the US Constitution. In the 1796 presidential election, the first in which George Washington would not be a candidate, Higginson campaigned for the Federalist Party presidential nominee, Thomas Pinckney. Historian Arthur Scherr wrote, “Indeed, Stephen Higginson, Hamilton’s lieutenant in drumming up support for Pinckney’s candidacy among New England Federalists, feared that Pinckney might lean toward the Democratic-Republicans and have a favorable attitude toward the French Revolution. [Higginson wrote,] ‘Should Pinckney be elected care must be taken early to guard him against Adet &c. [Pierre Adet, recalled minister to France, who had appealed to the voters to choose Jefferson rather than Adams in November 1796], who have strong hopes, I know, of attaching him to their Views & party,’ he warned Hamilton, cautioning him that he might need to exert all his influence to prevent the Republicans from succeeding in such efforts.” [19] In 1797, Higginson was named as a naval officer at the port of Boston, where he allegedly served until 1808 [20]; however, on 14 April 1801, the Newburyport Herald and County Gazette of Massachusetts reported that “[w]e are told, that Mr. Samuel Brown of this place, is appointed Navy Agent, in the room of Stephen Higginson, Esq.” [21] The 1801 date is probably correct, as it coincides with when Thomas Jefferson, an antiFederalist, came to power in the White House, and he purged Federalists from all offices with national connections. Higginson was especially targeted, as a member of the so-called “Essex Junto.”

Stephen Higginson (1743–1828)631 After being forced out of his official position, it appears that Stephen Higginson spent the remainder of his life in private business. On 23 November 1827, Salem Gazette of Massachusetts reported that “[w]e learn that Stephen Higginson, jun. Esq. has resigned the office of Steward and Patron in [sic] Harvard University.” [22] Four days later, that same paper reported that “Charles Saunders, Esq. of this town, has been appointed Steward of Harvard University, vice Stephen Higginson, Esq. resigned.” [23] Higginson died in Boston, Massachusetts, on 22 November 1828, six days short of his 85th birthday. Higginson was laid to rest in the Central Burying Ground in Boston, where another delegate to the Continental Congress, James Sullivan (1744-1808) is buried. In November 1908, Higginson’s grandson, Colonel T.W. Higginson, wrote in honor of his famed ancestor: I recall my grandfather but dimly as an old gentleman in small-clothes whom I saw once or twice, while a child, when driven by my parents to his house in Brookline. That which fixed him later in my mind and made him an historic character to me was a single fact. He was a member of the Continental Congress in its last years, and while all his official writings have the predominant gravity which marks the rest of the Federalists. . . . To have been one of the first American ship-masters called on to testify before Parliament as to American colonial matters; to have been a member of the Continental Congress in its closing days; to have been second in command during the first effective resistance to Shays’ Rebellion; the first to argue from that peril the need of a stronger government; the first to suggest that the voices of nine out of the thirteen States could make the Confederacy into a Nation; the first to organize and equip the American navy under Jefferson’s administration; these suffice to place Stephen Higginson where he belongs, among the recognized leaders of his time, that being the period of the very formation of the American Republic. [24]

[1] Harold C. Syrett, ed. et al., “The Papers of Alexander Hamilton” (New York: Columbia University Press; twenty-six volumes, 1961-79), XXIV:580.

[2] Higginson, Thomas Wentworth, “Cheerful Yesterdays” (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1900), 4. [3] Higginson family tree, online at http://www.geni.com/people/Stephen-Higginson/6000000003076377786. [4] Rosenberg, Chaim M., “The Life and Times of Francis Cabot Lowell, 1775-1817” (Lanham, MD: Lexington Books, 2011), 27. [5] Johnston, Sarah Hall, comp., “Lineage Book. National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution. Volume XXX” (Washington, DC: The Daughters of the American Revolution, 1910), 5. [6] Hearings before the British House of Commons, 10 February 1775, in Peter Force, ed., “American Archives: Consisting of a Collection of Authentick Records, State Papers, Debates, and Letters and Other Notices of Publick Affairs, the Whole Forming a Documentary History of the Origin and Progress of the North America Colonies; of the Causes and Accomplishment of the American Revolution; and of the Constitution of Government for the United States, to the Final Ratification Thereof. In Six Series” (Washington, DC: Published by M. St. Clair Clarke and Peter Force; ten volumes, 1837-53), Fourth Series, I:1645. [7] See the advertisement in The Continental Journal and Weekly Advertiser [Boston], 25 February 1779, 4. Cordage are ropes, used specifically in the riggings of ships. [8] Rosenberg, Chaim M., “The Life and Tomes of Francis Cabot Lowell,” op. cit., 47-48. [9] Fischer, David H., “The Myth of the Essex Junto,” The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, XXI:2 (April 1964), 197. [10] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VII:lxvii. [11] “Letters of Stephen Higginson, 1783–1804,” in “Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1896” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; two volumes, 1897), I:705. [12] Higginson to Theophilus Parsons, 7 April [?] 1783, in Burnett, “Letters of Members,” VII:122. [13] Higginson to Samuel Adams, 20 May 1783, in ibid., VII:16667. [14] Higginson to Samuel Adams, 22 May 1783, in ibid., VII:171-72. [15] Higginson to Samuel Adams, 10 June 1783, in Jennings Bryan Sanders, “Evolution of Executive Departments of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789” (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1935), 119. [16] Banning, Lance, “James Madison and the Nationalists, 17801783,” William and Mary Quarterly, XL:2 (April 1983), 230-31. [17] “At a Meeting,” The Boston Gazette, and The Country Journal, Containing the latest Occurrences, Foreign and Domestic [Massachusetts], 29 March 1784, 3. [18] Higginson to General Henry Knox, 8 February 1787, in “Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1896,” op. cit., I:745. [19] Scherr, Arthur, “The Significance of Thomas Pinckney’s Candidacy in the Election of 1796,” The South Carolina Historical Magazine, LXXVI:2 (April 1975), 57. [20] Stephen Higginson official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay. pl?index=H000581, gives the 1808 date, but is alone in this assertion. [21] Newburyport Herald and County Gazette [Massachusetts], 14 April 1801, 3. [22] Salem Gazette [Massachusetts], 23 November 1827, 2. [23] Salem Gazette [Massachusetts], 27 November 1827, 3. [24] “November Meeting, 1908,” Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, XLII, Third Series (November 1908), 15-16.

632

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Whitmell Hill [1] (1743–1797)

such things as necessary to secure, protect, and defend the colony. The court house, in Johnston County, was the first place of their assembling, and they had [the] power to fix other times and places.” Samuel Johnston was chosen as the chairman of the meeting, with Whitmell Hill and Thomas Jones elected to represent the Edenton District.” [3] Wheeler also noted that “The [state] House [of Representatives], on the 11th [of May 1774], made choice of one, and the members from the districts of twelve persons to serve as a Council of Safety for the State.” Willie Jones was selected as the chairman of the council, and, again, Thomas Jones and Whitmell Hill were named as representatives for the Edenton District. [4]

Whitmell Hill was a delegate to the Continental Congress (1778-80) from North Carolina. He was also a plantation owner and local politician in his native state. Hill was born in Bertie County, North Carolina, on 12 February 1743, the son of John Hill and Martha (maiden name unknown) Hill. He attended the common schools of rural North Carolina. According to a collection of biographies of the graduates of the University of Pennsylvania, he entered that institution on 3 October 1757, when he was just 14 years old. [2] Hill graduated in the class of 1760 and returned home to Bertie County, where he purchased a plantation and became an agricultural planter. Had not the American colonies decided to oppose, and then fight, the British colonies for independence, it is likely that Whitmell Hill would have remained a quiet farmer in the backwoods of North Carolina. He was elected in 1774 to a seat on the North Carolina Provincial Council. Historian John H. Wheeler stated in 1851, “The Provincial Council was composed of one chosen by the whole Congress, who was, de facto, governor; and two persons from each district, chosen by the delegates thereof. They were to meet quarterly, had power to call out the militia, to reject or suspend officers, fill vacancies, draw on the treasury for all moneys necessary for the service; and, in fact, to do all

As it was, in August 1775 he further entered the political arena and was elected to represent the Edenton District after the royal government in North Carolina was overthrown and replaced by a Provincial Council, which assembled to take control of the colony and its affairs. Likewise, Hill served as a delegate to the Third Provincial Congress, held that same month in Hillsborough. He would also serve as a delegate to the Fourth Provincial Congress, held in Halifax in April 1776, as well as the Fifth Provincial Congress, also in Halifax, in November 1776. In September 1775, Hill was appointed by the Provincial Congress to the state militia, with the rank of lieutenant colonel, to serve under Colonel William Williams of the Martin County Regiment of Militia. Wheeler again wrote, “The system of the Council of Safety was adopted and the Council recommended to the people to elect, on the 15th of October [1776], deles to a Congress appointed to assemble at Halifax, on the 12th of November following, which was ‘not only to make laws, but also to form a Constitution which was to be the cornerstone of all law; and, as it was well or ill ordered, would tend to the happiness or misery of the State.’” Representing Martin County at this meeting were William Williams, Thomas Hunter, John Hardison, Samuel Smithwick, and Whitmell Hill. [5] At that time, Hill was elected by the people of Martin County to represent them in the brand-new North Carolina House of Commons, which was now the new state legislature. The following year, he was elected to the North Carolina state Senate, where he was elected by his fellow senators to serve as their Speaker. [6]

Whitmell Hill [1] (1743–1797) 633 In April 1778, when Colonel William Williams resigned as the head of the militia and entered the state Senate, the General Assembly, the new state legislature, named Hill as the colonel and commander of the Martin County Regiment of Militia. He held the rank and the position until August, when he resigned. On 13 August 1778, the North Carolina House of Commons elected Hill to a seat in the Continental Congress. Reelected on 25 October 1779, he ultimately attended sessions of 14-31 December 1778, and from 1 January to 20 April 1779. According to historian Edmund Cody Burnett, “Hill is last recorded as voting [on] 20 April [1779] and must have taken his departure within a day or two thereafter.” [7] To add to the confusion over Hill, however, Burnett cites him as “Whitmill Hill.” There are no letters from or to Hill during this period. There is, however, one piece of official correspondence that includes Hill in a letter from all of the North Carolina delegation to those representing South Carolina in the Continental Congress: Gentlemen: Considering that your State is always deemed so feeble in Internal strength and resources, that her defence when attacked must chiefly be performed by the Neighboring States, and must fall more immediately on North Carolina from her circumstances, and contiguous Situation, Considering also that a Question now before Congress Involves the Continuance of Hostilities, even tho’ our Liberty, Sovereignty and Independence, absolute and unlimited, as well as in matters of Government as Commerce shall be acknowledged and secured . . . We beg you to consider that in the event of a continuance of the war your Country will probably experience all the calamities which can be apprehended from an Insolent Restless Iritated [sic], and Rapacious enemy, from your own Slaves armed against their former Masters, from the Savages excited to more bloody and merciless dispositions and conducted by leaders who have Inclination and Abilities to make their force and ferocity as effectual against you as possible. Upon gen matters we would not presume to lay our thoughts thus upon you; how inadequate the resources of the Continent are to a continuance of war without allies, & what must most probably the event we suggest not to you, your participation in the publick [sic] Councils make it unnecessary and improper; but upon a matter so supremely Interesting, and which so peculiarly affects the lives and properties of the States which you & we have the honor to represent, in which

may be involved Dissolution to our Countries and the most unbounded Ravage and carnage to their Inhabs of all ages and sexes, and which may fall w peculiar weight and Injury on the State we represent . . . [8] After leaving the Continental Congress, Hill returned home to North Carolina, where he went back to his seat in the state Senate, serving there until 1780, and then again in 1784 and 1785. In 1788, he served as a delegate to the North Carolina Constitutional Convention, which ratified the US Constitution, signed the previous year in Philadelphia. In 1781, Hill reentered military service, reactivated as the colonel in command of the Martin County Regiment of Militia, where he served, apparently, until the end of 1783. According to North Carolina state records, the only battle that Hill saw action in was at the Guilford Court House on 15 March 1781. In 1790, an advertisement appeared in several newspapers, entitled “Recommendations,” in which it was stated, “We, the subscribers, do hereby certify, that we have, in this town, viewed Mr. Bowel’s exhibition of wax-work with a pleasing satisfaction, it being an American production: We do therefore (from a wish to contribute to the encouragement of the arts in general, and this in particular, which in the abovementioned performance is brought to an astonishing degree of perfection), beg leave to recommend the same to the public, in our opinion, as being highly worthy of patronage and attention.” The ad was signed by Governor Alexander Martin, as well as several other state officials, including Whitmell Hill. [9] Hill had purchased an estate in Martin County, near the town of Hamilton, which he named “Hill’s Ferry,” where he spent much of the rest of his life. Married to Winefred Blount, he had several children, all of who survived him. Hill died there on 26 September 1797 at the age of 54. Hill was initially buried on his estate, in his family’s cemetery; however, in 1887 his remains were exhumed and reinterred in the Trinity Cemetery near Scotland Neck, North Carolina. His tombstone now reads: “A member of the Continental Congress and of the Convention which formed the first Constitution of North Carolina. Much of his life was spent in the service of his country. He married Winefred Blount of Edenton.”

634

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Regarding the various spellings of Hill’s first name, historian Stephen B. Weeks, in a collection of colonial and state documents from North Carolina, has him listed as “Whitmill Hill.” [10] Three items bearing Hill’s name exist in The Southern Historical Collection, in the The Louis Round Wilson Special Collections Library at University of North Carolina—and one of these is a manuscript copy of Hill’s will, “itemizing his property.” [11]

Michael Hillegas, Jr. (1728–1804)

[1] The controversy over Hill’s first name is central to finding out key information on his life. While his official congressional biography cites his first name as “Whitmell,” his gravestone in North Carolina plainly uses “Whitmel,” even though correspondence that he signed during his life shows that he spelled it with two “L”s and not one. Worse yet, the one collection of papers of his that appears to exist uses “Whitmel” for his first name; another source, a collection of the colonial and state papers of North Carolina, uses “Whitmill”—again, all of these causing the researcher unending problems. All three spellings have been utilized here when appropriate, or when they are utilized in and by a certain source. [2] “Biographical Catalogue of the Matriculates of the College, Together with Lists of the Members of the College Faculty and the Trustees, Officers and Recipients of Honorary Degrees, 17491893. Prepared by a Committee of the Society of the Alumni” (Philadelphia: Printed for the Society, 1894), 5. [3] Wheeler, John H., “Historical Sketches of North Carolina, From 1584 to 1851. Compiled from Original Records, Official Documents, and Traditional Statements. With Biographical Sketches of Her Distinguished Statesmen, Jurists, Lawyers, Soldiers, Divines, Etc.” (Philadelphia: Lippincott, Grambo and Co; two volumes, 1851), I:72-73. [4] Ibid., I:82. [5] Ibid., I:84-85. [6] Hill official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=H000608. [7] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), III;lviii; IV:lx. [8] The North Carolina delegates to the South Carolina delegates, 2 April 1779, in Hamer, Philip M., ed. et al., “The Papers of Henry Laurens” (Columbia: Published for the South Carolina Historical Society by the University of South Carolina Press; sixteen volumes, 1968-2003), XV:74-76. [9] “Recommendations,” The Freeman’s Journal: Or, The NorthAmerican Intelligencer [Philadelphia], 14 July 1790, 1. For another edition of the advertisement, see The Pennsylvania Packet and Daily Advertiser [Philadelphia], 5 July 1790, 3. [10] Weeks, Stephen Beauregard, ed., “Index to the Colonial and State Records of North Carolina” (Charlotte: The Observer Printing House, Inc., Manufacturing Printers, 1910), XI. [11] See Collection 03099-z, “The Whitmel Hill Papers, circa 1795; 1798,” The Southern Historical Collection, in the The Louis Round Wilson Special Collections Library at University of North Carolina.

Although not an elected member of the Continental Congress, Michael Hillegas did serve as the first treasurer of the United States, along with George Clymer, working to assist and stabilize the financial foundations of the infant American nation. The son of German natives who emigrated to the American colonies, Michael Hillegas, Jr., was born in Philadelphia on 22 April 1728, the son of Michael Hillegas, Sr., a merchant, and his wife Margaret (no maiden name known) Hillegas. Historian John H. Frederick wrote of the elder Hillegas, “His father, an emigrant from the Palatinate, was a naturalized citizen of Pennsylvania, a prosperous merchant, and a respected leader of the German population.” [1] Ammon Stapleton wrote of the Huguenots and their ties to the Hillegas family: “About the time of the Revocation (1685), the Hillegas family fled from Alsace to the Palatinate for safety. A number of the younger members later came to Pennsylvania. John Frederick Hillegas arrived in 1727 and located in Goshenhoppen, Montgomery County. Two of his sons, who had remained in Europe, arrived—Leopold in 1730 and John Adam in 1734. Michael Hillegas, a brother to John Frederick, also arrived at an early day.” [2] Historian Robert E. Wright explained, “Michael Hillegas, Sr., was born in Alsace. Alternately described as German or French, the ‘Hilde-gras’ family was actually both, but Hillegas’ immediate ancestors were culturally German. A Protestant, Hillegas fled Alsace for the Palatinate because of religious persecution, then left Europe for American before 1724. Eager to put religious bigotry and poverty behind him, he set up shop in Philadelphia and became a leading trader and citizen, amassing considerable real property in the city and Northern Liberties. Deeds and mortgages indicated [that] he was a potter, innkeeper, and storekeeper.” [3] The elder Hillegas, born in 1696, died in October 1749; his wife, born in 1705, lived until 1770. Both were buried side-by-side in the Christ Church Burying Ground in Philadelphia, the same place that their son Michael, Jr., would be laid to rest. [4] In this graveyard, the senior

Michael Hillegas, Jr. (1728–1804)635 Hillegas’ stone reads, “In memory of Michael Hillegas who departed this life Octr 30th 1749 Aged 53 years.” [5] The junior Hillegas received a quality education, perhaps owing to his father’s social standing in the community as a merchant, and he followed his father in this line of work, becoming a leading seller of sugar and, later, of manufacturing iron. On 10 May 1753, he married Henrietta Boude, and together they had ten children. Hillegas entered the political realm at an early age: In 1762, before he was 35, he was appointed as one of the commissioners to find and recommend a site where the city of Philadelphia could erect a fortification for the defense of the city, a site that later became Fort Mifflin. Three years later, in 1765, Hillegas was elected to a seat in the Pennsylvania Provincial Assembly, where he would sit until 1775. (Some sources give the year of election as 1763.) As one unnamed historian explained in 1907, “Mr. Hillegas was rated among the wealthiest citizens of Philadelphia in pre-Revolutionary times. He was the owner of the largest sugar refinery in the city, was interested in the manufacture of iron, was a merchant whose services were sought by the State and city governments, and prominent in the best society of the city.” [6] At the same time, Hillegas’ importance to the Pennsylvania colony was growing. During his service on a colonial commission to audit the accounts of the general land office as well as other colonial government accounts, he learned the insand-outs of accounting and how to manage government books and spending. In 1771, he served as a member of the Pennsylvania Board of Commissioners, working to help improve the navigation of the Delaware River. In 1774, as the royal government began its collapse, Hillegas was named to the Committee of Observation for the city of Philadelphia: also known as Committees of Observation and Safety (as opposed to Council of Safety or Committees of Safety), these groups were established by the Continental Congress, meeting in Philadelphia starting in September 1774, to help enforce the embargo on the sales of British merchandise in the colonies, under the authority of the Continental Association. The following year, Hillegas was named as a member

of the Pennsylvania Council of Safety, and, on 30 June 1775, was named as the treasurer of this council. The Pennsylvania Evening Post reported on 11 April 1775. “On Monday, the 10th instant the following Gentlemen were chosen Directors and Treasurer of the Philadelphia Contributionship for the Eusurance of Houses from Loss by Fire—viz. Messieurs Samuel Shoemaker, Jacob Shoemaker, Peter Reeve, Gunning Bedford, Joshua Howell, David Deshler, Jonathan Evans, Michael Hillegas, Joseph Fox, Samuel Wetherill, jun. Luke Morris, and George Roberts, Directors; and Mr. James Pemberton, Treasurer.” [7] On 29 July 1775, the delegates to the Continental Congress voted to name Hillegas and George Clymer (1739-1813), who would later serve as a delegate to that body (1776-77, 1780-82), and sign the Declaration of Independence, as Treasurers of the United Colonies, the unofficial name of the entity fighting the British for control of the North America colonies. The Journals of the Continental Congress state: “Resolved, That Michael Hillegas and George Clymer, Esquires, be joint treasurers of the United Colonies: That the Treasurers reside in Philadelphia, and that they shall give bond, with surety for the faithful performance of their office, in the sum of one hundred thousand dollars, to John Hancock, Henry Middleton, John Dickenson, John Alsop, Thomas Lynch, Richard Henry Lee, and James Wilson, Esquires, and the survivor of them in trust for the United Colonies. That the Provincial Assemblies or Conventions do each choose a Treasurer for their respective colonies, and take sufficient security for the faithful performance of the trust.” [8] The Connecticut Courant reported simply, “Michael Hillegas Esq; one of the members of the Pennsylvania Assembly, & George Clymer, Esq; of Philadelphia, are appointed Treasurers for the Continental Congress’ money. Paper currency is struck to the amount of three millions of dollars, and part of it is already in circulation. The bills are from one dollar to twenty dollars each.” [9] It appears from contemporary sources that Hillegas was known to many of the leading figures of the Continental Congress, as well as

636

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

the Pennsylvania colony. For instance, John Adams, delegate to the Continental Congress from Massachusetts, wrote in his diary on 28 October 1775:

that it is “[o]rdered, That a warrant for [$]12000 [sic] dollars be drawn on John Gibson, esquire, and another warrant on Michael Hillegas, esq; for 12000 dollars, both in favour of col. Samuel Moylan, there being in part of a warrant of general [sic] Washington, in favour of the said colonel Moylan.” The same day, the Continental Congress ordered Hillegas “be directed to send from Baltimore to John Gibson, esquire, auditor general, for public service, the sum of one million of dollars [sic].” [11]

The Congress and the Assembly of this Province [Pennsylvania] were invited to make an excursion, upon [the] Delaware River, in the new row gallies built by the Committee of Safety of this Colony. About ten in the morning we all embarked. The names of the gallies are the Washington, the Effingham, the Franklin, the Dickinson, the Otter, the Bull Dog, and one more whose name I have forgot. We passed down the river, by Gloucester, where the vaisseaux de frise are. These are frames of timber, to be filled with stones, and sunk in three rows in the channel. I went in the Bull Dog, Captain Alexander, commander, Mr. Hillegas, Mr. Owen Biddle, and Mr. [David] Rittenhouse, and Captain Faulkner were with me. Hillegas is one of our continental treasurers; is a great musician; talks perpetually of the forte and piano, of Handel, etc., and songs and tunes. He plays upon the fiddle. [10] Hillegas served as the Continental treasurer, with Clymer, until 6 August 1776, when Clymer took his seat in the Continental Congress and Hillegas served in a singular fashion. On 30 May 1776, he had been named as the treasurer of the Province of Pennsylvania, and he continued in this dual role even after Pennsylvania declared statehood. On 6 September 1777, Hillegas was appointed as the first treasurer of the United States of America, a post he held until 11 September 1789, after the new US government, established under the US Constitution, came into operation, and a Department of the Treasury was incorporated as a federal agency in the executive department of the government. Thus, while the Continental Congress itself oversaw financial and other matters of the government before and after the Articles of Confederation, leading up to the government under the Constitution in March 1789, it was Michael Hillegas who served as the official treasurer of the American government— he was ultimately responsible for all of the final decisions of the infant American administration. From the time of his selection, with Clymer, as the treasurer, Hillegas’ name can be seen across the wide swath of documents and bills and other matters relating in any way to financial matters involving the Continental Congress and/or the colonies. For instance, in the Journals of the Continental Congress for 8 April 1777, we find

In addition to his “national” duties, Hillegas had state duties as well: In a listing of all of the financial actions of the Pennsylvania state House of Representatives, for instance, in September 1776, notes of accounts of Owen Jones, in the sum of ₤1400, “which Sum be paid into the Hands of Michael Hillegas.” Additionally, notes are also attached, for other sums, in the acts “appropriated for defraying Indian Treaties,” and for the sum of ₤5000 “to purchase Ground adjoining the State-House lots.” [12] Tracking Hillegas’ numerous state offices, we find in The Pennsylvania Evening Post of 3 October 1775 a notation of an election for “Representatives and Sheriffs, &c. of this province,” which stated that for Philadelphia County, representatives who earned votes included John Dickinson, with 3,122 votes, and Michael Hillegas, with 3,111 votes. [13] In the records of election returns for Philadelphia County, Pennsylvania, we find a note, signed by “Michael Hillegas, Nathaniel Falconer, Jacob Barge, William Allison, Lewis Farmer & Israel Wheelen[,] Judges of the Election for the City and first District of the County of Philadelphia Do hereby Certify That in Pursuance of the Laws of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania in Such Case made and Provided Philip Pancake & Peter Ozeas, Gentlemen were duly elected Commissioners for the Streets for the City aforesaid.” This is just one certified election for Philadelphia County, signed by Hillegas, among many others bearing his official signature. [14] Historian John Frederick wrote, “During the Revolution he contributed a large part of his fortune, by gift or loan, to the support of the army, and in 1781 he was one of the first subscribers to the Bank of North America. By direction of the Pennsylvania General Assembly he compiled and published, in 1782, Volume I of

Michael Hillegas, Jr. (1728–1804)637 [the] Journals of the House of Representatives of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, covering the period between 28 November 1776, and 2 October 1781. Apparently this task stimulated his interest in the preservation of historical material, for in a letter of 20 August 1781, to the governor of New Hampshire, he suggested ‘the propriety of each legislature in the Union adopting measures similar to those taken by this state for the above purpose.’” [15] In addition to his work for the Continental Congress and then for the US Department of the Treasury in the government under the US Constitution, Hillegas was one of the original subscribers, or initiators, of the establishment of the Bank of Pennsylvania in 1780. Four years later, along with Tench Francis, he was appointed as a member of the Supreme Executive Council, which governed the state in conjunction with the governor in an advisory capacity. In 1792, having retired from the federal government, he was elected to an aldermanic seat in the city of Philadelphia, a post he held until his death, and then he was appointed as an associate justice of the Mayor’s Court. He was a member of the American Philosophical Society. Hillegas died in Philadelphia on 29 September 1804. (His grave lists a birth date of 22 April 1729, rather than 1728.) One obituary could be found in a contemporary newspaper: “Died. At Philadelphia, in the 76th year of his age, Michael Hillegas, Esq; late one of the Aldermen of that city.” [16] He was laid to rest in the Christ Church Burial Ground in Philadelphia. The stone on his grave reads, “Sacred to the memory of Michael Hillegas who departed this life Sept. 29 1804 in the 75th year of [unintelligible] and Mary Ann Hillegas . . .” Buried side-by-side, their graves can be found in Section P, Plot XLI. An unnamed historian wrote in 1907: That Michael Hillegas’ fame should have been obscured so long is explainable only on the ground that he was of German-French descent, and that the principal historians of the day were Quakers who preferred to have it appear that the followers of William Penn were the principal actors in the history of Philadelphia. That this is the explanation is indicated by the president of a Quaker college who recently wrote a history of Pennsylvania, and who explained his omission of all reference to Mr. Hillegas by saying it was an

“oversight,” adding that he found Mr. Hillegas’ name “hundreds of times” in his investigations. Another reason may be that while the descendants of Robert Morris and Samuel Meredith, other claimants to the title of first treasurer, have been busy inducting States to erect monuments to their forebears, there have been no such active descendants of Mr. Hillegas, there being no lineal stock bearing his name. [17]

[1] Frederick, John H., “Hillegas, Michael” in Allen Johnson, et al., “Dictionary of American Biography” (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons; eleven volumes and five supplements, 1958-77), IX:51-52. [2] Stapleton, Rev. Ammon, “Memorials of the Huguenots in America: With Special Reference to Their Emigration to Pennsylvania” (Carlisle, PA: Huguenot Publishing Company, 1901), 54. [3] Wright, Robert E., “The First Wall Street: Chestnut Street, Philadelphia, and the Birth of American Finance” (Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 2005), 132. [4] See Hillegas family information in Charles H. Browning, ed., “The American Register and Monthly Gazette of the PatrioticHereditary Societies of the United States of America, September, 1894-February, 1895” (Philadelphia: The Historical Register Publishing Company, 1895), 27. [5] Clark, Edward L., “A Record of the Inscriptions on the Tablets and Graves in the Burial-Grounds of Christ Church, Philadelphia. Compiled and Arranged at the Request of Vestry” (Philadelphia: Collins, Printer, 705 Jayne Street, 1864), 520. [6] “Michael Hillegas, The Nation’s First Treasurer,” The Magazine of History, With Notes and Queries, VI:4 (October 1907), 223. [7] “Philadelphia, April 11,” The Pennsylvania Evening Post, 11 April 1775, 134. [8] Continental Congress, “Extracts from the Votes and Proceedings of the American Continental Congress, Held at Philadelphia, 10th May, 1775. Published by Order of the Congress” (New-York: Printed and Sold by John Anderson, at Beekman’s-Slip, 1775), 183. [9] The Connecticut Courant [Hartford], 7 August 1775, 3. [10] Diary of John Adams, in John Quincy Adams, ed., “The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States: With a Life of the Author, Notes and Illustrates” (Boston: Little, Brown and Company; 10 volumes, 1850-56), II:429. In a letter in March 1776, while misspelling the name of the craft, Adams described what a “vaisseaux de frise” were as the city of Boston prepared to use them as weapons against British war ships: “They are making Preparations to defend this River in this Way, I mean with Fire. They have several Fire Vessells [sic] besides several Hundreds of Fire Rafts, ready. They would fill the whole River with Flame. If the Bottom in the Narrows of our Channell [sic] is hard, I should think that the Vesseau de Frize [sic], which is used in this River would do. They are large Frames of great Timber, loaded with stone and sunk. Great Timbers barbed with Iron, pointed and feathered, are placed in such a Posture as to intangle [sic] a Vessell, [sic] and shatter her, and sink her.” See John Adams to Cotton Tufts, 29 March 1776, in L.H. Butterfield, ed.-in-chief, “Adams Family Correspondence” (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of the Harvard University Press; ten volumes, I:367. [11] Continental Congress, “Journals of Congress, Containing the Proceedings From January 1st, 1777, to January 1st, 1778. Published by Order of Congress. Volume III” (Philadelphia: Printed by John Dunlap, 1778), 122-23.

638

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

[12] “Votes and Proceedings of the House of Representatives of the Province of Pennsylvania. Beginning the Fourteenth Day of October, 1767. Volume The Sixth” (Philadelphia: Printed and Sold by Henry Miller, in Race-Street, 1776), 753. [13] “Philadelphia, October 3,” The Pennsylvania Evening Post, 3 October 1775, 450. [14] “Election Returns, Phila. County—1756-1789” in Thomas Lynch Montgomery, ed., “Pennsylvania Archives. Sixth Series. Volume XI” (Harrisburg, PA: Harrisburg Publishing Company, State Printer, 1907), 360. [15] Frederick, John H., “Hillegas, Michael,” in “Dictionary of American Biography,” op. cit., IX:51-52. [16] “Died,” The Providence Gazette [Rhode Island], 6 October 1804, 2. [17] “Michael Hillegas, The Nation’s First Treasurer,” The Magazine of History, With Notes and Queries, VI:4 (October 1907), 222.

and grandmother. To a family thus constituted, he was bound not only by grateful affection but by the consideration of their dependence upon him.” [1]

James Hillhouse (1754–1832) A Connecticut politician like his father, the Judge William Hillhouse (1728-1816), James Hillhouse also was elected to the Continental Congress, but, like his father, he refused the honor. Later serving in both the US House of Representatives and the US Senate under the US Constitution, Hillhouse was directly related both to the Hillhouse families as well as the famed Griswold family of Connecticut. Born in Montville, Connecticut, on 20 October 1754, he was the son of William Hillhouse and his wife, Sarah (née Griswold) Hillhouse, the child of one of early Connecticut’s most important political families—her brother, Matthew, later served as the governor of the state. James Hillhouse’s grandfather, the Reverend James Hillhouse, emigrated from County Londonderry, Ireland, about 1720, and settled in Montville, in the Connecticut colony. When James Hillhouse was just seven years old, his parents gave him up, and he was adopted by his father’s brother, James Abraham Hillhouse, who lived in New Haven. Here, he received a first-rate education, attending the prestigious Hopkins Grammar School in New Haven, before entering Yale College (now Yale University) and graduating from that institution in 1773. Hillhouse was just starting under the educational tutelage of his uncle, when, on 6 October 1775, the elder Hillhouse died, leaving James Hillhouse on his own. “Thenceforward all his success in life was dependent on his own exertions. He had still, indeed, a home in his uncle’s family, which consisted of the widow and her mother

Having been in the midst of the study of the law, Hillhouse completed his studies and was admitted to the Connecticut colonial bar in 1775, opening a practice in New Haven. When the American Revolution began, he volunteered for service in the Continental Army and was attached to the Connecticut militia, founded in the city of New Haven. The following year, in December 1776, he was named as the Lieutenant of a company of Connecticut volunteers, and, in May 1777, as the head of the Governor’s Foot Guards, rising by 1779 to command that unit with the rank of captain. [2] It was during this time, in July 1779, when New Haven was invaded by the British led by Lord William Tryon (1729-1788), who had once served as the royal governor of North Carolina, but the invasion was successfully beaten back. In 1780, as the fighting between the Continental Army and the British moved to other areas of the United States, quiet reigned in Connecticut. Hillhouse’s military career ended, and he entered the political realm: In 1780, he was elected to the Connecticut state House of Representatives, where he served until 1785. On 11 May 1786, Hillhouse, like his father before him, was elected by the Connecticut General Assembly to a seat in the Continental Congress. Reelected on 10 May 1787, he never attended the body for some unknown reason. According to historian Edmund Cody Burnett, on 11 October 1787, “Jeremiah Wadsworth, John Chester, and Benjamin Huntington were elected ‘in the room of Erastus Wolcott, Jonathan Sturgis, and James Hilhouse [sic] Esquires, resigned.’” [3] In fact, the historical record does not show any work that James Hillhouse did on constitutional issues that arose in 1787 and 1788 following the signing and ultimate ratification by the states of the new US Constitution. In 1789, Hillhouse was elected to the Connecticut State Council, a governing and advisory board. In 1790, he was elected to a seat in the new US House of Representatives, and he took his seat in the Second Congress (1791-93) on 4 March 1791, serving through the Third Congress (1793-95)

James Hillhouse (1754–1832)639 and the Fourth Congress (1795-97), until his resignation sometime in the fall of 1796—the exact date is unknown—when he was elected to the US Senate; this election, on 12 May 1796, was to fill the vacancy caused by the resignation of Oliver Ellsworth, who had resigned to become the chief justice of the United States Supreme Court, nominated by President George Washington. [4] A loyal member of the president’s Federalist Party, he voted strictly with the administration, including on military matters. Historian Donald R. Hickey wrote, “Having created the defense establishment in the 1790s, the Federalists continued to support it in the Age of Jefferson. James Hillhouse, a Senator from Connecticut, illustrated Federalist consistency on this matter as of 1808 when he outlined his own record on defense measures. During the American Revolution, he said, ‘I engaged on the side of our country, with the ardor natural to a youthful mind . . . In 1794 I voted for all those efficient measures of defence then adopted . . . In 1797-8 I voted for the naval and military preparations then made. Under the present Administration, I have uniformly voted for all measures of defence as appeared to me to have efficacy, or to comport with the spirit and policy of ‘76.’” [5] In the last days of the administration of President John Adams, in an attempt to stack the courts with Federalist candidates for the bench, Hillhouse was one of the leaders in the Senate, but in the end most of their work was undone by infighting and other blocks that gave the incoming administration of Thomas Jefferson to fill. [6] Reelected to his Senate seat in 1797, 1803, and 1809, Hillhouse served until his resignation on 10 June 1810. During this tenure, he served as the president pro tempore of the US Senate during the Sixth Congress (1799-1801). During the two terms that Thomas Jefferson was in the White House, Hillhouse was one his most outspoken opposition, both in the Senate and in public life. By 1804, there was discussion in some northern states to secede from the Union in opposition to many of Jefferson’s economic and foreign policies. Historian Albert F. Simpson explained: Talk of secession was no new thing in 1804, for already it had been heard many times and in all parts of the nation. The plan of the radical Federalists for a northern confederacy, however, marked the first time that a concerted and active move had been made to carry

secession into effect. The fact that a strong resentment of slave representation was the primary cause of the scheme demonstrates the political significance of the ratio and the role which it was playing in the growth of sectional- ism. Unfortunately for the secessionists, the success of their plan depended on the adherence of New York. To effectuate that adherence, [Timothy] Pickering, [William] Plumer, and James Hillhouse of Connecticut conferred with Aaron Burr and agreed to support him in his coming gubernatorial campaign, believing (although without positive assurance from Burr) that if the Vice-President should be elected he would swing his state into the ranks of the secessionists. But Burr was defeated, largely because of the efforts. [7] Believing during his final years in the Senate that Jefferson was gaining too much power in the presidency, in 1808 Hillhouse introduced seven potential amendments to the US Constitution, in an attempt to curb potential dictatorship. [8] Historian DeForest Van Slyck summarized these: “These amendments provided for the annual election of representatives, a term of three years for senators, the abolition of the office of vice-president, a term of one year for the president, who would be chosen by lot from among the senators, the confirmation of appointments by the House of Representatives as well as by the Senate, and the ratification by both houses of removals from office.” [9] Returning to Connecticut after his Senate service was completed, Hillhouse continued his service as a treasurer of his alma mater, Yale University, a post he held from 1782 until his death fifty years later. In 1814, in his last public service, he was a member of the Hartford Convention, a secret meeting of Federalists held in Hartford from mid-December 1814 until 5 January 1815 who opposed the policies of President James Madison, including his handling of the War of 1812, which was hitting the New England states hard economically. However, instead of emboldening the Federalists, the secrecy of the convention, matched with Madison’s negotiations with the British that culminated in the Treaty of Ghent, which ended the conflict, cast deep suspicion on the Federalist Party, leading to its ultimate disintegration. James Hillhouse died in New Haven on 29 December 1832, two months past his 78th birthday. He was laid to rest in Grove Street

640

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Cemetery in that city, under a large memorial next to both of his wives.

Hall in the county of Derry in Ireland, was the son of Abraham Hillhouse and possessed a landed estate [with an] estimated worth about 8 or 9 thousand dollars a year.” [1] Mary Fitch Hillhouse, the wife of the Reverend Hillhouse and the mother of William Hillhouse, was also born in Montville, the daughter of Captain Daniel Fitch. [2]

[1] Bacon, Leonard, “Sketch of the Life and Public Services of Hon. James Hillhouse of New Haven: With a Notice of His Son, Augustus Lucas Hillhouse. (From Barnard’s American Journal of Education.)” (New Haven, CT: Privately Printed, 1860), 9-10. [2] DeForest Van Slyck, “Hillhouse, James” in Allen Johnson, et al., “Dictionary of American Biography” (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons; eleven volumes and five supplements, 1958-77), IX:50-51. [3] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VIII:Ixxxiii. [4] James Hillhouse official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay. pl?index=H000618. [5] Hickey, Donald R., “Federalist Defense Policy in the Age of Jefferson, 1801-1812,” Military Affairs, XLV:2 (April 1981), 64. [6] See Turner, Kathryn, “The Midnight Judges,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review, CIX:4 (February 1961), 494-523. [7] Simpson, Albert F., “The Political Significance of Slave Representation, 1787-1821,” The Journal of Southern History, VII:3 (August 1941), 327 [8] Hillhouse, James, “Propositions for Amending the Constitution of the United States; Submitted by Mr. Hillhouse to the Senate, on the Twelfth Day of April, 1808: With His Explanatory Remarks” (New-Haven: Printed by Oliver Steele & Co., 1808). [9] Van Slyck, “Hillhouse, James,” op. cit., IX:51.

William Hillhouse (1728–1816) A long-time Connecticut politician, William Hillhouse was twice (1783, 1785) elected to a seat in the Continental Congress, but both times refused the honor. He served as a member of the Connecticut battalion of Light Horse in 1776, and, during the first days of the conflict with Great Britain served on the Committee of Safety. His political service includes time in the Connecticut General Assembly and as a judge of the Court of Common Pleas. Hillhouse was born in the village of Montville, part of New London, Connecticut, on 25 August 1728, the son of the Reverend James Hillhouse, a minister, and his wife Mary (née Fitch) Hillhouse. The Reverend Hillhouse (1687-1740) was born in Londonderry, in County Armagh, Ulster, Ireland. His family, which originated with John Hillhouse, had been in that area for many generations before James left for the American colonies. According to genealogist Margaret Hillhouse, “John Hillhouse of Free

William Hillhouse studied the law, and was admitted to the Connecticut colonial bar and began a practice, although there does not appear to be information on the city or town in which he did this. In 1755, he entered the political arena when he was elected to a seat in the colonial House of Representatives, where he served two separate terms, 1756-60, and then 1763-85, the second during the period of the American Revolution. The onset of that conflict between the colonies and England gave Hillhouse an additional opportunity to serve his nation: He volunteered for service in the Connecticut Cavalry, and was assigned to the Second Regiment of that outfit with the rank of Major. In a listing of the “Officers of the Colony of Connecticut, 1775,” William Hillhouse is noted as representing New London County; he is also listed as a probate judge for that same municipality. [3] The Connecticut colonial General Assembly met in Hartford in May and June 1776, with Jonathan Trumbull serving as governor. The legislature reported: Hon. Matthew Griswold, Eliphalet Dyer, J. Huntington, William Williams, Richard Law, Titus Hosmer, Benjamin Huntington, Col. J. Elderkin, William Hillhouse, and Nathaniel Wales, Jr., were appointed [as members of] a Council of Safety to assist the Governor in the recess of the General Assembly, with authority to direct the militia and navy of the colony, marches and stations of the troops, either in whole or part, and give all necessary orders for furnishing said militia, troops and navy, in every respect to render the defence of the colony effectual to fulfil [sic] and execute every trust already reposed by the Assembly in the Governor; with power and authority in the Governor to nullify and convene the whole of said committee on all important occasions before them . . . [4] During this period, he married Sarah Griswold, a member of the famed Connecticut family; together, they had several children. Upon her

William Hillhouse (1728–1816)641 death in 1777 at the age of 48, Hillhouse married Delia (no maiden name known), who survived him until her own death in 1817. During the earliest years of the Revolutionary War, Hillhouse served in several capacities: In the early 1780s, he was a member of the Connecticut Council of Safety. Records demonstrate this—for instance, on 24 May 1780, “[a]t a Meeting of the Governor and Council of Safety at Hartford,” listed amongst the members is “William Hillhouse, Esquire.” He is further shown in attendance at meetings of this body on 20 June 1780, 23 June 1780, as well as other dates. On the 20 June meeting, is was decided that “Colo. [Col.] Wadsworth, Major Hillhouse[,] and Capt. [Jabez] Perkins, being appointed a committee to negociate [sic] an exchange of indian [sic] corn, pork, beef, tallow [wax] and linseed oil, for the quantity of rock-salt with Capt. Trimingham now reported the same.” [5] After this service, Hillhouse was named a judge; by 1781, he had become a senior judge on the Court of Common Pleas. Two notices herald his work in this field: in November 1781, it was announced that “a Libel is filed before William Hillhouse, Esq; Justice of [the] Peace for New-London County, in favour of Jeremiah Harding, against one Horse and one Mare, a Saddle and Bridle, found and seized in New-London, on the 20th Instant, as being illegally bound and going to LongIsland, within the Enemy’s Lines.” [6] In another case, in an action dated 7 August 1782 and signed by Hillhouse himself, he penned, “Know ye, That a Libel is filed before William Hillhouse, Esq; one of the Judges of the County Court for said County, and Benadam Gallup, Esq; a Judge of Peace for said County, by Thomas Parks, Commander of the Sloop Defiance, against a certain Two-Mast Boat and sundry Articles of British Goods, taken in the Sound, on or about the 14th of July.” [7] Prior to October 1783, four delegates from Connecticut to the Continental Congress—Oliver Ellsworth, Samuel Huntington, Richard Law, and Oliver Wolcott—resigned from that body, leaving the state without any representation in the Continental Congress. On 9 October 1783, the Connecticut General Assembly met and elected four men to these vacancies: William Hillhouse, Roger Sherman, James Wadsworth, and William

Williams “for the year ensuing.” According to historian Edmund Cody Burnett, “The credentials presented by Sherman and Wadsworth [on] 3 January 1784, show that on 9 October[,] Roger Sherman, William Williams, James Wadsworth, and William Hillhouse were chosen ‘in the room of’ Samuel Huntington, Oliver Wolcott, Richard Law, and Oliver Ellsworth, who had resigned.” [8] Only Sherman and Wadsworth went to the Continental Congress to present their credentials and take their seats; Hillhouse and Williams refused the honor. Although Hillhouse’s official congressional biography states that he was again elected to the Continental Congress in 1785 [9], there is no date for this, and Burnett only lists the 9 October 1783 date as the single and solitary date in which he was afforded this honor. Instead, he remained as a judge on the Court of Common Pleas, holding that seat until 1806. As a judge of the Probate Court for New London County, he remained on that court from 1786 to 1807. A 1793 almanac lists Hillhouse as the chief judge of the “Court of Probate” for New London County. [10] William Hillhouse died at Montville, Connecticut, on 12 January 1816 at the age of 87. The newspaper the Connecticut Herald stated, “For more than fifty years he was in the Legislature, as a member of the House or of the Council. For more than forty years he was one of the Court of Common Pleas for the county; a part of the time as presiding judge. For many years he was [a] Judge of Probate. During the whole revolutionary war, he was one of the Council of Safety, and was elected to Congress, but never took his seat.” [11] He was buried in the Raymond Hill Cemetery in Oakdale, in New London County, Connecticut, aside both his first wife, Sarah, as well as his second, Delia. See also: James Hillhouse

[1] Hillhouse, Margaret, “Historical and Genealogical Collections Relating to the Descendants of Rev. James Hillhouse” (New York: T.A. Wright, 1924), 5. [2] See also Johnston, Sarah Hall, comp., “Lineage Book. National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution. Volume XI” (Washington, DC: The Daughters of the American Revolution, 1906), 196. [3] Hinman, Royal R., “A Historical Collection, From Official Records, Files, &c., of the Part Sustained by Connecticut, During

642

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

the War of the Revolution. With an Appendix, Containing Important Letters, Depositions, &c., Written During the War. Comp. by Royal R. Hinman, Secretary of State” (Hartford, CT: Printed by E. Gleason, 1842), 25-26. [4] Ibid., 210. [5] Hoadly, Charles J., comp., “The Public Records of the State of Connecticut, From May, 1780, to October, 1781, Inclusive. With the Journal of the Council of Safety From May 15, 1780 to December 27, 1781, Inclusive. And an Appendix. Compiled in Accordance with a Resolution of the General Assembly, by Charles J. Hoadly, LL.D., State Librarian” (Hartford, CT: Press of the Case, Lockwood & Brainard Company; sixteen volumes, 1894-1922), III:101, 109, 112. [6] See “State of Connecticut, County of New-London,” The Connecticut Gazette, 23 November 1781, 3. [7] “Know Ye,” The Connecticut Gazette, 16 August 1782, 4. [8] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VIII:lxiv. [9] William Hillhouse official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay. pl?index=H000619. [10] “Green’s Register, for the State of Connecticut: With an Almanack, For The Year of Our Lord, 1794, Calculated by Nathan Daboll, for the Meridian of New-London, Lat. 41. 25. North” (New-London: Printed by T. Green, 1793), 17. [11] “Died, at his seat in Montville,” The Connecticut Gazette; and The Universal Intelligencer [New London], 30 January 1816, 3. See also The Republican Farmer [Bridgeport, Connecticut], 31 January 1816, 3.

One of seven children of Jacob Hindman and Mary (née Trippe) Hindman, William Hindman was born in Dorchester, Maryland, on 1 April 1743. [1] The 1880 work by Samuel A. Harrison, “A Memoir of the Hon. William Hindman,” traces the family back to Hindman’s grandfather in Scotland; he wrote: “[Hindman] belonged to an ancient family of the highest respectability of the Eastern shore of Maryland. His grandfather, the Reverend James Hindman, emigrated from England in or about the year 1710, and was presented to the parish of Saint Paul, which, as originally defined, lay wholly within the bounds of Talbot, but which subsequently, by a division of that county made without regard to parish lines, lay partly in Talbot and partly in Queen Anne’s. This gentleman was, of course, of the Church of England, then the established church of the Province, and was sent out by the Bishop of London, under whose ecclesiastical control the colony of Maryland had been placed. The Reverend James Hindman lived but a very few years after his arrival in America, dying in 1713, leaving two children, a son and a daughter, the former of whom bore the name of Jacob.” This Jacob was William Hindman’s father. After his father’s death, Jacob Hindman married Mary Trippe, a native of Dorchester County, Maryland, and they moved to Talbot County, where they started a family. [2] William Hindman, through various marriages, was related to several other important American figures of the period: cousins married Robert Goldsborough (1740-1798), a member of the Maryland legislature during the earliest years of the American Revolution, who sat as a judge on the Maryland General Court (1784-98), while another cousin married John Dickinson (c. 1726-1789), who served in the first provisional government of Maryland (1774-76). [3]

William Hindman (1743–1822)

A highly respected politician from his native Maryland, William Hindman served in the Continental Congress (1785-86), in the US House of Representatives (1793-1800), and in the US Senate (1800-01) under the US Constitution.

William Hindman’s early education is unknown; he is included in a listing of those who entered the College of Philadelphia—now the University of Pennsylvania. [4] Hindman never completed his studies at the College of Philadelphia; instead, his family sent him to England, where he entered one of the Inns of Court, the foundation of English law. Hindman graduated from the school at the Inns in 1765; he then returned to the American colonies, and was admitted as an

William Hindman (1743–1822)643 attorney in Dorchester, Queen Anne’s, Somerset, and Talbot counties in 1772. He was “subscribed to Washington College, [in] Chestertown, Kent County, [Maryland].” [5] From the earliest years of the American Revolution, it appears that Hindman was at the forefront in Maryland of the revolutionary opposition to British politics in the colonies. In 1771, he served on the vestry of St. Michael’s Parish in Talbot County, which lasted until 1785. Although an Anglican, a member of the Church of England, in 1795 he converted to Methodism, and became a member of the Methodist Church Meetinghouse at the Wye Chapel in the village of Wye, to which he gave a plot of land. But in the face of the war between England and the colonies, in 1775 he served as a delegate to the Talbot County convention, and, that same year, was named as the secretary of the Talbot County Committee of Observation, also known in other colonies as a Committee of Correspondence. He was elected to the Maryland state Senate, representing the Eastern Shore, from 1776 to 1792, and then again from 1798 to 1800. He also served as the official Treasurer of the Eastern Shore from 1775 to 1777, as Clerk of the Eastern Shore branch of the Council of Safety of Maryland in 1775, as a member of the Maryland state Senate from 1777 to 1784 and again in 1792, as a member of the Maryland state Executive Council from 1789 to 1790, and as a justice from Talbot County in 1779. [6] Entries in the official journal of the Council of Maryland for 2, 3, 4, and 5 November, as well as 11, 12, and 14 December 1789, all show Hindman to have been present for the debates and discussions of the group, although no substantial business done by the Council is laid out in these minutes. [7] In a record of the construction of a sloop, or ship, by one Nathaniel Cooper in July 1778, among a list of owners the name of William Hindman. The ship has six guns, with a crew of 10. Jacob Hindman, William’s brother, is listed as being one of the witnesses to the sale from William Hindman and his group to Nathaniel Cooper. [8] On 4 December 1784, Hindman was elected to a seat in the Continental Congress. He did not sit any time in 1784; reelected on 6 November 1785 and 2 December 1786, he ultimately served from

8 February to 2 December 1785, 17 January to 30 June 1786, 13-14 September 1786, on about 12 October 1786, and, finally, from 7-13 November 1786. Although eligible to serve in 1787, he never attended a single session during that calendar year. [9] A compendium of historical facts in Maryland, published in 1828, said of the events of 1786, “On the 2d Monday in December, 1786, William Harrison, William Hindman, Uriah Forrest, David Ross and Nathaniel Ramsay, were chosen [as] delegates to congress [sic] for one year, by the legislature of Maryland.” [10] There are several pieces of correspondence extant from Hindman during his Continental Congress service: all of these are to the governor of Maryland at that time, William Paca, who had served in the Continental Congress. In the first, dated 28 March 1785, Hindman penned, “Congress have not as yet elected a Minister for the Hague. The English Packet which ought to have been here some Time ago is not yet arrived, so that We have no foreign News. There are twelve States represented in Congress and one Member from Georgia. Mr. Henry and Mr. McHenry are now here, the latter intends for Philadelphia in a few Days on a Visit to Mrs. McHenry who is now there. Mr. Scott informs me he shall set out for this City immediately after the Eastern Shore General Court. Neither the Grand Committee appointed to report on the necessary Requisitions nor the Land Committee have as yet reported.” [11] In the second letter, dated 18 April 1785, he wrote, “You will herewith receive the Report of the Committee on the Lands belonging to the United States. as this is the only one I am at present possessed of, must beg the Favor of You to shew it to Mr. S[amuel] Chase, having promised to transmit him one. Should you choose to become an Adventurer in that Country, the most advisable Method will be to purchase final settlement Certificates. they are to be got here at 2/9 in the pound, and think it probable they will not immediately rise, as the Senate of this State on an Addition of two new Members made a second Attempt to carry the 5 pr. Ct. Impost recommended by Congress, which was rejected by a greater Majority than before, these two being against it.” [12] In the final letter displayed here, Hindman explained, “I herewith send you the Requisition for Supplies,

644

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

which has at Length obtained a Passage thro’ Congress. Mr. Harrisson [sic] says you have not fullfilled [sic] your Promise in Writing to him. He is well and desires his best Respects. Mr. McHenry is lately gone to Philadelphia on a Visit to his Lady so that Maryland is at present unrepresented. There are at this time ten States in Congress. The president is lately returned from Philadelphia whither. He went for his Health and is much mended.” [13]

Hindman served for several years, through the Third (1793-95), the Fourth (1795-97), and the Fifth Congresses (1797-99), from 3o January 1793, to 3 March 1799. In the Third Congress (1793-95), it is shown that Hindman is listed as representing the state of Maryland. [17] On 28 December 1793, newspapers reported that “Nicholas Hammond, Esquire, is elected a senator [sic], in the room of William Hindman, Esq., resigned.” [18]

After his congressional service ended, Hindman returned to Maryland, probably not expecting to serve again in a national capacity. He did serve on the Governor’s Executive Council from 1789 to 1792. However, his political career outside of Maryland was in fact far from over. On 10 December 1792, Maryland elected Representatives and US senators to send to the new Congress in New York. Among the representatives were George Dent, John F. Mercer, Uriah Forrest, Thomas Sprig, Samuel Smith, Gabriel Christie, William Van Murray, and William Hindman. [14] On 6 December 1792, the Speaker of the House, Jonathan Trumbull, Jr., “laid before the House a letter from Joshua Seney, one of the Members for the State of Maryland, stating his acceptance of an appointment in the Judiciary Department of the said State, which disqualifies him from a seat in this House.” Due to ethics rules, Seney could not longer serve in the House, and instantly his seat became vacant. The House then voted for “a notification to be sent to the Executive of the State of Maryland. The motion for commitment of the Letter was negatived; a motion was then made that the Speaker of the House notify the Executive of the State of Maryland of a [vacancy in the] representation of that State, by the resignation of Mr. Seney. This motion was negatived and the Letter laid on the table.” However, Maryland soon got word of Seney’s resignation, and William Hindman was quickly elected in his place, to take office not on 4 March 1793, but as soon as he could get to New York. [15] On 23 January, “[a] letter was read from the Executive of Maryland, notifying the election of William Hindman, a representative in the Congress of the United States, instead of Joshua Seney, resigned. Several petitions and reports were also read, and referred.” [16]

Two letters from the period of Hindman’s service in the US Congress are extant; both are to James McHenry, a fellow Marylander. In the first, dated 14 April 1794, he explained the reaction of Congress to the threat of a potential war with France: “The Eastern Members are pretty generally opposed to every Measure, which they think may in its consequences involves Us in a War, unless preceded by Negociation [sic], which they contend ought to be the first Step, that failing, they say they will then heartily & vigorously unite in whatever may be thought best to obtain Redress for the Injuries & Spoliations committed by the British on American Property, their ideas are that We ought in the first Place to Send a Special Envoy to the British Court for the purpose of stating our wrongs & demanding Satisfaction, Should this be refused they will join in a War, if different Measures are pursued & War Should be the Con sequence, it may be collected from their Speeches that the Eastern People would not heartily cooperate, they therefore wish that Some Accommodation might take place in the House . . .” [19] In the second, also to McHenry, he penned about the Jay Treaty between England and the United States: “Congress have no knowledge whatever of the Result of Mr. Jay’s Mission I believe that He has or will obtain all that this Country can rightfully ask — Nothing new I have still a bad cold.” [20] On 9 December 1795, The Aurora General Advertiser published a list of the members of the Fourth Congress elected to sit; representing Maryland, among those listed, was the name of William Hindman. [21] On 1 December 1800, US Senator James Lloyd (1745-1820) of Maryland resigned; on 17 December of that same year, Poulson’s American Daily Advertiser reported that “William

William Hindman (1743–1822)645 Hindman is elected Senator of the United States for Maryland, to supply the vacancy occasioned by the resignation of Mr. Lloyd. The votes were, for Mr. William Hindman, 49. [For] Mr. [Richard Tilghman] Earle, 40.” [22] In the last days of his time in the US Senate, Hindman became involved in a crisis that eventually went to the US Supreme Court. In his own final days in office, lame-duck President John Adams used his presidential power to name a series of judges to vacancies, to try to beat Thomas Jefferson, who would replace him as president, on 4 March 1801. Historian Kathryn Turner wrote, “In addition to the Judiciary Act, the Sixth Congress devoted some of its last weeks to legislation regarding the administration of the territory which, upon the removal of the government from Philadelphia to Washington in 1800, had become the nation’s capital. On 27 February [1801], with only four days of the Federalist administration remaining, the act concerning the District of Columbia became law. It provided for the establishment of a court composed of three judges, resident in the district, having all the powers of the circuit courts and circuit judges of the nation. ‘I trust your excellency [sic] will not pass me by . . .’ one applicant wrote the President, but this plea as well as the recommendations from Maryland senators and Virginia congressmen clearly went unheeded.” Turner noted that “[b]oth Senators from Maryland had recommended John Rousby Plater, a noted Maryland attorney.” Adams handed out the judgeships to friends and family, including one to William Marbury; however, President Jefferson, in his first days in office, refused to allow the commission to go through (he ordered Secretary of State James Madison not to deliver the commissions), setting up a legal fight that ended with the landmark US Supreme Court decision Marbury v. Madison (1803). [23] After retiring permanently from politics in 1801, William Hindman became a planter. He engaged in agricultural pursuits in Maryland, while also working as a land speculator. According to his official Maryland biography, Hindman had purchased some 2,335 acres of confiscated British property—probably land from Tories and other British sympathizers who fled America before they could be arrested and imprisoned—

along with William Perry and Gabriel Duvall, the latter later serving as an associate justice on the US Supreme Court. Hindman sold this land in 1784, later purchasing some 2,547 acres in Talbot County between 1790 and 1794. William Hindman died at the home of his brother, James Hindman, in Baltimore on 19 January 1822 at the age of 78. In his will, he freed all of the slaves that he had bought to work on his plantations, giving them the homes and fields they had worked on. Having never married, Hindman was buried alone in the St. Paul’s Burial Ground in Baltimore.

[1] Hindman family tree, online at http://www.geni.com/people/ William-Hindman-U-S-Senator/6000000016962147857. [2] Harrison, Samuel A., “A Memoir of the Hon. William Hindman: A Paper Read Before the Maryland Historical Society, March 10, 1879” (Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1880), 9-10. [3] “Hindman, William” in Edward C. Papenfuse, Alan F. Day, David W. Jordan, and Gregory A. Stiverson, eds., “A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789” (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press; two volumes, 1979), I:444-45. [4] “List of Matriculates, College of Philadelphia, 1752-62,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, XV:2 (1891), 240. [5] “Hindman, William,” in Papenfuse, “A Biographical Dictionary,” op. cit., I:444-45. [6] Hindman official congressional biography, online at http:// bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=H000629. [7] Walsh, Richard, ed., “Archives of Maryland, LXXII: Journal and Correspondence of the Council of Maryland. Journal of the Council, 1789-1793. Published by Authority of the State Under the Direction of the Maryland Historical Society” (Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1972), 56, 65. [8] See the entry for 25 July 1778 in Charles Henry Lincoln, prep., “Naval Records of the American Revolution, 1775-1788. Prepared from the Originals in the Library of Congress by Charles Henry Lincoln, of the Division of Manuscripts” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1906), 443. [9] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VII:lxvii; VIII:lxxxvi. [10] “Memoranda of Maryland, for 1828: Designed as an Annual Repository for Whatever Most Immediately Regards the State” (Annapolis: From the Press of J. Hughes, 1828), 62. [11] Hindman to William Paca, 28 March 1785, in Burnett, “Letters of Members,” op. cit., VIII:76-77. [12] Hindman to William Paca, 18 April 1785, in ibid., VIII:99. [13] Hindman to William Paca, 3 October 1785, in ibid., VIII:225. [14] See “Philadelphia, November 10,” The Connecticut Gazette, 22 November 1792, 3. [15] The Connecticut Journal, 7 February 1793, 1. [16] Chafetz, Josh, “Leaving the House: The Constitutional Status of Resignation from the House of Representatives,” Duke Law Journal, LVIII:2 (November 2008), 219-20. [17] “Philadelphia. List of Members of the Third Congress of the United States: Maryland,” The Gazette of the United States, 19 June 1793, 440.

646

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

[18] “Baltimore, September 25,” The City Gazette, or Daily Advertiser [Charleston], 28 December 1793, 2. [19] Steiner, Bernard C., ed., “Some Correspondence of Dr. James McHenry,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, XXIX:3 (1905), 327-28. [20] Ibid., 328-29. [21] “List of the Members Elected to the Fourth Congress of the United States,” The Aurora General Advertiser, 9 December 1795, 3. [22] Poulson’s American Daily Advertiser [Philadelphia], 17 December 1800, 3. [23] Turner, Kathryn, “The Midnight Judges,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review, CIX:4 (February 1961), 517.

grandfather, Joseph Houlton, born in Sutton, Bedford, Bedfordshire, in 1621, immigrated to Massachusetts at some point, where he settled with his wife, Sarah Ingersoll, a member of the Ingersoll family of Connecticut. In some cases, while the family name in England is decidedly listed as “Houlton,” some sources list the “Americanized” name as Holton. He is listed under the name “Holten” in his official congressional biography as well as other documents. [1]

Samuel Holten (1738–1816)

He received an education based at the time using what were called “preparatory studies,” in which various subjects, such as languages (usually French and Latin), as well as music, and other subjects, were taught, almost always to males. Holten followed this up with studies in medicine under a local doctor, Dr. Jonathan Prince, who mentored the young Holten. After being certified as a physician, Holten opened a practice in Gloucester, Massachusetts, for a short period. In 1758, he married Mary Warner, and together the couple had two daughters. After his short stint in Gloucester, Holten returned to Salem Village, where he continued his medical practice. Historian Paul H. Buck, in a biography of Holten, wrote, “His position as the rising physician of Danvers enabled him to impress his amiable personality on his neighbors. They sent him in 1768 to the General Court and kept him in public office until the year just preceding his death.” [2]

A physician, who represented his native Massachusetts in the Continental Congress three separate times (1778-1780, 1783-1785 and 1787), Dr. Samuel Holten signed the Articles of Confederation, and later served the people as a jurist. He served in a number of state offices during the early years of the American Revolution, including as a member of the state Council of Safety and as a member of the Governor’s Council and the Provincial Congress. Born on 9 June 1738 in Salem Village—later Danvers—Massachusetts, he was the son of Samuel Holten, Sr. (1703-1773) and his wife Hannah Gardner, a member of the famed Gardner family of Massachusetts. Also known as known as Samuel Holten II or Samuel Holten, Jr., he was descended from his great-

Holten remained as a physician until 1775, when his political workload overwhelmed his ability to spend any time concerned with medicine. From the earliest years of the decade, after he had entered the political field, he became more and more of a leader in Massachusetts politics. He was elected to the state House of Representatives in 1787, as well as serving in the state Senate (1780-82, 1784, 1786, 1789, and 1790), he was a member of the Governor’s Council, and advisory group established with the end of royal rule in the colonies, from 1780-82, 1784, 1786, 178992, 1795, and 1796, and, from 1774 to 1775 he served as a member of the Massachusetts Provincial Congress. In 1775, Holten was a member of the Massachusetts Committee of Safety. Regarding the last office mentioned,

Samuel Holten (1738–1816)647 historian Dean Hodges explained in 1918, “Soon after the government of Massachusetts began its work of reorganization at Watertown in the summer of 1775, the need of a new seal was realized. On 28 July 1775, the Council which had become the executive branch of the government ordered ‘That Col. Otis and Doctr. Winthrop, with such as the Honble. House shall join, be a Committee to Consider what is necessary to be done relative to a Colony Seal.’ On the same day the House concurred . . .” The Council consisted of 28 members, including Dr. Samuel Holten. [3] In November 1775, Holten was a signatory, along with a coterie of important Massachusetts officials, of “a Proclamation for a Public Thanksgiving.” [4] As a member of the Council, Holten also signed a proclamation “By the Great and General Court of the Colony of Massachusetts-Bay,” in which the council noted that “[t]he frailty of human nature, the wants of individuals, and the numerous dangers which surround them, through the course of life, have in all ages, and in every country, impelled them to form societies, and establish governments.” [5] On 10 February 1778, the Massachusetts legislature elected Holten to a seat in the Continental Congress, “to serve for the ensuing year in the room of the Hon’ble John Adams, Esqr.” [6] He was reelected on 15 October 1778; we find a newspaper report from October 1778, which noted that on “Thursday last the General Assembly of this State made choice of the following gentlemen, as Delegates, to serve in the Continental Congress [for] the following year, viz. The Hon. Samuel Adams, John Hancock, Elbridge Gerry, Francis Dana, James Lovell, Samuel Holten, and Timothy Edwards, Esquires. This last gentleman is a new Member.” [7] He was also elected on 18 November 1779, 4 October 1780, 4 October 1782 (“until the [fifth] day of November 1783”), 17 June 1784, and 27 June 1786. According to Burnett, Holten served in the Continental Congress from 20 June to 31 December 1778, 1 January to 31 December 1779, 1 January to 29 July 1780, 4 February to 21 June 1783, 30 June to 1 November 1783, 1 November to 24 December 1784, 11 January to 24 march 1785, 6 April to 20 October 1785, and, finally, 21

June to 9 August 1787. He did not attend any sessions in 1781. [8] In 1779, he was elected president of the Continental Congress pro tempore: in other words, for a short period, until the permanent president of the body could return to his seat. In the 1840s, a diary, written in the hand of Dr. Holten, appeared; historian Mellen Chamberlain was given a chance to view it and copy the notes, but he could not retain the original, which was at that time in the collections of the Reverend Israel W. Putnam. Most of the entries are from 1778, and give some small insight into the thinking of Holten in these years when the war against England looked bleak and could have been lost at any time: 1778, July 14. I let the Hon. Samuel Adams Esqr. have ₤400.00, of which he is to pay to James Otis (a minor) being my part of what the delegates of our state have agreed to advance to sd [said] minr. & Mr. Adams is to write to his friends & procure the money, & account with me for the same. 1778, June 23. Attended in Congress, and the chief of the day was taken up in disputes on the articles of confederation [sic]. 1778, July 11. This day was the first time that I took any part in the debates in Congress. We have accounts of the arrival of a French Fleet in the Delaware. 12 Ships of the line & 4 Frigates. 1778, Oct. 15. A manifesto or Proclamation from Commr. of the British king appeared in the papers of the day, offering a Gen. Pardon, but I believe there is but few people here want their pardon. 1778, Dec. 14. Monday. There was a grand ball at the City Tavern this evening, given by a number of French gentlemen of distinction. I had a card sent me, but declined attending. I think it is not a proper time to attend balls when the country is in such great distress. 1778, Oct. 7. Met a committee on this evening on General [Benedict] Arnold’s accounts. [9] In the Continental Congress, there were constant arguments between the northern and southern delegates over various issues— slavery, spending, the military, etc. while sitting in the body, Massachusetts delegate Elbridge Gerry took the lead in pushing issues dear to Massachusetts. Gerry, trying to gain support in

648

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

the Continental Congress in 1780, tried to recruit fellow Massachusetts politicians to back him, including Holten. Gerry wrote to Samuel Adams and Nathaniel Gorham that John Hancock, one of the leaders in Massachusetts politics, was trying to “introduce an altercation between the Commonwealth and Congress, who must certainly have a Right to establish their own Rules, Orders, and Regulation.” [10]

Massachusetts might not be greatly disturbed about committing an unknown artisan or a poor farmer, but it was a different matter when their friends were faced with jail. As [Samuel Holten, a member] of the General Court put it, “for Colonel [Enoch] Putnam to be confined to a jail under these circumstances seems unreasonable.” [13]

But other matters involved Holten as well. As historian Edmund Cody Burnett stated, “On 9 May 1783, there was a motion by Hugh Williamson of North Carolina, seconded by Samuel Holten of Massachusetts, to limit the sums to be drawn for the support of the President’s household, and a report upon the motion was brought in on 30 May but, if the motion and report did not then and there die, they were left lying in a comatose state for a full year. In May, 1784, this was one of the items in the agenda laid out for the Committee of the States, but that committee blew up without ever touching the question.” [11] On 30 November 1784, from Trenton, Holten wrote to John Hancock to update him on the events in the Continental Congress: “I have the honor of informing your Excellency, that this day eight states were represented in Congress, & have elected the honorable Rich. Henry Lee [as] their President. My honorable colleague, Mr. [George] Partridge, arriv’d here last week; & by a letter this day receiv’d, I may expect Mr. [James] Sullivan & Mr. [John] Lowell are on their Journey.” [12] In the years after the end of the war with England, prosecutions for debt rose exponentially, as merchants and others who had racked up debt during the war were now unable to pay these bills with the war concluded. Historian Robert Feer wrote: As Stephen Higginson reported to John Adams in 1785, many Boston merchants who had imported large shipments of goods from England immediately after the war were “in distressed circumstances” and would never be able to pay their debts. “Many failures have already happened,” he warned, “and many more must happen. The distresses of those people must, and will, be communicated to others who are connected with them in Business; and this connexion [sic] is so extensive, as to affect a great part of those who are engaged in Trade.” Governing circles in

In his votes in the Continental Congress, Holten stood with the Massachusetts delegation on nearly all matters. The constant lack of a quorum, the ability to get things done with a specific number of state delegations in attendance, made work that much harder. Historian H. James Henderson explained, “With Delaware absent, the Southern faction, relying upon the positive votes of Georgia, North Carolina, Virginia, Maryland, and New York and relying as well upon cancellation of the votes of South Carolina and New Jersey (the former because of a split and the latter because of underrepresentation), could hope to win the day with a defection in the Eastern faction. Gerry was overtly unsympathetic with Lee, and he often could cancel the Massachusetts vote by winning the support of Samuel Holten against Lovell and Samuel Adams.” [14] But from contemporary sources, we find the name of “Samuel Holten” to be thick in the middle of Massachusetts politics. In June 1784, we find him winning in an election a seat as a Counsellor to the Governor, John Hancock. [15] That December, we find his name listed as “the Hon. Samuel Holten” announcing his election to the Continental Congress. [16] In 1785, Holten joined with Gerry and Rufus King in refusing to present a set of resolves from Massachusetts, calling for a convention to reform the Articles of Confederation, as all three men did not think that two years had been enough time to give the Articles the ability to work. At the same time, many believe that all three men were angered that the state had made a move without them, giving them good reason to oppose such a move. By 1786 and early 1787, it became apparent, even to the delegates, that the Articles were not working: that a new constitutional blueprint would have to be drafted. Holten served as a delegate during the period when the Constitutional

Samuel Holten (1738–1816)649 Convention was held in Philadelphia, drafting what would become the new US Constitution. Holten believed in a document that had a weak central government that protected the rights of the citizens; when a document establishing a strong central government, initially lacking a Bill of Rights (these first ten amendments were added later), he returned home and opposed its ratification. In 1788, as a delegate to the Massachusetts ratifying convention, he allied himself with the anti-Federalist group, and would have been a strong voice of dissent, but he became seriously ill and he never had the impact he desired. He never again played a role in national politics, instead remaining in the area around the village now renamed Danvers. He did serve in the Massachusetts General Court as a senator, representing Danvers, and sat on the Governor’s Council, to advise the state’s chief executive; he completed his career as a judge of the Probate Court for Essex County (1796-1815), his final office, from which he resigned shortly before his death. Holten died in Danvers on 2 January 1816 at the age of 77. [17] He was laid to rest in Holten Family Cemetery in Danvers. His grave, marked by a large stone, reads, “Erected to the Memory of the Hon. Samuel Holten, Who Dead Jan. 2, 1716, aged 78 years. He Sustained Various Offices of Trust, Under the State Government, and That of the Union, With Ability and Integrity, to the Almost Unanimous Acceptance of His Constituents.” Holten’s home, now located in Danvers, Massachusetts, is now preserved as the Judge Samuel Holten House. In 1852, a centennial celebration was held in Danvers, and the speakers who attended made great mention of Dr. Samuel Holten and his services during his life. John W. Proctor noted, “In 1768, Dr. Holten, delegate to a convention holden at Faneuil Hall, the cradle of Liberty, in Boston, was specially instructed ‘to look well to the rights of the people.’ With such marked ability did he then discharge this duty, that he thereby laid the foundation for a distinction more prominent, and an influence more pervading, than any other citizen ever acquired. While he lived, to hesitate to yield assent to the opinions of Dr. Holten, was by many deemed political

heresy. The ardor of his feelings and the parity of his life gave us any authority to his views that could not be resisted.” [18]

[1] Courtesy of the Houlton/Holton family tree, online at http:// www.politicalfamilytree.com/samples%20content/members/ signers/Holten-MA-1.pdf. Even though the spelling of “Holton” is used on this tree, Holten’s gravestone has the official spelling, which is used here. [2] Buck, Paul H., “Holten, Samuel,” in Allen Johnson, et al., “Dictionary of American Biography” (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons; eleven volumes and five supplements, 1958-77), IX:184-85. [3] Hodges, Dean, “The Old Testament Way of Writing History,” Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Third Series, LI: (February 1918), 259-60. [4] “A Proclamation for a Public Thanksgiving,” The Pennsylvania Evening Post, 23 November 1775, 538. [5] “By the Great and the General Court of the Colony of Massachusetts-Bay,” The Pennsylvania Evening Post, 27 February 1776, 100. [6] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), III:liv. [7] “Boston, October 15,” The Pennsylvania Packet [Philadelphia], 27 October 1778, 2. [8] Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members,” op. cit., III:liv; IV:liii; V:lviii; VI:xlvi; VII:lxviii; VIII:lxxxviii. [9] “Remarks of Hon. Merrell Chamberlain: [in the] February Meeting, 1896, of the Massachusetts Historical Society,” Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Second Series, X (February 1896), 463. [10] Elbridge Gerry to Samuel Adams and Nathaniel Gorham, 23 September 1782, in Samuel Eliot Morison, “By Land and By Sea: Essays and Addresses” (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 1953), 188. See also Samuel Eliot Morison, “Elbridge Gerry, Gentleman-Democrat,” The New England Quarterly, II:1 (January 1929), 6-33. [11] Burnett, Edmund Cody, “Perquisites of the President of the Continental Congress,” The American Historical Review, XXXV:1 (October 1929), 75. [12] Samuel Holten to John Hancock, 30 November 1784, in Paul H. Smith, ed., “Letters of Delegates to Congress, 1774-1789” (Washington, DC: Library of Congress; 26 volumes, 1976-2000), XXII:39. [13] Feer, Robert A., “Imprisonment for Debt in Massachusetts before 1800,” The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XLVIII:2 (September 1961), 265-66. [14] Henderson, H. James, “Congressional Factionalism and the Attempt to Recall Benjamin Franklin,” The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, XXVII:2 (April 1970), 256-57. [15] “Boston, June 3,” The Continental Journal [Boston, Massachusetts], 3 June 1784, 2. [16] “Boston, December 20,” The Boston Gazette [Massachusetts], 20 December 1784, 3. [17] See The Boston Daily Advertiser [Massachusetts], 8 January 1816, 2, as well as The Rhode-Island American, 16 January 1816, 3. [18] Proctor, John W., “Centennial Celebration at Danvers, Mass. June 16, 1852” (Boston: Printed by Dutton and Wentworth, No. 37, Congress Street, 1852), 20-21.

650

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

William Hooper (1742–1790)

who had been settled in Somersetshire since the reign of Edward, the First.” [1]

One of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, William Hooper was the son of a clergyman. Hooper was born in Boston, Massachusetts, on 28 June 1742, the son and eldest of five children of the Reverend William Hooper and his wife Mary (née Dennie) Hooper; she was the daughter of Boston merchant John Dennie. The Reverend Hooper, born in Scotland, emigrated to the American colonies; although he came to the New World as a Congregationalist, he soon converted to the Church of England, or Anglican, faith, and he imparted these new religious views on his child, particularly on his eldest child who was named after him. The family had a long and noble history in their native England before it moved to America. According to historian Edwin Anderson Alderman, who, in 1894, delivered an address “on the life of William Hooper,” “The Hooper family is an ancient and honorable one in English and Scotch annals. In [John] Fox’s Book of Martyrs one may read how on the 9th of February, 1555, John Hooper, Lord Bishop of Worcester and Gloucester, suffered martyrdom near the doors of his own cathedral. The brave martyr was one of a numerous family of Hoopers

Genealogist Mrs. William Sumner Crosby wrote in 1906, “In England and America, in the early records, the surname of Hooper is spelled in various ways. In England we have the name as ‘Hope, Hoope, Hupper, Hopper, and Hooper.’ In the ‘Province of Mayne’ records as late as 1761, in the same deed, you will find the name written as ‘hupper, hopper, and Hooper,’ referring to the same person, and this is equally true in the ‘Mayne’ wills.” [2] The Reverend Hooper, born in the Parish of Ednam, near Kelso, in southern Scotland, served for many years as the pastor of the Trinity Church in Boston. He offered the first snippets of education to his son William, and advanced upon him the value of being involved in the church. Despite this, the son received a grand education for the times, attending the prestigious Boston Latin School in that city, and, in 1757 he entered Harvard College (now Harvard University), and three years later he was awarded the degree of Bachelor of Arts. Three years after that the same school awarded him a Master’s degree. He immediately began the study of the law under James Otis, one of the leading attorneys in Massachusetts at that time. Even as his son was studying the law, the elder Hooper wished for him to become a minister in the Church, a wish he held onto even as his son completed his legal studies. James Otis, a man who grew to oppose British rule in the colonies, probably imported his patriot beliefs on his student—potential proof of this is evident by Hooper’s first move after he finished the study of the law. Instead of staying in his native state, even as an attorney, he migrated to Wilmington, North Carolina, a colony with which he and his family had no ties. He opened a law practice in Wilmington, and became one of the leading attorneys of the Cape Fear region. In 1766, after just two years among the people of Wilmington, Hooper was elected as the recorder of the town. [3] With his father’s sudden death in 1767 (some sources report 1764), he contemplated returning to his native state, but he remained in North Carolina. In August 1767, Hooper married Anne Clark, a North Carolina native and daughter of a sheriff, in Boston. Hooper thus became

William Hooper (1742–1790)651 the brother-in-law of Thomas Clark, Jr., who would serve in the Continental Army during the American Revolution. Together, the couple would have three children—two sons and a daughter. This marriage gave Hooper an introduction into North Carolina society he otherwise would not have had, as his in-laws were both wealthy and influential. With these ties, in 1769 the North Carolina Royal Governor, William Tryon, named Hooper was the deputy attorney for the district of Salisbury. The following year he advanced the young attorney to the post of deputy attorney general for the entire colony. Hooper was an integral member of the royal government; as the deputy attorney general, he was deeply involved in putting down the uprising known as the Regulator War, or the War of Regulation. Starting in the late 1760s, poor North Carolina farmers and settlers had had enough of high taxes and poor conditions imposed on them by royal government officers, mostly local sheriffs and other politicians. The movement to end excessive regulations caused bitter warfare in the colony, in which, according to some sources, Hooper was either beaten, or physically assaulted and forced to run for his life. The experience of “mob rule” was eventually put down violently—at the battle of Alamance (1771), which Hooper allegedly participated in, the Regulator movement was destroyed. The entire episode, however, haunted Hooper for the remainder of his life, and it showed when he opposed many moves towards democracy pushed during the American Revolution that he believed would have facilitated potential mob uprisings against the American federal government. [4] It appeared that he was a firm supporter of the royal government by 1773. However, events both in the American colonies and abroad brought about a change of heart for Hooper. A series of harsh economic measures, enacted by the British Parliament on the colonies, set off a series of events, including the Boston Massacre (1770) and the Boston Tea Party (1773), which soured relations between the “Mother Country” and her colonies to the point of revolution by late 1773. That same year, William Hooper was elected to a seat in the North Carolina colonial legislature, where he became a leading spokesman for the rights

of the colonies against the British Crown and government. Historian L. Carroll Judson, in a biography of Hooper penned in 1839, wrote, “It was then that the creatures of the crown attempted to throw a ministerial coil of oppression around the people, and it was then that they found a bold, fearless, eloquent and uncompromising opponent in William Hooper. He not only met them in the legislative hall with incontrovertible arguments, but he spread their designed before the public far and wide, by a series of essays over the signature of Hampden.” [5] A court bill, pushed by the royal governor to reform the colony’s courts system, was opposed by Hooper—he called for its defeat, writing a series of essays that he anonymously signed “Hampden.” Although now lost to history, it was one of the first true usages of media to call for the opposition of the public to proposed legislation. Somehow, Hooper’s fingerprints were found on the essays, and he was disbarred from practicing the law for a year. Hooper turned back to politics. In December 1773 he was reelected to the Provincial Assembly, formed in opposition to the Tryon administration, and he aligned himself with John Ashe, the head of the Whig Party. When the assembly formed a Committee of Correspondence and Inquiry to coordinate activities with other colonies, Hooper was named as one of the group’s nine members. In a letter to fellow North Carolinian James Iredell, dated 26 April 1774, Hooper made a bold and impressive prediction: “With you I anticipate the important share which the colonies must soon have in regulating the political balance. They are striding fast to independence, and ere long will build an empire upon the ruins of Great Britain; will adopt its Constitution purged of its impurities, and from an experience of its defects, will guard against those evils which have wasted its vigor. Be it our endeavor to guard against every measure that may tend to prevent so desirable an object.” [6] In the early months of the 1774, Hooper was one of the leaders at the forefront of the anti-British agitation in North Carolina. At a meeting of the inhabitants of the district of Wilmington on 21 July 1774, with Hooper sitting as chairman, the meeting resolved that “[C]olonel James Moore, John Ancrum, Fred. Jones, Samuel Ashe, Robert Howe, Robert Higginson, Francis

652

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Clayton, and Archibald Maclane, Esqrs. be a committee to prepare a circular letter to the several counties of this province, expressive of the sense of the inhabitants of this district with respect to the several acts of parliament lately made for the oppression of our sister colony of the Massachuset’s [sic] Bay, for having exerted itself in defence of the constitutional rights of America.” [7]

From other sources we can find the dates of election and attendance at the congressional debates: for instance, 0n 6 January 1775, The New-Hampshire Gazette reported that on 14 September 1775, “[T]he [Continental] congress met according to adjournment. William Hooper, & Joseph Hewes, Esqrs[,] two of the deputies from North-Carolina, attended the congress and produced their credentials as follows: NorthCarolina. Resolved, That William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, and Richard Caswell, Esq’rs; and every one of them to be deputies to attend such congress, and they are hereby invested with such powers as may make any acts done by them or consent given in behalf of this province, obligatory in honour upon every inhabitant hereof who is not an alien to his country’s good . . .” [10] Additionally, the election of Hooper, Hewes, and others, all nonnatives of the state, did not engender good feelings; historian John H. Wheeler explained the feelings in North Carolina: “On the 1st of May, William Hooper, Joseph Hewes, and John Penn, were appointed delegates to the Continental Congress. And these names are signed to the Declaration of Independence, 4 July 1776. It is not very flattering to our State pride that not one of these were natives of the State.” [11]

On 25 August 1774, in response to a call to all of the Committees of Correspondence from all of the colonies to assemble a meeting of delegates in Philadelphia the following month to plot strategy against the British, the North Carolina Provincial Assembly named Hooper, among several others, to serve in that colony’s delegation. Despite his writings to the contrary, in the belief that he still harbored continued loyalty to the Crown Hooper was castigated as “a Tory in the Continental Congress.” Even Thomas Jefferson, in later correspondence, used this epithet against Hooper. Historian Joseph Seawell Jones, in a history of the period written in 1834, angrily denounced this stand. Using the evidence of Hooper’s letter to Iredell—which Jones publishes in its two-plus page entirety—he wrote, “The charge of Toryism against [Hooper] ‘deserves only to be mentioned [so as] to be despised.’ I challenge the whole corps of Virginia historians, politicians, editors, and orators, to produce a paper of such character at so early a period of the struggle. With a date long before the meeting of the Continental Congress, [the Iredell letter] equals, in the boldness of its language and the intrepidity of its thoughts, the Fourth of July declaration of that body, a crisis which was matured by two years of deep consultation, and which was at last approached by cautious and indeed timid footsteps.” [8] As noted, Hooper was elected to a seat in the Continental Congress on 25 August 1774; reelected on 5 April 1775, on 2 September 1775, and, finally, on 20 December 1776, he attended session of the body from 14 September to 26 October 1774, 10 May to 2 August 1775, from about 3 November 1775 to about 1 February 1776, 6 to 27 March 1776, and 24 July to 4 February 1777. He missed major parts of the debates on the potential declaration of independence in early 1776, owing to severe illness that at points threatened his life. [9]

There are several pieces of correspondence from Hooper during his Continental Congress service, dealing mostly with congressional business. In a letter to Samuel Johnston, 23 May 1775, he wrote, “The close attention which I am compelled to pay to the business of the Congress, scarce gives me an opportunity to pay my duty to my friends. As we meet at nine A.M. and sit till four P M., you will readily conceive that the little leisure we have is not sufficient for the common functions of life and exercise to keep us in health. While I am writing I encroach upon Congress hours, and if I could furnish you with any thing [sic] interesting it might be some apology for the transgression. But the strict secrecy which is enjoined upon the members, leaves us at large to communicate nothing worthy attention that happens within the walls of the State-House. Let it suffice, that the most perfect harmony subsists among the members.” [12] To the president of the North Carolina Convention, he wrote on 29 October 1776, “By my worthy Colleague Mr. [John] Penn, I do myself the honour to transmit

William Hooper (1742–1790)653 a resolution of the Continental Congress which bears immediate relation to the State of North Carolina The Congress having been informed that the Armed vessels belonging to the Enemy have lately quitted the River of Cape fear, and have proceeded to the Northward, have bestowed their thoughts upon the practicability of fortifying that entrance into your state, and excluding the British Men of War. The importance of such a measure must weigh as powerfully with you as with them, and I am well assured that nothing will be wanting on your part to carry it into Execution with all possible dispatch . . .” [13] In an important letter to financial advisor Robert Morris, 28 December 1776, he communicated: I earnestly wish however that we could have you here for a little while. The transactions of this and a few preceeding [sic] days have in my opinion strongly proved the necessity of it. We have moved very rapidly in business and while some compliment themselves upon increasing Industry and application, I think I can find the cause elsewhere and that the suddenness of decision may be truly attributed to ignorance of the Subject. We have been holding forth new lines to France by offering what we have not to give and provided they will conquer the whole of Newfoundland and secure the fishing, that we will most bountifully and most graciously give them one half of it for their trouble. We have found out that the Duke of Tuscany is a potentate of much consequence, while some of us are such Ignoramuses as to think him very insignificant in the naval and military line and in this respect not worthy attention and that in commercial matters his interest will attach him to us without much sollicitation [sic] But I anticipate an amusement which you have to come. [T]he Picture of our follies will be the more pleasing from being viewed at full length. [14] Hooper, along with Hewes and the other first delegates representing North Carolina in the Continental Congress, did not believe in independence from England at first—they believed that reconciliation was possible. Historian William John Schmidt wrote that this attitude soon changed: “The transformation occurred slowly, but by March [1776] the North Carolina delegates had reached the conclusion that reconciliation was impossible and independence inevitable. For the first time, Hooper spoke harshly of the King. Referring to George III as that ‘haughty monarch,’ he wrote

that if the King refused to deal with Congress, then let the consequences be what they may . . .” Hooper, as earlier events had imparted on him, was not a complete fan of absolute freedom; he wrote in 1776 that it “was seeking an asylum westward.” He wrote, “Do we not now play a Game where Slavery or Liberty are the Stakes[?].” Just before the Continental Congress tasked the drafting of a formal declaration of independence, Hooper penned, “Heaven forbid that I should submit to either.” [15] In addition, Hooper wrote of his anger that petitions sent by the Continental Congress to the British government and the King had been wholly ignored. In an angry letter, Hooper exclaimed: That our petitions have been treated with disdain, is now become the smallest part of our complaint; ministerial insolence is lost in ministerial barbarity. It has, by an exertion peculiarly ingenious, procured those very measures, which it laid us under the hard necessity of pursuing, to be stigmatized in parliament as rebellious: it has employed additional fleets and armies for the infamous purpose of compelling us to abandon them: it has plunged us in all the horrors and calamities of a civil war: it has caused the treasure and blood of Britons (formerly shed and expended for far other ends) to be split and wasted in the execrable design of spreading slavery over British America: it will not, however, accomplish its aim; in the worst of contingencies, a choice will still be left, which it never can prevent us from taking. [16] In between his service in the Continental Congress, Hooper spent time in North Carolina pushing for the ultimate call for freedom: a declaration of independence, colonywide only, from Britain. He also chaired committees that informed the citizenry of the colony of the activities of the Continental Congress itself, done ultimately in their name. [17] Although he did not sign the document, one of the issues he supported was the Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence. This document played a key role in the ultimate drafting and signing of the federal Declaration of Independence in 1776, its own ratification coming in 1775, the first such official call for independence in the American colonies. Although he did not sign the document, nevertheless William Hooper was a key leader in getting it discussed, debated, enacted, and ultimately signed. [18]

654

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

During one of his myriad trips back to North Carolina, both on personal and political business, the British invaded North Carolina; targeted because he had signed the Declaration of Independence, Hooper’s plantation was burned to the ground and his property destroyed. He was forced to flee for his life, and spent days hiding in the backcountry areas, where he came down with malaria. The disease eventually took a toll on his life, cutting it short.

Burke as “commissioners to procure for this State, for the Use of the Governor for the Time thereof, a Great Seal, to be affixed to all Grants, Proclamations, and other Acts.” [21] Despite his defense of Loyalists, on 22 September 1786 the Continental Congress appointed him as a judge to a special court to settle a territorial dispute between Massachusetts and New York, although the matter was eventually settled before Hooper or any other of the judges named to the court could hear the case. He supported the drafting and signing of the US Constitution in 1787, although he was refused election to the convention that ultimately ratified the document in North Carolina.

He completed his congressional service, having signed the Declaration of Independence in August 1776. Hooper was the youngest signer of the Declaration, having just turned 34 the previous month. In April 1777, suffering from an additional bout of malaria, Hooper resigned from the Continental Congress and returned home, writing to Robert Morris, “The situation of my own private affairs . . . did not leave me a moment in suspense whether I should decline the honor intended me.” James Iredell wrote to his wife on 29 April, “Mr. Hooper to-day resigned his appointment to the Congress. Who may succeed him is uncertain; probably Mr. [Cornelius] Harnett.” [19] Despite his having been at the forefront of the independence movement in America, historians do not classify William Hooper as a radical lover of democracy and freedom. Historian Norman Risjord explained, “His radicalism, however, was confined to the imperial connection; he made is clear that he would have no truck with democracy at home. Then in 1777 he retired from politics, dismayed, perhaps, by the democratic features of the North Carolina constitution, embarrassed, possibly, by the Loyalism of his brother. Sometime thereafter he moved to distant Hillsborough in the north-central Piedmont. The change cost him nothing financially, for he emerged from the war in possession of seven plantations scattered from the Roanoke to Cape Fear, plus a magnificent house in Hillsborough valued at ₤1,500.” [20] In politics, Hooper turned to a strange course, forgiving the British for destroying his home and property; he even urged leniency for convicted Loyalists whose property was seized after the start of the war. He remained in the North Carolina legislature; in the Journal of that body’s proceedings in 1777, it is reported that he was appointed with Joseph Hewes and Thomas

Burdened by recurrences of malaria, as well as a growing problem with alcoholism, William Hooper died in Hillsborough, North Carolina, on 4 October 1790. Despite his signing the Declaration of Independence, his death passed almost unheralded. [22] Laid to rest initially in the garden of his estate, which later became a part of the Old Town Cemetery in 1894, his grave was exhumed that same year and what remained of the crypt was reinterred next to the Guilford Courthouse National Military Park in Greensboro, North Carolina, where a huge marker was interred over his grave, along with those of Joseph Hewes and John Penn in 1897. Historian Robert Charles Kneip III wrote in 1980, “From the first time Hooper organized the first North Carolina provincial congress until the state rejected the Federal Constitution in 1788, he was one of the most prominent leaders in the colony and state. He achieved state and ‘national’ reputations for his learning and abilities. But until now his reputation has suffered from misunderstanding and ignorance.” [23]

[1] Alderman, Edwin A., “Address by Edwin A. Alderman, Professor in the University of North Carolina, on the Life of William Hooper, ‘The Prophet of American Independence.’ [at] Guilford Battle Ground, July 4, 1894. Published by the Guilford Battle Ground Company” (Chapel Hill, NC: Issued from the University Press, 1894), 4. [2] Crosby, Mrs. William Sumner, comp., “A Biographical Sketch of Eight Generations of Hoopers in America. William Hooper, 1635, to Idolene Snow (Hooper) Crosby, 1883” (Brookline, MA: Privately Published, 1906), 4. [3] Watson, Alan D., Dennis R. Lawson, and Donald R. Lennon, “Harnett, Hooper & Howe: Revolutionary Leaders of the Lower

Esek Hopkins (1718-1802)655 Cape Fear” (Wilmington, NC: L.T. Moore Memorial Commission, Lower Cape Fear Historical Society, 1979), 1-10. [4] Judson, L. Carroll, “A Biography of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence, and of Washington and Patrick Henry. With an Appendix, Covering the Constitution of the United States and Other Documents” (Philadelphia: J. Dobson, and Thomas, Cowperthwait & Co., 1839), 250. [5] Fleer, Jack D., “North Carolina Government and Politics” (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1994), 3-4. [6] William Hooper to James Iredell, 26 April 1774, in Griffith John McRae, “Life and Correspondence of James Iredell: One of the Associate Justices of the Supreme Court of the United States” (New York: D. Appleton and Company; two volumes, 1857-73), I:197. [7] “At a General Meeting of the Inhabitants of the District of Wilmington in the Province of North-Carolina, held at the Town of Wilmington July 21st, 1774. William Hooper, Esq; Chairman” (Wilmington, NC: Printed by Adam Boyd, 1774), 1-2. [8] Jones, Joseph Seawell, “A Defence of the Revolutionary History of the State of North Carolina: From the Aspersions of Mr. Jefferson” (Boston: C. Bowen, 1834), 316. [9] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), I:lviii, II:lxi, [10] The New-Hampshire Gazette, and Historical Chronicle, Containing the Freshest Advices, Foreign and Domestic [Portsmouth], 6 January 1775, 2. [11] Wheeler, John H., “Historical Sketches of North Carolina, From 1584 to 1851. Compiled from Original Records, Official Documents, and Traditional Statements. With Biographical Sketches of Her Distinguished Statesmen, Jurists, Lawyers, Soldiers, Divines, Etc.” (Philadelphia: Lippincott, Grambo and Co.; two volumes, 1851), I:82. [12] William Hooper to Samuel Johnston, 23 May 1775, in Burnett, “Letters of Members,” op. cit., I:96. [13] William Hooper to the president of the North Carolina Convention, 29 October 1776, in ibid., II:137. [14] William Hooper to Robert Morris, 28 December 1776, in ibid., II:155-56. [15] Schmidt, William John, “The North Carolina Delegates in the Continental Congress, 1774-1781,” (Ph.D. dissertation, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, 1968), 61-63. [16] Goodrich, The Rev. Charles A., “Lives of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence” (Hartford, CT: R.G.H. Huntington, 1842), 425. [17] For instance, see “To the Committees of the Several Towns and Counties of the Province of North-Carolina: Appointed for the Purpose of Carrying into Execution the Resolves of the Continental Congress” (New Bern, NC [?]: Printed by James Davis [?], 1775), 1-2. [18] For information on the document, see Archibald Henderson, “The Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence,” The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, V:2 (September 1918), 207-25; see also George W. Graham, “The Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence, May 20, 1775, and Lives of Its Signers” (New York: The Neale Publishing Company, 1905). [19] James Iredell to Mrs. Iredell, 29 April 1777, in McRae, “Life and Correspondence of James Iredell,” op. cit., I:359. [20] Risjord, Norman K., “Chesapeake Politics, 1781-1800” (New York: Columbia University Press, 1978), 128. [21] North Carolina, Provincial Congress, “The Journal of the Proceedings of the Provincial Congress of North-Carolina, Held at Halifax the 12th day of November, 1776. Together with the Declaration of Rights, Constitution & Ordinances of Congress. Published by Authority” (Newbern, NC: Printed by James Davis, Printer to the Honourable the General Assembly, 1777), 72. [22] See the small obituaries in The Providence Gazette and Country Journal [Rhode Island], 18 December 1790, 3, and The Pennsylvania Packet and Daily Advertiser [Philadelphia], 16 November 1790, 3.

[23] Kneip, Robert Charles, III, “William Hooper, 1742-1790: Misunderstood Patriot” (Ph.D. dissertation, Tulane University, 1980), iii-iv.

Esek Hopkins (1718-1802) Esek Hopkins is remembered in American history as the commander-in-chief of the American Navy. He played an integral role in the American victory, which led to the end of the American Revolution. Born in Providence, Rhode Island, on 26 April 1718, Esek Hopkins was the son of William Hopkins, a farmer, and his wife Ruth (née Wilkinson) Hopkins. In addition to having Stephen and Esek listed amongst their children, William and Ruth Hopkins also had Captain John B. Hopkins, who also served in the Continental Navy during the American Revolution. Esek’s great-grandfather, Thomas Hopkins, Sr. (1616-1684), was born in Yeovilton, in Chesselbourne, Somersetshire, and emigrated to the New World, settling in Oyster Bay on New York’s Long Island before his death at age 68. [1] According to family genealogist Harvey Hopkins, the family originals from “William Hopkins of England, probably of Coventry. Parentage and place of birth and death, and dates, unknown. Probably was a cousin of Stephen Hopkins of the Mayflower . . . Coventry was the home of many Hopkinses of historical names: among them were Richard Hopkins (1554), Samuel Hopkins (1609), Sampson Hopkins (1640); William Hopkins (which William unknown) was Alderman and Mayor of Coventry, founding the Bablake School, one of the celebrated Free Schools of Coventry.” [2] In 1738, when Esek’s father William died, he learned to work on the water to help to support himself and his large family. Providence, Rhode Island, at that time was one of the leading ports for the shipping in and out of goods from all over the world, and Hopkins sailed to the West Indies to ply the sea trade. Historian Charles H. Miller explained, “One Nathaniel Brown, a wealthy merchant of Rhode Island, owned a fleet of vessels, the largest being of sixty tons burden. On one of these the young lad sailed. Cargoes usually comprised [of] horses, timber, poles, barrel-staves [defined as “narrow strips of wood that form the sides of a barrel”] and

656

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

goops for the West Indies trade and the Spanish Main. Return voyages brought slaves for sale to the colonists, as well as rum to wet the tonsils of Rhode Islanders.” [3] Gradually, Hopkins became an experienced seaman. He would see military service during the French and Indian War, before he formally retired from such service in 1772 and returning to the profession of his father, that of farming. When he was 25, Hopkins married, to a Desire Burroughs, and he moved to be near her family in the city of Newport.

to 1776, and was a signer of the Declaration of Independence. [4]

However, by 1775, the American colonies were in a life-and-death struggle with Great Britain, fighting for the very freedom and ultimate independence of those colonies. In April of that year, suffering for a lack of military commanders, Hopkins was appointed as a battery commander and, on 4 October, to the rank of brigadier general and commander of all of Rhode Island’s military units in the conflict. In June 1775, the Rhode Island General Assembly had ordered that an army, consisting of some fifteen hundred men, be established, as well as the fitting out of two naval vessels, “to protect the trade” of the colony. In effect, this was the first sign that a full military fight was coming. As the commander of one of the colonies’ military units, Hopkins went to the Continental Congress to lobby for the establishment of a coordinated military response, specifically on the water, to fight the British’ massive superiority with ships, both fighting and shipping. It is perhaps through this lobbying—as well as having his older brother Stephen representing the colony in the Continental Congress—that led the body to name Esek Hopkins as the commander-in-chief of the naval forces established to battle the British on the sea. On 6 November 1775, Hopkins’ brother, Stephen, wrote to his brother (the letter was addressed to “Dear Sir”), in which he informed Hopkins, “You will receive by a letter from the Committee, dated yesterday, that they have pitched upon you to take the Command of a Small Fleet, which they and I hope will be but the beginning of one much larger. I suppose [that] you may be more Servicable to your Country, in this very dangerous Crisis of its affairs by taking upon you this Command that you can in any other way. I should therefore hope that this will be a sufficient Inducement for you to accept of this offer.” Stephen Hopkins was serving in the Continental Congress in the years from 1774

On 22 December 1775, the Continental Congress met, and the Journals of the parley reflect what happened next: “The Committee appointed to fit out armed vessels, laid before Congress a list of the officers by them appointed, agreeable to the resolutions of Congress, viz. Esek Hopkins, esqr. commander in chief [sic] of the fleet.” The Journal then reflected that the committee recommended several individuals to serve as captains under Hopkins—that among these were Dudley Saltonstall, as Captain of the Alfred; Abraham Whipple, as captain of the Columbus; Nicholas Biddle, as captain of the Andrew Doria; and John Burrows Hopkins as captain of the Cabot. [5] North Jersey delegate Richard Smith wrote in his diary on 22 December 1775, “Esek Hopkins Esqr. of Rhode Island (the same that commanded their Forces in Quality of Brig. General) appointed Commander in Chief of the American Fleet. [H]e is to sail with the Ships of War now fitting out in the Port of Philadelphia and his Pay was voted to be 125 Dollars per month 6 Colonies to 4, the latter thought the Pay too high. The Captains, Lieuts. and Warrant Officers as appointed by our Comee [Committee] for Naval Affairs, were ordered to be Commissioned. The Question was put Whether any Allowance shall be made to the Admiral for Table Expences [sic] and negatived [sic] by a large Majority. Mr. Hopkins had very generously offered to serve without any Pay.” [6] Various works describe Hopkins as the commander-in-chief of the Continental Navy, or the commodore of the Navy; most of these are later, and not contemporary. Historian Gardner Weld Allen wrote, “In the Journals of the Continental Congress Hopkins is usually referred to as commodore, or as commanderin-chief of the fleet, and twice reference is made to his ‘command in [not of] the American (or Continental) Navy.’ Only once is he mentioned as commander-in-chief of the navy, and that in the report of a special committee.” [7] On 22 December 1775, the Continental Congress voted to name Hopkins as the commander-inchief of the United States Navy, the first man to ever hold that position.

Esek Hopkins (1718-1802)657 “It is said that the Flag of the Thirteen Colonies was hoisted for the first time on Board his Flagship by his Lieutenant, [John] Paul Jones.” The Reverend Francis Vinton stated in 1863, “It was Hopkins’ who trained John Paul Jones in seamanship, and prepared him for the sailing orders that sent him in the Ranger and the Bon Homme Richard to devastate the coast of England and Scotland, and fling defiance to the lion in his lair, and spread before the dismayed populace of Britain, and the admiring eyes of Europe, the fresh flag of the Stars and Stripes, under whose folds he swept the seas of British commerce.” [8] Almost immediately upon accepting his new position, Hopkins had to deal with the threat of the British fleet attacking portions of Rhode Island. In a letter printed in The Providence Gazette in December 1775, he was being addressed as “Brigadier General” instead of “Commodore.” The letter, addressed to the town council of Newport and dated 15 November, stated: I received a copy of a letter, signed by James Wallace, commander of his Majesty’s ship Rose, together with your approbation of the contents: In answer to which I am to let you know, that I will permit you to supply the ministerial navy now in your harbour with fresh provisions, &c. provided the quantity be ascertained, and is no more than what is sufficient, or has been heretofore made use of, and that under the inspection of a man that shall appoint and authorize, and not otherwise; provided that he, said Wallace, with all the vessels and boats under his command and direction, let all the wood, musket, and ferry-boats pass and repass, together with their passengers and effects, unmolested and unexamined, on failure or breach of which I shall immediately stop the supplies. [9] Historian Thomas Williams Bicknell wrote in 1920: In March [1776], the fleet under Commodore Esek Hopkins descended on New Providence, in the Bahamas, captured two forts, seized a large amount of military stores and more than 100 cannon, bringing home with the booty the Governor of the island. On the return, Hopkins’ fleet encountered the British ship Glasgow, [with] 20 guns, and 150 men, off Block Island. After severe fighting, the Glasgow made a flight to safety in Newport harbor, while Hopkins with 100 guns and 700 men failed of victory for want of good management, though his Maryland

showed good spirit. In August Commodore Hopkins was unable to sail north or south for want of men, and in December Hopkins was “bottled up” by a large British fleet in Narragansett Bay. [In a letter to Continental Congress delegate William Ellery of Rhode Island] he wrote, “We are now blocked up by the enemy’s fleet; the officers and men are uneasy, however, I shall not desert the course, but I wish with all my heart the Hon. Marine Board could and would get a man in my room that would the country more good than it is in my power to do.” [10] In early 1776, Hopkins, commanding his ship as well as sailing with two others, moved his ships southward to take on the British forces led by Lord Dunmore, then invading Virginia. He sailed past Virginia, and attacked the British Harrison in the Bahamas, and when he took the city of New Providence, his forces captured some 160 cannon and large amounts of goods, which he detailed in a report to the Continental Congress. This was the first ever seaward assault by the US Navy. On 18 June 1776, The Pennsylvania Evening Post printed a letter from Hopkins, “Admiral of the Continental fleet,” from Newport and dated 10 June 1776, in which he wrote, “The Andrew Doria sent in here a sloop from Tortola, bound to Halifax, with twenty-two hogsheads of rum, twenty barrels of sugar, twenty-six tierces of molasses, and 950 bushels of salt. The Cabot also sent in a ship two days ago from Jamaica, bound and belongs to Liverpool in England, with one hundred and fifteen puncheons, and twentytwo hogsheads of rum; eighty-four hogsheads, twenty tierces, and eighteen barrels of sugar; twenty tierces of coffee; sixty bags and two casks of pimento; two hundred bags and ten casks of ginger; one hundred and eighty-two bags of cotton; and forty-eight raw hides.” [11] However, by the middle of 1776, even as his brother Stephen was ready to sign the Declaration of Independence, allegations of wrongdoing by Esek Hopkins came to the attention of the delegates of the Continental Congress; an investigation was opened in the Marine Committee, and in August 1776, the Congress as a whole censured Hopkins. The main thrust of the complaints was not personal corruption or transgressions, but criticisms from southern delegates to the Congress because Hopkins had not used his ships to harass the British in the

658

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

waters off of the southern colonies. In April 1776 he had taken on the British warship Glasgow, but he allowed the ship to escape and it was for this that he came under personal attack. [12] John Adams, the delegate to the Continental Congress from Massachusetts, wrote in August 1776:

respecting the matters aforesaid, this Assembly may be enabled to render to the said navy the most effectual assistance, and acquit this state from every injurious misrepresentation on that account.” [14]

Commodore Hopkins had his hearing; On this occasion I had a very laborious task against all the prejudices of the gentlemen from the Southern and Middle States and of many from New England. I thought, however, that Hopkins had done great service, and made an important beginning of naval operations . . . It appeared to me that the Commodore was pursued and persecuted by that anti-New England spirit which haunted Congress in many other of their proceedings, as well as in this case and that of General Wooster. I saw nothing in the conduct of Hopkins, which indicated corruption or want of integrity. Experience and skill might have been deficient in several particulars; but where could we find greater experience or skill? I knew of none to be found. The other captains had not so much, and it was afterwards found they had not more success. I therefore entered into a full and candid investigation of the whole subject; considered all the charges and all the evidence, as well as his answers and proofs; and exerted all the talents and eloquence I had, in justifying him where he was justifiable, and excusing him where he was excusable. When the trial was over, Mr. Ellery of Newport, came to me and said, “You have made the old man your friend for life: he will hear of your defence of him, and he never forgets a kindness.” [13] Following up on the complaints lodged against him, the Rhode Island General Assembly met in East Greenwich in November 1776. Among the business that the meeting concluded, was that “it is represented to this Assembly, that great uneasiness hath arisen amongst the men belonging to the navy, on account of the wages not having been paid, nor the prize-money distributed; which has not only produced a great disaffection to the service, and now prevents many from entering therein; but has also been represented much to the disadvantage of this state and proved injurious to that character it has ever supported in the defence of American liberty.” The Assembly voted that “[i]t is therefore voted and resolved, that Esek Hopkins, Esq. commodore and commanderin-chief of said fleet, be requested, by special message, to attend this Assembly, in order that by making such inquiry as they think proper,

On 2 January 1777, the Continental Congress met, and the following resolution was passed: “Congress[,] having no further occasion for the service of Esek Hopkins, Esq. who on the 22d of Dec. 1775, was appointed Commander in Chief of the fleet fitted out by the Naval Committee, Resolved, That the said Esek Hopkins, Esq. be dismissed from the service of the United States. Extract from the Minutes, Charles Thompson [sic], Sec[y].” [15] On 25 March 1777, the Continental Congress met; according to the Journals of that body, “The marine [sic] committee laid before Congress a paper signed by sundry officers in the fleet containing charges and complaints against commodore [sic] Esek Hopkins which was read and laid upon the table.” The following day, “Congress took into consideration the paper containing charges and complaints against commodore [sic] Hopkins; whereupon, Resolved, That Esek Hopkins be immediately, and he is thereby, suspended from his command in the american [sic] navy [sic].” [16] In August 1777, the Continental Congress demanded that Hopkins appear before them in Philadelphia to answer for the charges, but for some reason he never appeared. For this, the Continental Congress to censure him that month. According to historian William Read Staples, Stephen Hopkins left the Continental Congress soon after that; “[h]is name does not afterwards appear in the journals of Congress. It is not improbable that the vote of censure passed by Congress in August, on the official conduct of his brother, may have hastened his departure and perhaps the subsequent action of Congress against the Commodore, may have induced him not to return.” [17] Despite being dismissed from the military, Hopkins was still popular in his native state— even by the same politicians in the General Assembly that had lambasted him. In two reports published by the Rhode Island General Assembly,

Esek Hopkins (1718-1802)659 Esek Hopkins is mentioned as being paid for services to the state, which it appears he did to supplement his income after being dismissed by the Continental Congress. [18] Further showing what Hopkins did in his postmilitary career is illustrated in an advertisement in a Providence, Rhode Island, newspaper, in which a farm was leased for a term of one year, and all applicants are asked to “appl[y] to Esek Hopkins, Esq.” [19] Hopkins never sailed again. He was elected to a seat in the Rhode Island General Assembly, where he sat from 1777 to 1786. He later served as the collector of imposts for the state in 1783, and, finally, as a trustee of Rhode Island College from 1782 until 1802. He died on his farm in what is now North Providence, Rhode Island on 26 February 1802 at the age of 83. The Providence Gazette, in a eulogy, said of him, “Through the different stages of a long life, the character of this gentleman was uniformly distinguished by an energy of mind, and a steadiness of principle, which age and infirmity were unable to impair. A genuine fortitude of mind, a lively sensibility of heart, and a immoveable adherence to integrity, were his general characteristics.” [20] He was laid to rest in God’s Acre, the Hopkins family cemetery in North Providence. Historian William M. Fowler wrote, that Hopkins “was convinced, as were many others, including Adams, that he had fallen victim to an anti-New England feeling in the Congress. While sectionalism may well have influenced the anti-Hopkins faction, it is also true that Hopkins’s career as a naval officer was hardly stellar. His mediocre record of command, added to his political ineptness, made dismissal inevitable. [21] See also: Stephen Hopkins

[1] See the family tree for Esek Hopkins, online at http://www. geni.com/people/Commodore-Esek-Hopkins-Commander-inChief-of-the-Continental-Navy/6000000001384294220. [2] Hopkins, Harvey Laroy, “Genealogical Record of Daniel Hopkins of the Seventh Generation by His Grandson, Harvey L. Hopkins of the Ninth Generation” (Privately Published, 1921), 7. [3] Miller, Charles Hazelius, “Admiral Number One: Some Incidents in the Life of Esek Hopkins, 1718-1802, First Admiral of the Continental Navy” (New York: William-Frederick Press, 1962), 8-9.

[4] Stephen Hopkins to Esek Hopkins, 6 November 1775, in Beck, Alverda Sammis, ed., “The Correspondence of Esek Hopkins, Commander-in-Chief of the United States Navy. Transcribed from the Original Manuscripts in the Library of the Rhode Island Historical Society” (Providence: Printed for the Rhode Island Historical Society, 1933), 22. [5] Ford, Worthington Chauncey, et al., eds., “Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; thirty-four volumes, 1905-37), III:443. For an additional source, see United States, Continental Congress, “Journal of the Proceedings of Congress, Held at Philadelphia, from September 5, 1775, to April 30, 1776” (Philadelphia: Printed; London: Reprinted for J. Almon, Opposite Burlington-House, Piccadilly, 1778), 81. Some sources give the name of Biddle’s ship as the Andrea Doria; reflected here is what is contained in the official journal of the Continental Congress. [6] Richard Smith, diary for 22 December 1775, in Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), I:284-85. See also “Diary of Richard Smith in the Continental Congress, 1775-1776,” The American Historical Review, I:2 (January 1896), 298. [7] Allen, Gardner, Weld, “Esek Hopkins,” The New England Quarterly, IX:3 (September 1936), 484. [8] Vinton, The Rev. Francis, “An Oration on the Annals of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, by the Rev. Francis Vinton, D. D., and A Rhyme of Rhode Island and the Times, by George William Curtis, Esq., Delivered Before the Sons of Rhode Island in New York, May 29, 1863” (New York: Printed for the Association, by C.A. Alvord, 1863), 21. [9] The Providence Gazette and Country Journal [Rhode Island], 9 December 1775, 2. [10] Bicknell, Thomas Williams, “The History of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations” (New York: The American Historical Society, Inc.; two volumes, 1920), II:744. See also Benson John Lossing, “The Pictorial Field-Book of the Revolution; or, Illustrations, by Pen and Pencil, of the History, Biography, Scenery, Relics, and Traditions of the War for Independence” (New York: Harper & Brothers; two volumes, 1851-52), II:845. [11] “Philadelphia, June 18,” The Pennsylvania Evening Post [Philadelphia], 18 June 1776, 305. [12] Field, Edward, “Esek Hopkins: Commander-in-Chief of The Continental Navy During the American Revolution, 1775 to 1778. Master Mariner, Politician, Brigadier General, Naval Officer and Philanthropist” (Providence, RI: The Preston & Rounds Co., 1898), 220-30. [13] Adams, Charles Francis, ed., “The Works of John Adams” (Boston: Little, Brown and Company; 10 volumes, 1851-66), III:65-66. [14] Bartlett, John Russell, ed., “Records of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, in New England: Printed by order of the General Assembly” (Providence, RI: A.C. Greene and Brother, State Printers; 10 volumes, 1856-65), VIII:38-39. [15] See the notice in “The Remembrancer, or Impartial Repository of Public Events. For the Year 1778” (London: Printed for J. Almon, Opposite Burlington-House, in Piccadilly, 1778), 61. The “Charles Thompson” referred to is Charles Thomson, the secretary of the Continental Congress. [16] United States, Continental Congress, “Journals of Congress, Containing the Proceedings from January 1st, 1777, to January 1st, 1778. Published by Order of Congress. Volume III” (Philadelphia: Printed by John Dunlap, 1778), 100-02. [17] Staples, William Read, “Rhode Island in the Continental Congress, with the Journal of the Convention that Adopted the Constitution. 1765-1790” (Providence, RI: Providence Press Company, Printers to the State, 1870), 85.

660

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

[18] Rhode Island, General Assembly, “June, 1780. At the General Assembly of the Governor and Company of the State of Rhode-Island and Providence Plantations, Begun and Holden by Adjournment at South-Kingstown, Within and for the State Aforesaid, on the Second Monday in June, in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Eighty, and in the Fourth Year of Independence. Present, His Excellency William Greene, Esquire, Governor. The Honorable William West, Esq; Deputy-Governor” (Providence, RI: Printed by John Carter, 1780 [?]), 3. See also the 1784 report, with the same title but published by Bennett Wheeler of Providence, specifically page 7. [19] The Providence Gazette and Country Journal [Rhode Island], 27 December 1780, 3. [20] “Died, on Friday evening,” The Providence Gazette, 6 March 1802, 3. [21] Fowler, William M., “Hopkins, Esek” in John A. Garraty and Mark C. Carnes, gen. eds., “American National Biography” (New York: Oxford University Press; 24 volumes, 1999), XI:---.

and his wife Ruth (née Wilkinson) Hopkins, both farmers. [1] A genealogical history of the interrelated families, Daniel O.S. Lowell, wrote, “It was a tradition with my grandfather Hopkins that his family was directly descended from Stephen Hopkins of the Mayflower . . . Hopkins is said by some to have been a London merchant. He was one of the twelve Mayflower passengers who had a title (Mr.) prefixed to his name.” [2]

Stephen Hopkins (1707–1785)

Being the son of itinerant farmers, Stephen Hopkins did not have access to an education, although he did learn to read and write and learned the trade of surveying, in addition to the farming skills he learned from his father. Because his mother was a deeply religious member of the Society of Friends, also known as the Quakers, he moved while young to a farm near Chopmist, near Providence, an area now part of the city of Scituate, and he learned rudimentary skills from his mother. In 1726, at age 19, Hopkins married Sarah Scott, with whom he had seven children prior to a debilitating illness in the early 1750s that culminated with her suicide in 1753 at age 47. Two years later, Hopkins married Ann Smith, a widow. He survived her by three years. [3]

A signer of the Declaration of Independence, who served in the Continental Congress (177476), Stephen Hopkins became one of the most important of the early leaders in the infant American nation. His additional service included tenures as the colonial governor of Rhode Island (1755, 1756, 1758-61, 1763, 1764, and 1767).

Unlike most of the men who later served in the Continental Congress, or who signed the Declaration of Independence and/or the Articles of Confederation, Hopkins served in the colonial government of his home state. In 1732, at the age of 25, he was elected to two offices: both as town clerk for Scituate, where he served until 1741, and to a seat in the colonial General Assembly, where he would serve during the first tenure until 1752; later, he would again serve in the same body, then from 1770 to 1775; in this body, he served as Speaker (1738-44, 1749). In 1739, despite not having a law degree, he was named as the chief justice of the Court of Common Pleas for the entire colony. Three years later, however, he quit this position and moved his family back to Providence, where he resumed the vocation of surveying, as well as what is called “mercantile pursuits,” usually trade in such items as wool, cloth, etc. [4] He joined his younger brother, Esek Hopkins, in the shipbuilding business.

Born in Cranston, Rhode Island, then a part of the city of Providence but now a separate entity, on 7 March 1707, Hopkins was the son and second of nine children of William Hopkins

After several years in private business, Hopkins returned to public service, when, in 1751, he was named as the chief justice of the Superior Court of Rhode Island, where he served until

Stephen Hopkins (1707–1785)661 1754. Following the death of his first wife, and his second marriage, something seemed to have changed in Stephen Hopkins. Whereas before he was a staunch supporter of the British Crown as well as the royal government in Rhode Island, by this time he had come to believe that the colonists deserved their own representation, their own voice in the laws being enacted that affected their lives. In 1754 he served as a delegate to the Colonial Congress that convened in Albany, New York; delegates from seven colonies met in June with more than 150 members of the Iroquois Nation, to get them to fight alongside the British and not the French, in the ongoing French and Indian War; second, and, most importantly, the Congress called on the Native Americans to merge into a colonial alliance with the American colonies once the war was concluded to try to gain additional rights. Although a plan was ironed out, none of the seven colonies that sent representatives would ratify it, and the colonies that did not send representatives even bothered with it. The power of royal rule, and of the hand of the British in the American colonies, was too strong to penetrate—yet. Returning home to Rhode Island, Hopkins penned a history of the plan, as well as his thoughts on a union that would unite to get their rights recognized by Britain. [5] In 1755, despite having attended a conference where Britain’s hold on the colonies was questioned for the first time, Hopkins was named as the colonial governor of Rhode Island; he would eventually serve six different tenures over the next 12 years. At the same time that he held this office, Hopkins had a personal fight with fellow Rhode Islander Samuel Ward: their argument has become known as the Ward-Hopkins War, or the Ward-Hopkins Controversy. His chief biographer, William E. Foster, wrote in 1884, “Stephen Hopkins had now reached the highest position in the gift of his fellow-colonists . . . Much as we may regret that his record in these respects is unequal[ed] to that of his distinguished services in united the colonies, it is unfortunately true, to quote from Colonel Higginson, that ‘in this imperfect world we have often to praise and venerate men for a single virtue;’ and more than ‘a single virtue’ may easily be distinguished in Stephen Hopkins.” [6]

Samuel Ward believed that Hopkins had defamed him with various comments; Ward then sued Hopkins for defamation, asking for the amount of ₤20,000 in damages. [7] In actuality, the entire episode was, to put it plainly, a power-play: actions taken by one political faction to weaken or politically harm another. Whereas Hopkins led the “Providence faction” in Rhode Island politics, Ward, who served as governor between 1757 and 1767 when Hopkins was not in that office, headed the “Newport faction.” Historian Mack Thompson explained, “Between 1755 to 1770 the colony of Rhode Island was torn by an internal political struggle that historians usually refer to as the WardHopkins controversy, since the two factions contending for political supremacy were led by Samuel Ward from Westerly and Newport and Stephen Hopkins from Providence. Those who consider the American Revolution as an internal social and political conflict as well as a revolt from political obedience to England seem to see their thesis substantiated by the Ward-Hopkins controversy.” [8] Stephen Hopkins served as governor during the period leading up to the revolt that inspired a revolution. He was one of the few governors who did not give all of his allegiance to London; in fact, long before anyone foresaw that a clash over the colonies’ independence was coming, Hopkins prepared for just such an event. In 1762, long before The Stamp Act, or The Sugar Act, or the Boston Massacre, or the Boston Tea Party, Hopkins founded one of the most influential newspapers of the time in the colonies, the Providence Gazette and Country Journal. Historian Bruce Granger related that it is believed that Hopkins used the pages of his paper to poke anonymous fun at The Stamp Act. He added that “Hopkins, incidentally, was the only colonial governor who refused to take the oath to support the Stamp Act.” [9] In 1766, Hopkins gave a preview of the ideas that were utilized to foment a revolt against royal rule. In his pamphlet, “The Grievances of the American Colonies,” he warned England that denying the colonists basic human rights would cause a break that would never be healed short of war. In the work, he penned, “Liberty is the greatest blessing that men enjoy, and slavery the

662

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

greatest curse that human nature is capable of. Hence it is a matter of the utmost importance to men, which of the two shall be their Portion. Absolute liberty, is perhaps incompatible with any kind of government. The safety resulting from society, and the advantage of just and equal laws, hath caused men to forego some part of their natural liberty, and submit to government. This appears to be the most rational account of its beginning; although it must be confessed, mankind have by no means been agreed about it: some have found its original in the divine appointment; others have thought it took its rise from power . . .” [10] In 1773, he was appointed by the royal government as chief justice of the state’s Superior Court.

called for an arrest of anyone suspected in what is now called the Gaspée Affair. Unknown to most historians, Hopkins had more than good reason to resist: his nephew and an uncle, by marriage, had been in the party that took the troops and burned the ship. Using his influence, he told the commission sent from London to get to the bottom of the affair that none of the men involved could be identified, stating that he would “neither apprehend by my own order, nor suffer any executive officer in the colony to do it, for the purpose of transportation to England for trial.” Finally realizing that further investigation was fruitless, the commission returned home, and no one was ever prosecuted for their role in the affair. [11]

Another event cast Stephen Hopkins from his allegiance to London, but it was an event wholly dissimilar from others that caused others to revolt. Whereas the Boston Massacre, or The Stamp Act, or some other action taken by England against the colonies brought on anger and resentment, for Hopkins it was the episode over the attack by colonial forces against the British ship the Gaspée. In short, the British sent this ship, a “revenue cutter,” to patrol the Rhode Island coast to stop any ships trying to smuggle in goods in violation of The Stamp Act. Men belonging to the patriotic group The Sons of Liberty took a small ship on the night of 9 June 1772, and made sure that the commander of the Gaspée, Lieutenant William Duddington, saw the ship and began to chase it into shallow waters near the town of Warwick. Duddington realized, too late, that the ruse was a trap, and his ship got stuck on a point of land now known as Gaspee Point. Once word spread that the ship was trapped and could not move, other members of the Sons of Liberty, led by a man named John Brown, boarded the Gaspée, arrested the crew, and, in the fight, wounded Duddington. The captives were taken ashore as booty, and the Gaspée was burned. In Rhode Island, as well as the other colonies, the attack was seen as a patriotic move against the British. The local Rhode Island courts issued arrest warrants—not for the men who burned the Gaspée, but for Duddington and his crew for allegedly trying to seize goods in violation of Rhode Island law. Stephen Hopkins, as the chief justice of the Superior Court, refused to issue or sign any court order coming from London that

By mid-1774, relations between the colonies and the government in England were strained to the breaking point. Members of “Committees of Correspondence” wrote to each other, and secretly they came together on a plan to have delegates from all 13 colonies meet in Philadelphia, the financial capital of the colonies, to plot strategy. On 15 June, the Rhode Island General Assembly elected Hopkins to serve as a delegate to this parley; ironically, that same body elected Hopkins’ bitter political enemy Samuel Ward as a delegate as well. Hopkins would be reelected on 5 December 1774 and 4 May 1776; he attended sessions of 5 September (the first day of what is known as the First Continental Congress) to 26 October 1774, 1 May to 2 August 1775, and 13 September 1775 to 4 July 1776. [12] On 14 October 1774, a committee of 27 members, appointed to draft an open letter to King George III to explain their objections to the Crown’s policy towards the colonies, drafted what is known as The Declaration of Rights and Grievances. Among the 27 members was both Hopkins and Samuel Ward. [13] John Adams, a delegate from Massachusetts, kept a detailed diary of his time in the Continental Congress; published by his son, John Quincy Adams, in the middle of the 19th century, it contains anecdotes and revelations on many of the men Adams met and came to know who attended that body. On Hopkins, he wrote: Mr. [Francis Lightfoot] Lee [of Virginia], Mr. [Christopher] Gadsden [of South Carolina], were sensible men, and very cheerful, but Governor

Stephen Hopkins (1707–1785)663 Hopkins of Rhode Island, above seventy years of age, kept us all alive. Upon business, his experience and judgment were very useful. But when the business of the evening was over, he kept us in conversation till eleven, and sometimes twelve o’clock. His custom was to drink nothing all day, nor till eight o’clock in the evening, and then his beverage was Jamaica spirit and water. It gave him wit, humor, anecdotes, science and learning. He had read Greek, Roman, and British history, and was familiar with English poetry, particularly Pope, Thomson, and Milton, and the flow of his soul made all his reading our own, and seemed to bring to recollection in all of us, all we had ever read . . . Hopkins never drank to excess, but all he drank was immediately not only converted into wit, sense, knowledge, and good humor, but inspired us with similar qualities. [14] Unfortunately, most of Hopkins’ correspondence and personal papers were destroyed following his death. Thus, few of his letters are extant. In one, to Nicholas Cooke, the governor of Rhode Island, Hopkins gives an insight into the move towards independence in May of 1776: “I observe that you have avoided giving me a direct answer to my Queries concerning dependance or independance [sic] [;] however the copy of the Act of Assembly which you have sent me, together with our instructions leave me little room to doubt what is the opinion of the Colony I came from. I suppose that it will not be long, before the Congress will throw off all connection as well in name as in Substance with Great Britain, as one thing after another seem gradually to lead them to such a step, they having, within a few days, past a resolve, earnestly to recommend to all the Colonies who, at present are not under a perfect form of Government to take up and form Such, each Colony for themselves, which I make no doubt most of them will very Soon do . . . ” [15] Samuel Ward died suddenly while in Philadelphia on 26 March 1776. Had Samuel Ward lived, he would have signed the Declaration alongside Hopkins. Instead, with his death, a new delegate was needed to fill the vacancy, and William Ellery was elected in Ward’s stead, and it was Ellery who placed his name on the Declaration of Independence. When Hopkins finally signed the Declaration, probably on or about 4 July 1776, he was the second oldest man to place his name on that

document—Benjamin Franklin, at 70, was older, by a single year. Hopkins could barely walk: 69 years old, beset with bouts of palsy that made his body shake, he allegedly said as he signed his name into history, “My hand trembles, but my heart does not.” For the Rhode Islander, his time in the Continental Congress was at an end. Although he returned to his native state and lived for another decade, he did serve in some local offices, including a stint from December 1776 to May 1778 on the Rhode Island Council of War; he also served as a delegate in 1776, 1777, and 1779 to conventions held by the New England states, and he served in the 1777 convention as the president of the body. Suffering from “palsy” (it may have been Parkinson’s disease), Hopkins retired to his home near Providence in 1779 where he died on 13 July 1785. Reporting on his funeral, The Newport Mercury of Rhode Island stated, “Yesterday were interred the Remains of the Hon. Stephen Hopkins, Esq; who departed this Life on Wednesday last, in the 79th Year of his Age. The funeral Procession was composed of the Count of Common Pleas, the President, Corporation and Students, of the College, a large Number of distinguished Characters from different Parts of the State, a Concourse of respectable Citizens and a numerous Train of incoming Relatives.” [16] He was laid to rest in the historic North Burial Ground, also known as the Rhode Island Historical Cemetery, in Providence. The obelisk on his grave reads, “Sacred to the Memory of the Illustrious Stephen Hopkins. Of Revolutionary Fame. Attested by his Signature to the Declaration of Our National Independence. Great in Council, From Sagacity of Mind: Magnanimous in Sentiment: Firm in Purpose: and Good, As Great, from Benevolent Heart.” In 1913, Robert Brown wrote of this patriot, “In a State whose first settlers were people of the most heterogeneous modes of thought, and where individualism to this day has been instinctive and inextinguishable, Stephen Hopkins’ tact and sagacity united the people in projects of improvement and made him ever the controller of all issues. This genial, entertaining Quaker, attractive alike to young and old, became the first citizen of Rhode Island through his

664

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

magnanimity, his devotion to duty and country, and his mild sway over the hearts of men.” [17]

[14] Adams, John Quincy, ed., “The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States: With a Life of the Author, Notes and Illustrates” (Boston: Little, Brown and Company; 10 volumes, 1850-56), III:12. [15] Stephen Hopkins to Nicholas Cooke, 15 May 1776, in Burnett, “Letters of Members,” op. cit., I:447. [16] The Newport Mercury [Rhode Island], 23 July 1785, 2. [17] Brown, Robert Perkins, “The Rhode Island Signers of the Declaration of independence” (Providence, RI: Society of the Sons of the American Revolution, 1913), 18.

See also: Samuel Ward

[1] Hopkins family tree, online at http://www.geni.com/people/ Gov-Stephen-Hopkins-signer-of-the-Declaration-of-Independence/6000000001384274233. [2] Lowell, Daniel Ozro Smith, “A Munsey-Hopkins Genealogy: Being the Ancestry of Andrew Chauncey Munsey and Mary Jane Merritt Hopkins, the Parents of Frank A. Munsey, His Brother and Sisters” (Boston: Privately Printed, 1920), 27. [3] Foster, William E., “Stephen Hopkins, a Rhode Island Statesman: A Study in the Political History of the Eighteenth Century” (Providence, RI: S.S. Rider; two volumes, 1884), I:55-59. [4] Hopkins official congressional biography, online at http:// bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=H000781. [5] Hopkins, Stephen, “A True Representation of the Plan Formed at Albany for Uniting All the British Northern Colonies, In Order To [sic] Their Common Safety and Defence [sic]: Containing Abstracts of the Authorities Given by the Several Governments to Their Commissioners, and of Several Letters From the Secretaries of State, and Lords Commissioners for Trade and Plantations Concerning Such an Union: Together With a Representation of the State of the English and French Colonies in North-America, and the Said Plan of Union with the Doings of the Commissioners Thereon: and Some Remarks on the Whole” (Newport, RI: James Franklin, 1755), 3-5. [6] Foster, William E., “Stephen Hopkins,” op. cit., II:11. [7] Bartlett, John Russell, ed., “Records of the Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, in New England. Printed by Order of the General Assembly” (Providence, RI: Knowles, Anthony & Co.; ten volumes, 1856-65), VI:68-70. [8] Thompson, Mack, “The Ward-Hopkins Controversy and the American Revolution in Rhode Island: An Interpretation,” The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, XVI:3 (July 1959), 363. For more information on Ward, see Guy, James F. “The Public Life of a Private Man: Samuel Ward, 1725-1776” (Ph.D. dissertation, Kent State University, 2003). [9] Granger, Bruce Ingham, “The Stamp Act in Satire,” American Quarterly, VIII:4 (Winter 1956), 370. [10] Hopkins, Stephen, “The Grievances of the American Colonies Candidly Examined. Printed by Authority, at Providence, in Rhode-Island” (London: Reprinted for J. Almon, Opposite Burlington-House, in Piccadilly, 1766), 5-6. [11] For further information on the affair and Hopkins’ role in it, see Bartlett, John Russell, ed., “A History of the Destruction of His Britannic Majesty’s Schooner Gaspée, in Narragansett Bay, on the 10th June, 1772; Accompanied by the Correspondence Connected Therewith; the Action of the General Assembly of Rhode Island Thereon, and the Official Journal of the Proceedings of the Commission of Inquiry Appointed by King George the Third, on the Same” (Providence, RI: A.C. Greene, Printer to the State, 1861), as well as Staples, William R., “The Documentary History of the Destruction of the Gaspée. Compiled for The Providence Journal by William R. Staples” (Providence, RI: Rhode Island Publications Society, 1990). [12] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), I:lxii. [13] Dana, William F., “The Declaration of Independence,” Harvard Law Review, XIII:5 (January 1900), 332-33.

Francis Hopkinson (1737–1791)

Although remembered for serving in the Continental Congress (1776) and signing the Declaration of Independence, Francis Hopkinson was a scientist, singer and music composer—this in the years before the American Revolution. He completed his career as a judge, despite being impeached by the state of Pennsylvania in one of the earliest impeachment cases held in this nation’s history. The son and eldest of eight children of Thomas Hopkinson, an attorney and local politician, and his wife Mary (née Johnson) Hopkinson, Francis Hopkinson was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on 2 October 1737. Thomas Hopkinson was born in Britain in 1709, and emigrated to the American colonies in 1731. Marrying Mary Johnson, Hopkinson became

Francis Hopkinson (1737–1791)665 an influential attorney and city councillor in Philadelphia prior to his untimely death in 1751 at age 42. [1] He had been known for scientific experiments he conducted, including those with trying to harness electricity, which brought him into contact with another Pennsylvania scientist, Benjamin Franklin. Franklin and Francis Hopkinson would become lifelong friends. Thomas Hopkinson also served as the first president of the American Philosophical Society, as well as being a trustee of the College of Philadelphia. With his death when his son Francis was just 14, Mary Hopkinson sought to make sure that her eldest son received the best education possible. Thus, on 25 May 1754, the 17 year old Francis entered the College of Philadelphia (now the University of Pennsylvania). [2] He graduated in 1757 with a Bachelor of Arts degree; he continued his education, receiving his Master of Arts degree in 1760 from the same institution. That same university granted him a doctorate in law in 1790, just prior to his death. Hopkinson also received a Master of Arts degree from the College of New Jersey, gratise causa, in 1763. Following his 1760 degree, Hopkinson studied the law in Philadelphia under Benjamin Chew, one of the most influential attorneys in prerevolutionary America (he was attorney general of the colony at this time), and Hopkinson was admitted to the Pennsylvania colonial bar in 1763. Whereas so many of the men who went on to serve in various revolutionary offices, including the Continental Congress, began their careers in being merchants, or in the law, or politics, Francis Hopkinson was completely different: he began as a student of music. In 1757, as he was completing his first university degree, Hopkinson wrote a series of written articles criticizing the work of one John Beveridge, one of his former professors; these were done in the form of music, one titled “The Grammarians: or Scoto and the Doctor, a new Ballad,” with another headed, “Errata, or the Art of Printing Incorrectly.” And while Hopkinson remained in the service of the arts—he not only wrote music, but poetry—he was also involved in community affairs. During his collegiate years, he served as the secretary to the Provincial Council of Pennsylvania Indian commission, established by the governor of Pennsylvania to mediate

differences between the white citizens of the colony and the Native Americans in the Lehigh Valley region to avoid bloodshed and violence from breaking out, and he was instrumental in arranging for treaties between the colony and several tribes, including the Delaware and some Iroquois nations. His work completed, in 1759 he became the secretary of the Library Company of Philadelphia, as well as the Vestry of two churches in that city, Christ Church and St. Peter’s, teaching music to children. In fact, Hopkinson played a minor role in the formation of music in colonial Philadelphia. Historian Jo Ann Taricani explained, “Also in the letters and diaries of Philadelphians may be found references to amateur concert activity. In addition to Franklin, musically prominent residents, such as Francis Hopkinson, often pre-occupy themselves with the subject in their writings, and scattered references to musical performances in the city appear in the papers of the gentry.” Taricani concluded, “Although Francis Hopkinson devoted little time to music in the colonial period, he nevertheless left a few poetic fragments attesting to the power of the art and revealing some aspects of concert life. Much of his musical reflection refers to the idea of the spiritual power of music, an early example of which is his ‘Ode to Music,’ supposedly inspired by his first lesson upon the harpsichord.” [3] Francis Hopkinson’s role in the penmanship and formation of music in the late colonial era and the early federal era is somewhat hazy; recent scholarship has tried to narrow down his proper place. Historians Harold Donaldson Eberlein and Cortlandt Van Dyke Hubbard stated: Some, at times, have challenged Hopkinson’s claim to be the “first Native of the United States” to produce a musical composition, and have urged that the credit belongs to James Lyon. The evidence, however, seems to substantiate Hopkinson’s priority conclusively. Francis Hopkinson’s interest in the harpsichord, his favourite instrument, extended beyond his role as an accomplished performer. For some years he busied his leisure in trying to better the instrument’s tonal and mechanical properties, and his “Improved Method of Quilling a Harpsichord” appears in the second volume (1786) of the Transactions of the American Philosophical Society. A condensed form of this treatise appeared also in the Columbian Magazine for May, 1787. Hopkinson likewise experimented with

666

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

the application of a keyboard to Franklin’s Armonica, that ingenious improvement of the Musical Glasses devised by Dr. Franklin about 1760. [4]

father’s native Great Britain and called for full independence from England for the American colonies. At the same time, he continued writing and composing music, having penned a series of pieces that historians consider important to prerevolutionary America, including “My Days Have Been So Wondrous Free” (1759), based on the Native American writer Thomas Parnell’s work “Love and Innocence,” one of the first pieces of music penned by a Native American in the colonies. In 1763, Hopkinson published a collection of musical pieces which were based on the Psalms of the Bible. Several pieces of his musical writings appeared in noted publications of the period, including in The American Magazine in 1757 and 1758.

In May 1766, Hopkinson left America for England, where he had deep family ties. There, he visited with his mother’s uncle, the Right Reverend James Johnson, the Bishop of Worcester, and Reverend Johnson entertained his nephew at Hartlebury Castle, the official residence of the Bishop, located in Worcestershire near the village of Stourporton-Severn. [5] Hopkinson had believed that his family ties would get him an appointment as the commissioner of customs for all of the North America colonies, but meetings with Lord North and others did not get him this appointment. One of the people who Hopkinson met with was Benjamin West, the famed painter, from whom Hopkinson received painting lessons that he used later in life. After returning home in August 1767, Hopkinson worked at his business in Philadelphia. He then met and married in 1768 Ann Borden, a wealthy woman from Bordentown, New Jersey, with whom he would have five children. Desiring to live close to his wife’s family, Hopkinson pulled up all of his roots in Pennsylvania and relocated to the New Jersey colony, after which Governor William Franklin, the son of Benjamin Franklin, named Hopkinson to the Provincial Council of the colony. In March 1772, Hopkinson was named as the Collector for the Port of New Castle (now Newcastle), Delaware, and, two years later, was appointed to a seat in the Provincial Council for the colony of New Jersey. Admitted to the New Jersey bar, he was elected as an associate justice of the New Jersey Supreme Court in early 1776, but he refused the honor. For Hopkinson, all of these offices were under royal rule. When that collapsed in 1774, Hopkinson remained in office, but, in early 1776, he sided with the patriot cause and resigned from all of the colonial offices. While he agitated to join the patriot cause, he was deeply involved in the musical movement in the colonies. In the years before the American Revolution, he published some forty poems and a number of essays relating to civic and political matters; one of these was “A Pretty Story,” published in 1774 which mocked his

The exact date of his complete split with the royal government in New Jersey is unknown; a search of newspaper notices from the period show no official announcement. One thing that does signify is a note in The Pennsylvania Evening Post of 19 August 1775, reporting that “on Saturday the twelfth instant, the eldest son of Honorable Francis Hopkinson, Esq. died at Bordentown, in New-Jersey. The beauty of his person, the sweetness of his disposition, and his promising abilities endeared this amiable child to all that knew him.” [6] On 22 June 1776, the New Jersey Assembly elected Hopkinson, Abraham Clark, John Witherspoon, and Richard Stockton to seats in the Continental Congress. Hopkinson ultimately attended sessions from 28 June to 4 July 1776, less than a week in total. And yet, this man chose this single week, or, at least, this single week chose him, to serve at a time when these 56 total delegates were signing the Declaration of Independence, one of the most important documents if not in American then in human history. Historian Edmund Cody Burnett noted under Stockton, “The other delegates of New Jersey (Hopkinson, Witherspoon, and Clark) appear to have signed immediately upon their arrival the resolution of secrecy, adopted 9 November 1775.” [7] Historian Charles Goodrich wrote of Hopkinson’s short service in the Continental Congress in 1842, “In this capacity, he voted for the declaration of independence [sic], and subsequently affixed his signature to the engrossed copy of that memorable instrument.” [8] Other, standard

Francis Hopkinson (1737–1791)667 sources on the signers of the Declaration, have even less to say about Hopkinson and his role in the Continental Congress. On 21 August 1776, John Adams wrote to his wife, Abigail, the following letter: Yesterday morning I took a walk into Arch Street to see Mr. Peale’s painter’s room . . . At this shop I met Mr. Francis Hopkinson, late a Mandamus Counsellor of New Jersey, now a member of the Continental Congress, who, it seems, is a native of Philadelphia, a son of a prothonotary [defined as “a chief clerk of any of various courts of law”] of this county, who was a person much respected. The son was liberally educated, and is a painter and a poet. I have a curiosity to penetrate a little deeper into the bosom of this curious gentleman, and may possibly give you some more particulars concerning him. He is one of your pretty, little, curious, ingenius [sic] men. His head is not bigger than a large apple, less than our friend Pemberton, or Dr. Simon Tufts. I have not met with anything in natural history more amusing and entertaining than his personal appearance; yet he is genteel and well bred, and is very social. [9] Returning to New Jersey, having committed his good name to the cause of the American nation against the land of his father, Francis Hopkinson was elected on 18 November 1776 to serve on the Navy Board, located in Philadelphia. He did not take up his duties until 1777. The Pennsylvania Evening Post reported on 25 July 1778 that “Notice is hereby given to all BRITISH SEAMEN, who are prisoners on parole or otherwise, in the Middle district of the United States, that they make immediate returns to this board of their names, the time of their capture, and the vessels to which they belonged. And all jail keepers, having British seamen under their custody, are directed to send in lists of such prisoners to this office.” The notice was co-signed by Francis Hopkinson and John Wharton, both members of the Navy Board. [10] At the same time, Hopkinson had been asked by The Pennsylvania Magazine, a literary journal, to contribute articles; one, “A New Plan of Education,” discussed his life before he married. He also contributed to a series of pamphlets that poked fun at various subjects: for instance, “A Letter to Lord Howe” (1777) mocked the

British general, while “A Letter Written to a Foreigner” (1777), he made fun of the England caricature John Bull. Finally, the following year, he penned an open letter to a former delegate to the Continental Congress, Joseph Galloway, after the British occupied Philadelphia and Galloway, now siding with Great Britain, took up residence in the city where he had once served alongside men who now fought for American independence. In the “Letter to Joseph Galloway,” Hopkinson wrote, “Now that you have gained the summit of your ambitious hopes, the reward of your forfeited honour, that dear-bought gratification, to obtain which you have given your name to infamy, and your soul to perdition—now that you sit in Philly, the nominal governor of Pennsylvania, give me leave to address a few words of truth to your corrupted heart. Retire for a moment from the avocations and honours of your new superintendency, and review the steps by which you have mounted the stage of power—steps reeking with the blood of your innocent country.” [11] Francis Hopkinson appears to have not only been involved in all facets of official life of his infant nation, but other areas, including those concerning ordinary civilians. For instance, in October 1779 he signed an open letter, detailing “A Plan for the Relief and Support of the poor and distressed Families of the Several Wards and Districts of the City and Liberties of Philadelphia,” in which he wrote that “[t]wo of more persons in each ward and district to go round [to] their respective wards and districts, take a particular and circumstantial account of every poor person and distressed family therein.” Hopkinson then believed that once a listing of all of the names of needy persons could be accounted for, wealthy persons would be approached and money given directly from the rich to the poor, to make sure that the poor were taken care of. [12] In 1778, Hopkinson was elected by the Continental Congress to serve as the treasurer of the Continental Loan Office, which offered low-cost loans to persons to start and run businesses. Hopkinson’s name appears in numerous documents and announcements from the period in his position as “Treasurer of Loans”: for instance, on 11 January 1780,

668

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

The Pennsylvania Packet newspaper reported an announcement by Hopkinson from the “General Loan Office,” giving “[n]otice . . . that in pursuance of the Resolves of Congress respecting the two emissions of Continental Currency taken out of circulation, there have been counted and destroyed in this Office” the amount of $19,847,268. [13] Another notice of the destruction of the same currency, reported in The Connecticut Journal on 2 February 1780. [14] Some sources report that in 1776, Hopkinson either designed, or helped to design, the Great Seal of the state of New Jersey, and that in 1782 he did the same for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. It is also claimed that in 1777 Hopkinson designed the American flag’s distinctive designed, featuring bars of red, white, and blue, as well as 13 stars.

“a thing done” and “a thing to be done” and as I do not believe that you would do “a very bad thing” “indeed”—I must ever make virtue of necessity and defend your performance if necessary, to the last effort of my musical abilities . . . [15]

In 1779, Hopkinson was named as a judge of the Admiralty Court, a sort of early “US Supreme Court,” which heard only cases involving ships and shipping. He served in this specific position until 1789, when that court was abolished. Hopkinson served as a delegate to the Pennsylvania Constitutional Convention, which ratified the US Constitution signed in Philadelphia in 1787. Earlier that year, George Washington, in retirement at his home, Mount Vernon, in Virginia, wrote to Hopkinson: We are told of the amazing powers of musick [sic] in ancient times; but the stories of its effects are so surprising that we are not obliged to believe them, unless they had been founded upon better authority than Poetic assertion—for the Poets of old (whatever they may do in these days) were strangely addicted to the marvelous [sic]; and if I before doubted the truth of their relations with respect to the power of musick [sic] I am not fully convinced of their falsity—because I would not for the honor of my Country; allow that we are left by the Ancients at an immeasurable distance in every thing [sic]; and if they could sooth the ferocity of wild beasts could draw the trees & stones after them, and could even charm the powers of Hell by their musick [sic], I am sure that your productions would have had at least virtue enough in them (without the aid of voice or instrument) to soften the Ice of the Delaware or Potomac and in that case you should have had an earlier acknowledgment of your favor of the 1st December which came to hand but last Saturday? I readily admit the force of your distinction between

In 1790, Hopkinson was also named as a judge of Pennsylvania’s District Court. While sitting on the former court, however, in 1780 that allegations arose against him that he was involved in widespread graft and corruption, specifically accused of taking bribes to throw cases heard before his court. Two of the charges lodged against Hopkinson dealt with “conniving at, and encouraging the sale of prizes [ships taken in time of war] before condemnation, contrary to law, and maliciously charging the Marshal with the crime of such conduct before the honourable the Supreme Executive Council; in the instance of the prize ship Charlotte; [and] [h]aving a writ of sale, of the cargo of a prize, declaring in the same writ that it was testified to him, that the same cargo was in danger of waste, spoil, and damage, when in fact no such testimony or return was ever given, or made to him—in the instance of the cargo of the ship Albion.” [16] The Continental Congress heard the charges, and proceeded to impeach Hopkinson for such political corruption, the first national impeachment under the Articles of Confederation that was held before the Continental Congress. Hopkinson, whose reputation was impeccable and beyond approach, challenged the charges in heated letters to the Continental Congress. The transcript of the impeachment inquiry and the trial noted that on 1 December 1780, “A memorial from Francis Hopkinson, Judge of the Admiralty of this state, was read, stating, that as certain charges gave been exhibited against him for misconduct in his office, he therefore prays that he may not be suffered to lie long under censure, but that a hearing or a trial in the manner the House may judge most eligible, may be directed as soon as possible.” [17] The newspapers reported that the situation was handled by the state government of Pennsylvania: it came from “In Council,” in Philadelphia, 26 December 1780, that “[t]he Council[,] having met agreeable to adjournment, Mr. Smith of the committee of general assembly attending, and Francis HOPKINSON, esq; also attending, after

Francis Hopkinson (1737–1791)669 some introductory observations, the present proceeded to the determination of the court upon the articles of the impeachment, which was, that it was the unanimous opinion of the board, that the said FRANCIS HOPKINSON, esq; was not guilty on all or any of the articles of impeachment exhibited against him; and that he be discharged from the said impeachment accordingly.” The letter was signed by T. Matlack, secretary. [18] Most historians of impeachment by the federal government, for instance, an early compilation of the records of early impeachments, published in 1912, begins not with Hopkinson in 1784, but with that of William Blount in 1798 (missing that of Judge George Turner in 1794). It is possible that because Hopkinson’s impeachment and trial happened under the Articles of Confederation, and not the US Constitution, that it is not “counted” as an official federal government impeachment. [19] Cleared of all charges, Hopkinson resumed his career on the bench. As well, in April 1786, he served as one of a group of commissioners to offer suggestions on how to improve navigation on the Susquehanna River. In 1789, with the new federal government established under the new US Constitution, the first President, George Washington, charged with the duty of staffing all of the federal courts created in the states, named Hopkinson as a federal judge. [20] In April 1790, The Carlisle Gazette, And The Western Repository of Knowledge, a Pennsylvania newspaper, reported that “[t]he Circuit Court for the District of Pennsylvania was opened on Monday the 12th instant, by the Honourable James Wilson & Francis Hopkinson, Esquires, Judges of said Court.” [21] Long a close intimate of Benjamin Franklin, Hopkinson was named as an executor for the elder statesman’s will when he died in 1790. In a work of his collected writings, published posthumously in 1793 but penned (at least the introduction was) in July 1788, Franklin wrote, “I request my friends Henry Hill, Esq. John Jay, Esq. Francis Hopkinson, Esq. and Mr. Edward Duffield, of Bonfield, in Philadelphia county, to be the executors of this my last will and testament, and I hereby nominate and appoint them for that purpose. I would have my body

buried with as little expence [sic] or ceremony as may be.” [22] On 9 May 1791, Hopkinson suddenly died of apoplexy, a stroke, a little more than a year after Franklin had passed away. Hopkinson, only 53 years of age, was remembered across the nation for his service: The Federal Gazette stated that “The interests of science and Patriotism will long deplore the loss of this valuable citizen.” [23] The Gazette of the United States printed a poem, “To the Memory of Francis Hopkinson,” which began, “Sweet Spring advance and deck with slowness gay, The tomb where Hopkinson’s remains are laid, Ye muses there your constant vigils pay, And guard from ills the consecrated shade.” [24] Hopkinson was buried in Philadelphia’s historic Christ Church Cemetery. The exact burial spot had been lost, but, with the permission of Hopkinson’s descendants, an area where his grave was thought to be was dug up, and a skeleton, deemed to belong to Francis Hopkinson, and he was reburied with a proper marker. That marker now reads, “Francis Hopkinson. Signer of the Declaration of Independence, September 21, 1737-May 9, 1791. Patriot-Jurist-Essayist-Churchman. Member of the Continental Congress of 1776. Provincial Councilor of New Jersey. Signer of the Declaration. Chairman of the Continental Navy Board. Designer of the American Flag. First Native American Composer of Songs. Member of American Philosophical Society. Vestryman and Organist of Christ Church, Philadelphia. A Reorganizer of the Post Revolutionary Church. Administrator of the School for Negroes. First Judge of the District Court In and For Pennsylvania District.” Hopkinson left behind a body of poetry and other works. Historian Donald Tayssig wrote, “This interest in nature leads naturally to a devotion to science. Francis Hopkinson, an Anglican lawyer, poet and musician, and a signer of the Declaration of Independence, expressed this devotion in rhyme in a poem entitled simply, ‘Science’: Goddess sublime! On whose adventurous wing, Like the sweet lark, fleet fancy mounts to sing . . .

670

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

The pleasing toil delights the enquiring youth,

So great the bliss it seems to prove

And Science guides him to the entangled truth . . .

There must be music too above.

Thus shall his eye important truths pursue,

That from the trumpet’s silver sound, Of wing’d archangels plac’d around Thy burning throne — Oh! king of heav’n!

And through his works the great creator view.” Francis Hopkinson, “Science: A Poem” in Essays, Vol. 3, 93-97, APS Library. [25] Historian Dixon Wecter summarized about Hopkinson, “[He] indeed is in some respects a younger and a minor Franklin: man of business, scientist and amateur inventor, litterateur, patriot, statesman, and savant, with an ample fund of curiosity and good humor which he employed freely in the daily affairs of life.” [26] In 1759, seven years before he even left for England, Hopkinson published a “Prologue in Praise of Music,” in which he delivered an “Ode to Music,” which read: “Hark! hark! the sweet vibrating lyre Sets my attentive soul on fire; Thro’ all my frame what pleasures thrill, Whilst the loud treble warbles shrill, And the more slow and solemn bass, Adds charms to charm and grace to grace. Sometimes in sweetly languid strains, The guilty trembling string complains, How it delights my ravished ear, When the expiring notes I hear Vanish distant and decay! — They steal my yielding soul away! Neatly trip the merry dance, And lightly touch, and swiftly glance; Let boundless transport laugh aloud, Sounds madly ramble mix and crowd, ‘Till all in one loud rapture rise, Spread thro’ the air and reach the skies. But when you touch the solemn air, Oh! swell each note distinct and clear, In ev’ry sound let sorrow sigh, Languish soft, and sweetly die. So shall th’ admir’d celestial art Raise and transport my ravish’d heart; Exalt my soul and give my mind Ideas of sublimer kind.

Most perfect harmony is giv’n! Whilst happy saints in concert join To make the music quite divine, And with immortal voices sing Hosannahs to their heav’nly King . . . ” [27] Francis Hopkinson’s sister, Elizabeth, married the Reverend Jacob Duché, who worked for the Continental Congress as an official religious leader. One of Francis Hopkinson’s five children, Joseph (1770-1842), served as a member of the US House of Representatives (1815-19) as a Federalist; he also wrote the lyrics for the patriot song, “Hail Columbia.” Joseph’s son, Oliver Hopkinson (1812-1905) served in the Delaware and Pennsylvania militias during the US Civil War. Historian Elizabeth Waara wrote of Hopkinson, “[W]hile Hopkinson’s biography reveals him as a Philadelphia statesman, a judge, a composer, an inventor, a poet, an amateur painter, and a writer of political essays, in other words, a man almost as versatile as Franklin himself, it does not show him as the author of any scientific achievement worthy to stand by those of David Rittenhouse.” [28]

[1] Information courtesy of the Hopkinson genealogical tree, online at http://www.geni.com/people/FrancisHopkinson/6000000012196910148. [2] Some sources report that Hopkinson entered the College in 1751; this is plainly in error, as the first class of the institution began in 1754. For the confirmation of the May 1754 date, see “Biographical Catalogue of the Matriculates of the College, Together with Lists of the Members of the College Faculty and the Trustees, Officers and Recipients of Honorary Degrees, 1749-1893. Prepared by a Committee of the Society of the Alumni” (Philadelphia: Printed for the Society, 1894), 5. [3] Taricani, Jo Ann, “Music in Colonial Philadelphia: Some New Documents,” The Musical Quarterly, LXV:2 (April 1979), 188, 190. [4] Eberlein, Harold Donaldson; and Cortlandt Van Dyke Hubbard, “Music in the Early Federal Era,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, LXIX:2 (April 1945), 112. [5] Hadden, J. Cuthburt, “Johnson, James” in Sir Sidney Lee and Leslie Stephen, eds., “Dictionary of National Biography” (London, Smith, Elder, & Co.; 63 volumes and three supplements, 18851901), XXX:16-17.

Josiah Hornblower (1729–1809)671 [6] The Pennsylvania Evening Post [Philadelphia], 19 August 1775, 368. [7] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), I:l-li. [8] Goodrich, The Rev. Charles A., “Lives of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence” (Hartford, CT: R.G.H. Huntington, 1842), 227. [9] John Adams to Abigail Adams, 21 August 1776, in Charles Francis Adams, “Familiar Letters of John Adams and His Wife Abigail Adams During the Revolution. With a Memoir of Mrs. Adams” (New York: Published by Hurd and Houghton, 1876), 216-17. [10] “Navy Board, Middle district, Philad[elphia], July 24, 1778,” in The Pennsylvania Evening Post [Philadelphia]. 25 July 1778, 255. [11] “Letter to Joseph Galloway, 1778” in Francis Hopkinson, “The Miscellaneous Essays and Occasional Writings of Francis Hopkinson, Esq.” (Philadelphia: Printed by T. Dobson, at the Stone-House, No. 41, Second Street; three volumes, 1792), I:127. [12] “A Plan for the Relief and Support of the Poor and Distressed,” The Pennsylvania Packet [Philadelphia], 12 October 1779, 2. [13] “General Loan Office,” The Pennsylvania Packet [Philadelphia], 11 January 1780, 1. [14] “General Loan Office,” The Connecticut Journal [New Haven], 2 February 1780, 2. [15] Washington to Hopkinson, 5 February 1787, in “Letter of George Washington to Francis Hopkinson 1787,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, XXXVIII:4 (1914), 461. [16] “The Pennsylvania State Trials: Containing the Impeachment, Trial, and Acquittal of Francis Hopkinson, and John Nicholson, Esquires. The Former Being Judge of the Court of Admiralty, and the Latter, the Comptroller-General of the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania” (Philadelphia: Printed by Francis Bailey, at Yorick’s Head, No. 116, High-Street, for Edmund Hogan, 1794), 4. [17] Ibid., 5. [18] See The Pennsylvania Evening Post [Philadelphia], 1 January 1781, 2. [19] See “Extracts From the Journal of the United States Senate in all Cases of Impeachment, Presented by the House of Representatives, 1798-1904” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1912). [20] “The First Judges of the Federal Courts,” The American Journal of Legal History, I:1 (January 1957), 78. [21] “Philadelphia, April 15,” The Carlisle Gazette, And The Western Repository of Knowledge [Pennsylvania], 28 April 1790, 1. [22] Franklin, Benjamin, “Works of the Late Doctor Benjamin Franklin: Consisting of his Life Written by Himself, Together With Essays, Humorous, Moral & Literary, Chiefly in the Manner of The Spectator. In two volumes” (London: Printed for G.G.J. and J. Robinson, 1793), I:303-04. [23] “Died, suddenly,” The Federal Gazette and Philadelphia Daily Advertiser, 9 May 1791, 3. [24] “To the Memory of Francis Hopkinson, Esq.,” Gazette of the United States [Philadelphia], 21 May 1781, 27. [25] Tayssig, Harold E., “Deism in Philadelphia During the Age of Franklin,” Pennsylvania History, XXXVII:3 (July 1970), 224-25. [26] Wecter, Dixon, “Francis Hopkinson and Benjamin Franklin,” American Literature, XII:2 (May 1940), 200. [27] Sonneck, Oscar George Theodore, “Francis Hopkinson: The First American Poet-Composer (1737-1791) and James Lyon, Patriot, Preacher, Psalmodist (1735-1794); Two Studies in Early American Music” (Washington, DC: Printed for the Author by H.L. McQueen, 1905), 3

[28] Waara, Elizabeth R., “Franklin’s ‘Ingenious Friend’ and Scientific Heir,” Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society, CXVIII:4 (13 September 1974), 315.

Josiah Hornblower (1729–1809)

An English-born delegate who represented New Jersey in the Continental Congress (178586), Josiah Hornblower saw military action in the French and Indian War; later, he was deeply involved in New Jersey politics, rising to serve as Speaker of the General Assembly (1780) as well as a judge in the Essex County court system. The fourth son of Joseph Hornblower and his wife Rebecca (née Potter) Hornblower, Josiah Hornblower was born in Staffordshire, England, on 23 February 1729. A search of the name “Josiah Hornblower” reveals that his father, Joseph, worked with Thomas Newcomen, one of the early inventors of the utilization of the steam engine, in Cornwall. Biographer William Nelson, whose 1883 biography of Josiah Hornblower states, “His father, Joseph Hornblower, was even at this early day engaged in superintending the construction of steam-engines, which were just coming into general use in the coal mines of that part of England—now known as the ‘Black County’—and in the deep tin and copper mines of Cornwall, for pumping the water from the dismal depths to which shafts had penetrated.

672

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

These engines, then known as ‘fire-engines,’ were designed by Thomas Newcomen, and embodied the most practical application of the power of steam that had yet been seen, being indeed the first to cope successfully with the problem of how to clear the deep mines from water.” [1]

Symmes and Josiah Hornblower, Esquires, were chosen [as] delegates to represent this state in Congress, for the ensuing year.” [3] This refers to Friday, 28 October 1785. Elected for this single term, Hornblower served from 8 November 1785 to 13 November 1786. [4] In 1786, the respected journal The New-Jersey Almanack reported the same information, that the state was represented in the Continental Congress by Cadwalader, Symmes, and Hornblower. [5]

Josiah Hornblower, raised in the atmosphere of industrious minds such as these, received a fine education in the schools of Staffordshire, and he studied to become a civil engineer to follow in the footsteps of his father. However, in 1753, Joseph Hornblower sold one of his steam engines to the Schuyler Copper Mine in New Jersey, and, unable to make the trip himself, sent his son Josiah with the parts to the New World. When he set foot in New Jersey, he never returned home, perhaps believing that the Americas, instead of England, would be at the forefront of new technologies in the coming years. He settled initially in Belleville, New Jersey, slightly northeast of the city of Newark. Still a British citizen, when the French and Indian War broke out between England and France, Hornblower volunteered for service, and he saw action during the defense of New Jersey from French incursion, rising to the rank of captain of a company of militia. [2] He married Elizabeth Kingsland, the daughter of Colonel William Kingsland, who lived in Belleville. In 1779, Hornblower was elected to the New Jersey state General Assembly. By this time, such an election meant that one was siding with the patriotic forces, which Hornblower had decided to do. He continued his service through 1780, serving as Speaker of that body sometime during that year. On 9 November 1785, The Connecticut Journal of New Haven reported from Trenton that “Thursday last being the day appointed in the constitution of this state for the annual meeting of the legislature, some of the Members of each house met; but, not being a quorum, adjourned to Wednesday, when a sufficient number appeared and proceeded to business. The Hon. John Cleves Symmes, Esq. was elected Vice-President of the Legislative Council, and the Hon. Benjamin Van Cleve, Esq. was chosen Speaker of the House of Assist, for the ensuing year . . . [on Friday] [t]he Hon. Lambert Cadwalader, John Cleves

Three of the issues that dominated the Continental Congress during this time were the lack of a quorum to conduct business (many members either did not attend, or simply refused the honor of their election), the moribund Articles of Confederation, which was making the running of a central US government impossible to do, as states could ignore dictates from the Continental Congress for taxes to pay for the armies, and, lastly, the boundaries of the Mississippi River, and what states would eventually be formed around it. While there does not appear to be any correspondence to or from Hornblower during this period of Continental Congress service, nevertheless he does appear, albeit briefly, in the Journals of that body. For instance, on 24 May 1786, following a vote, we discover that “[a] motion was then made by Mr. [Charles] Pettit [of Pennsylvania], seconded by Mr. Hornblower, to postpone the report of the committee, in order to take into consideration the following: That the acceptance by the United States of any cession heretofore made, or which shall hereafter be made, by any State, of the claims of such state to western territory, ought not, not shall be construed nor understood as confirming, or in any wise strengthening the claim of such state to any such territory not ceded.’” [6] The other references to Hornblower in the Journals refer to “yes” or “no” votes he cast on various matters before the Congress. Historian William Nelson, in describing Hornblower’s work, penned, “[His] votes in Congress clearly show that there, as in the New Jersey Legislature, he was a man of independent convictions, who hesitated not to differ from the great body of members, if his judgment led him that way, though he was by no means always in the minority. We can therefore smile at the petty ebullition of Mr. [James] Monroe in characterizing this large-minded man, of such varied attainments and such wide experience,

Josiah Hornblower (1729–1809)673 and who had been so repeatedly and signally honored in his own State, as having ‘no positive weight of his own.’” [7] In that aforementioned letter, from Monroe to James Madison, dated 12 September 1786, Monroe explained, “I am sorry I came on the business—Before this you have recd. my letters informing of the subsequent progress & final close of the business which lately engag’d us in Congress; or rather so far as it depended on their direction. By agreement nothing was to be done in it untill [sic] our return. I expect to sit out back in a day or two. It will depend much on the opinion of Jersey [sic] & Pena. [sic] as to the movements of [John] Jay—and that of Jersey much of that of Mr. Clark now with you at Annapolis. He put Hornblower in Congress & may turn him out agn [sic; again], for he has no positive weight of his own.” [8]

In answer to your of the fourteenth instant, permit me to give you the following information and opinions, which is not done without consideration and much diffidence, as the enquiries you make are of great importance and delicate in their nature, as you have justly observed. . . . The quality of ore that may be obtained from Schuyler’s mine, is conducted under the sanction of government, with a sufficient capital and prosecuted with vigour [sic], will probably be from 100 to 120 tons annually, which ore, when smelted, will produce about 60 per cent. of fine copper. But as this quantity may be very inadequate to the necessities of government, it may be proper to explore such other mines, as those at Bound-brook, Plackemin, Rocky-hill, Brunswick, Woodbridge, &c. which, if worked with œconomy, will increase the supplies at a moderate expense, besides the chance of making new discoveries which is considerable . . . [10]

Historian W.L. Whittlesey attributes Hornblower’s single term, without any chance for reelection, to his service on the New Jersey Council, from 1781 to 1784, just prior to his time in the Continental Congress, when, stated Whittlesey, he had argued that Virginia did not have the right to take any of the western lands that would open up for other states; this stance, while popular at home, apparently earned Hornblower enmity from Virginia’s Continental Congress delegation; so much so, that the influence of Monroe and Madison made his reelection to the Continental Congress, then sitting in New York City, impossible. [9]

By the mid-1790s, it appears that Josiah Hornblower was retired. In March 1797, we find a newspaper advertisement in which he tried to lease or sell a home, owned by one Zebulon Jones, in the Village of Second River. [11] In another advertisement placed later than same year, we find “five building lots . . . to be sold, at Public Vendue [sic], in Bellville [sic]” with the ad signed by Hornblower. [12] In August 1799, Hornblower and his family suffered a horrific loss, when his son, William Hornblower, died at the age of 34. No cause was listed for his death, but it appears to have come on quickly, which sapped the strength of his father. [13] In his final public service, he served as a judge of the Essex County Court from 1798 until his death.

After his Continental Congress service had ended, Hornblower returned to New Jersey, where he resumed his engineering work, as well as running the mine he had been involved with for many years, although it had been damaged in a fire in 1768; through his machinations, Hornblower was able to restore it to working order and reopened it. In 1794, utilizing his engineering know-how, he helped to construct an ore-stamping foundry, the first such factory for this kind of metalworking in the nation. Working closely with the mill that he had come to America to work in, as well as his other investments, Hornblower helped to construct the first steam engine to operate in America, based on the Newcomen model. In 1800, Hornblower penned a letter to one Aaron Kitchell (Kichell?), in which he discussed the mine:

On 21 January 1809, Josiah Hornblower died at his home in Newark, New Jersey. The Poulson’s American Daily Advertiser, published in Philadelphia, stated, “[A] man of the most respectable and unblemished character, whose life was highly valued, and where death is deeply deplored by all who knew him, but especially by his surviving relatives . . . His Christian fortitude, patience, and resignation were remarkable, when struggling under the most afflicting bereavements.” [14] He was laid to rest in the Belleville Dutch Reformed Churchyard in Belleville, Essex County, New Jersey. The stone adorning his grave has been wiped clean by the elements over the years; in 1929, the Newcomen Society placed a plaque

674

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

on the grave that calls Hornblower a “Pioneer Engineer and Distinguished Citizen.”

Titus Hosmer (c. 1736–1780)

[1] Nelson, William, “Josiah Hornblower, and the First SteamEngine in America, With Some Notices of the Schuyler Copper Mines at Second River, N.J., and a Genealogy of the Hornblower Family” (Newark, NJ: Daily Advertiser Printing House, 1883), 3-4. [2] Hornblower official congressional biography, online at http:// bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=H000791. [3] The Connecticut Journal [New Haven], 9 November 1785, 2. [4] Historian Edmund Cody Burnett confirms the newspaper account, that Hornblower, along with the others, was elected to the Continental Congress seat on 28 October, and not 27 October, 1785. See Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 192136), VIII:xc. [5] Truman, Timothy, “The New-Jersey Almanack for the year of our Lord 1786. Being the Second After Leap-Year. Also the Eleventh of American Independence After the 4th of July Next. Fitted to the Latitude of Forty Degrees, and a Meridian of Near Five Hours West From London. Containing The Motions of the Sun and Moon; the True Places and Aspects of the Planets; the Rising and Setting of the Sun; the Rising, Setting, Southing and Age of the Moon. Also, The Lunations, Conjunctions, Eclipses, Rising, Setting and Southing of the Planets; Length of Days; Judgment of the Weather; Festivals, and Other Remarkable Days; Quakers General Meetings; Courts; Roads; Tide-Table, &c. With Chronological Observations, Useful Tables, and a Variety of Instructive and Entertaining Matter in Prose and Verse. By Timothy Trueman, Philom.” (Trenton, NJ: Printed and Sold by Isaac Collins, 1785), 35. [6] Ford, Worthington Chauncey, et al., eds., “Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; thirty-four volumes, 1905-37), XXX:301. [7] Nelson, “Josiah Hornblower,” op. cit., 48. [8] James Monroe to James Madison, 12 September 1786, in Stanislaus Murray Hamilton, ed., “The Writings of James Monroe: Including a Collection of His Public and Private Papers and Correspondence Now for the First Time Printed” (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons; seven volumes, 1898-1903), I:164. [9] Whittlesey, W.L., “Hornblower, Josiah” in Allen Johnson, et al., “Dictionary of American Biography” (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons; eleven volumes and five supplements, 1958-77), IX:231-32. [10] Hornblower, Josiah, “Letter from Mr. Hornblower to Mr. Kitchell, on the Subject of Schuyler’s Copper Mine, in New-Jersey. April 18th, 1800. Printed by Order of the House of Representatives of the United States” (Philadelphia: Privately Published, 1800), 3-4. [11] “To be Sold, or Let,” The Centinel of Freedom [Newark, New Jersey], 22 March 1797, 3. [12] “To be Sold,” The Centinel of Freedom [Newark, New Jersey], 27 September 1797, 4. An additional advertisement, earlier than these that are highlighted here, appeared in The Centinel of Freedom for 28 December 1796, 3. [13] “Died, at Belleville,” The Centinel of Freedom [Newark, New Jersey], 13 August 1799, 3. [14] “Died, at Belleville,” Poulson’s American Daily Advertiser [Philadelphia], 2 February 1809, 3. For another obituary on Hornblower, see The Centinel of Freedom [Newark, New Jersey], 24 January 1809, 3.

Titus Hosmer served in the Continental Congress from his native Connecticut in a single calendar year (1780). He was a leading politician in The Nutmeg State. He was born in Middleton, Connecticut in 1736 or 1737, the third son and one of eight children of Captain Stephen Hosmer, a seaman, and his wife Deliverance (née Graves) Hosmer (born in Hartford, Connecticut in 1713). The work by George David Read Hubbard traces the family back to Stephen Hosmer, whose birthdate is unknown, but appears in a marriage record in July 1600 in Hawkhurst, Kent, as well as his death in 1633. Hubbard wrote of this Stephen Hosmer and his wife Catharine, “[They] were born during the reign of Queen Elizabeth, about the time when the first public theatre was erected in London.” [1] One of Stephen’s relations, Thomas Hosmer, also of Hawkhurst, emigrated to the New World sometime before 1632 and settled first at Newtown (now Cambridge, Massachusetts), before moving on to Hartford, Connecticut, in 1636. Titus Hosmer received a local education in Connecticut, advancing to the collegiate level. In a speech delivered in 1850, the noted scholar David Dudley Field stated, “While in Yale College, he was distinguished for the acquisition of sciences, excelled in the languages and in fine

Titus Hosmer (c. 1736–1780)675 writing. Being graduated in 1757, [he] settled in Middleton about 1760.” [2] After studying the law—usually in a local law office, tutored by an experienced attorney—Hosmer was admitted to the Connecticut colonial bar and he opened a practice in Middleton in 1760. A year later, he married Lydia Lord; together the couple had seven children, including Stephen Titus Hosmer, who rose to become the chief justice of the Connecticut state Supreme Court.

11 October 1777, but, alas, did not attend any sessions in that year, either. From Burnett we learn that Hosmer did attend sessions from 23 June to 10 September 1778, having been granted a leave on 10 September to return home for some reason. Although he was reelected by the Connecticut House of Representatives on 21 October 1778, he never returned to that body, perhaps because of the ill health that would soon claim his life at such a young age. [5]

In the years before the American Revolution started, Titus Hosmer soon became a leading attorney in Middleton, activities that earned him notices in local Connecticut newspapers, although mostly in advertisements rather than as headlines. For instance, in the year 1766 we find three references to Hosmer, all relating to the sales of estates, or property sold by debtors, or land held by creditors. [3]

His close friend, Silas Deane of Connecticut, who also served in the Continental Congress, wrote to Hosmer on 6 July 1775, “Governor [Philip] Skene, who is by order of Congress to reside for the present at Middletown, or Wethersfield, with such Liberties as to Governor Trumbull shall appear proper. At Philadelphia he had Eight Miles allowed him round the City to take his exercise in at Pleasure. I think he might be allowed Hartford, Wetherfield, and Middletown to choose his residence in. it probably will not be of Long Continuance, and I have assured him and the Gentleman with him, that they will meet with no personal insult or injury but with every civility their situation will admit of. [T]heir Expences will be reimbursed by the Continent.” [6]

Such activities in making a name for himself eventually led Hosmer to move into the political realm. Over the next decade, these small steps into the field of politics included local offices, such as justice of the peace. In October 1773, he was elected as a representative to the Connecticut General Assembly, which formed in the wake of the collapse of royal rule. He held this seat until 1778, siding with the patriot forces against their former British rulers. In May 1778, he was elected as an assistant, which gave him additional powers in the Assembly; he held this seat until his death. In addition, in 1777 Hosmer was elected as the Speaker of the state House of Representatives, where again he made his feelings on the independence of the American nation known quite strongly. Hosmer was a strong advocate for the rights of the colonists; when the initial moves towards war began, he served as a member of the colonial Committee of Safety. [4] On 3 November 1774, Hosmer was elected to a seat in the Continental Congress—unfortunately, most sources, including Hosmer’s own official congressional biography, which states merely that Hosmer served in that body in 1778 only. As historian Edmund Cody Burnett states quite clearly, Hosmer was elected first on 3 November 1774, then reelected on 12 October 1775, although he did not attend any sessions of the body in either 1775 or 1776. He was again reelected on

Two letters from Hosmer deserve attention; both are to Jonathan Trumbull, Governor of Connecticut. In the first, dated 11 August 1778, Hosmer writes of the Continental Congress fleeing the fighting at its temporary home of Yorktown, as well as the lack of work on serious issues before them: The removal of Congress from Yorktown and the reception of the French minister have engrossed a great part of our time, the remainder has been spent principally in the common routine of business which arises daily, and tho’ very necessary to be done, could not deserve your Excellency’s attention in the recital . . . Congress are very industrious, yet many affairs of great importance are crouded [sic] out and postponed by an inevitable attention to events and business constantly arising; and although I have nothing of consequence to inform you of which they have done, I have many things I can mention which they have not done. They have not taken into consideration the state of our paper currency, nor divised [sic] any means to stop the headlong current of depreciation. They have not settled their accounts with the army, the Commissary General, the Quartermaster General,

676

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

the Clothier General, the Commercial Committee, or any other large department. [7]

and see how little has been done since I came here, and consider how much there was to do, and the vast importance that it should be done without loss of time, I feel myself under an obligation to account for my own conduct among others, and can think of no better way to do it, than by telling the truth, which I do the more freely because I can appeal to every gentleman in Congress whether any blame lies upon Connecticut, whether she hath ever been an hour unrepresented, or whether any time hath been lost by the remissness or captiousness or long windedness of her delegates . . . [8]

In the second letter, Hosmer explains that the lack of work on anything of substance in the Continental Congress has “overwhelmed [him] with the most melancholy presages.” He penned: I wish I could with truth assure Your Excellency that in my view our affairs are in a happy train, and that Congress has adopted wise and effectual measures to restore our wounded public credit and to establish the United States their liberty, union, and happiness upon a solid and permanent foundation. I dare not do it, while my heart is overwhelmed with the most melancholy presages. The idleness and captiousness of some gentlemen, maugre [meager] the wishes and endeavours [sic] of an honest and industrious majority, in my apprehension, threaten the worst consequences. The Southern States are fixed against holding Congress more than once a day; our hours are fixed from nine in the forenoon to two in the after noon [sic]. If these were punctually attended it would be perhaps as much as could be spared from committees, other business which must be done out of Congress hours. Nine States make a Congress, some States have delegates so very negligent, so much immersed in the pursuit of pleasure or business, that it is very rare we can make a Congress before near eleven o’clock, and this evil seems incapable of a remedy as Congress has no mean to compel gentlemen’s attendance, and those who occasion the delay are callous to admonition and reproof, which have been often tried in vain. When we are assembled several gentlemen have such a knack at starting questions of order, raising debates upon critical, captious, and trifling amendments, protracting them by long speeches, by postponing, calling for the previous question, and other arts, that it is almost impossible to get an important question decided at one sitting; and if it is put over to another day, the field is open to be gone over again, precious time is lost, and the public business left undone. . . . I am sorry to add that the opposition between the States, and the old prejudices of North against South, and South against North, seem to be reviving, and are industriously heightened by some, who, I fear, would be but too well pleased to see our union blasted and our independence broken and destroyed I wish what I have wrote may not seem too much like complaining of Congress; but besides that, I am sure it is a just picture of our present situation. When I look back

One letter, which has been rarely printed was one whose true recipient has been lost: a multipage diatribe against the bureaucratic maze that was the Continental Congress. Historians J.H. Powell, Louise Rau, and John P. Sheldon note that it may be either Roger Sherman or Oliver Wolcott, both intimates and contemporaries of Hosmer in Connecticut. In the missive, Hosmer wrote from Philadelphia, while still in the Continental Congress, on 16 August 1778: As I hope you are determined and preparing to come here as soon as possible will you give me leave to introduce you to Congress, & attempt to give you an imperfect Idea of the Course of Business in Congress and in the several Sub divisions of Congress. We meet at nine & continue sitting till two in the after noon [sic], after prayers the States are called, nine are a quorum to proceed on Business, the public Letters are first read & disposed off. [N]ext Reports from the Treasury & then Reports from the Board of War. these matters by a standing Order must be gone thro’ before any other Business can be moved, for the Rest points are started, debated, and determined in nearly the same manner as in our Assembly, saving that much Time is spent, too much I think in all Conscience in debating points of Order, they are referred to the House, and the Decision does not seem to depend on any fixed or known Rules, but the present Opinion of what is decent & proper in the Case before us, which gives much the same, in deed a greater Latitude than in debating points of Common Law in our Courts. Besides the General Business which is originated & discussed in Congress, the House is subdivided into standing Committees or Boards each of which is to pay their Attention to some one [sic] Capital Branch, give Orders in the Executive part, and report to Congress where its Aid is wanted to regulate and enforce. [9]

Hospital Department of the US Continental Army677 Hosmer then related the numerous boards and committees that each single initiative had to go through, making the process tedious and never-ending. After returning to Connecticut, in January 1780 Hosmer was elected as a judge of a newly established Court of Appeals, formed by the Continental Congress to revise the nation’s maritime laws.

[11] Barlow, Joel, “An Elegy on the Late Honorable Titus Hosmer, Esq. One of the Counsellors of the State of Connecticut, a Member of Congress, and a Judge of the Maritime Court of Appeals for the United States of America” (Hartford, CT: Printed by Hudson & Goodwin, 1782), 5.

Before he could take his seat, Hosmer suddenly died while in Middleton on 4 August 1780. Obituaries merely announce his passing; no reason is given for his death at such a young age. [10] He was laid to rest in Mortimer Cemetery in Middletown, in Middlesex County, Connecticut. His wife, Lydia, followed him in 1798, and is buried next to him.

A nation at war needs not only to fight, but also to treat its troops wounded in battle. For the infant United States, as the American Revolution raged from 1774 to 1783, a medical unit became a necessity for the Continental Army.

Writer Joel Barlow penned “An Elegy” to the deceased Hosmer in 1780. In it, he wrote: “Come to my soul, O shade of Hosmer, come Tho’ doubting senates ask thy aid in vain; Attend the drooping virtues round thy tomb, And hear a while the orphan’d Muse complain. [11]

[1] Hubbard, George David Read, comp. and pub., “Ancestors and Descendants of Josiah Hosmer Jr. 1600 to 1902” (Brooklyn, NY: Privately Published, 1902), 12-13. See also the Hosmer family tree, online at http://www.geni.com/people/Titus-Hosmer-Cont-Cong ressman/6000000011263461776. [2] Field, David Dudley, “Extract from the Centennial Address, Delivered at Middleton, by David Dudley Field, D.D., Nov. 13th, 1850” in James Bidwell Hosmer, “Genealogy of the Hosmer Family” (Hartford, CT: Steam Press of E. Geer, 1861), 15. [3] For three instances, see The Connecticut Courant, 19 May 1766, 4; The Connecticut Courant, 4 August 1766, 4; and The Connecticut Courant, 1 September 1766, 4. [4] Schmehl, Lawrence H., “Hosmer, Titus” in Allen Johnson, et al., “Dictionary of American Biography” (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons; eleven volumes and five supplements, 1958-77), IX:245. [5] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), I:xli; II:xxxix; III:li. [6] Silas Dean to Titus Hosmer, 6 July 1775, in ibid., I:153-54. [7] Titus Hosmer to Jonathan Trumbull, the governor of Connecticut, 11 August 1778, in ibid., III:366. [8] Titus Hosmer to Jonathan Trumbull, the governor of Connecticut, 31 August 1778, in ibid., III:394-96. [9] Powell, J.H., Louise Rau and John P. Sheldon, “Notes and Documents: Government under the Continental Congress,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, LX:1 (January 1936), 72-73. [10] See the short obituaries in The Independent Chronicle and The Universal Advertiser [Boston], 17 August 1780, 3, and The Newport Mercury. Containing the Freshest Advices, Foreign and Domestic [Rhode Island], 19 August 1780, 2.

Hospital Department of the US Continental Army

In 1774, when the American Revolution began, many died not from being killed on the field of battle, but from wounds that doctors and nurses could not treat. The idea of a colonywide plan of action to make the treatment of the wounded a priority was remote. Several of the nation’s leading physicians stepped up to found hospitals to treat these wounded soldiers. Of Dr. William Beanes, historian Caleb Clarke Magruder, Jr., wrote in 1919, “Following the battle of Lexington the government established the first General Hospital at Philadelphia, where [doctors] treated the maimed brought from bloody Long Island and Brandywine, as well as those half-starved and near-frozen patriots from gloomy Valley Forge.” [1] Another physician, New Jerseyite Dr. William Burnet, who later served as a delegate to the Continental Congress from that state (178081), also came forward; historian and US Supreme Court Justice Joseph P. Bradley wrote in 1879, “At the first breaking out of the war he had, principally at his own expense, established a military hospital at Newark for sick and wounded soldiers, and amongst his other arduous duties, had given it much of his personal superintendence.” [2] In addition to the lack of a centralized medical response to the oncoming conflict, there was no military structure to aid in fighting the war, either. Following the battles of Lexington and Concord on 19 April 1775, the Continental Congress, meeting in Philadelphia, voted on 14 June 1775 to take command over the militia in Massachusetts and establish it as the core of the new Continental Army. The following day, George Washington of Virginia was appointed by that body as the commander-in-chief of the

678

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

entire Continental Army. [3] The new commander immediately went to Cambridge, Massachusetts, to take command of the troops, arriving there on 2 July. He then penned a letter—perhaps his first official move—to the delegates, who had just named him to this vaunted position, and dated 20 July, calling for the creation of a “Hospital,” located somewhere in the colonies, where wounded troops could be treated. In the missive, he explained, “I have made inquiry with respect to the Establishment of the Hospital, and find it in a very unsetled [sic] Condition. There is no Principal Director, nor any Subordination among the Surgeons; of consequence Disputes and Contentions have arisen and must continue until it is reduced to some System. I could wish that it was immediately taken into consideration as the Lives and Health of both Officers and Soldiers so much depend upon a due regulation of this Department.” [4]

One nurse to every 10 sick, one fifteenth of a dollar per day, or 2 dollars per month. Labourers occasionally.

Ironically, one short day before Washington even wrote his letter, the Continental Congress itself was independently considering the establishment of some “national agency” to handle such matters. As the Journals of the Continental Congress relate:

With these orders in hand, the physicians of the American colonies set out to save as many wounded American troops as possible. It would not be an easy task. Writing in 1876 of this period, Dr. John Shaw Billings wrote, “At the commencement of the Revolutionary War, we had one medical book by an American author, three reprints, and about twenty pamphlets.” [7] This “lone book” was “Plain Concise Practical Remarks, on the Treatment of Wounds and Fractures” (1775), by John Jones (1729-1791). [8]

“That a Committee of three be appointed to report the method of establishing an hospital [sic]. The committee chosen, Mr. [Francis] Lewis [of New York], Mr. [Robert Treat] Paine [of Massachusetts], and Mr. [Henry] Middleton [of South Carolina].” [5] On 27 July, this three-man committee submitted its report, and the entire Continental Congress, sitting as a Committee of the Whole, took into consideration the report of the committee on establishing an hospital [sic], and the same being debated, was agreed to as follows: That for the establishment of an hospital [sic] for an army, consisting of 20,000 men, the following officers and other attendants be appointed, with the following allowance or pay, viz. One Director general [sic] and chief physician, his pay per day, 4 dollars. Four surgeons, per diem each, one and one third of a dollar. One apothecary, one and one third of a dollar. Twenty [surgeons’] mates, each, two thirds of a dollar. One clerk, two thirds of a dollar. Two storekeepers, each four dollars per month.

The duty of the above officers: viz. Director to furnish medicines, Bedding and all other necessaries, to pay for the same, superintend the whole, and make his report to, and receive orders from[,] the commander in chief [sic]. Surgeons, To visit and attend the sick, and the Apothecary mates to obey the orders of the physicians, and mates, surgeons and apothecary. Matron. To superintend the nurses, bedding, &c. Nurses. To attend the sick, and obey the matron’s orders. Clerk. To keep accounts for the director and store keepers [sic]. Store keeper. To receive and deliver the bedding and other necessaries by order of the director. [6]

Ultimately, while the formation of such a “federal” department in a “federal” government that barely existed at all was established by the Continental Congress, its establishment was the work of two men: Dr. Benjamin Rush and Dr. James Tilton. Rush, who was a member of the faculty of the Medical School of the College of Philadelphia, which had been founded by Dr. John Morgan in 1765 based on his studies of European hospitals, was a leading exponent of increasing health measures that today are routine, such as hand washing and clean linen for bed. Rush’s efforts in this field led to a general order—one of his first—issued by General Washington, on 4 July 1775: “All officers are required and expected to pay diligent Attention to keep their Men neat and clean; to visit them often at their quarters, and inculcate upon them the necessity of cleanliness, as essential to their health and service. They are particularly to see, that they have Straw to lay on, if to be had, and to

Hospital Department of the US Continental Army679 make it known if they are destitute of this article. They are also to take that care that Necessarys [sic] be provided in the camps and frequently filled up to prevent their being offensive and unhealthy. Proper Notice will be taken of such Officers and Men, as distinguish themselves by their attention to these necessary duties.” [9] Despite these specific orders, many of the camps came nowhere near the lowest standard for cleanliness and hygiene. Following the winter at Valley Forge in 1777-78, General Washington toured that specific camp. Brigadier General George Weedon, in his “Orderly Book,” wrote on 13 March 1778 that the General was paled by the conditions he found. Weedon wrote, “Nastiness . . . is spread amongst ye Hutts [sic], which will soon be reduc’d to a state of putrefaction and cause a Sickly Camp.” [10] Benjamin Rush, who signed the Declaration of Independence, was, by 1777, one of the most eminent physicians in America. On 22 April 1777, he penned a lengthy article for John Dunlap’s Pennsylvania Packet, or, The General Advertiser, which was then published in pamphlet form as “Directions For Preserving the Health of Soldiers” (1778). In the article, Rush penned, “Fatal experience has taught the people of America that a greater proportion of men have perished from sickness in our army than have fallen by the sword. The last two campaigns have produced melancholy proofs of this assertion.” He then stated, “The gallant youth who had torn himself from the arms of his parents or the partner of his joys, who had plighted his life to his country in the field; and who, perhaps, in the enthusiasm of his military ardor had courted death from a cannon ball, was often forced from the scene of action and glory by an attack of a fever, and obligated to languish for days or weeks in an hospital [sic] . . .” [11] That same month, the Continental Congress named Rush as surgeon-general of the armies of the Middle Department of the United States, with this title later being changed to physiciangeneral of all of the military hospitals of that same district, a post he held until 30 January 1778, when he resigned. Yet, even as battles raged and soldiers were getting some of the best care available at that time, there was no “central authority” to give specific nationwide instructions on what care

to give and how. In a report printed by the Continental Congress in 1780, the formation of a “hospital department” in the Continental Army was debated, and a plan for the establishment of such an agency was laid out: Whereas the late regulations for conducting the affairs of the general hospital are in many respects defective; and it is necessary that the same be revised and amended, in order that the sick and wounded may be properly provided for and attended [to], and the business of the hospitals conducted with regularity and economy: therefore, Resolved, That there be one director of the military hospitals, who shall have the general direction and superintendence of all the hospitals to the southward of North Carolina: that, within the aforesaid limits, there be three chief hospital physicians, who shall also be surgeons; one chief physician, who shall also be surgeon [sic] to each separate army; fifteen hospital physicians, who shall also be surgeons; twenty surgeons mates for the hospitals; one purveyor, with assistants; one apothecary, one assistant apothecary; and to each hospital a steward, matron, orderly men and nurses, as heretofore . . . [12] The second man who made a notable impact on the infant field of healthcare was Dr. James Tilton. One of the leading physicians in the colonies when the war broke out, Tilton (17451822) did more in the field of the prevention of disease, rather than its treatment. In 1813, Tilton published “Economical Observations on Military Hospitals; and the Prevention and Cure of Diseases Incident to an Army” (1813). Although written in 1781, as per Tilton’s admission, nevertheless it contains the text of the actual report delivered to the “medical committee” of the Continental Congress, at that time chaired by Gouverneur Morris (whom Tilton refers to as “Governeur”). In the headline of the report, Tilton wrote, “It is remarkable, that none of the military writers have paid much attention to the regulation of military hospitals; and while every other branch of army arrangements is digested into method and system, yet this is still unsettled, different in almost every service, changeable and to be learned at the commencement of every year.” [13] Tilton’s area of expertise was prevention rather than cure; to this point, he penned: It may seem strange at first view, that I should call upon commanding officers to take care of the health of the men under their command, or that I should expect

680

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

they would pay any regard to sickness incident to an army. I hope, however, in the sequel to shew [sic] that upon them especially depend the health and comfort of the soldiers, and that the medical staff are only to be regarded as adjutants, in the recovery of the sick. . . . In a young and inexperienced army especially the officers are too apt to consider military duty as the only obligation upon them, regardless of the condition of their men, when if they fall sick, are without further thought turned over to the care of the surgeons. The ignorance and irregularities of the men in a new scene of life, subject them to numberless diseases. The sick flow in a regular current to the hospitals; these are crowded so as to produce infection; and mortality ensues too affecting to describe. [14]

[7] Billings, Dr. John Shaw, “Literature and Institutions, In A Century of American Medicine, 1776-1876” (Philadelphia: Henry C. Lea, 1876), 293. [8] See Jones, John, “Plain Concise Practical Remarks, on the Treatment of Wounds and Fractures; To Which is Added a Short Appendix on Camp and Military Hospitals; Principally Designed for the Use of Young Military Surgeons, in North-America” (NewYork: John Holt, 1775; reprinted, Philadelphia: R. Bell, 1776). [9] Fitzpatrick, John C., ed., “The Writings of George Washington,” op. cit., III:309-10. In the letter, Washington refers to “Necessarys”—this was another name for a latrine, or an in-camp bathroom used by the troops. [10] Middleton, William Shainline; and Douglas MacFarlan, “Medicine at Valley Forge,” Annual Medical History, Third Series, III:6 (November 1941), 461-86. See also Middleton, William Shainline; and Douglas MacFarlan, “Medicine at Valley Forge” (Valley Forge, PA: Valley Forge Historical Society, 1962). [11] The article can be found in its entirety in L.H. Butterfield, ed., “Letters of Benjamin Rush” (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society; two volumes, 1951), I:140. The article in its contemporary form can be found, entitled “For the Pennsylvania Packet. Directions for Preserving the Health of Solders [sic].” in Dunlap’s Pennsylvania Packet, or, The General Advertiser [Philadelphia], 22 April 1777, 1. The article takes up the entirety of the first page of that issue, and portions of page three, where it was continued. [12] “Plan for Conducting The Hospital Department of the United States” (Philadelphia: Printed by David C. Claypoole, Printer to the Honourable the Congress, 1780), 3. [13] Tilton, Dr. James, “Economical Observations on Military Hospitals; and the Prevention and Cure of Diseases Incident to an Army. In Three Parts: Addressed I. To Ministers of State and Legislatures. II. To Commanding Officers. III. To the Medical Staff. By Dr. James Tilton, M.D. Physician and Surgeon in the Revolutionary Army of the United States” (Wilmington, DE: Printed by J. Wilson, 1813), 9. [14] Ibid., 27, 28-29. [15] “Journals of Congress: Containing Their Proceedings from November 1, 1784, to November 4, 1785. Published by Authority. Volume X. From Folwell’s Press” (Philadelphia: From the Press of R. Folwell, 1801), 33.

Throughout the official documents of the Continental Congress, including in that body’s Journals, can be found myriad references to the “Hospital Department” of the Continental Army. For instance, in February 1785, the Continental Congress resolved “[t]hat Mr. J.B. Cutting, be allowed to verify on oath, his abstract of issues or expenditures in the hospital department, and that his cash account be finally settled.” [15] Following the surrender of the British forces under Lord Cornwallis at Yorktown on 19 October 1781, a two-year cease-fire held until a formal end to the war was signed in Paris in 1783. With that accord, the Continental Army and the Hospital Department were virtually disbanded, as the nation’s leaders believed that the need for such entities was now nonexistent, and continuing them would strain finances and resources needed elsewhere. See also: Dr. William Burnet; Benjamin Rush

[1] Magruder, Caleb Clarke, Jr., “Dr. William Beanes, the Incidental Cause of the Authorship of the Star-Spangled Banner,” Records of the Columbia Historical Society, Washington, DC, XXII (1919), 207-25. [2] Bradley, Joseph P., “William Burnet, M.D.,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, III:3 (1879), 312. [3] For both actions, see Ford, Worthington Chauncey, et al., eds., “Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; thirty-four volumes, 1905-37), II:89-91. [4] Fitzpatrick, John C., ed., “The Writings of George Washington” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; thirty-seven volumes, 1931-40), III:350. [5] Ford, “Journals of the Continental Congress,” op. cit., II:191. [6] Ibid., II:209-10.

William Churchill Houston (c. 1746–1788)

William Churchill Houston (c. 1746–1788) 681 A delegate to the Continental Congress from New Jersey (1779-81, 1784-85), William Churchill Houston also served as the deputy secretary of that body, serving under Secretary Charles Thomson. A distinguished New Jersey politician, Houston served as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention in 1787.

certain subjects. Unable to gain what he felt was a comprehensive education, William Churchill Houston left South Carolina for New Jersey, where he studied what are called by historians “classical studies”—languages, mathematics, and other subjects important at the time. He entered Princeton College (now Princeton University), and, while attending classes, he taught various subjects, probably as a tutor. He graduated from Princeton in 1768, but he remained as a teacher at the school (including as the Master of the college’s school of grammar), off and on, until 1783, when he resigned as a professor of mathematics and natural philosophy, a dual seat he had accepted in 1771. (Some sources report that Houston did not begin teaching until after he graduated in 1768.) Houston would also serve as the treasurer of the university. [4]

Houston was born in Sumter District, South Carolina in 1746. His parents were Archibald Houston and Margaret (no maiden name known) Houston. Biographer Thomas Allen Glenn wrote of Houston in 1903, “The family from which these Houstons sprang was of Scotch ancestry and bore a name long distinguished in the annals of the Lowland of that country for learning, patriotism and valor, and, like a majority of their fellow countrymen, its members were stern and uncompromising adherents of the Presbyterian Church. Archibald, the father of William Churchill Houston, first appears upon the records of North Carolina in 1753, in which year he received a patent of land within the county of Anson, and he afterwards, in 1764, patented five hundred additional acres, then in the bounds of Mecklenburg, and acquired other lands adjacent. He was a planter of importance and wealth, superior in education and intelligence to many of his neighbors . . .” Of Archibald’s son, Glenn stated, “There is no reason for doubting the definite statement that the exact place of his birth was in the ‘Sumter District,’ in South Carolina. Here, on Bull creek, his kinsman, Dr. William Houston, the friend and partner of Henry McCulloch. the land speculator, and a man of considerable prominence and influence in both of the Carolinas, owned a large plantation.” [1] Unfortunately, Glenn could find no information on Margaret Houston, her maiden name (one family tree lists her date of birth as 1710, but adds nothing further) [2], or where she may have been born. Sometime during the 1750s, the family moved from Sumter to Anson County, located in the North Carolina piedmont, where he grew up. A genealogy of the Huston family, published in 1968, claims that the family’s original name was, in fact, Huston, and that William Churchill Houston is a member of their clan. [3]

The onset of the American Revolution led to numerous changes for William Churchill Houston. A close friend of Princeton’s president, John Witherspoon, when Witherspoon was elected to a seat in the Continental Congress in 1776 (he signed the Declaration of Independence that same year), Houston was given the responsibilities of the president’s office. At the same time, Houston volunteered for military service on behalf of the Continental Army: He was named to the Second Regiment of the Somerset (New Jersey) Militia, with the rank of captain, in 1775. That same year, he was named as the deputy secretary to the Continental Congress, serving under the Secretary, Charles Thomson. He retained this position until 1776, when he took his seat as a member of the New Jersey Provincial Congress. In 1777, Houston was elected to the first postrevolution legislature in the state, the New Jersey House of Assembly, where he served until 1779. In 1778, he served on the Council of Safety, which ruled the state for a short period after the collapse of the royal government. [5] Historians Eli Field Cooley and William Scudder Cooley wrote in 1883, “[He] resumed the duties of his chair [at Princeton] as soon as the safety of the college permitted.” [6] At some point during these years, Houston married Jane Smith; the couple would have five children.

The Houston family were of the Society of Friends, better known as the Quakers, and at that time the religion frowned on the study of

On 25 May 1779, Houston was elected by the New Jersey Assembly to a seat in the Continental Congress, “untill [sic] the first day of December

682

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

next, unless a new Appointment shall sooner take place.” He was subsequently reelected on 17 November 1779, and 24 November 1780, and served in the body from 9 July to about 7 October 1779, 19-20 October 1779, 25 October to 31 December 1779, 1 January to 12 July 1780, about 9 August to about t8 August 1780, and from about 21 September to about 25 December 1780. Historian Edmund Cody Burnett notes that “Houston’s election [on] 25 May was presumably in place of Theodore Frelinghuysen, who had asked to be excused.” [7] There is much correspondence, both from and to Houston, during his Continental Congress service. One such letter of much importance shows that Houston was not happy with the ethical situation in the body, and he wrote to New Jersey Governor William Livingston about his concerns:

perhaps be a matter of some discouragement. If the gentlemen know what is alledged [sic] to their charge, I am astonished they do not apply for an opportunity of justification. Certainly if I should ever be of importance enough to be found fault with, I should expect the liberty of explaining facts and motives; after that it is the part of an honest man to submit in silence to the judgment of those who have a right to pass upon his conduct . . . [8]

I am sorry that it has not been in my power to command as much time as I should have wished to employ in giving a distinct account to the legislature of the most material occurrences in the progress of business since I came to Congress. It is certainly the duty of every person in public trust to make those from whom he derives his appointment acquainted with the manner in which he executes it, that they may be able to decide how far he fulfils or deceives their expectations, and to form at any time, a clear estimate of his character. Next to want of fidelity, I look upon the neglect of giving due information to his constituents, the greatest crime in a public man. The principal intention of this is to point at a question which, from accidental circumstances, has acquired a magnitude and importance above what, simply considered, it was entitled to—A question which has excited much inveteracy and ill-blood in Congress, and not a few speculations and suspicions abroad . . . Upon reviewing what I have written, a suspicion occurs that the above representation may imply a reflection on the conduct of some of my colleagues, which is far from my meaning, as it would be repugnant to justice. The time is not the same, other circumstances also disagree; on the contrary, I must declare that I think their situation hard and undeserved. The whole train of the transaction I can trace minutely. To the quarter from whence the accusations have originated, the motives which inspired them and the instruments which have been employed for their circulation, I am not a stranger, nor am I surprised at anything thus far. But that their fellow-citizens should entertain impressions unfavorable to those they once thought well of, and not call for an investigation of their conduct, or suspend their opinions till an explanation should be had, may

Houston was tasked to sit on a committee to hear a petition from Silas Deane, who had asked the Continental Congress to examine his records for possible remuneration of expenses he had incurred while serving in Paris. Serving with Henry Laurens of South Carolina, Houston submitted his portion of the committee’s report on 9 September 1779. He wrote, “The Committee to whom was referred the Memorial of Silas Deane Esqr. of the 16 Augt. last, Report, That they have considered the said Memorial, and are of opinion . . . [t]hat the Memorialist [Deane] was directed in the Instructions given him by the Secret Committee to keep an exact and circumstantial Account of all his transactions of every kind from time to time, and that therefore Congress had a right to expect a fuller satisfaction in this particular than can be derived from the Papers and vouchers Mr. Deane has produced, even under the Idea that the Resolution of Congress of the 8th December 1777 was an order immediately to repair to America.” [9] Houston also was involved in the financial matters of the new American nation, as demonstrated in a letter to one Moore Furman, 14 July 1780: “On my Arrival at Congress I immediately applied to the Committee appointed to confer with the Inspectours [sic] of the Bank in this City, and explained to them as my own Ideas the Subject on which we conversed, mentioning also that you were apprehensive of Inconveniences. The Paper I delivered to Mr. [William] Livingston, one of the Committee, who promised to confer with the Inspectours [sic].” [10] After he left the Continental Congress, Houston studied the law in New Jersey, and was admitted to that state’s bar in 1781. He opened a practice in Trenton two years later, but it does not appear that he became a leading attorney in that city. In 1781, the Continental Congress elected him as the first comptroller of the Treasury, the forerunner of the Department of the Treasury under the

William Churchill Houston (c. 1746–1788) 683 US Constitution, but he refused to serve in the position, instead remaining in New Jersey to take the office of clerk of the New Jersey state Supreme Court, a position he held until 1788. In 1782, at the same time, when the Continental Congress named him as the official Receiver of Continental Taxes—perhaps the forerunner of the modern Internal Revenue Service—he accepted the post, and served until 1785. On 29 October 1784, for the second time, the New Jersey Assembly elected Houston to a seat in the Continental Congress; he then attended sessions of the body from 29 November to 24 December 1784, 21 June to 1 July 1785, and, finally, 12 to 17 October 1785. [11] These were the years after the Articles of Confederation went into effect, but their weaknesses were increasingly spotlighted, and calls for reforms to a central governing authority began to become louder and louder. In 1786, after Houston left the Continental Congress, he served as a delegate to the Annapolis Convention, held in Maryland in September of that year. Better known as the Convention of the Commissioners to Remedy Defects of the Federal Government, the meeting called for a national convention of the states to either reform the virtually moribund Articles of Confederation, or scrap them altogether and draft an entirely new plan of government. The parley that was called for became the Constitutional Convention, which convened in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787. When the convention opened in Philadelphia on 25 May 1787, New Jersey was represented by David Brearly and William Churchill Houston. John Neilson, also named as a delegate, declined the honor of the appointment, but gave no official reason for his declination. [12] According to most sources, Houston participated very little in the debates in the meetings. Historian Joseph C. Morton chalks this up to his being in the advanced condition of the tuberculosis that would claim his life the following year. Morton explained, “Unfortunately, illness greatly limited his attendance in Philadelphia to only a couple of weeks. He was in attendance on Friday, May 25 (the first official session), but because of a severe case of tuberculosis was forced to leave [on] June 6, never to return.” Morton does see promise in Houston had been able to attend. “There is little doubt that Houston would have been, if he had been able to ‘stay the course,’

an asset to the talented New Jersey delegation. He was, among the fifty-five attendees, one of the better educated.” [13] As noted, Houston was in the final throes of tuberculosis when he served in the Constitutional Convention, and he was literally unable to do much. Some historians confuse him with Georgia delegate William Houstoun, who had also served in the Continental Congress; it was Houstoun, and not William Churchill Houston, who urged the Constitutional Convention to adopt a scheme of allowing the proposed lower house of the new federal government to be represented by population. He left the city only a week after arriving, and thus he did not sign the document’s final draft, although he sent a report on the activities in the convention to the New Jersey Assembly. His support, or opposition, to the final document is not known. On 12 August 1788, Houston died in Frankford, Pennsylvania; Thomas’s Massachusetts Spy, Or, American Oracle of Liberty, of Worcester, Massachusetts, noted that Houston “died on his way to Philadelphia,” which was not true. [14] Houston was survived by his wife, the former Jane Smith, and his two daughters. Although a citizen of New Jersey, he was laid to rest in the Second Presbyterian Churchyard in Philadelphia. His gravestone is virtually unreadable; however, a plaque placed by his grave in 1937 reads, “William C. Houston. A Framer of the Constitution of United States is Buried in This Cemetery. Commissioner from New Jersey to Federal Constitutional Convention May 25, 1787-September 17, 1787. Erected by the Pennsylvania Constitutional Commemoration Committee, 1937.”

[1] Glenn, Thomas Allen, “William Churchill Houston, 1746-1788” (Norristown, PA: Privately Printed, 1903), 1-2. [2] See the family tree of William Churchill Houston, online at http://www.geni.com/people/William-Houston/6000000018859769055. [3] Huston, Cleburne, “Bold Legacy: The Story of the HoustonHuston Ancestors, 1150 to 1800” (Waco, TX: Printed by Texian Press, 1968), 171, 181-82. [4] Houston official congressional biography, online at http:// bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=H000830. [5] Ibid. [6] Cooley, Eli Field, and William Scudder Cooley, “Genealogy of Early Settlers in Trenton and Ewing, ‘Old Hunterdon County,’ New Jersey” (Trenton, NJ: The W.S. Sharp Printing Co., Printers and Stereotypers, 1883), 125.

684

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

[7] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), IV:lvi; V:lix. [8] William Churchill Houston to William Livingston, the governor of New Jersey, 5 October 1779, in ibid., IV:472-74. [9] Houston, “Proposed Report on Deane’s Memorial,” 9 September 1779, in ibid., IV:414. [10] Houston to Moore Furman, 14 July 1780, in Paul H. Smith, ed., “Letters of Delegates to Congress, 1774-1789” (Washington, DC: Library of Congress; 26 volumes, 1976-2000), XV:447. [11] Burnett, “Letters of Members,” op. cit., VII:lxx; VIII:xc. [12] Murrin, Mary R., “To Save This State from Ruin: New Jersey and the Creation of the United States Constitution, 1776-1789” (Trenton: New Jersey Historical Commission, Department of State, 1987), 70. [13] Morton, Joseph C., “Shapers of the Great Debate at the Constitutional Convention of 1787: A Biographical Dictionary” (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2006), 140. [14] See Thomas’s Massachusetts Spy, Or, American Oracle of Liberty [Worcester, Massachusetts], 21 August 1788, 3; see also the obituary notice in The Independent Chronicle and The Universal Advertiser [Boston], 28 August 1788, 3.

His parents were Sir Patrick Houstoun, a baron in his native Scotland, and his wife Priscilla (née Dunbar) Houstoun, also born in Scotland. Sir Patrick Houstoun, born in Scotland, was a member of the King’s Council, serving additionally as the Registrar General. In addition to his son John, Sir Patrick also had sons William Houstoun (who would, like his brother John, serve in the Continental Congress) and Patrick. Genealogist Joseph Gaston Baillie Bulloch, in a history of the Houstoun and Bayard families in America, wrote in 1919, “In the reign of Malcolm IV of Scotland, 1153-65, the grant of a Barony was made to Hugo De Padvinan, and the name of the Baron was changed to Hugh’stown; afterward, when surnames came in vogue, the name was eventually corrupted to Houstoun. Several descendants of this Hugo received [a] Knighthood, and in 1668 the representative of the family was created a Baronet by King Charles II of England. When Gen. [James] Oglethorpe went to Georgia, the fifth Baronet, Sir Patrick Houstoun, accompanied him, and founded this ancient and illustrious family of Georgia, who helped [to] lay the foundations of the commonwealth.” [2]

John Houstoun (c. 1744–1796)

[1]

A controversy over John Houstoun’s date of birth clouds all of the biographies of him. Most sources list the 1744 date; historian Jim Schmidt, says that “The true date and place of John Houstoun’s birth are unknown: historians believe that he was born sometime between 1746 and 1748, in either the village of Frederica, Georgia, or on his family’s plantation, ‘Rosdue.’” [3] A 1950 biography by Edith Duncan Johnston, gives neither the 1744 date, nor the ones claimed by Schmidt. [4]

John Houstoun (pronounced “House-ton”) was an attorney who served in the Georgia legislature, a delegate to the Continental Congress (177576), and governor of Georgia (1778, 1784). The brother of fellow Continental Congress delegate William Houstoun, John Houstoun was also the first mayor of the city of Savannah. Houstoun was born at his family’s plantation, “Rosdue,” in rural Georgia, on 31 August 1744.

Houstoun studied the law under a well-known attorney in Charleston, South Carolina, and he opened a law practice in the city of Savannah in 1771. Although Sir Patrick Houstoun was an important figure in the royal government in the Georgia colony, his son during this time turned to the patriot cause, railing against the English government. Houstoun soon became a leader among those who advocated opposing Britain for its series of harsh economic measures enacted against the American colonies, along with Archibald Bulloch, Noble Wimberly Jones, and George Walton. Jones was a member of the administration of Governor James Wright, who

John Houstoun (c. 1744–1796)685 ruled the colony with an iron fist. On 20 July 1774, Houstoun, Jones, and Bulloch published an open letter in The Georgia Gazette, calling for a meeting to be held at Tondee’s Tavern in Savannah on 27 July, to decide on a plan of action against the royal authorities. Governor Wright objected to the 27 July meeting, as well as another one called for 10 August, but in defiance of the royal decree that attendance was against the law that second parley was held, with the key representatives showing up, including John Houstoun. Historian Buddy Sullivan explained, “When representatives from the colony’s Parishes met in defiance of Wright at Peter Tondee’s tavern in Savannah in August 1774, Georgia was irrevocably committed to the growing movement of resistance to parliamentary authority. Though Georgia elected no representatives to the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia, the colony did elect three delegates to the Second Continental Congress the following January: Noble W. Jones, Archibald Bulloch, and John Houstoun (all from Christ Church Parish).” [5] The 10 August meeting came as the Boston Port Bill was hitting the residents of that Massachusetts city hard with sanctions over the Boston Tea Party. The attendees at Tondee’s formed a committee, led by Houstoun, which would raise funds to be sent to Boston to aid the populace. The previous month, members of Committees of Correspondence from the various colonies issued a call for a “general meeting” of the colonists to be held in September 1774 in Philadelphia. This “general meeting” came to be known as the First Continental Congress; however, Georgia did not send delegates, even though a Provincial Congress, established again in defiance of the royal government, elected Houstoun, Bulloch, and Jones, because that body represented less than half of the colony’s parishes (five of the twelve were represented), and the men felt that they could not adequately represent all of the people they would be speaking for. Historian Charles C. Jones, Jr. wrote in 1891, “The Provincial Congress, feeble as it was, did nominate Houstoun, Archibald Bulloch, and Dr. Noble Wimberly Jones to represent Georgia in the Continental Congress. Rightly judging, however, that an election by a minority of the parishes did not justify a claim on their

part to represent the entire Province, those gentlemen did not attempt to take their seats in the Continental Congress to which they had been accredited, but contented themselves with addressing a carefully prepared communication to the president of that body, in which they suggested reasons in explanation of the course adopted by them.” [6] In their letter, signed jointly by all three men, they laid out the reasons for their inability to attend the conference in Philadelphia: The unworthy part which the Province of Georgia has acted in the great and general contest, leaves room to expect little less than the censure, or even indignation of every virtuous man in America. Although, on the one hand, we feel the justice of such a consequence with respect to the Province in general; yet, on the other, we claim an exemption from it in favour of some individuals who wished a better conduct. Permit us, therefore, in behalf, of ourselves and many others our fellow-citizens, warmly attached to the cause, to lay before the respectable body over which you preside a few facts, which we trust will not only acquit us of supineness, but also render our conduct to be approved by all candid and dispassionate men. At the time the late Congress did this Province the honour to transmit to it an Extract from their Proceedings, enclosed in a friendly letter from the Honourable Mr. Middleton, the sense and disposition of the people in general seemed to fluctuate between liberty and conveniency. In order to bring on a determination respecting the measures recommended, a few well-affected persons in Savannah, by publick advertisement in the Gazette, requested a meeting of all the Parishes and Districts, by Delegates or Representatives in Provincial Congress. On the day appointed for this meeting, with concern they found that only five out of twelve Parishes to which they had particularly wrote, had nominated and sent down Delegates; and even some of these five had laid their Representatives under injunctions as to the form of an Association. Under these circumstances those who met saw themselves a good deal embarrassed; however, one expedient seemed still to present itself. The House of Assembly was then sitting, and it was hoped there would be no doubt of a majority in favour of American freedom. The plan, therefore, was to go through with what business they could in Provincial Congress,

686

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

and then, with a short address, present the same to the House of Assembly, who, it was hoped, would, by vote, in a few minutes, and before prerogative should interfere, make it the act of the whole Province.

publick cause, and in whose behalf we did not think we could safely pledge ourselves for the execution of any one measure whatsoever.

Accordingly the Congress framed and agreed to such an Association, and did such other business as appeared practicable with the people, and had the whole just ready to be presented, when the Governour, either treacherously informed, or shrewdly suspecting the step, put an end to the session. What, then, could the Congress do? On the one hand truth forbid them to call their proceedings the voice of the Province, there being but five out of twelve Parishes concerned; and on the other, they wanted strength sufficient to enforce them on the principle of necessity, to which all ought for a time to submit. They found the inhabitants of Savannah not likely soon to give matters a favourable turn. The importers were mostly against any interruption, and the consumers very much divided. There were some of the latter virtuously for the measures; others strenuously against them; but more who called themselves neutrals than either. Thus situated, there appeared nothing before us but the alternative of either immediately commencing a civil war among ourselves, or else, of patiently waiting the measures to be recommended by the General Congress. Among a powerful people, provided with men, money, and conveniences, and by whose conduct others were to be regulated, the former would certainly be the resolution that would suggest itself to every man removed from the condition of a coward; but in a small community like that of Savannah, (whose members are mostly in their first advance towards wealth and independence, destitute of even the necessaries of life within themselves, and from whose junction or silence, so little would be added or lost to the general cause,) the latter presented itself as the most eligible plan, and was adopted by the people. Party disputes and animosities have occasionally prevailed, which show that the spirit of freedom is not extinguished, but only restrained for a time till an opportunity shall offer for calling it forth. The Congress convened at Savannah did us the honour of choosing us Delegates to meet your respectable body at Philadelphia, on the tenth of next month. We were sensible of the honour and weight of the appointment, and would gladly have rendered our Country any services our poor abilities would have admitted of; but alas, with what face could we have appeared for a Province whose inhabitants had refused to sacrifice the most trifling advantages to the

We do not mean to insinuate that those who appointed us would prove apostates, or desert their opinion; but that the tide of opposition was great; that all the strength and virtue of these our friends might be insufficient for the purpose. We very early saw the difficulties that would here occur, and therefore repeatedly and constantly requested the people to proceed to the choice of other Delegates in our stead; but this they refused to do. We beg, sir, you will view our reasons for not attending in a liberal point of light. Be pleased to make the most favourable representation of them to the honourable the Members of the Congress. We believe we may take upon us to say, notwithstanding all that has past, there are still men In Georgia who, when an occasion shall require, will be ready to evince a steady, religious, and manly attachment to the liberties of America. To the consolation of these, they find themselves in the neighbourhood of a Province whose virtue and magnanimity must and will do lasting honour to the cause, and in whose fate they seemed disposed freely to involve their own. [7] The men waited until another Provincial Congress, representing all of the colony, was called. Historian Robert Preston Brooks stated, “Houstoun, with his associates above mentioned, except that George Walton was now substituted for John Walton, called another meeting for June 1775, which set up a Council of Safety, an informal executive committee of the Revolutionary element. The Council successfully agitated for another provincial congress, which met in July 1775, at which all the parishes were represented.” [8] On 7 July, this conference elected Houstoun, Bulloch, and John Joachim Zubly to seats in what was now the Second Continental Congress. Houstoun would be reelected on 2 February 1776, and would ultimately attend sessions of the body from only 5 September to about 26 November 1775, not attending any sessions in 1776. On 18 September 1775, after a five-week recess, the Continental Congress reconvened in Philadelphia. For the first time, the colony of Georgia was fully represented: delegates Archibald Bulloch, John Houstoun, the Reverend John Joachim Zubly took their seats. The date of Houstoun’s departure from

John Houstoun (c. 1744–1796)687 Philadelphia back to Georgia is in some dispute; historian Edmund Cody Burnett states that delegate Joseph Hewes of North Carolina sent a letter to Samuel Johnston, a member of his state’s Council of Safety, dated 26 November 1775, which Burnett says Houstoun carried with him. The correspondence makes no mention of Houstoun nor any of the Georgia delegates, so this may be apocryphal at best. [9] Sometime close to his Continental Congress service, Houstoun married Hannah Bryan; they had no children. Back in Georgia, Houstoun was elected to the colony’s Council of Safety. He voted along with the other members to order the arrest of former Governor Wright. It is probable that this is the reason he did not attend any sessions of the Continental Congress in 1776. Perhaps, as well, was the growing threat coming from his fellow congressional delegate, John Joachim Zubly, who ardently opposed any movement towards independence from England. Houstoun would have been in Philadelphia to sign the Declaration of Independence, but he had to remain in Georgia to fight Zubly; with the declaration, that fight ended. He remained a leader in the new state; on 8 May 1777, Houstoun was elected to a seat on the Executive Council, a body established to fill the vacuum of a lack of a gubernatorial authority. He served under Governors Bulloch, Button Gwinnett, and John Adam Treutlen. On 10 January 1778, Treutlen’s term ended, and the Executive Council elected Houstoun as Georgia’s fourth democratically elected leader under statehood. During what would be the first of two nonsequential terms as governor, the first which would end in January 1779, Houstoun was deeply involved in the war against the British. Historian James F. Cook, a leading biographer of the governors of Georgia, explained, “Early in his term Georgia’s third annual military expedition against the British at St. Augustine was planned, and by April [1778] about 2,000 troops had been assembled. Governor Houstoun, who had no military experience, took the field determined to lead Georgia troops to victory, having been granted full executive power by the Executive Council, which realized that in battle quick decisions would be necessary.” [10] Unfortunately, Houstoun did not work closely with the commander of

Continental troops, General Robert Howe, the South Carolina militia, commanded by Colonel Andrew Williamson, and naval forces led by Commodore Oliver Bowen. Marching south, they left much of Georgia exposed, and a British force of between 2500 and 3600 troops commanded by Colonel Archibald Campbell landed at Tybee Island on Georgia’s west coast, and moved inward. This contingent eventually captured the city of Savannah on 29 December 1778, leaving more than 100 Americans dead and some 450 taken as prisoner. Houstoun was embarrassed by the lack of cooperation, and, a week after the horrific military defeat, he left office, having fled the Georgia capital to avoid being taken prisoner himself. In the years that followed, Houstoun remained involved in Georgia politics. In August 1779, the state legislature once again elected him to a seat in the Continental Congress, but he declined this second honor. In 1782, he was elected to the Georgia House of Assembly, representing Chatham County. [11] Following the end of the American Revolution, he retired for a time from politics, living at his estate, “White Bluff,” near Savannah. Although he had suffered a horrendous military defeat during his time as governor, in 1784 he was once again elected to the office, serving for a single one-year term. This time, domestic matters were the focus of his time in office, including postwar issues involving veterans, and conflict with Native American tribes. He left office in January 1785, having had far less acrimony than his first term. In 1786, Houstoun was named as the chief justice of Georgia; the following year, he served as a member of the commission that established a boundary line between Georgia and South Carolina. He was a candidate for governor in 1787, but was unsuccessful in his quest for a third term. Instead, he was elected as a justice for Chatham County. Two years later, he was elected as the mayor of Savannah, and was reelected to that post in 1790. In his final service, Houstoun served as a judge of the Georgia state Superior Court in 1792. On 17 January 1792, Governor Edward Telfair of Georgia granted a commission to Houstoun, as one of the judges of the Superior Courts of the state, which had been authorized by the state legislature. [12]

688

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

John Houstoun died at his estate, “White Bluff,” on 20 July 1796. His place of burial is unknown. The Gazette of the United States, printed in Philadelphia, reported, “On the 20th inst. died, at White Bluff, of a bilious fever, John Houstoun, Esq [sic] a gentleman no less conspicuous for the amenity of his manners than eminent for his talents as a lawyer and a statesman. Mr. Houstoun, at an early period, distinguished himself in his profession, uniting with a strong acute judgment and a depth of research, an easy, copious, and impressive eloquence. With talents so well adapted for public life, he could not long remain unsolicited to take a leading part in the service of his country; he was accordingly, at different periods, called to fill the most important appointments under the Government, or in Congressional; in the Chief Executive; on the Bench; and, for a series of years, as a member of the Legislature.” [13] Houston County, in central Georgia south of the city of Macon, was established in 1821 and named in his honor, although its spelling was incorrect.

[6] Jones, “Biographical Sketches,” op. cit., 108. [7] “Letter from the Georgia Delegates to the President of the Continental Congress, Explaining The Reasons Why They Think It Inexpedient for Them to Attend,” 6 April 1775, in Peter Force, ed., “American Archives: Consisting of a Collection of Authentick Records, State Papers, Debates, and Letters and Other Notices of Publick Affairs, the Whole Forming a Documentary History of the Origin and Progress of the North America Colonies; of the Causes and Accomplishment of the American Revolution; and of the Constitution of Government for the United States, to the Final Ratification Thereof. In Six Series” (Washington, DC: Published by M. St. Clair Clarke and Peter Force; ten volumes, 1837-53), Series IV:II:279-80. [8] Brooks, Robert Preston, “Houstoun, John” in Allen Johnson, et al., “Dictionary of American Biography” (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons; eleven volumes and five supplements, 1958-77), IX:268. [9] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), I:xliv. The letter from Hewes to Johnston, 26 November 1775, is also in Burnett, I:261. [10] “John Houstoun” in James F. Cook, “The Governors of Georgia, 1754-2004” (Macon, GA: Mercer University Press, 2005), 27, [11] Houstoun official congressional biography, online at http:// bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=H000831. [12] The full text of the commission, signed by Telfair, can be seen in Stephen F. Miller, “The Bench and Bar of Georgia: Memoirs and Sketches. With an Appendix, Containing a Court Roll from 1790 to 1857, Etc.” (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott & Co.; two volumes, 1858), II:98-100. [13] “July 28,” Gazette of the United States, & Philadelphia Daily Advertiser, 18 August 1796, 2. [14] Caldwell, A.B., “John Houstoun” in William J. Northen, ed., “Men of Mark in Georgia: A Complete and Elaborate History of the State from its Settlement to the Present Time, Chiefly Told in Biographies and Autobiographies of the Most Eminent Men of Each Period of Georgia’s Progress and Development” (Atlanta: A.B. Caldwell; seven volumes, 1907-12), II:172.

John Houstoun was one of the most important of the early patriotic leaders of Georgia who helped to lead first the colony, and then the state, through the process of independence and statehood. Historian A.B. Caldwell wrote, “No son of Georgia was ever more faithful to the trusts committed to his care, none left a more stainless record.” [14] John Houstoun gave up affixing his signature to the Declaration of Independence so that Georgia could have independence from England. See also: William Houstoun

[1] Jones, Charles C., Jr., “Biographical Sketches of the Delegates from Georgia to the Continental Congress” (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, 1891), 106. [2] Bulloch, Joseph Gaston Baillie, “A History and Genealogy of the Families of Bayard, Houstoun of Georgia, and the Descent of the Bolton Family from Assheton, Byron and Hulton of Hulton Park” (Washington, DC: James H. Dony, Printer, 1919), 26. [3] The online version of “The New Georgia Encyclopedia” contains the article in question; see the source online at http:// www.georgiaencyclopedia.org/articles/government-politics/johnhoustoun-ca-1747-1796. [4] Johnston, Edith Duncan “The Houstouns of Georgia” (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1950), 193-94. [5] Sullivan, Buddy, “Georgia: A State History” (Charleston, SC: Arcadia Publishing, 2003), 35. For the reader’s information, some sources list Bulloch’s name as “Bullock.” Both versions appear to have been used by him, so the usage comes as it is printed in the source cited.

William Houstoun (1755–1813)

William Houstoun (1755–1813)689 The brother of fellow Continental Congress delegate John Houstoun, William Houstoun served in that body (1784-86), as well as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention in 1787, representing his native Georgia. The scion of a famed Georgia family, he grew up in wealth and privilege. He was born in 1755 in Savannah, Georgia, the son of Sir Patrick Houstoun, a Scottish-born baron, and his wife Priscilla (née Dunbar) Houstoun, also Scottishborn. [1] William was the younger brother of John Houstoun, who also served in the Continental Congress as well as serving as the governor of Georgia for two separate terms. William Houstoun obtained an education befitting someone of his social status, and, in 1776, he was admitted to the Inner Temple, one of the four Inns of Court of the English justice system, to study law. [2] Despite being in London during the height of the fight over American independence, he returned to Savannah soon after and became, like his brother John, an ardent advocate for independence for the colonies from England. [3] From the time of his return to Georgia until 1784, Houstoun may have been involved in secret anti-British activities in and around Savannah, although this is mere speculation. On 9 January 1784, Houstoun was elected to a seat in the Continental Congress, perhaps because of the notoriety of his brother, John, who was one of the original patriotic leaders in the state. Although some sources report that he served in 1783, Houstoun actually served in that body from 30 June to 13 August 1784, and then from 1 November to 24 December 1784. Historian Edmund Cody Burnett stated, “Houstoun, with William Gibbons, arrived in Philadelphia [on] 12 June, during the adjournment of the Committee of the States and agreed between them that Houstoun should serve on that committee. He is said to have left Philadelphia for Annapolis [on] 24 June, but he did not attend the committee until 30 June.” [4] There is no correspondence from or to Houstoun during his Continental Congress service; as well, it does not appear that he spent much time in debate, so the historian has to rely on contemporary sources to discover what role he exactly did play. For instance, The Connecticut Courant reported on 14 December

1784, “Congress, having formed a quorum, on the 1st instant, at Trenton, proceeded to the choice of a President; when the Hon. Richard Henry Lee, Esq. of Virginia, was unanimously elected to that exalted and important station. This gentleman first made the motion in Congress for a Declaration of Independence, in 1776. The following Delegates are now attending in the Congress of the United States, convened at Trenton, viz.” The list included, as representing Georgia, William Houstoun and William Gibbons. [5] Perhaps one area that William Houstoun was involved in the Continental Congress was relations between the white population of Georgia and its Native American populations. Historian George Lamplugh wrote in 1972: The “talks” sent by [Georgia] Governor Samuel Elbert to the headmen of the Cherokees and Creeks do not indicate that he harbored any misgivings as to the justice of the state’s demands. Furthermore, in a letter to Indian trader William Clark, Elbert implied that he did not anticipate a large turnout at the forthcoming meeting and that the Georgia commissioners were prepared to conclude an agreement no matter how few Indians attended. The day after the Governor sent the letter to Clark, he received intelligence from William Houstoun, Georgia’s lone Congressional delegate at that time, which threatened to upset the state’s plans. Houstoun informed him that Congress had appointed its own commissioners to arrange treaties with the southern Indians, and that no Georgian had been selected to conduct these negotiations. Although Governor Elbert recommended that Houstoun protest the exclusion of a Georgian from the Congressional commission, he made no plans to cancel the state’s proposed meeting with the Creeks and Cherokees. In fact, on 9 June, he urged Elijah Clarke, one of those elected to represent Georgia at the Board’s Bluff parley, to hurry to the meeting place, since “it is a business of the first consequence to the State, and should not be delayed, especially as the Commissioners from Congress will shortly be on the same errand, and if we get thro’ with this before they commence, it may be a capital point gained.” [6] After he returned to Georgia, Houstoun served as one of the agents representing the state to settle the boundary between Georgia and South Carolina in 1785. Two years later, when the states called a convention of delegates to

690

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

meet in Philadelphia to reform the Articles of Confederation or draft a whole new constitution, Houstoun was elected as a delegate to this meeting. Historian John P. Kaminski wrote, “On 10 February, 1787, eleven days before Congress officially sanctioned the proposed convention, the Georgia Assembly appointed William Pierce, William Few, Abraham Baldwin, George Walton, William Houstoun, and Nathaniel Pendleton as delegates to the Federal Convention.” [7] James Madison, delegate to the convention from Virginia, took copious notes of the myriad debates in the numerous sessions during the summer. On 2 July, he noted, “On the question for allowing each State one vote in the second branch [later to become the US Senate], as moved by Mr. [Oliver] Ellsworth, it was lost, by an equal division of votes—Connecticut, New York, New Jersey, Delaware, Maryland, aye—5; Massachusetts, Pennsylvania, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, no—5; Georgia, divided (Mr. Baldwin[,] aye, Mr. Houston [sic], no.).” [8] On 10 July, Madison reported that “General [Charles] Pinckney [of South Carolina] and Mr. Houston [sic] moved that Georgia be allowed four instead of three Representatives; urging the unexampled celerity of its population.” [9] Arguing that the finished Constitution did not meet the standards he set forth, Houstoun decided not to sign it, and he left Philadelphia in a huff. It appears that even among his fellow delegates, William Houstoun’s name was misspelled, and in some histories he is misidentified with William Churchill Houston, who also served in the Continental Congress.

cemetery that once lay in the shadows of the towers of the World Trade Center, destroyed by terrorists on 11 September 2011. New York City’s Houston Street, despite the misspelling, was named in his honor.

In his last years, Houstoun, who had married Mary Bayard, a member of a famed New York political family, played a lessened role in Georgia politics. He did serve as one of the original trustees of the University of Georgia, established at Athens. However, he also moved north, to New York, to live closer to his wife’s family. A report in the New York newspaper The Columbian in 1812 stated that, as a “councillor [sic] at law,” he was indebted to one Elizabeth De Wint. [10] William Houstoun died while visiting Savannah on 17 March 1813. He was laid to rest not in his native Georgia, but in the burial ground of St. Paul’s Chapel in New York City, the famed

Historian Dr. W. Berrien Burroughs wrote of William Houstoun, “Mr. Houstoun was a lawyer of note in his day. Loyal to his native State and section, he was quick to avenge any insinuation that reflected against either. On one occasion The Rev. James Manning, delegate from Rhode Island, made some remarks which he construed as reflecting on the people of the South, and the next morning he appeared in Congress armed with a sword. His friends intervened and the fiery young Georgian was persuaded to send his sword back to his room by his servant, thus closing the incident.” [11] See also: John Houstoun

[1] William Houstoun official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay. pl?index=H000832. [2] Jones, Charles C., Jr., “Biographical Sketches of the Delegates from Georgia to the Continental Congress” (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, 1891), 118. [3] Johnston, Edith Duncan “The Houstouns of Georgia” (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1950), 318, claims that William Houstoun stayed in England “for four years,” which would keep him there until 1780, near the end of the war in the colonies. [4] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VII:lxvi. [5] The Connecticut Courant, 14 December 1784, 3. [6] Lamplugh, George R., “Farewell to the Revolution: Georgia in 1785,” The Georgia Historical Quarterly, LVI:3 (Fall 1972), 393-94. [7] Kaminski, John P., “Controversy Amid Consensus: The Adoption of the Federal Constitution in Georgia,” The Georgia Historical Quarterly, LVIII:2 (Summer 1974), 245, [8] Scott, E.H., ed., “Journal of the Federal Convention, Kept by James Madison. Reprinted from the Edition of 1840, Which was Published under Direction of the United States Government from the Original Manuscripts. A Complete Index Specially Adapted to this Edition is Added” (Chicago: Scott, Foresman, and Co., 1898), 284. [9] Ibid., 318. [10] The Columbian [New York City], 11 June 1812, 2. [11] Burroughs, W. Berrien, “William Houstoun” in William J. Northen, ed., “Men of Mark in Georgia: A Complete and Elaborate History of the State from its Settlement to the Present Time, Chiefly Told in Biographies and Autobiographies of the Most Eminent Men of Each Period of Georgia’s Progress and Development” (Atlanta: A.B. Caldwell; seven volumes, 1907-12), I:173.

John Eager Howard (1752–1827)691

John Eager Howard (1752–1827)

The scion of a wealthy Baltimore, Maryland, family, John Eager Howard rose to serve as a judge, governor of his state (1789-91), a US senator (1796-1803), and a member of the Continental Congress (1788). His heroism during the American Revolution, particularly at the battle of Cowpens (1781), also earned him a shining place in the annals of American military history. Born on his family’s estate, “The Forrest,” in Baltimore County, Maryland, on 4 June 1752, Howard was the son of Cornelius Howard, a wealthy planter, and his wife Ruth (née Eager) Howard. His paternal grandfather, Joshua Howard, was born in Manchester, England, and, as a young man, dismissed the concerns of his own parents and joined the English army to serve under James, Duke of York, later to become James II of Great Britain, during the insurrection led by his own nephew, James Scott, Duke of Monmouth, the son of his brother, Charles II, over the control of the English throne in 1675. The resulting clash between loyalists of both sides led to a fight known as The West Country Rebellion, which lasted from May to July 1685, concluding in victory for the Yorkists and the execution of Monmouth. With the “war” over,

Joshua Howard decided to leave his native land and seek fame and fortune in the New World, in the American colonies, that same year. He landed in what is now Maryland, received a grant of land from James II for his military service, married Joanna O’Carroll, an Irish woman who also recently had come from the old country, and established his family in that area. Ruth Eager Howard, the mother of John Eager Howard, also came from a wealthy family; her clan’s land holdings once embraced what now encompasses much of the metropolitan Baltimore area. [1] Owing to his family’s incredible wealth, John Eager Howard was educated by private tutors. Entering the Maryland militia at the outbreak of the American Revolution, Howard remained in that unit until the end of the conflict. In 1776 he was given the rank of captain in the famed “Flying Camp” brigade, with the proviso that he raise a company of thirty troops in a specific period, but he was able to get this number in just two days’ time, and his new force quickly marched to fight the onrushing British forces. [2] The next year, in February 1777, he rose to become a major in Maryland’s Fourth Regiment, and then in early 1778 as a lieutenant colonel in the Fifth Regiment. He remained in this unit until nearly the end of 1779, when he was transferred to the Second Regiment. During this period, Howard saw action in a number of notable clashes, including at White Plains (28 October 1776), Germantown (4 October 1777), Monmouth (28 June 1778), Camden (16 August 1780), at Cowpens (17 January 1781), at Guilford Court House (15 March 1781), Hobkirk’s Hill (25 April 1781), and Eutaw Springs (8 September 1781). [3] However, most notably it was at the battle of Cowpens (17 January 1781), that Howard’s military prowess showed itself: In the clash, one of the largest military engagements in South Carolina prior to the American Civil War, the British, under Lieutenant Colonel Banastre Tarleton, tried to turn a series of American defeats, particularly at Camden and following the seizure of the port city of Charleston, to their benefit; instead, however, the battle marked the turning point of the war, in which the Americans were now on the offensive, a position they would hold until the end of the conflict. [4] At Cowpens, now located in South Carolina near the city of Spartanburg, Howard,

692

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

serving under the command of Brigadier General Daniel Morgan with the rank of lieutenant colonel, performed such a service in the name of his nation that that battle, and the name of John Eager Howard, are forever linked. Historian Daniel C. Gilman explained, “Although afterwards freely employed by the Maryland line, we have the authority of Henry Lee for the statement that ‘at Cowpens the bayonet was first resorted to in the war’; and that of Morgan, the commanding officer, for saying that when the enemy showed signs of disorder it was Colonel Howard who ‘gave orders for the line to charge bayonets, which was done with such address that the enemy fled with the utmost precipitation.’ At the close of the engagement the swords of seven British officers were in the hands of Howard.” [5] Howard later wrote of the moment:

The United States, in Congress assembled, considering it as a tribute due to distinguished merit to give a public approbation to the conduct of Brigadier General Morgan and of the officers and men under his command on the 17th of January last, when with eighty cavalry and two hundred and thirty seven infantry of the troops of the United States and five hundred and fifty three militia from the States of Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina and Georgia he obtained a complete and important victory over a select and well appointed [sic] detachment of more than eleven hundred British Troops commanded by Lieut[.] Col Tarleton, do therefore resolve,

Seeing my right flank was exposed to the enemy, I attempted to change the front of Wallace’s company [of Virginia volunteers]; in doing so, some confused ensued, and first a part, and then the whole of the company commenced a retreat. The officers along the line seeing this, and supposing that orders had been given for a retreat, faced their men about and moved off. Morgan, who had mostly been with the militia, quickly rode up to me and expressed apprehensions of the event; but I soon removed his fears by pointing to the line, and observing that men were not beaten who retreated in that order. He then ordered me to keep with the men, until we came to the rising ground near Washington’s horse; and he rode forward to fix on the most proper place for us to half and face about. In a minute we had a perfect line. The enemy were now very near us. Our men commended a very destructive fire; which they little expected, and a few rounds occasioned great disorder in their ranks. While in this confusion I ordered a charge with the bayonet, which order was obeyed with great alacrity. As the line advanced I observed their artillery a short distance in front, and called to Captain Ewing, who was near me to take it. Captain Anderson . . . hearing the order, also pushed for the same object; and both being emulous for the prize, kept pace until near the first piece, when Anderson, but putting the end of his spontoon forward into the ground, made a long leap, which brought him upon the gun and gave him the honor of the prize. [6] On 9 March 1781, the Continental Congress voted for the following resolution in honor of the men who fought at Cowpens:

That the thanks of the United States in Congress assembled be given to Brigadier General Morgan and the men under his command for the fortitude and good conduct displayed in the action at the Cowpens, in the State of South Carolina, on the seventeenth day of January last: That a medal of gold be presented to Brigadier General Morgan, a medal of silver to Lieutenant Colonel [William Augustine] Washington, of the Cavalry, and one of silver to Lieutenant Colonel Howard of the Infantry of the United States, severally with emblems and mottoes descriptive of the conduct of those officers respectively on that memorable day. [7] Wounded in battle severely at Eutaw Springs, Howard’s military career ended rather quickly, and he spent the remainder of the war recuperating, retiring with the rank of colonel. Entering the Maryland political arena, in 1785 he was named as a justice of the Baltimore County Court, where he served until 1787. In 1786, while holding this position, he was elected as a senatorial elector, representing Baltimore County, and, that same year, as a judge on the Baltimore County Orphans’ Court. On 18 May 1787, Howard married Margaret Chew, the eldest daughter of Benjamin Chew, one of the great legal minds of early Maryland, who rose to become chief justice of that state’s Supreme Court; together, the couple had nine children—six sons and three daughters (some sources report five sons and four daughters)—including Benjamin Chew Howard, who became a reporter of the reports of the US Supreme Court, and George Howard, who served, like his father before him, as the governor of Maryland (1831-33). On 4 January 1788—not in 1787 as some sources report [9]—the Maryland legislature elected

John Eager Howard (1752–1827)693 John Eager Howard to a seat in the Continental Congress. He ultimately served in that body for parts of the calendar year of 1788: from 21 January to 29 February (Leap Year), and then from 7 July to about 17 July 1788. [10] The only “correspondence” involving Howard and the Continental Congress is one missive, from Secretary Charles Thomson to Howard as governor of Maryland, 9 February 1789, thanking him in the last days that the Continental Congress was in existence for forwarding a list of the men elected from Maryland to the body. [11] Howard never received another out-of-state election: on 21 November 1788, while back in Maryland, he was elected as the fifth governor of the state, replacing William Smallwood, who had reached the end of his second one-year term. Howard, a Federalist, was himself elected to three one-year terms. Of this tenure, historian Heinrich Ewald Buchholz wrote in 1908, “Mr. Howard appeared as the standard-bearer of a political party, which had not been the case with his predecessors in the executive office. He was very much a federalist [sic] and held to the principles of that party even up to the time when it opposed the second war with England.” [12] During his governorship, Howard oversaw the ratification of the US Constitution as well as the Bill of Rights, the first 10 amendments to said Constitution. After leaving the governor’s office, after he begged off any additional time in the gubernatorial mansion, he instead accepted a post in the Maryland state Senate, where he served from 1791 to 1795. In 1795, when Secretary of War Henry Knox resigned, President Washington offered Howard the vacant cabinet post, but the Marylander refused the honor and it was given to Timothy Pickering instead. In 1796, he did accept another position, when Senator Richard Potts of Maryland resigned, and the Maryland legislature elected Howard in his place, and he served in that body from 21 November 1796 to 3 March 1803, rising to serve as president pro tempore during the Sixth Congress (1799-1801). In 1798, despite his age, when the potential for war with France was growing, a friend of Howard’s recommended to President John Adams to name the Marylander as a brigadier general, but this never came about. More than

a decade later, when conflict with England exploded into the War of 1812, Howard did raise a troop of volunteers, as he did in the American Revolution, although these reserves were never formally called into action. Instead, he worked to shore up the defenses of the port of Baltimore in anticipation of a British invasion or attack. By these moves, in 1816 Howard was considered one of the national leaders of the Federalist Party—so much so, that when the state parties met they adopted the name of John Eager Howard as their candidate for vice president, running with Senator Rufus King of New York. Ultimately, the Federalist ticket was defeated by the Democratic-Republican ticket of President James Monroe and his Vice President, Daniel D. Tompkins, 183 electoral votes to 34 and 16 states to 3 (Connecticut, Delaware, and Massachusetts); King and Howard received less than 31% of the total popular votes cast. [13] Retiring after his lone move into national politics to his estate, “Belvedere,” near Baltimore, Howard became a rich philanthropist, donating monies for worthwhile causes as he saw fit, as well as land (tracts he owned in what became the “National Capital” were eventually utilized as the home for the Washington Monument.) Howard died at his home on 12 October 1827 at the age of 75. The Daily National Intelligencer of Washington, DC, quoting a Baltimore newspaper, wrote, “Colonel John Eager Howard is no more! Maryland has to lament the loss of another of her gallant and venerated Sons in the death of Col. John E. Howard, who departed this life last evening about half past eight o’clock.” [14] The United States’ Telegraph, also of Washington, D.C., stated, “The mail of Saturday brought us the afflicting intelligence of the decease of Col. John Eager Howard, of Baltimore. The death of this distinguished Revolutionary Hero, and public spirited citizen, has covered that city with mourning. Every testimonial of veneration for his virtues, and gratitude for his services, civil and military, will be shown in the last sad tribute of respect to his remains.” [15] Laid to rest in St. Paul’s Cemetery in Baltimore, a plaque on his tomb reads, “John Eager Howard. Governor of Maryland. United States Senator. Colonel—Maryland Line. The Hero of Cowpens. Benefactor of Baltimore City.”

694

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Howard County in Maryland was named in his honor, originally called the Howard District when established in 1839.

[12] Buchholz, Heinrich Ewald, “Governors of Maryland. From the Revolution to the Year 1908” (Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins Company, 1908), 37. See also the biography on Howard in Frank F. White, Jr., “The Governors of Maryland, 1777-1970” (Annapolis: The Hall of Records Commission, 1970), 17-19. [13] Skeen, Carl Edward, “1816: America Rising” (Lexington: The University Press of Kentucky, 2003), 211-35. [14] Daily National Intelligencer, 15 October 1827, 3. [15] United States’ Telegraph [Washington, DC], 15 October 1827, 3. [16] Hanson, George A., “Old Kent: The Eastern Shore of Maryland; Notes Illustrative of the Most Ancient Records of Kent Co.” (Baltimore: John P. Des Forges, 1876), 43.

In 1876, writing on the history of the eastern shore of Maryland, historian George Hanson penned, “Col. John Eager Howard . . . is one of those immortal few whose name and history will always be cherished with affectionate veneration by the sons of Maryland. He was gallant, brave, true to his native State, and faithful to his country . . .” [16]

David Howell (1747–1824) [1] Warfield, Joshua Dorsey, “The Founders of Anne Arundel and Howard Counties, Maryland: A Genealogical and Biographical Review from Wills, Deeds and Church Records” (Baltimore: Kohn & Pollock, Publishers, 1905), 240. [2] Wyatt, Thomas, “Memoirs of Generals, Commodores, and Other Commanders Who Distinguished Themselves in the American Army and Navy During the Wars of the Revolution and 1812, and Who Were Presented with Medals by Congress, for Their Gallant Services” (Philadelphia: Published by Carey and Hart, 1848), 71. [3] See Jim Piecuch and John Beakes, “Cool Deliberate Courage: John Eager Howard in the American Revolution” (Charleston, SC: Nautical & Aviation Publishing Company of America, 2009). [4] Babit, Lawrence E., “A Devil of a Whipping: The Battle of Cowpens. The Real-Life Battle and Heroes That Inspired the Move The Patriot” (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1998). [5] “Fremiét’s ‘Howard’: An Equestrian Statue Erected by the Municipal Art Society of Baltimore. Addresses Delivered at the Unveiling” (Baltimore: The Municipal Art Society of Baltimore, 1904), 22-23. Gilman, Daniel Coit, “The Launching of a University and Other Papers: A Sheaf of Remembrances” (New York: Dodd, Mead & Company, 1906), 378. [6] Wyatt, Thomas, “Memoirs of Generals, Commodores, and Other Commanders,” op. cit., 73-74. A “spontoon” is defined as a type of European pole-arm that was used as a pike of sorts to use to catapult troops or something else across a chasm, be it air or water. [7] Belote, Theodore T., “War Medals of the American Revolution,” Daughters of the American Revolution Magazine, LV:9 (September 1921), 487-99. [8] Myers, Theodorus Bailey, ed., “Cowpens Papers: Being Correspondence of General Morgan and the Prominent Actors. From the Collections of Theodorus Bailey Myers. Contributed to the Centennial Celebration, May 11th, 1881. First Published in The News and Courier, Charleston, S.C., 1881” (Charleston, SC: The News and Courier Book Presses, 1881), 37. [9] Browne, Gary, “Howard, John Eager,” in John A. Garraty and Mark C. Carnes, gen. eds., “American National Biography” (New York: Oxford University Press; 24 volumes, 1999), XI:305, reports that Howard was elected “as one of Maryland’s representatives to Congress under the Articles of Confederation during 1787 and 1788.” This is plainly in error, as he did not appear in the Continental Congress until 21 January 1788. [10] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VIII:lxxxvii. [11] Charles Thomson, the secretary of the Continental Congress, to Governor John Eager Howard, 9 February 1789, in ibid., VIII:822.

A delegate from Rhode Island to the Continental Congress (1782-85), David Howell was a respected jurist in that state, as well as worked to help establish the institution that became Brown University. He was born in Morristown, New Jersey, on 1 January 1747, the son of Aaron Howell and his wife Sarah Howell, whose maiden name is unknown. The Howell family originated in Southampton, England, in the form of David Howell’s great-grandfather, Jonathan Howell, born in 1662. He immigrated to the New World and settled in Suffolk, on New York’s Long Island, where he died in 1740 at the age of 78. [1] David Howell received his early education in New Jersey, attending the prestigious Baptist school the Hopewell Academy in Hopewell,

David Howell (1747–1824)695 under the tutelage of the school’s master, the Reverend Isaac Eaton. Following his graduation from this school, Howell entered the College of New Jersey (now Princeton University), from which he graduated in 1766. While at the Hopewell Baptist School, Howell became good friends with James Manning. Following his graduation from the College of New Jersey, Manning, had gone north to The Colony of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, as it was officially known prior to statehood, and founded Rhode Island College, now known as Brown University. Manning offered his old friend the position of tutor at the school, and Howell jumped at the opportunity. He would be identified with Rhode Island for the remainder of his life. In 1770, Howell married Mary Brown, the daughter of Jeremiah Brown, a Baptist minister, and the couple had five children. Howell was one of the leading instructors at Rhode Island College, teaching Latin, Greek, the law, mathematics, and philosophy until 1779, when he was forced to resign because the war threatened his physical safety as well as that of his family in Rhode Island. In his letter of resignation, delivered to the chancellor of the school, Howell, blaming the school and not the conflict itself, penned, “Having, at length, given over all Hopes of a Revival of classical Instruction in this College, during the Concurrence of the War, and not feeling disposed so far to take Advantage of public Munificence, as to continue to avail myself of the Emoluments of an Office, without discharging its Duties, I have thought fit, not without weighty Deliberations, to resign the Professorship.” [2] Instead of remaining in an academic setting, Howell chose to enter the political arena, running for and winning a seat as a deputy to the Rhode Island legislature, representing the city of Providence. [3] Remaining in this position for a year, in 1780 he was named as a justice of the Court of Common Pleas for Providence County, where he served until 1781. In that latter year, Howell was appointed to the Rhode Island state Superior Court. However, a contemporary report states that Howell was actually elected to another office: on 12 May 1781, The Providence Gazette of Rhode Island printed a substantial “List of Deputies returned by the several Towns, in this State, at the General Election, on Wednesday

. . . viz.” Among this group was Richard Sizer, Jeremiah Whipple, Caleb Aldrich, Caleb Fife, and David Howell. [4] Whatever office he officially held, Howell was deeply involved in the political matters of Rhode Island. On 1 May 1782, the Rhode Island General Assembly elected Howell to a seat in the Continental Congress. The election of the legal scholar and part-time politician had a specific purpose: to counter the impost fee enacted by the Continental Congress. This fee had been passed on 3 February 1781 to counter an almostcomplete collapse of the American economy. By the end of 1780, with the war continuing, the nation was broke. Unable to obtain additional loans from overseas, the Continental Congress had no power under the moribund Articles of Confederation to compel the states to send tax monies to the federal government; the states merely ignored most if not all of the calls. General George Washington, the commander of the Continental Army, whose soldiers and officers were rarely if ever paid, stated, “If we mean to continue our struggle, we must do it upon an entire [sic] new plan.” Historian Frank Greene Bates wrote in 1896, “As a step towards greater efficiency Congress, on 3 February 1781, recommended that they be vested with power to lay a duty of 5 per cent on all goods, with a few exceptions, imported from foreign lands, and a like duty on all prizes [ships captured in wartime] condemned in the admiralty courts.” [5] All of the states save for two—Rhode Island and Georgia—acceded to the demand. In Rhode Island, one man stepped forward to bitterly oppose the tax: David Howell. Historian Bates explained, “[Howell] compared the impost to the [S]tamp [A]ct, and gainsaid that Congress ever claimed power over the purse of the people. He relied on the Articles of Confederation for proof of the State’s sovereignty, and absolutely denied that there was any inherent sovereignty in Congress. The plan proposed would work harm to the commercial States. ‘Indeed,’ said he, ‘it is against the welfare of any commercial State to clog and embarrass trade with any restrictions or duties whatever.’” [6] Thus, in response to the overwhelming opposition to the impost fee in Rhode Island, Howell was sent to the Continental Congress to denounce the fee and call for its repeal. Reelected on 7 May 1783,

696

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Howell ultimately attended sessions of the body from 7 June to 31 December 1782, 1-6 January, 23 July to 4 November, and 13 to 31 December 1783, and 1 January to 3 June 1784. [7] In an undated statement in which he summed up “Some objections against passing an Impost Law,” probably penned prior to the passage of the act in February 1781, Howell wrote, “It is assumed that the usual mode of taxation draweth supplies from the people, proportionate to what they possess, and have defended by the public, and is therefore founded on the most obvious principles of justice. But the measure proposed would either draw a disproportionate supply from the merchant, as such, or from the consumers in general; if from the merchant, according to what he imports; if from the consumer, according to what he consumes. In either case, it would bear hard on the citizens of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations, who both import and consume of important articles, a greater proportion than any other state.” [8]

In a letter to Welcome Arnold, dated 3 August 1782, Howell explained:

The correspondence from Howell to others regarding his service in the Continental Congress is extensive—far more survives of his contemporary writings than many of those men who served in that body. Not strangely, most of the early letters sent by him deal with his intense opposition to the impost fee. For instance, in a letter to Governor William Greene of Rhode Island, dated 30 July 1782, Howell wrote: Eleven States have transmitted copies of their acts vesting Congress with a power to levy and collect a duty of 5 p[e]r Cent. on Imports and Prize goods; all of which acts are passed on the express condition that the measure shall be universally adopted throughout the Ud. Ss. [United States] and some of them have other conditions annexed; Such as the following. That after a term of years it shall be in the power of the State to substitute some other revenue equally productive and which shall be approved of by Congress; That no part of the revenue shall ever be appropriated to the discharge of half-pay pensions, etc. That the State retain a right of appointing or suspending the Train of revenue officers, within its jurisdiction, etc., etc. Whereon I shall only observe that a reluctance against the measure appears from the mode of compliance therewith in some instances. A Committee was lately appointed in Congress to enquire into the reasons why the other States had not complied with this recommendation before whom, on notice and request, the Delegates for the States of Georgia and R. I. and Pr. Pl. [9]

The establishment of funds to discharge at least the intrest [sic] of the national debt; and thereby, the revival of national credit, are the great objects before us at present. Fighting has grown out of fashion-little more of that is to be expected in this Country, but when we shall have peace God only knows: although there are appearances of it, and they seem to encrease [sic] and brighten; it may however be distant. The backlands are a subject of conversation and which has been lately before Congress. There are two different opinions respecting them in Congress: six States are for acting upon them now, and I think three against it and two divided, one of which is ours. Pray give me your opinion, or does it accord with our late instructions on that head? [10] In a similar vein, Howell wrote to Moses Brown, 6 August 1782: . . . I am fully of opinion that few if any States in the Union will comply with the late revenue recommendations of Congress. Several States have had them under consideration, Some have partially complied. Their acts I propose to send to the State as soon as they may come to hand, to the end that you may not be imposed upon in regard to the doings of other States as you was last year. Notwithstanding the promptness and boasting of Pennsylvania it will appear that our State has contributed more to the cause than they have in every point of view- in money, men, loan[s and] Specifics-and another fact will also app[ear], that State, in the first Stages of the war, when m[oney] was of value recd. more out of the Treasury th[an] any other, (I trust) in the Union. [11] In addition to his criticism of the impost fee, Howell was also critical of the slow pace of work of the Continental Congress itself. This is best illustrated in a letter to William Ellery, on 10 August 1782: Not long since was read in Congress a Letter from Mr. Jay dated at Madrid. It contained upwards of 100 pages in Folio: being a journal of his proceedings from October 1781 to April[,] 28 1782, including his negotiations with the Ministers at that CourtHis Letters to Dr. Franklin, answers, etc. etc. On the whole of it might have been written in Capitals PROCRASTINATION. Nothing definitive is [to] be expected soon in that Quarter. So entirely do they neglect us that Mr. Jay has been under the necessity, notwithstanding encouragement from them at sundry times of pecuniary assistance, of protesting bills for

David Howell (1747–1824)697 the pitiful Sum of ₤20,ooo Sterlg [sic; should read “Sterling”]. But Dr. Franklin found means to satisfy the bills soon after through the bounty of our great, good and generous Ally. [12] He further illustrated this aggravation with the way Congress did its work in a letter to Governor Greene of Rhode Island, 1 February 1784: It is nearly three months since Congress left Princeton and in this time, excepting the ratification of the definitive Treaty, nothing of consequence has been done. Notwithstanding the Summer had passed without a full house, or doing much business; our hopes were sanguine that a full representation would come in this winter and enable us to dispatch the most important business and adjourn over the summer: As yet we have been disappointed, eight States only are present and nine have not been on the floor at once for more than about a week, since our adjournment to this place, notwithstanding the most pressing application[s] have been made to the delinquent States. This is a subject of no small chagrin to us, who are living at the public expense, and prevented from doing the public business by an obstruction, which, on our part, is involuntary as well as invincible. No business has been omitted, to the transaction of which the States present have been competent by the Confederation; and great industry has been used in digesting and preparing the remaining business that it may be the more rapidly dispatched by a full House. [13] Howell returned to Rhode Island following his congressional service—he was succeeded in his seat by his mentor, James Manning—but he remained in close contact with the political activities in the state. Most important was his open letter, published in The Providence Gazette on 12 April 1783, in which he addressed “To the Freemen of this State.” He wrote, “Through all the vicissitudes of nearly a century and a half, this little Republic has maintained its liberties. It has gained less by the late glorious revolution than several of its sister States, while its exertions to effect it have been exceeded by none. Your early, decided and persevering opposition to British claims, will not rank you higher in the annals of America, than the temper, firmness and unanimity, with which you rejected the recommendation for a Continental impost of five per cent, on the memorable first of November, 1782.” [14] In one of the little-known stands that Howell took in the Continental Congress, he opposed

slavery and sought to have the selling of human beings made illegal by the federal government. In remarks made by Sen. Robert C. Byrd of West Virginia in a collection of speeches about government, Byrd noted that in 1784 “[a]n attempt [was] made to transfer from the North to the South the honor of this exclusion of slavery from the Northwestern [sic] Territory. The journal, without argument or comment, refutes such attempts. The cession by Virginia was made in March, 1784. On the 19th of April following, a committee, consisting of Messrs. Jefferson, [Samuel] Chase, and Howell, reported a plan for a temporary government of the territory, in which was this article: ‘That, after the year 1800, there shall be neither slavery nor involuntary servitude in any of the said States, otherwise than in punishment of crimes, whereof of the party shall have been convicted.’” [15] Returning to his position as a state judge, in 1786 Howell sat on a case that would be one of the first in the history of America to challenge the right of the federal government to do certain things—in this case, print money. The case, John Trevett v. John Wheeden, set the standard by which states could challenge federal laws. Following the American Revolution, the states, as well as the moribund federal government, were broke from years of war. Soldiers returned home, unpaid. Farmers could not sell their crops due to a lack of funds. In short, the economy was slowly grinding to a halt. States, unable to pay their bills, passed tax bills which imposed higher and higher taxes on a populace unable to pay them. In Rhode Island, the legislature passed a law that paper money would be accepted before gold, and a state bank was established to issue some ₤100,000 of paper currency. When merchants refused to accept the paper money, the legislature passed a law mandating a fine of ₤100 for such defiance. Under Trevett, Howell and other state judges held that the state law violated the state constitution—one of the earliest judicial decisions striking down a state law, in effect initiating the doctrine of judicial review, later upheld in the landmark US Supreme Court decision Marbury v. Madison (1803). [16] In 1787, a new US Constitution was signed in Philadelphia, and Howell joined the infant Federalist Party to support state ratification of the document. In addition to this stand, in February

698

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

1789 Howell joined with fellow Rhode Islanders Moses Brown, Theodore Foster, and others to establish the Providence Abolition Society, a group pledged to fight slavery in America; Howell was named as the group’s first president. The following year, Howell returned to teaching at what was now called Brown University, named as a Professor of Jurisprudence. In 1791, when his mentor James Manning died, Howell was named as the school’s interim president, serving in that capacity until September 1792, when the Reverend Jonathan Maxey was named as the permanent president. For the remainder of the decade, he retained his teaching position, becoming widely respected both in Rhode Island and the nation as a whole. Despite having started as a Federalist— in 1796 President George Washington named him to a national commission on the US-Canadian boundary; by the end of the 18th century he was firmly in the Democratic-Republican Party. As a reward, in 1801 President Thomas Jefferson, with whom he had served in the Continental Congress, appointed him as the US Attorney for the District of Rhode Island, although he resigned the position the following year. In 1812, in his last official service, President James Madison appointed him as a judge for the US District Court for Rhode Island, succeeding Judge David Leonard Barnes, who had died in November 1812 at the age of 52. [17] Howell would hold this post until his death. In September 1815, a report in the Providence Patriot, at a “Meeting of the Citizens,” Howell was appointed as chairman of the group “to provide, immediately, an efficient guard for the protection of the property of the citizens, scattered in and about the town by the late inundation.” [18]

energy, and extensive usefulness amongst his contemporaries and consecrate his memory . . .” [20] Howell, whose wife died in 1801, and who survived all of his children (his son Jeremiah died in 1822, aged 51), was laid to rest in the North Burial Ground in Providence, Rhode Island.

Judge David Howell died in Providence, Rhode Island, on 29 July 1824 at the age of 77. The newspaper Rhode-Island Republican stated, “The deceased was a native of New Jersey, but removed to this state at an early period of life. He enjoyed, for many years, a most extensive practice at our Bar, where his uncommon natural powers and legal acquirements placed him at the head of the profession.” [19] At a meeting of the Providence bar following Howell’s death, it was resolved “[t]hat the members of this Bar . . . will cherish his memory with a strong and profound respect for the many great qualities which constituted in him a character of dignity,

In his time, David Howell was respected by many. Even Robert Morris, one of the leaders of financial matters in the Continental Congress, who clashed with Howell over how to finance the federal government prior to the Constitution, wrote of him, “I shall notice what you say of Mr. Howell. Men of Sense and Integrity are the Men who ought to fill the Seats of Congress. Such Men I am always happy to see there. While I continue a faithful Servant I shall expect from such Men a firm Support.” [21]

[1] Howell family tree, online at http://www.geni.com/people/ David-Howell/6000000015114282182. For more on the family’s background, see Martin, George Caster, “Ancestors and Descendants of Samuel Howell, Member of the Committee of Correspondence and of the Commitee [sic] of Safety: and of His Brother, Isaac Howell, Member of the Committee of Correspondence, Signer of Colonial Currency for the Province of Pennsylvania, and of the Continental Currency for Congress, and Signer of $7,000,000.00 of Bills of Credit to Finance the American Revolution” (San Antonio, TX: No Publisher, 1953). [2] Howell letter of resignation, dated 11 March 1779, in The Providence Gazette and Country Journal [Rhode Island], 13 March 1779, 3. [3] Howell’s official congressional biography states that he was elected as a justice of the peace in 1779, but this in error; see the biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=H000859. [4] “Providence, May 12,” The Providence Gazette and Country Journal [Rhode Island], 12 May 1781, 3. [5] Bates, Frank Greene, “Rhode Island and the Impost of 1781,” in “Annual Report of the American Historical Association for the Year 1894” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1896), 351. For the official action and vote on the measure, see Ford, Worthington Chauncey, et al., eds., “Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; thirty-four volumes, 1905-37), XIX:109-14. [6] Bates, “Rhode Island and the Impost of 1781,” op. cit., 353. [7] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VII:li, VIII:lxxiv. [8] Staples, William Read, “Rhode Island in the Continental Congress: With the Journal of the Convention that Adopted the Constitution, 1765-1790” (Providence, RI: Providence Press Company, Printers to the State, 1870), 391. [9] David Howell to Gov. William Greene, 30 July 1782, in Burnett, “Letters of Members,” op. cit., VII:399. Howell sometimes wrote “R. I. and Pr. Pl.” in his correspondence to denote the official name of the state, Rhode Island and Providence Plantations. [10] David Howell to Welcome Arnold, 3 August 1782, in ibid., VII:411-12. Arnold (1745-1798) was a leader in Rhode Island in

Richard Howly [Howley] (1740–1784)699 the Sons of Liberty, notorious for his role in the famed Gaspée Affair, 10 June 1772, in which members of the Sons attacked a British ship, the Gaspée, docked in the Providence River. [11] David Howell to Moses Brown, 6 August 1782, in ibid., VII:427. [12] David Howell to William Ellery, 10 August 1782, in ibid., VII:439-40. [13] David Howell to Governor William Greene of Rhode Island, 1 February 1784, in ibid., VIII:427. [14] Letter from “D.H.,” in The Providence Gazette and Country Journal [Rhode Island], 12 April 1783, 1. [15] Byrd, Robert C., “The Senate, 1789-1989: Classic Speeches, 1830-1993” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1994), 44. [16] Information on Trevett v. Wheeden in John Russell Bartlett, ed., “Records of the State of Rhode Island and Providence Plantations in New England” (Providence, RI: Printed by the Providence Press Company; ten volumes, 1856-65), X:219-20. See also Brinton Coxe, “An Essay on Judicial Power and Unconstitutional Legislation, Being a Commentary on Parts of the Constitution of the United States” (Philadelphia: Kay and Brother, 1893), 234-40. [17] For the small announcement of Howell’s appointment, see the National Intelligencer [Washington, DC], 19 November 1812, 2. [18] “Meeting of the Citizens,” Providence Patriot [Rhode Island], 30 September 1815, 1. [19] “Died, at Providence,” Rhode Island Republican, 5 August 1824, 3. [20] “At a Meeting of the Members of the Providence Bar,” Providence Patriot, 31 July 1824, 3. [21] Robert Morris to George Olney, 1 June 1782, in E. James Ferguson, ed., “The Papers of Robert Morris, 1781-1784” (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press; nine volumes, 1973- ), V:313.

Richard Howly [Howley] (1740–1784)

A planter in his native Georgia, Richard Howly served in the Continental Congress (1780-82) and as the chief justice of Georgia (1782-84).

He was born in 1740 in Liberty County, Georgia—his parents’ names and family history are unknown. The true spelling of his last name is in dispute: His official congressional biography lists him as “Richard Howly” [1]; however, historian R.F. Saunders, Jr., in the series “American National Biography,” gives his name as “Richard Howley.” [2] In his early life he “pursued an academic course,” as his official congressional biography states. After that time, he studied the law and was admitted to the Georgia colonial bar, opening a practice in St. John’s Parish, Georgia, prior to the outbreak of the American Revolution. At the same time, he became involved in agricultural pursuits, planting rice, a major food staple in Georgia at that time. In 1779, Howly moved from St. John’s Parish to St. Paul’s Parish, and, that same year, was elected to represent that parish in the state House of Representatives, a seat he held until 1783. A latecomer to the patriot cause, in 1779 Howly was elected as a member of the executive council of Liberty County; this group was composed of colonial leaders who formed a committee to run the state following the collapse of the royal government. The records of his committee are an important barometer of seeing the work that Howly, as well as others, did at the time. Historian Allen Candler collected these records in two volumes, published in 1908. The committee met in Augusta, the-then capitol of Georgia, on 3 December 1779. The records state, “on this day the Executive Council appointed by the Honorable the House of Assembly, informed his honor the Governor, that they had proceeded to the choice of a President; And that the honorable Richard Howley, Esqr was unanimously elected.” [3] When the council convened again on 8 December, he sat as the council president, with the governor in attendance. [4] On 7 January 1780, after a month as president of the Council, the records indicate that “[t]he Honorable Richard Howley Esqr having been appointed Governor, by the Honorable the House of Assembly of the State, he informed the Board, that he had, agreeable to the Constitution, waited on the Speaker and qualified as such.” [5] When the board met on 2 February 1780, Howly sat as governor, and as the head of the Executive Council, during which he issued a proclamation, which stated that:

700

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

by information made before the Council it appoints that the British Troops in Savannah have received a reinforcement from New York; To the end therefor, that the good people of this State may have notice of the same, and that proper exertions may be made for repelling the common enemy of our rights and liberties; who thro’ the bravery and fortitude of our fellow citizens in the Northern States have been compelled to flee from thence and are no attempting to wreak the effects of their disappointment and malice on this State, as our Sister State Carolina [sic], notwithstanding the various demonstrations of Providence exhibited in our behalf, and tending to shew [sic] the unrighteousness of their cause, I do therefore, with the advice and consent of the Honbl. the Executive Council, issue this, my proclamation commanding and requiring the good people of this State to stand firm to their duty, and exert themselves in support and defence of the great and glorious independency of the United States; and also to remember with gratitude to Heaven, that the almighty ruler of all human affairs hath been pleased to raise up the spirit and might of the two greatest powers in the World (France and Spain) to join with them and oppose and destroy the persecutor of their liberties and immunities. [6]

Supplies and falling very fast from the project of the Siege of New york [sic] for this Season. I believe we shall turn a respectable force to the Southern operations the Ensuing winter.” [8] In a follow-up to Gates, 22 September 1780, Howly penned, “Congress will be desirous of hearing from you often. [T]he accts. [accounts] of the redemption of the 150 Marylanders was recd. [received] with Satisfaction. We are Sensible of the many difficulties which attend you. Especially in a line of offensive operations, which it is the Wish of your friends you might be Enabled to undertake as Soon as possible.” [9] Along with other members to the Continental Congress of the Georgia delegate, Howly signed additional pieces of correspondence on military matters in the southern states in general, and in Georgia in particular. To General Nathanael Greene the following missive was sent, dated 27 July 1781: “We have this instant been notified of the present opportunity to your Army, and with infinite satisfaction embrace it, to testify to you the high sense we have of your arduous exertions for the honor & welfare of the department in general, and for the State of Georgia in particular. In the name of the people of that State, we beg leave to offer to you our most grateful and sincere thanks. Permit us also to add, that it is the constant theme of all orders and ranks of men this way, that you have done wonders, however much the unlucky reinforcements to the enemy may vary the scene.” The letter was co-signed by both Howly and fellow Georgia delegate George Walton. [10] In a follow-up letter to General George Washington, involving the thanks of Georgia to Washington for his military work to cleanse the southern states of British troops, both Howly and Walton wrote on 7 August 1781: “We beg leave to embrace this opportunity of congratulating your Excellency on the wonderful change in the affairs of the Southern department. That the appointment of the Officer who had wrought this change, was judicious, the most important and fortunate events bear ample and lasting testimony—events, too, brought about with the most inadequate means; And we are happy to assure you, that General Greene has the entire confidence and esteem of Congress, and of the approbation & praise of the Southern States.” [11]

Howly only served as governor from 4 January 1780 until 23 May of that same year. Although he was elected to a seat in the Continental Congress on 11 January, just a week after being elected governor, Howly remained in Georgia, waiting to take his seat “conditioned on [the] necessary departure from the state.” He eventually headed to take his seat following his resignation from the governor’s office, and served in the Continental Congress from 6 July to about 24 August 1780, and from about 25 September to 28 February 1781. [7] There are several pieces of correspondence from Howly to others during his Continental Congress service. In a letter to General Horatio Gates, 10 August 1780, Howly wrote of his concerns over the pace of the war in the southern states, particularly Georgia: “It was with a degree of deep concern, I heard yr. letter of the 2oth ultimo, read in congress. [H]owever Sanguine the general Expectation might have been, and the assurances of success promising, there still remained the operation of circumstances to work the desired effect. The direction of these depended, not on the General, but on fortune, which in utter contempt of all human opinion, Ever was, and ever will be the great arbiter of human things . . . We are now engaged in the matter of the Southern

After leaving the Continental Congress, Howly returned home, where he opened a law practice in Sunbury, Georgia, a port city southwest of

Daniel Huger (1742–1799)701 Savannah. Named as chief justice of Georgia, he served from 1 October 1782 until 3 January 1783. He then moved to Savannah.

Daniel Huger (1742–1799)

Howly died in Savannah in December 1784; details of his death are unknown. A search of contemporary sources show no death notice for either a “Richard Howly” nor a “Richard Howley.” The name of Richard Howly shines among those who served at a time when such service on behalf of the new American nation was considered treason by the British. Historian Charles C. Jones, Jr. wrote in 1889, “Did time permit, with filial reverence would we recall the memories of this brave epoch in the life of this community? Here dwelt Lyman Hall and Button Gwinnett— signers of the Declaration of Independence— Richard Howly and Nathan Brownson—early governors of Georgia—Moses Allen, Benjamin Baker, Benjamin Andrew, Colonels William and John Baker, Generals James Sereven and Daniel Stewarts, Colonel John McIntosh, Major John Jones, and many others—patriots all, who risked fortunes and life in support of country and freedom, during this primal struggle for independence.” [12]

[1] Howly official congressional biography, online at http:// bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=H000872. [2] Saunders, R.F., Jr.. “Howley, Richard” in John A. Garraty and Mark C. Carnes, gen. eds., “American National Biography” (New York: Oxford University Press; 24 volumes, 1999), XI:368-69. [3] Candler, Allen, ed., “Minutes of the Executive Council, from January 14, 1778, to January 6, 1785, and January of the Land Court, from April 6 to May 26, 1784” (Atlanta: The Franklin-Turner Company; two volumes, 1908), II:182. [4] Ibid., II:184. [5] Ibid., II:196. [6] Ibid., II:210-11. [7] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), V:lvi. Burnett has Howly listed under “Howly” and not “Howley.” [8] Howly to General Horatio Gates, 10 August 1780, in ibid., V:320. [9] Howly to Gates, 22 September 1780, in ibid., V:387-88. [10] The Georgia Delegates to Nathanael Greene, 27 July 1781, in Paul H. Smith, ed., “Letters of Delegates to Congress, 1774-1789” (Washington, DC: Library of Congress; 26 volumes, 1976-2000), XVII:450. [11] “The Georgia Delegates to Gen. George Washington, 7 August 1781,” in ibid., XVII:478. [12] Jones, Charles C., Jr., “Address Delivered at Midway Meeting House in Liberty County, Georgia, on the Second Wednesday of March, 1889, on the Occasion of the Relaying of the Corner Stone of a Monument to be Erected in Honor of the Founders of Midway Church and Congregation” (Augusta, GA: Chronicle Publishing Co., 1889), 12.

A delegate to the Continental Congress from his native South Carolina (1786-88), Daniel Huger (often referred to as Daniel Huger III) was of a Huguenot background. He was born on his family estate, “Limerick,” in Berkeley, in St. John’s Parish, South Carolina, on 20 February 1742, the son of Daniel Huger, Jr., also known as Daniel Huger II, and his wife Mary (née Cordes) Huger. The elder Huger had been born on an estate, the Wambaw Plantation, in Craven, in St. James Santee, South Carolina, in 1687. Histories of the Huger clan show that “[t]he Hugers were Huguenots, living for several generations at Loudun, in the department of Vienne [France]. Feeling the persecution which people of their faith were being subjected to, they decided to leave France for America. The date is fixed by an entry in an old chronicle, which says, ‘Daniel Huger, marchand, sa femme et deux enfans sortis de l’Isle de Ré en 1682.’ [“Daniel Huger, merchant, his wife and two children left the Island of Ré in 1682.”] This was none too soon to leave as the Edict of Nantes was revoked in 1685. This Daniel Huger settled in the Carolinas and was the founder of the American family of Huger . . . his son Daniel Huger [“the second,”

702

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

or Daniel II], who was married four times, had four sons by his second wife, Mary Cordes.” [1] One brother, Isaac Huger (1743-1797), served as a Brigadier General in the Continental Army during the American Revolution; another, Benjamin Huger (1746-1779), was also in the service of the Continental Army during the conflict, but he was killed on 11 May 1779 during the British siege of Charleston, South Carolina. [2]

congressional biography, Daniel Huger served as a member of the Governor’s Council in 1780. [5]

The second Daniel Huger, through his various estates and plantations, became one of the wealthiest men in the South Carolina colony, and through this wealth all of his sons were given the best educations for that period. Historian Norman R. Hawley wrote in 1949, “A modern man, standing on the flailing grounds of Limerick Plantation, where flails probably raised dust as early as 1707, or walking its avenue of live oaks, feels the centuries stand close beside him. Down this avenue nearly two hundred years ago rice planter Daniel Huger sent descendants as delegates to the Continental Congress, into the Revolutionary forces as generals, and to the shores of South Carolina to greet Lafayette when he first touched American soil.” [3] The elder Huger died in 1754 at the age of 67, leaving his sons in control of his plantations and estates. His son Daniel was educated at home and in the schools of Charleston; at some point, he was sent to England, where he completed his studies there. In 1773, having returned to the colonies, Daniel Huger was elected to a seat in the South Carolina colonial Assembly, where he sat until 1775. Siding with the patriotic forces that desired a change in the harsh economic measures enacted by the British Parliament on the colonies, specifically Massachusetts, in 1775 Huger was appointed as a justice of the peace. Three years later, with the American Revolution affecting nearly every state of the newly independent nation, Huger was elected to the South Carolina state House of Representatives, where he served from 1778 to 1780. In November 1778, Huger, along with his brother Isaac, were both elected to seats in the South Carolina Provincial Congress, although, as Isaac Huger’s biographer noted, “his military duties prevented his performing much service in that body.” [4] Daniel Huger had no such military obligation, so he was free to attend the meetings of that interim body. According to his official

For a period of time, we find no mention of Daniel Huger in the historical record. For whatever reason, he appears next in January 1784, when his name is advertised as a part of the firm of Huger and Fair, selling land, property, and, unfortunately, slaves, at public auction. [6] The following March we find for sale, on the front page of one South Carolina newspaper, “[t] welve Tracts of Land in Craven county, on the boundaries of Brown’s Creek, bounding W.b.s. [?] by the Hon. Daniel Huger.” [7] That same month, March 1785, we find an announcement that Huger, along with John Ewing Colhoun, Thomas Sumpter, and George Haig, was elected as a member of the South Carolina Privy Council, an advisory group for the state’s governor, based on the British Privy Council, which until the 17th century was the leading legislative body, controlling the legislation desired by the King or Queen, over the House of Commons or the House of Lords, which had limited power at best. [8] On 16 February 1786, the South Carolina legislature elected Huger to a seat in the Continental Congress. As one newspaper noted, “On the 16th ult[imo] the Legislature of South-Carolina appointed John Kean, Charles Pinckney, John Bull, Thomas Bee, and Daniel Huger, Esquires, to represent that State in the Congress of the United States.” [9] Reelected to that body on 6 March 1787 and, again two days later (the third time specified as being “from the first Monday in November next until the first Monday in November [1788]”), Huger attended sessions from 22 June to about 1 September 1786, from 29 September to 24 November 1786, 17 January to about 13 April 1787, 8 to 15 May 1787, 1 June 1787, 4 July to 10 November 1787, 21 November to about 12 September 1788, and, finally, from about 15 October to 1 November 1788. [10] Unfortunately, there are no pieces of correspondence to or from Huger during this period. Studies on contemporary documents and journals merely show his attendance. With the ratification superseded Articles of

drafting, signing, and ultimate of the US Constitution, which the moribund and unworkable Confederation, the Continental

Charles Humphreys (1714–1786)703 Congress went out of existence in March 1789, giving way to a bicameral national legislature composed of a lower body, a US House of Representatives, and an upper body, the US Senate, with elections for each held in November 1788. Huger was elected to the First Congress (1789-91), sitting aside many of the same men who sat in the waning years of the Continental Congress, as well as other state and national leaders. [11] During his time in both the First and Second Congress (1791-93), Huger was part of the “pro-Administration” caucus that supported the administration of President George Washington. In 1792, Huger gave up election to a third term and instead retired to his estate in Wateree, as well as a home he had in Charleston. In the remaining years of his life, he managed the numerous plantations, stocked with slaves, which he owned in the Charleston area. On 6 July 1799, Daniel Huger died suddenly at his home in Charleston at the age of 57. The City Gazette of Charleston announced, “Died, in this city, on Friday evening last, after a lingering disease, Daniel Huger, esq. [sic] for several years a representative in the Congress of the United States for the district of Camden in this state.” [12] Huger was buried in the western churchyard of St. Phillip’s Church in Charleston, now called Saint Philips Episcopal Church Cemetery. His grave is marked with a ceremonial tablet celebrating his Huguenot background. His son, Daniel Elliott Huger (1779-1854), was, in his own right, a noted South Carolina politician, who served in the US Senate (1843-47) as a “States’ Rights” Democrat, having succeeded Senator John C. Calhoun upon his resignation from that body. His brother, Benjamin’s grandson, Benjamin Huger (1805-1877) was a career US military officer who served as a general in the Confederate army during the US Civil War.

[1] For this specific information, see Wells, T. Tileston, ed., “The Hugers of South Carolina” (New York: Privately Printed, 1931), 13, as well as Manigault, Louis, “Pedigree of Huger, of South Carolina” : Privately Published, 1893). [2] Information on Daniel Huger can also be found, to a limited degree, in John G. Van Deusen, “Huger, Isaac,” in Allen Johnson, et al., “Dictionary of American Biography” (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons; eleven volumes and five supplements, 1958-77), IX:344-45.

[3] Hawley, Norman R., “The Old Rice Plantations In and Around the Santee Experimental Forest,” Agricultural History, XXIII:2 (April 1949), 91. [4] John G. Van Deusen, “Huger, Isaac,” op. cit., IX:344-45. [5] Daniel Huger official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay. pl?index=H000916. [6] “The Subscribers have Entered into Copartnership . . . ,” South-Carolina Gazette and General Advertiser [Charleston], 20-22 January 1784, 2. [7] “For Sale by Public Auction,” South-Carolina Gazette and General Advertiser [Charleston], 30 March 1785, 1. [8] See the mention of Huger’s election to the council in The Connecticut Journal [New Haven], 16 March 1785, 2. [9] “On the 16th ult[imo],” The New-York Packet, 13 March 1786, 3. [10] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VIII:xcvi. [11] See the listing of the members of that first Congress under the US Constitution in Carson, Hampton L., “The First Congress of the United States,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, XIII:2 (July 1889), 129-52. [12] “Died, in this city,” The City Gazette, or Daily Advertiser [Charleston], 8 July 1799, 3.

Charles Humphreys (1714–1786)

Charles Humphreys was a delegate to the Continental Congress (1774-76) from his adopted state of Delaware. He was raised as a Quaker and refused to sign the Declaration of Independence because he felt that it would continue a war with England. Born at his family estate, The Mansion House, in the village of Haverford, in Delaware County, Pennsylvania, approximate seven miles

704

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

northwest of Philadelphia, on 19 September 1714, Charles Humphreys was the son of Daniel Humphreys, a Welsh immigrant to the American colonies, and his wife Hannah (née Wynn) Humphreys. [1] According to an article on Charles Humphreys, published in 1879 by his ancestor Major General A.A. Humphreys, Daniel Humphreys left his home in the village of Porthwen, in Merionethshire, Wales, in 1682, marrying Hannah Wynn thirteen years later. Hannah’s sister Mary Wynn married one John Dickinson, and their son, also named John Dickinson, penned the famous essays “Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania to the Inhabitants of the British Colonies.” [2]

Bester, and make their Entries as the Law directs.” [5]

Charles Humphreys—attended local schools, and completed “preparatory studies,” although there is no evidence that Humphreys ever received any additional schooling. He entered his father’s business as a miller, one who mills grains like wheat and sorghum, from which he made a living. Humphreys was much older than the many men who served in the Continental Congress; his career begins not in the mid-1770s, but in the early 1760s, when he was elected in 1763 (Humphreys’ official congressional biography states the date as 1764 [3]) to a seat in the Pennsylvania Provincial Congress, at that time a rubber-stamp body for the royal government led by men not elected by the people of Pennsylvania but appointed by the government in London that oversaw all of the colonies. Humphreys served in that body for more than a full decade, until 1774. Although little is mentioned about the work he did in the legislature, Humphreys’ name does appear over the years in Pennsylvania newspapers. For instance, in January 1767, we find a notice that “We the Subscribers, Auditors appointed by the Court of Common Pleas to audit the Accounts of James McCan, Shopkeeper, to meet on the 7th Day of February 1767, at the House of John Hamilton in Newtown, Innkeeper, at 9 o’clock in the Forenoon.” [4] In another advertisement, in the same paper but dated 11 August 1768, we find that “[t]he Retailers of Spirituous Liquors, made excisable by an Act of [the] Assembly of the Province of Philadelphia, are hereby requested to pay their several Arrears of Duty thereon, next Court of Quarter Sessions, at

1770 seems to be a turning point in the life of Charles Humphreys—he is mentioned numerous times in local Pennsylvania news‑ papers that year. For instance, in February of that year, his name is found on an adverti‑ sement “to be lett” [sic] “the Province Island, Containing 342 Acres of the best Meadow Land, within about five Miles and a Half of the City of Philadelphia, extremely well adapted for Grazing, or supplying the said City with Hay . . .” [6] In October 1770, there is a notice of an election held throughout the province of Pennsylvania, for colonial representatives, sheriffs, and other offices; for Chester County, for the representative seat, Humphreys is listed first. [7] In elections held for the General Assembly in October 1772, it is shown that Humphreys was elected to the Assembly, again representing Chester County. [8] The following year, the Assembly met in September 1773; again, Humphreys was elected to that body, representing Chester County. [9] On 25 July 1775, Humphreys, along with the other members of the Council of Safety, signed an open letter “to the Inhabitants of Pennsylvania and Virginia, on the West Side of Laurel Hill.” Their letter stated, “It gives us much concern to find that disturbances have arisen, and still continue among you, concerning the boundaries of our Colonies. In the character in which we now address you, it is unnecessary to inquire into the origin of those unhappy disputes, and it would be improper for us to express our approbation or censure on either side, but as representatives of two of the Colonies, united among many others for the defence of liberties of America, we think it is our duty to remove, as far as lies in our power, every obstacle that prevent her sons from co-operating, as vigorously as they would wish to do, towards the attainment of this great and important end.” [10] The letter was signed by Patrick Henry, and the other members of the council, including Charles Humphreys. On 22 July 1774, as the thirteen colonies prepared to send appointed representatives to meet in what was called a “Continental Congress” in Philadelphia, Humphreys became

Charles Humphreys (1714–1786)705 one of the first that Pennsylvania would send to the parley. As he lived in the Philadelphia area, he did not have to travel far to attend the body’s meetings. Reelected on 15 December 1774 and 4 November 1775, he attended sessions of 5 September (the first day that the Continental Congress officially met) to 26 October 1774, 10 May to about 2 August 1775, from about 5 September to about 9 November 1775, and, finally, from about 23 February to 4 July 1776. The final date mentioned here, 4 July 1776, was when the delegates in attendance began to affix their signatures to the Declaration of Independence. As to the variance in the dates of his service, historian Edmund Cody Burnett wrote, “The records of Humphreys’ attendance in Congress are exceedingly meagre. After recording his presence [on] 10 May, the Journals during the summer of 1775 are silent. There are however letters signed by him in June and July, and he also signed the second petition to the king, [on] 8 July. He was appointed on a committee [on] 28 October, and he was probably present when the new credentials were presented on 6 November.” On 9 November 1775, Humphreys signed the petition of secrecy, binding each member on their word not to divulge any information from the debates in the Continental Congress. [11] In 1796, ten years after Humphreys had died, Thomas McKean, a delegate to the Continental Congress from Pennsylvania, wrote a lengthy letter to his fellow Pennsylvanian, Alexander James Dallas (the father of George Mifflin Dallas, for whom the Texas city is named), in which he outlined the signing of the Declaration, and he mentions Humphreys for his refusal to sign the declaration: Your favor of the 19th. instant, respecting the declaration [sic] of Independence, should not have remained so long unanswered, if the duties of my office of Chief Justice had not engrossed my whole attention while the court was sitting. For several years past I have been taught to think less unfavorably of scepticism [sic] than formerly. So many things have been misrepresented, mistated [sic] and erroneously printed (with seeming authenticity) under my own Eye, as in my opinion to render those who doubt of everything not altogether inexcusable. The publication of the Declaration of Independence on the 4th day of July 1776, as printed

in the Journals of Congress . . . and also in the Acts of most public Bodies since, so far as respects the names of the Delegates or Deputies who made that Declaration, has led to the above reflection. By the printed publications referred to it would appear as if the fifty-five Gentlemen, whose names are there printed and none other, were on that day personally present in Congress and assenting the declaration: Whereas the truth is otherwise. The following Gentlemen were not Members of Congress on the 4th. day of July, 1776, namely, Matthew Thornton, Benjamin Rush, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor and George Ross: The five last named were not chosen Delegates until the 2oth day of that Month, the first not until the 12th day of September following, nor did he take his seat in Congress until the 4th of November, which was four Months after. The Journals of Congress . . . as well as those of the Assembly of the State of Pennsylvania . . . and of the General Assembly of New-Hampshire establish these facts. Altho’ the six Gentlemen named had been very active in the American cause, and some of them to my own knowledge warmly in favor of its Independence previous to the day on which it was declared, yet I personally know, that none of them were in Congress on that day. Modesty should not rob any man of his just honor, when by that honor his modesty cannot be offended. My name is not in the printed Journals of Congress as a party to the declaration of Independence, and this, like an error in the first concoction, has vitiated most of the subsequent publications; and yet the fact is, that I was then a member of Congress for the State of Delaware, was personally present in Congress and voted in favor of independence on the 4th day of July 1776, and signed the declaration after it had been engrossed on parchment, where my name in my own hand writing still appears. Henry Wisner of the State of New-York Esquire was also in Congress and voted for independence . . . I well remember, that on Monday, the first day of July 1776, the Congress, in a Committee of the whole, voted in favor of Independence, all the States concurring except Pennsylvania, which voted in the negative, and Delaware, which was divided. The Delegates for Pennsylvania, who voted in the negative, were John Dickinson, Robert Morris, Charles Humphries [sic] and Thomas Willing Esquires; those in the affirmative were John Morton, Benjamin Franklin and James Wilson Esquires. For Delaware, my vote was for Independence; my Colleague George Read Esquire,

706

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

voted against it. On the 4th (which was a rainy day) Messrs. Dickinson and Morris were absent; in consequence of which the vote for Pennsylvania on that day was in favor of the measure; and Caesar Rodney Esquire, the other Delegate for Delaware (having been written to by me for the purpose) attended and voted likewise in the affirmative; so that on that day there was an unanimous vote of the thirteen Colonies for Independence. I had not heard, that the Instrument had been engrossed on parchment and signed, until after my return from Camp, and I rather think until I returned in October from New Castle, where I had been employed some weeks as a member of the Convention chosen to form a new Government for that State: but I must have subscribed my name to it not long after. [12]

those public stations with which she rewards the upright and the just. In the General Assembly— in Congress he was known to be liberal and impartial. In private life open, hospitable, and generous—and in death serene and unruffled— so that we may safely say he died sincerely lamented by his friends, and much respected even by his enemies.” [15] Humphreys was laid to rest in the Old Haverford Friends Meeting House Cemetery, a Quaker burying ground, located in Havertown, in Delaware County, Pennsylvania.

In July 1776, representing Pennsylvania, Humphreys refused to sign the Declaration of Independence, citing his Quaker beliefs and his opposition to war as reasons. Historian Herbert Friedenwald, in a dissertation from the early part of the 20th century, explained, “[W]hen the final vote [on the passage of the Declaration] was taken on the resolution on the morning of 2 July, but three votes, so far as we know, were cast against it [sic] those of [Thomas] Willing and Humphreys of Pennsylvania, and [George] Read’s of Delaware. But [James] Wilson, [Benjamin] Franklin, and [John] Morton outvoted Willing and Humphreys, and [Thomas] McKean and [Caesar] Rodney set Read’s opposition at naught.” [13] Another work on the history of the Declaration takes notice that while Willing and Humphreys did not sign the document, delegates Benjamin Rush, George Clymer, James Smith, George Taylor, and George Ross, all of whom were not sitting in the Continental Congress at the time the Declaration of Independence was drafted but were soon members of that body and all signed the Declaration. [14] It appears that once he refused to sign the Declaration, Humphreys’ political career was finished. He returned to his plantation near Philadelphia, where he spent the last decade of his life. He died there on 11 March 1786. One newspaper said of him, “From a very early period of life distinguished by integrity and sound understanding, his country fixed on him to fill

Despite not signing the Declaration of Independence, Charles Humphreys is still remembered. His ancestor wrote, “The testimony is universal that Charles Humphreys was held in high esteem for his talents, his integrity in private and public life, his hospitality and courteous and dignified manners.” [16]

[1] Humphreys’ family tree, online at http://www.geni. com/people/Charles-Humphreys-Continental-Congressm an/6000000012291030987. [2] Humphreys, A.A., “Charles Humphreys,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, I:1 (1877), 83-85. [3] Humphreys’ official congressional biography, online at http:// bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=H000961. [4] “We the Subscribers,” The Pennsylvania Gazette, Containing the Freshest Advices, Foreign and Domestic [Philadelphia], 1 January 1767, 4. [5] “The Retailers,” The Pennsylvania Gazette, Containing the Freshest Advices, Foreign and Domestic [Philadelphia], 11 August 1768, Supplement, 2. See the same advertisement, also signed by Humphreys, in the same newspaper, 16 August 1770, 4. [6] “To be Lett,” The Pennsylvania Gazette, Containing the Freshest Advices, Foreign and Domestic [Philadelphia], 22 February 1770, 4. [7] “Monday last being the Anniversary Election,” The Pennsylvania Gazette, Containing the Freshest Advices, Foreign and Domestic [Philadelphia], 4 October 1770, 3. [8] The Pennsylvania Gazette, Containing the Freshest Advices, Foreign and Domestic [Philadelphia], 7 October 1772, 3. [9] “In Assembly, September 28th, 1773,” The Pennsylvania Packet [Philadelphia], 4 October 1773, 3. [10] Peter Force, ed., “American Archives: Consisting of a Collection of Authentick Records, State Papers, Debates, and Letters and Other Notices of Publick Affairs, the Whole Forming a Documentary History of the Origin and Progress of the North America Colonies; of the Causes and Accomplishment of the American Revolution; and of the Constitution of Government for the United States, to the Final Ratification Thereof. In Six Series” (Washington, DC: Published by M. St. Clair Clarke and Peter Force; ten volumes, 1837-53), Series IV, II:1723. [11] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), I:lix-lx. [12] Thomas McKean to Alexander James Dallas, 26 September 1796, in ibid., I:533-34.

Benjamin Huntington (1736–1800)707 [13] Friedenwald, Herbert, “The Declaration of independence, An Interpretation and an Analysis” (New York: The Macmillan Company; 1904), 129, 143. [14] Langdon, William Chauncy, “The Celebration of the Fourth of July by Means of Pageantry. With an Article and Notes on the Music by Arthur Farewell” (New York: Russell Sage Foundation, 1912), 18. [15] “On Wednesday morning departed this life,” The Maryland Journal and Baltimore Advertiser, 27 January 1786, 2. [16] Humphreys, A.A., “Charles Humphreys,” op. cit., 83.

Benjamin Huntington (1736–1800)

Adamses in Massachusetts at that time, dominant in all walks of life, including the Connecticut political arena. In addition to Benjamin, the family included Samuel Huntington (1731-1796), Benjamin’s cousin, who signed the Declaration of Independence, and served as the president of the Continental Congress (1779-81) as well as governor of Connecticut (1786-96). There is also Jabez Huntington (1719-1786), who served as the major general of the Connecticut state militia during the American Revolution, and his sons Jedediah (1743-1818), who was a major general in the Continental Army during the war and served as a Connecticut delegate to the Constitutional Convention, Ebenezer (17541834), who would serve in the US House of Representatives during the Eleventh Congress (1809-11) and the Fifteenth Congress (1817-19), and Andrew (1754-1824), a leading businessman in Connecticut who supplied the Continental Army with provisions during the war. [1] According to a genealogical history, it began with Simon Huntington, of Norwich, Norfolk, England. The Reverend E.B. Huntington, the family genealogist, wrote in 1863:

The scion of a famed Connecticut family— his cousin Samuel Huntington served in the Continental Congress as both delegate and as president—Benjamin Huntington was a noted Connecticut politician on his own, serving in the colonial and state legislature, as a judge, and, in two different tenures, in the Continental Congress (1780, 1782-83, 1788). The son of Daniel Huntington, a farmer, and his third wife Rachel (Wolcott) Huntington, Benjamin Huntington was born in Norwich, Connecticut, on 19 April 1736. The Huntingtons were influential at one time in both Connecticut and national American politics. Like the Kennedys and the Bushes in the 20th and 21st centuries, the Huntingtons were, like the

Simon, for so tradition has named him, was born in England, and married, probably, Margaret Baret, of Norwich, or its immediate vicinity, in England. He died, while on the voyage to this country, of small pox, in 1633, and his body was consigned to its ocean grave . . . [He is] the ancestor of all the Huntingtons on this continent; and it is much to be regretted that no record can now be found, to tell us of his parentage, his character, or of his estate. What has been believed respecting him, and what is most probable, a few lines will trace. Beyond doubt he was an Englishman. Tradition has quite uniformly made him a Norwich man; and as uniformly, has ascribed his removal to this country to the persecutions to which nonconformists were subjected, during the high handed administrations of Laud and the first Charles. [2] His mother, Rachel Huntington, was a member of the prestigious Wolcott family of Connecticut, another influential clan in that colony and state in the history of early America. Benjamin Huntington, the son of Daniel, lost his father in 1741, when he was just five, and was raised by his mother and his siblings. He pursued what was known at the time as “academic studies”—usually the study of languages, English

708

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

and grammar, and mathematics. He entered Yale College (now Yale University) in New Haven, Connecticut. According to a work published in 1784, Huntington graduated with the class of 1761; he later earned an L.L.D. degree in 1772. [3] In 1764, he was named as the surveyor of lands for Windham County, Connecticut. At the same time, he studied the law, and was admitted to the bar in 1765, although, according to the record from Yale, he did not earn a law degree until 1772. He opened a law practice in the city of Norwich. On 5 May 1765, he married his cousin Anne Huntington, the daughter of the aforementioned Jabez Huntington. They would have eight children—five sons and three daughters.

In January 1778, Huntington was named as a delegate to the first Connecticut Provincial Congress, held in New Haven. That same year, based on a recommendation from General George Washington, he was also named to a convention held in New Haven that met to lay out regulations for the Continental Army. According to the Daughters of the American Revolution, Mrs. Huntington “deprived the family of blankets to supply the suffering soldiers” during the war. [7]

Huntington entered the political arena in 1771, when he was elected to a seat in the colonial House of Representatives, serving until 1780. At the same time, he served as the clerk of the House in 1776 and 1777; further, in 1778 and 1779, he served as Speaker of that body. [4] In 1775, Huntington was serving in the Connecticut General Assembly, according to The Connecticut Courant and Weekly Intelligencer, representing New London County. [5] While in that seat, he was elected by the legislature to a seat on the colony’s Council of Safety, which took control of the colony in the wake of the collapse of royal rule. This committee, as well as others in the other colonies, acted as an emergency government, unelected, but tasked with extraordinary powers to handle all of the affairs of the colony as the colonies as a whole struggled against the British invasion once war was declared. As a deputy in the General Assembly and a leader in the colony, Huntington wrote home to his wife on 29 April 1775, “This is only to let you Know that I am well and hope to Come home Next Week The Assembly is very full of News and a Great Deal of Business but the Members Sworn to Secrecy therefore Cannot Informe [sic] you of Any News or thing of Consequence but Matters Do not appear to me to be Worse than I Apprehended when I came from home I have Wrote to Mr. Wetmore Concerning Mother Huntington & Mr[.] P Wetmore and have heared [sic] that Friends at the Westward are well. Mr. [John] Hancock from Boston arived [sic] here today on his way to the Congress.” [6]

On 6 January 1780, Huntington was elected by the Connecticut General Assembly to a seat in the Continental Congress. At the time that he took his seat on 1 June of that year, his cousin, Samuel, was sitting as the president at the Continental Congress. The younger Huntington was reelected on 10 May 1781, 9 May 1782, and 8 May 1783, and attended sessions of the body from 1 June to 4 November 1780, 3 June to 8 November 1782, and 29 July to 4 November 1783. [8] The correspondence that survives from this period of Huntington’s congressional service, deals almost entirely with monetary affairs; for instance, in a missive to his fellow Connecticutensian [9] Oliver Ellsworth, dated 2 November 1780, Huntington explained, “Congress have Resolved to Recommend to the States to Tax to the Value of Six Millions Dollars in hard Money to be Collected Partly in Specific Supplies and the Remainder in Case of the Emissions Pursuant to the Resolves of the 18th of March but as the Whole Report is not finished I have no Right to say what the Remainder will be. [I]t is the Order of this Day I Expect it will be the Proportion of the Several articles to be Raised in Several States.” [10] After leaving the Continental Congress in 1783, Huntington returned to Connecticut, having been elected to the state Senate in 1781; he held that seat until 1790; he was reelected to this seat in 1791, and served until 1791. Finally, he was elected as mayor of the city of Norwich in 1784, a post he held until 1796, when he resigned. Incredibly, Huntington held some of these offices simultaneously. In fact, a notice in a rare publication, a register of political offices in Connecticut in 1785, notes that Matthew Griswold was the governor, Samuel Huntington the lieutenant governor, and, listed among the governor’s assistants is Benjamin Huntington. [11]

Benjamin Huntington (1736–1800)709 Huntington was deeply involved in the state’s political scene while he served in various state offices. For instance, on 19 April 1781, The Norwich Packet printed an open letter from Huntington, entitled “To The Public.” In the missive, he penned an extraordinary outburst at the accusation of corruption by some elected officers: Observing a piece in The Norwich Packet [sic], No. 393, signed, A Son of Liberty, addressed “to the Hon. Judges of the county of New-London, the Sheriff, and State’s Attorney,” in which the writer has most shamefully traduced the Court, and abused its officers; I think myself bound, in justice to the concerned, to represent the affair, as far as I know it, according to truth, without any reply to the Reptile of Slander who published that piece, and, like other cowards, conceals himself. . . . The right of the Public to know the conduct of its officers, and to protect them when falsely accused, will apologize for my publishing this, which I declare, on my word, to be the candid truth, as far as I am acquainted with, and can recollect the facts. [12] On 17 May 1781, that same newspaper reported that “[l]ast Thursday being the annual General Election of the Governor and Company of the State of Connecticut, the following gentlemen were duly chosen, viz.” Jonathan Trumbull was elected governor, Matthew Griswold Deputy Governor, and Benjamin Huntington, along with his cousin Samuel, to seats in the Continental Congress. [13] Then, on 11 October 1787, the Connecticut General Assembly elected Huntington once again to a seat in the Continental Congress. The previous month, delegates to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia had signed the US Constitution, a document that awaited ratification by the 13 states, after which the Continental Congress would go out of existence. Huntington ultimately served during this second tenure from 1 July to 1 November 1788, the last days coming just before the Continental Congress closed out on 3 March 1789. [14] In November 1788, just as Huntington was returning to Connecticut, he was elected by the people of his state to a seat in the new US House of Representatives, the lower body of the federal Congress. In the days when there were no organized political parties, Huntington was classified as “Pro-Administration”—meaning

that he supported the administration of President George Washington. He took his seat in the First Congress on 4 March 1789, according to all sources; however, “The Congressional Register” for that first federal Congress notes on 8 April 1789 that “[t]he Chief Justice of the state of New-York attended agreeably to the order of yesterday, and administered the oath required by the constitution in the form agreed to on Monday last.” Listed among the new representatives who took this oath is Benjamin Huntington, representing Connecticut. [15] Benjamin Huntington only served in that First Congress, leaving the body, then housed in New York City, on 3 March 1791. [16] He appears in several works dealing with that first Congress assembled under the new US Constitution: for instance, in his diary for 11 February 1790, President Washington wrote, “At New York: Exercised on horse back [sic] in the forenoon. The following gentlemen dined here, viz: Messrs. [George] Leonard and [Jonathan] Groal [Grout], of Massachusetts; [Benjamin] Huntington and [Jonathan] Sturges, of Connecticut . . .” [17] Historian Howard Ohline wrote: Thus, on 12 February, by a vote of forty-three to eleven, the House voted to create a special committee to determine what powers Congress should have over the institution of slavery. It is clear from this vote and from the debates that preceded it that many representatives in 1790 by no means accepted the view that Congress was prohibited from touching the institution of slavery in any way at all. The composition of the special committee augured well for a sympathetic consideration of the petitions. The committee included Abiel Foster of New Hampshire, chairman, Benjamin Huntington of Connecticut, Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, John Laurance of New York, Thomas Sinnickson of New Jersey, Thomas Hartley of Pennsylvania, and Josiah Parker of Virginia. Parker, the only southerner of the group, had already, in 1789, proposed legislation against the slave trade. [18] After leaving the Congress, Huntington returned to Connecticut, where he served in the series of state offices as earlier noted. In addition, he served as a judge of the Connecticut Superior Court from 1793 to 1798. On 16 October 1800, at the age of 64, Benjamin Huntington died in Rome, New York. The Connecticut Gazette, And The Commercial

710

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Intelligencer of New London stated, “Died, at Rome, New-York, on the 16th ult[imo], after languishing [for] several years under a complication of painful disorders, Benjamin Huntington, Esq. for many years one of the Assistants of the state of Connecticut, a Judge of their Superior Court, and several times a Representative from said state in the Congress of the United States, under the old confederation, and since the adoption of the present constitution. In every station of life he discharged his duty with singular fidelity and ability, and acquired an extensive unsullied reputation for integrity.” [19] Huntington’s remains were returned to his native state, and he was laid to rest in Old Norwichtown Cemetery in Norwich.

America, holden at Hartford on the second Thursday of May, A.D. 1783, the honorable Samuel Huntington, the honorable Oliver Ellsworth, the honorable Oliver Wolcott, the honorable Benjamin Huntington, Jedediah Strong, esquire, Stephen Mix Mitchell, esquire, and the honorable Richard Law, were elected and publicly declared to be delegates to represent that state in the Congress of the United States, according to law.” See “Journal of the United States in Congress Assembled: Containing the Proceedings from the Third Day of November, 1783, to the Third Day of June, 1784. Volume IX. Published by Order of Congress” (Philadelphia: Printed by John Dunlap, Printer to the United States in Congress Assembled, 1784), 4. [9] This word is in dispute . . . after all, what does one call someone from The Nutmeg State? According to historian Allen Walker Read, the word “Connecticutotian” was used by Cotton Mather in his 1702 work, “Magnalia Christi Americana”; Samuel Peters, in a history of Connecticut printed in 1781, utilized “Connecticutensian.” Because that word was used about the time of Benjamin Huntington’s Continental Congress service, it is being used here. See Read, Allen Walker, “A Personal Journey Through Linguistics” in E.F.K. Koerner, ed. “First Person Singular II: Autobiographies by North American Scholars in the Language Sciences” (Amsterdam, The Netherlands: John Benjamins Publishing Company, 1991), 287. [10] Benjamin Huntington to Oliver Ellsworth, 2 November 1780, in Burnett, “Letters of Members,” op. cit., V:437. [11] See “A Register for the State of Connecticut: with an Almanack, for the Year of our Lord, 1785. Calculated for the Meridian of New-London, lat. 41. 25. North, by Nathan Daboll, Teacher of the Mathematics at the Academic School in Plainfield” (New-London: Printed and Sold by T. Green, near the Court-House, 1785), 3. [12] “To The Public,” The Norwich Packet; And The Weekly Advertiser [Connecticut], 19 April 1781, 1-2. [13] “Hartford, May 15,” The Norwich Packet; And The Weekly Advertiser, 17 May 1781, 3. [14] Burnett, “Letters of Members,” op. cit., VIII:lxxxiii. The “Journals” of the Continental Congress report on 1 July 1788 that “Mr. Benjamin Huntington, a delegate from Connecticut, attended and took his seat.” See “Journal of the United States in Congress Assembled: Containing the Proceedings from the 5th Day of November, 1787. to the 3d Day of November 1788. Volume XIII. Published by Order of Congress” (Philadelphia: Printed by John Dunlap, 1788), 47. [15] “The Congressional Register; or, History of the Proceedings and Debates of the First House of Representatives of the United States of America: Namely, New-Hampshire, Massachusetts, Connecticut, New-York, New-Jersey, Pennsylvania, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, South-Carolina, and Georgia. Being the Eleven States that Have Ratified the Constitution of the Government of the United States. Containing an Impartial Account of the Most Interesting Speeches and Motions; and Accurate Copies of Remarkable Papers Laid Before and Offered to the House. Taken in Short Hand, by Thomas Lloyd” (New-York: Printed for the Editor, by Harrisson and Purdy, 1789), 11. [16] For a listing of Huntington in that Congress, as well as other members, see Hampton L. Carson, “The First Congress of the United States,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, XIII:2 (July 1889), 136. [17] Baker, William S., “Washington after the Revolution, 17841799 (Continued),” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, XX:1 (1896), 46-47. [18] Ohline, Howard A., “Slavery, Economics, and Congressional Politics, 1790,” The Journal of Southern History, XLVI:3 (August 1980), 343. [19] “Died,” Connecticut Gazette, And The Commercial Intelligencer [New London], 12 November 1800, 3. See also the obituary for Huntington in The Farmer’s Monitor [Litchfield, Connecticut], 26 November 1800, 1.

See also: Samuel Huntington

[1] Cutter, William Richard, ed., et al., “Genealogical and Family History of the State of Connecticut. A Record of the Achievements of Her People in the Making of a Commonwealth and the Founding of a Nation” (New York: Lewis Historical Publishing Company; four volumes, 1911), II:611-15. [2] Huntington, The Rev. Elijah Baldwin, “Genealogical Memoir of the Huntington Family in This Country: Embracing all the Known Descendants of Simon and Margaret Huntington, Who Have Retained the Family Name, and the First Generation of the Descendants of Other Names” (Stamford, CT: Published by the Author, 1863), 59. [3] See “Catalogus Senatus Academici, et Œrum Qui Munera et Officia Academica Gesserunt, Quique Aliquovis Gradu Exornati Fuerunt in Collegio Yalensi Quod est in Novo-Portu Reipublicæ Connecticuttensis in Nov-Anglia” (Novi-Portus: Excudebant Meigs, Bowen et Dana, Academiæ Typographi, 1784), 19. Although the title is completely in Latin, the work itself is in English, with each graduating class listed in chronological order. [4] Benjamin Huntington official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay. pl?index=H000995. [5] “Hartford, May 15,” The Connecticut Courant and Weekly Intelligencer [Hartford], 15 May 1775, 3. [6] McCrackan, William Denison, ed., “The Huntington Letters, in the Possession of Julia Chester Wells. Printed for Private Distribution” (New York: The Appleton Press, 1897), 17-18. [7] See Sarah Hall Johnston, comp., “Lineage Book. National ­Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution. Volume XXX [1899]” (Washington, DC: The Society, 1910), 57. [8] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), V:lv; VI:xli; VII:lxiii. In a “Journal of the Continental Congress for November 1783,” Benjamin Huntington is listed second, behind his cousin, Samuel, and it is noted that the younger Huntington “produced credentials under the seal of the state, and signed [by] George Wyllis, secretary; by which it appears, that at a general assembly of the governor and company of the state of Connecticut, in

Samuel Huntington (1731-1796)711

Samuel Huntington (1731-1796)

A signer of the Declaration of Independence and the Articles of Confederation during his service in the Continental Congress (1776, 177881, 1783), Samuel Huntington is also known for his tenure as the president of that body (1779-81). The scion of a famed Connecticut family—his cousin Benjamin, served in the Continental Congress as well—Samuel also served as the lieutenant governor and governor of his native state, marking him as one of the most important of the early colonial and state leaders in America. The son of Nathaniel Huntington and his wife Mehitable (née Thurston) Huntington, Samuel Huntington was born on 16 July 1731 in Connecticut. He was born in Norwich. [1] Historian Patit Paban Mishra reports that he was born in Scotland, Connecticut. [2] The Connecticut State Library settles the dispute: he was born in Scotland Parish, now the town of Scotland, which at the time of his birth was part of Windham, but broke away after his birth and is now a separate entity. [3] As well, Huntington’s exact birthdate is in dispute: while most sources list the 16 July 1736 date, some give the alternate date of 5 July 1736 because the British adopted the Gregorian calendar in 1752: this new calendar, apart from

the old Julian, added an additional 11 days to the year. [4] Samuel, the eldest child of the farmer Nathaniel Huntington, pursued what were called at the time “academic” studies—languages, English, and other subjects important at the time—and he entered Yale College (now Yale University) in New Haven, Connecticut, graduating from that institution in 1755 [5]. In 1761, he married Martha Devotion, the daughter of the Reverend Ebenezer Devotion; the couple had no children, but they did adopt the offspring of Samuel’s brother, the Reverend Joseph Huntington, when he died. As well, they oversaw the lives of other family members, including Samuel Huntington, who later served as the governor of Ohio, and the wife of Cyrus Griffin, who was a Huntington family member. Appointed as the surveyor of public lands for Windham County, Connecticut, in 1764, Huntington read the law and was admitted to the Connecticut colonial bar the following year. He opened a law office in Norwich, and became a leading attorney in that town. By the time he was 30, Huntington was one of the most important lawyers in the Connecticut colony; to this end, in 1765 he was named as the King’s Attorney for the colony, in essence the colonial attorney general. However, on account of the growing tensions between England and her colonies over the enactment by the British Parliament of several harsh economic measures aimed at the colonial economy, Huntington soon found himself in opposition to the royal government, and he resigned from his office. On 24 September 1773, The Connecticut Journal of New Haven reported that “[o]n Saturday last, the County Court adjourned to the first Tuesday in February next; during their Sitting they appointed Samuel H. Parsons, Esq; King’s Attorney for the County of New-London, in the room of the Hon. Samuel Huntington.” [6] When his cousin, Benjamin Huntington, the town clerk of Norwich, called for a meeting among those who opposed The Stamp Act and asked if he should use the stamps sold by the government to pay for operations in the colonies, Samuel Huntington told him “that the clerk should proceed in his office as usual and the town will save him harmless from all damage that he may sustain thereby.” On 21 September

712

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

1770, The Connecticut Journal announced, on its first page, that “The following Gentleman were admitted to the Degree of Master of Arts, viz.,” and listed Samuel Huntington as being a recipient of this honor. [7]

the Continental Congress for 16 January 1776, it was noted, “At a general assembly of the governor and company of the English Colony of Connecticut, in New England, in America, holden at New-Haven, in said Colony, on the second Thursday of October, Anno Domini 1775. ‘Resolved, by this assembly, That Roger Sherman, Oliver Wolcott, Samuel Huntington, Titus Hosmer, and William Williams, Esqrs. be, and they are hereby appointed delegates to represent this Colony at the General Congress of the United Colonies, in America, for the year ensuing, and until new be chosen . . . ” [12] Huntington served, at least during this first tenure, until 4 July 1776, when he signed the Declaration of Independence. Historian Robert T. Conrad, writing in a collection of biographies of the signers of that document, wrote in 1846, “In this high station, he devoted his talents and time to the public service, during successive years. His stern integrity, and inflexible patriotism, rendered him a prominent member, and attracted a large share of the current business of the house; as a member of numerous important committees, he acted with judgment and deliberation, and cheerfully and perseveringly dedicated his moments of leisure to the general benefit of the country.” [13]

It appears from the historical record that, in addition to his resignation of a high office to protest the crushing economic burdens enacted by the British Parliament on the American colonies, Samuel Huntington took a leading role in shaping Connecticut’s response to the growing threat of war. In 1773, he was named as the assistant judge of the Connecticut Superior Court, marking him as one of the colony’s, and later state’s, great early legal minds. Two years later, he was elected to a seat in the upper house of Connecticut’s General Assembly. On 6 June 1774, Huntington was named as the chairman of a committee established “to draw up some sentiments proper to be adopted and resolutions to be come into in this alarming crisis of affairs Relative to the Natural Rights and Privileges of the People.” This came about in response to the Boston Port Bill, enacted to punish the city of Boston, Massachusetts, for the Boston Tea Party, which had occurred the previous year. When the report of the committee came in, it was voted that a Committee of Correspondence be established, with Samuel’s brother Jedediah Huntington named as one of the members, to coordinate activities with the other colonies. [8] That December, as a newspaper reported, Huntington (with the designation “of Norwich” listed after his name), was “nominated by the Votes of the Freemen, to stand for Election.” What the office Huntington stood for is not stated in the article. [9] Another paper clarifies, which, on 15 May 1775, said, “Last Thursday being the annual General Election for Governor and Company, of the Colony of Connecticut, the following Gentlemen were duly elected,” and it included Samuel Huntington as an “assistant” to the governor. [10] A work from 1775, listing various officers in the colony of Connecticut, has Samuel Huntington in a list of judges of the Superior Court of the colony. [11] On 12 October 1775, the Connecticut General Assembly elected Huntington to a seat in the Continental Congress, meeting in Philadelphia. However, he did not take his seat until 16 January. This is confirmed: In the Journals of

As stated, Huntington was initially elected on 12 October 1775, and served from 16 January to 4 July 1776. He remained in the Continental Congress until October of 1776; he was then reelected on 10 October 1776, 11 October 1777, and 21 October 1778, attending sessions from 16 February to 7 July 1778. It does not appear that he attended the sessions of the body at any time during 1777. [14] The Connecticut Journal reported on 26 November 1777 that “[t]he General Assembly of this State, at their late sessions, appointed the following Gentlemen, Delegates, for the Continental Congress, viz. Hon. Eliphalet Dyer, Hon. Roger Sherman, Hon. Oliver Wolcott, Hon. Samuel Huntington, Titus Hosmer, Oliver Ellsworth, and Andrew Adams, Esq’rs.” [15] Huntington and the other Connecticut delegates were sent, in early 1776, with explicit instructions to advocate for a full declaration of independence from England: “At a special session of the General Assembly of Connecticut, held at Hartford June 14-21, but upon what precise day of the session I am not able to say, because the Journals of either House are lost, it was ‘Resolved unanimously

Samuel Huntington (1731-1796)713 by this Assembly, that the delegates of this Colony in General Congress be and they are hereby instructed to pro pose to that respectable body, to declare the United American Colonies Free and Independent States, absolved from all allegiance to the King of Great Britain, and to give the assent of this Colony to such declaration when they shall judge it expedient and best.’” [16] The few pieces of correspondence from Huntington that exist during this period deal mainly with the usual business that occupied the delegates of the Continental Congress. For instance, in a letter to Joseph Trumbull, 30 March 1776, Huntington penned, “This day receivd yours of the 26th Inst. and note the Contents; some material occurrences that I am not at Liberty now to communicate I hope hereafter to relate in some social hour when I may have the pleasure to be honor’d with your Company; may only say at present that your favour of the 27th which was receivd before the above mentioned, came to hand most opportunely in a lucky moment and will I trust have beneficial effects.” [17] Remaining as a leader among the patriots in Connecticut, Huntington returned during his time in the state as a member of the state House of Representatives, where he served until 1780, during which he served as Speaker in 1778 and 1779. In 1776 and 1777 he also served as the Clerk of that body. In January 1778, he served as a delegate to the Provincial Congress held in New Haven. Huntington was reelected to the Continental Congress on 21 October 1778, 14 October 1779, 6 January 1780, 11 May 1780, 10 May 1781, and 9 May 1782. Although Huntington’s official congressional biography states that he served in the Continental Congress in 1788, there is no record of an election for him to have filled that seat during that year. [18] From what can be ascertained according to the records, Huntington attended sessions of the Continental Congress from 21 May to 31 December 1779, 1 January 1780 to 28 February 1781, and 1 May to 10 July 1781. [19] Perhaps the most important event that happened during this “second tenure” of Huntington’s Continental Congress service came on 28 September 1779, when the president of that body, John Jay, was named as the US minister

plenipotentiary to Spain; in his stead, the delegates elected Samuel Huntington. Delegate John Fell, in his diary that he kept on his service in the body, noted, “Monday 27th Com’l Committee Congress. Agreed that a Minister Plenoptentiary [sic] be appointed for the Court of Spain[.] Mr. Jay was appointed[.] Agreed that a Minister Plenoptentiary [sic] be appointed to negotiate a Peace with Great Britain[;] Mr. [John] Adams was Elected. Tuesday 28th C. Committee The Congress Elected a New President by Ballot, vizt. Mr. Huntington.” [20] Jay, in a letter to New York Governor George Clinton, wrote, “Mr. Huntington of Connecticut is now President of Congress, and I am persuaded will fill that office with Propriety.” [21] As the president of the Continental Congress, Huntington placed his signature on virtually every piece of official correspondence that emanated from that body, including official orders, letters to the states, introductions for ambassadors and ministers to foreign nations, and other documents. [22] One of the major pieces of legislation that he oversaw was the adoption of the Articles of Confederation, establishing, at least to a minimum degree, a framework for a central US government. Enacted by the Continental Congress in 1781, it was not ratified by all of the states, the requirement for its adoption, until two years later, when Huntington was no longer president. With the ratification of the Articles of Confederation, Huntington, as the president of the Continental Congress, penned a circular to all of the 13 states announcing the move. Dated 2 March 1781, the letter read, “By the Act of Congress herewith enclosed your Excellency will be informed that the Articles of Confederation & perpetual [sic] Union between the thirteen United States are formally & finally ratified by all the States. We are happy to congratulate our Constituents on this important Event, desired by our Friends but dreaded by our Enemies. S.H.” [23] In 1781, the Chevalier Anne Cesar de La Luzerne, who had succeeded Conrad Alexandre Gerard as the French minister to America—in effect, the French ambassador—complained to Huntington, the president of the Continental Congress, that Arthur Lee, the American minister to France, was unacceptable. Historian Ralph Ketchum wrote, “In the politically delicate area of appointments,

714

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

La Luzerne continued Gerard’s precedent of intervention. He told President Samuel Huntington that he would not deal with Arthur Lee as foreign secretary, divulgence of which information caused a reversal of an apparently close ballot in Lee’s favor to a rejection of him by a vote of seven to three. Robert R. Livingston, who was elected secretary for foreign affairs in Lee’s stead, and Robert Morris, Superintendent of Finance, were both members of La Luzerne’s inner circle.” [24]

the delegates in Philadelphia, it had become clear that the national government needed a large measure of authority over its immediate surroundings. After rejecting the limited jurisdiction in the Kingston offer, Congress appointed an ad hoc committee in early July 1783 to consider the problem. The committee recommended on 22 September that a district should be ceded to Congress and made totally exempt from the authority of the ceding state. Congress would control the appointment of judges and the executive administration of the district, while local residents would be governed by municipal representatives of their own choosing. [27]

On 6 July 1781, citing ill health, Huntington resigned from the presidency, and was succeeded by Samuel Johnston. Johnston ultimately declined the honor, and, on 10 July, Thomas McKean was elected as president. The Reverend Charles A. Goodrich, in summing up Huntington’s tenure as president, wrote, “The honourable station of president, Mr. Huntington filled with great dignity and distinguished ability. In testimony of their approbation of his conduct in the chair, and in the execution of public business, Congress, soon after his retirement, according to him the expression of their public thanks.” [25] Although it appears that Huntington desired to remain in Connecticut, his state and its people desired his continued service. He had retained his seat as an assistant judge on the Connecticut Superior Court, which he held until 1784; as well, he remained in his seat in the upper house of the Connecticut General Assembly until 1783. Incredibly, when his health returned, Huntington was again reelected to the Continental Congress. As previously noted, he had been elected on 9 May 1782, but he did not attend any sessions in that calendar year. Instead, on 8 May 1783, he was reelected to his seat, and, with renewed health, journeyed back to Philadelphia, where he sat from 29 July to 4 November 1783. [26] Evidence of the work he did in this, his final congressional service, comes from a committee formed to find a “federal capitol” for the new American nation, the first such official proposal investigated by the Continental Congress, one which would eventually become Washington, D.C. Historian Lawrence Delbert Cress explained: The degree of jurisdiction Congress was to have over the seat of government was an issue not taken lightly in the states or in Congress. Even before Congress had been humiliated by the failure of Pennsylvania to rescue it from the rebellious troops that harassed

He wrote that the members of this committee included, along with Samuel Huntington, such personages as James Duane of New York, James McHenry of Maryland, Richard Peters, Jr., of Pennsylvania, Jacob Read of South Carolina, and James Wilson of Pennsylvania. Huntington returned to his native state, where he was elected as lieutenant governor of Connecticut in 1785. A year later, he was again elected to that post; however, because Governor Matthew Griswold could not muster a majority of votes, the election was thrown into the General Assembly. There, as a compromise candidate, Samuel Huntington was elected as governor. He would hold this post until his death. As governor from 1786 until 1796, Huntington tacked a financial crisis in his state that threatened its economic stability. Taking a cue from the lessons he had learned in the Continental Congress, he believed that allowing business, including textile and other industries, into the state would increase wealth for the citizens and, ultimately, the state itself, offering tax cuts and exemptions to lure business to Connecticut. Lands in what was called the “Western Reserve” were set aside for American Revolution war veterans; additional lands were sold, and the proceeds used for education. Huntington pushed to abolish the slave trade, and he raised funds to start construction on a new state house in Hartford. In June 1787, he was reelected governor, with Oliver Wolcott, who had also served in the Continental Congress, elected as lieutenant governor. [28] On 1 February 1788, The New-York Journal printed a letter from Governor Huntington,

Samuel Huntington (1731-1796)715 on a matter involving the draft of the new US Constitution: “On Thursday last, a letter from his excellency [sic] Samuel Huntington, Esq. governor of the state of Connecticut, enclosing a copy of the doings of their convention, was received, and read by the convention of this state. On Friday last the convention voted, that the following question be put to the Hon. E[lbridge] Gerry, Esq. viz. ‘Why in the last requisition of Congress, the portion required of this state, was thirteen times as much as of Georgia, and yet we have but eight representatives in the general government, and Georgia has three?’ and requested him to put his answer in writing.” [29] In November 1788, national elections were held for the office of president of the United States, as well as seats in the lower house of the new federal legislature, the House of Representatives. The votes for president were doled out via the Electoral College, giving each state a vote based on population. As The Federal Gazette reported on 18 February 1789, “In the state of Connecticut the electors met on the day appointed, at Hartford, when they gave seven votes for his excellency [sic] George Washington, five for his excellency [sic] John Adams, and two for his excellency [sic] Samuel Huntington, esquires.” [30] The American Mercury of Hartford, Connecticut, then reported on 13 April that when Congress met to count all of the electoral votes, Washington had won with 69, but Huntington had retained the 2 he had received from his native state. [31] Huntington’s wife died in 1794, and his health deteriorated dramatically thereafter. Despite this, on 20 May 1795, the newspaper American Minerva announced that both Huntington and Wolcott had both been reelected as the state’s chief officers. [32] Samuel Huntington died in Norwich on 5 January 1796 at the age of 65. Laid to rest in the Old Colony Cemetery in that city, the American Mercury of Hartford reported that Huntington had been “buried with Military honors.” [33] The Oracle of the Day, a newspaper printed in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, said of the deceased governor, “[He was great and good character. His remains were interred last Friday last, with every mark of civil, military and clerical respect.” [34] In 2003, after more

than 200 years, the tombs of Huntington and his wife were opened by his descendants and others, and found to be in a state of ruin. After some work, they were restored and then closed up again. [35] Samuel Huntington was an extremely religious man, as evidenced by a sermon given by the Reverend Timothy Stone before the governor and the Connecticut General Assembly in 1792. Stone said, in part, “We are not left in doubt, concerning the wisdom and salutary nature of that constitution under which the Hebrews were placed, as it proceeded immediately from God, and, in reference to the particular circumstances of that people, was the result of unerring perfection.” [36] Susan Huntington, writing of her ancestor in The Connecticut Magazine in 1900, stated: “Among the phalanx of patriots who, fearlessly and unbrokenly resisted the menaces and efforts of the British government to prevent the Declaration of Independence, it is remarkable to observe the great proportion that arose from the humble walks of life who by the vigour of their intellect, and unwearied fearlessness compensated the deficiencies of early education and enrolled themselves with honor and capacity among the champions of Colonial freedom.” Such a man was Samuel Huntington, signer of the Declaration of Independence and Governor of Connecticut. His extreme modesty and the fact that he left no descendants perhaps account for so little appreciation of the value of his services in these days of revival of interest in all things relating to the American Revolution. [37]

[1] Samuel Huntington official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay. pl?index=H000995. [2] Mishra, Patit Paban, “Samuel Huntington” in Gregory Fremont-Barnes, ed. “Encyclopedia of the Age of Political Revolutions and New Ideologies, 1760-1815” (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2007), 345. [3] The Connecticut State Library information on Huntington can be found online at http://www.cslib.org/gov/HuntingtonS.htm. [4] Saxe, David Warren, “Land and Liberty I: A Chronology of Traditional American History” (Boca Raton, FL: BrownWalker Press, 2006), 28. [5] “Catalogus Senatus Academici, et Œrum Qui Munera et Officia Academica Gesserunt, Quique Aliquovis Gradu Exornati Fuerunt in Collegio Yalensi Quod est in Novo-Portu Reipublicæ Connecticuttensis in Nov-Anglia” (Novi-Portus: Excudebant Meigs, Bowen et Dana, Academiæ Typographi, 1784), 19. This

716

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

l­ isting of the graduates of Yale gives the 1755 date, although almost all sources on Huntington state that he graduated in 1761. The work, wholly in English with some Latin phrases, specifically says, “Samuel Huntington, Mr. 1772 L.L.D. Naff. et Cong. Amer. Præs. et. Reip. Connect[icut]. Vice-Gubernat.” [6] The Connecticut Journal and New-Haven Post Boy, 21 September 1770, 1. [7] The Connecticut Journal and New-Haven Post-Boy, 24 September 1773, 4. [8] “Historical Discourse” in John W. Stedman, comp., “The Norwich Jubilee. A Report of the Celebration at Norwich, Connecticut, on the Two Hundredth Anniversary of the Settlement of the Town, September 7th and 8th, 1859. With an Appendix, Containing Historical Documents of Local Interest” (Norwich, CT: Printed by the Author, 1859), 89-90. [9] The Connecticut Journal and New-Haven Post-Boy, 4 December 1774, 3, [10] The Connecticut Courant, and Hartford Weekly Intelligencer. Containing the Freshest Advices; Both Foreign and Domestic, 15 May 1775, 3. [11] “Heads of Inquiry, Relative to the Present State and Condition of His Majesty’s Colony of Connecticut, Signified by His Majesty’s Secretary of State, in his Letter of the 5th July, 1773; With the Answers Thereunto” (New-London: Printed by T. Green, Printer to the Governor and Company, 1775), 9. [12] United States, Continental Congress, “Journal of the Proceedings of Congress, Held at Philadelphia, from September 5, 1775, to April 30, 1776” (London: Reprinted for J. Almon, Opposite Burlington-House, Piccadilly, 1778), 104. [13] Conrad, Robert T., ed., “Sanderson’s Biography of the Signers to the Declaration of Independence” (Philadelphia: Thomas, Cowperthwait & Co., 1846), 180. [14] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), I:xli; II:xlix; III:li. [15] The Connecticut Journal: Containing the Freshest Advices, Foreign & Domestic [New Haven], 26 November 1777, 3. [16] “Hoadly’s Communication Respecting the Declaration of Independence,” in Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Second Series, III (October 1887), 374. [17] Samuel Huntington to Joseph Trumbull, 30 March 1776, in Burnett, op. cit., I:412. [18] Samuel Huntington’s official congressional biography, op. cit. [19] Burnett, “Letters of Members, op. cit., IV:xlix; V:lv; VI:xliii. [20] John Fell Diary, 27 & 28 September 1779, in ibid., IV:449. [21] John Jay to George Clinton, 29 September 1779, in ibid., IV:459: [22] For instance, letters of introduction for Colonel John Laurens as the US minister to Versailles [France], signed by Huntington, can be seen in “The Mission of Col. John Laurens to Europe in 1781 (Continued),” The South Carolina Historical and Genealogical Magazine, I:1 (January 1900), 13-41. [23] Samuel Huntington to the States, 2 March 1781, in Paul H. Smith, ed., “Letters of Delegates to Congress, 1774-1789” (Washington, DC: Library of Congress; 26 volumes, 1976-2000), XVII:5. [24] Ketchum, Ralph L., “France and American Politics, 17631793,” Political Science Quarterly, LXXVIII:2 (June 1963), 207. [25] Goodrich, The Rev. Charles A., “Lives of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence” (Hartford, CT: R.G.H. Huntington, 1842), 171. [26] Burnett, op. cit., VI:lxiii; VII:lxiii. [27] Cress, Lawrence Delbert, “Whither Columbia? Congressional Residence and the Politics of the New Nation, 1776 to 1787,” The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, XXXII:4 (October 1975), 592. [28] See The Carlisle Gazette, And The Western Repository of Knowledge [Pennsylvania], 5 June 1787, 3.

[29] “American Occurrences,” The New-York Journal, and Daily Patriotic Register, 1 February 1788, 3. [30] The Federal Gazette, And Philadelphia Evening Post, 18 February 1789, 3. [31] American Mercury [Hartford], 13 April 1789, 3. [32] American Minerva; An Evening Advertiser [New York], 20 May 1795, 3. [33] American Mercury [Hartford], 11 January 1796, 3. [34] “Died,” The Oracle of the Day [Portsmouth, New Hampshire], 20 January 1796, 3. [35] Holtz, Jeff, “Sprucing Up the Tomb Of a Founding Father,” The New York Times, 30 November 2003, 2. [36] “A Sermon, Preached Before His Excellency Samuel Huntington, Esq. L.L.D. Governor, and the Honorable the General Assembly of the State of Connecticut, Convened at Hartford, on the Day of the Anniversary Election. May 10th, 1792. By Timothy Stone, A.M. Pastor of a Church in Lebanon” (Hartford, CT: Printed at Hartford by Hudson and Goodwin, 1792), 2-3. [37] Huntington, Susan D., “Samuel Huntington,” The Connecticut Magazine. An Illustrated Bi-Monthly, VI:4 (May-June 1900), 247.

Richard Hutson (1748–1795)

A delegate from South Carolina, Richard Hutson served in the Continental Congress (1778-79), and was a signer of the Articles of Confederation. He later served as the lieutenant governor of his native state (178283), as well as serving as a delegate to the state constitutional convention (1788), which ratified the US Constitution, signed the previous year in Philadelphia.

Richard Hutson (1748–1795)717 Hutson was born in Prince William Parish, South Carolina, on 9 July 1748, the son of the Reverend William Hutson and his wife Mary (née Woodward) Hutson. Some sources give Mary Hutson’s maiden name as Mary Gibbes. The Reverend Hutson was born in England in 1720, and died in Charleston in 1761 at the age of 40. His great-grandfather, Thomas Hudson, was born in England about 1623; when the family name changed is unknown, although it may have occurred when William Hutson came to America. [1] Family genealogist William Maine Hutson notes that William Hutson “had begun his education for the profession of law and was entered by his father at the Inns of Court. Disliking law he gave up his studies and came to America as an actor in 1740. He was converted under the preaching of [the Rev. George] Whitefield in New York.” [2] Richard Hutson pursued what are called by historians “classical studies”—the study of languages, mathematics, and perhaps agriculture and other subjects important to persons in that time. He entered Princeton College (now Princeton University) in New Jersey, and graduated from that institution in 1765. He studied the law, and was admitted to the South Carolina colonial bar, then opened a law practice in Charleston. Joining the patriotic movement in South Carolina, Hutson became an important voice amongst those who agitated for independence from England. On 30 March 1776, the Provincial Congress of South Carolina printed a “List of Magistrates nominated by the General Assembly” on that date; among those nominated was Richard Hutson. [3] The records for the South Carolina General Assembly for the same date shows the election of “Justices for Charles Town [sic] District,” which included Richard Hutson. [4] On 18 January 1777, Hutson wrote a lengthy letter to his brother-in-law, Isaac Hayne, who would later die fighting for American independence, [5] on the condition of South Carolina at that time. Hutson penned: I think it will extraordinary if I should give you the first intelligence of your election as a Representative in [the] Assembly for the Parish of St. Paul, Stono . . . I hope you will make it a point at this juncture

[to serve], as we stand in need of your assistance. The Dissenters’ Petition came before the House on Saturday last. It was introduced and warmly supported by General Gadsden. In order to give you a general idea of the debates, it will be necessary to quote the paragraph, which it was the prayer of the Petition might be inserted into the [state] Constitution. It runs thus: That there shall never be any establishment of any one Denomination or sect of Protestants by way of preference to another in this State. That no Protestant inhabitant of this State shall, by law, be obligated to pay towards the maintenance and support of a religious worship that he does not freely join in or has not voluntarily engaged to support, nor to be denied the enjoyment of any civil right merely on account of his religious principles, but that all Protestants demeaning themselves peaceably under the government established under the constitution shall enjoy free and equal privileges, both religious and civil. [6] On 21 and 22 January 1778, as the Journals of the South Carolina General Assembly show, that body elected delegates to represent the state in the Continental Congress. Initially, Christopher Gadsden, Arthur Middleton, Henry Laurens, and William Henry Drayton were elected; however, Gadsden and Middleton declined the honor, forcing, on 22 January, an additional vote to fill three vacancies, which included the two open ones and a fifth seat allowed the state. John Mathews and Thomas Heyward, Jr., were elected in place of Gadsden and Middleton, and, in a separate vote, Richard Hutson was elected to fill the fifth spot. [7] The instance behind this election was such that the state needed to immediately fill these slots because it had gone unrepresented in the state for many months. Historian David Duncan Wallace wrote: But a better day was about to dawn. During the spring and summer of 1778 Congress was considerably strengthened. [On] May 21st Samuel Adams returned from an absence of over six months, which, under the Massachusetts rule requiring three delegates, had deprived the State of her vote; Gouverneur Morris took his seat from New York [on] 20 January 1778; Roger Sherman returned [on] 25 April after a long absence. All the States, even Delaware at last, sent representatives; Laurens, who since the beginning of November, 1777, had been the sole attendant from his State, was reinforced [on] 30 March by the

718

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

brilliant young William Henry Drayton, [on] 13 April by Richard Hutson, [on] 22 April by John Matthews [sic; should be Mathews], and [on] 6 June by Thomas Heyward. [8]

application to Congress for them and the means of transportation. As many stores of Musket, Powder and Shot from Buckshot to 6 pounders were ordered to be shipped in this Port for South Carolina as the Magazines here could with propriety spare. And about I8 Tons of those Stores were shipped in the Schooner Count d’Estaing which brought Your Excellency’s letter of the 15th of January to the Honble Mr Laurens. A larger quantity of these Stores would have been shipped in his Vessel could she have carried them, but we shall endeavor to find some opportunity of sending forward what remains here of the quantities ordered. [12]

Historian George Prowell explained, “William Ellery, a delegate from Rhode Island, wrote an interesting account of his trip from Philadelphia after leaving York, 28 June 1778. He was accompanied by Elbridge Gerry and Francis Dana, of Massachusetts, and Richard Hutson, of South Carolina. In giving a report of his trip, he stated that they went to Philadelphia by way of Wilmington and Chester, because all the public inns would be occupied at night by other delegates, and people who were returning to their homes in Philadelphia, after that city had been evacuated by the British. They crossed the Susquehanna River at McCall’s Ferry. With some other delegates and citizens they celebrated July 4th, at City Tavern, Philadelphia.” [9] Hutson eventually served in the Continental Congress from 13 April to about 27 June 1778, from about 21 October to 24 December 1778, and 1 January to about 26 February 1779. [10] During his brief service, Hutson signed the Articles of Confederation, which occurred just as he was elected to the Continental Congress. Historians Dabney and Marian Dargan wrote in a biography of fellow South Carolina delegate to the Continental Congress William Henry Drayton, “In the same month as the debate on ratification of the Articles of Confederation, the South Carolina General Assembly elected the state’s delegates to the Continental Congress. Those originally chosen were Henry Laurens, Christopher Gadsden, Arthur Middleton, and William Henry Drayton. Gadsden and middle declined to serve, and thus Drayton was deprived of the company of two of his closest friends and political allies. To replace them and to fill a fifth place in the delegation, the Assembly chose Thomas Heyward, John Mathews, and Richard Hutson.” [11] There is no private correspondence to or from Hutson during his Continental Congress service; however, there is one letter, which he signed as part of the South Carolina delegation, to Rawlins Lowndes, the president of South Carolina, 12 February 1779: In obedience to Your Excellency’s requisition for Military Stores to be sent by water we have made

In 1780, Hutson wrapped up his Continental Congress service, and returned to South Carolina. However, at this time, the British had invaded the state, and, when Charleston fell to the English, Hutson was unable to get out and he was captured and imprisoned. The few biographies of Hutson that exist—do not discuss what happened to him during his imprisonment. Hutson’s grave has a plaque that states that, following his capture, he was “exiled to St. Augustine,” now in Florida. An 1867 work, however, goes into additional detail: “[T]hese Citizens were taken up early on the Morning of the 27th, by armed Parties[,] and brought to the Exchange. From thence they were conveyed by the Lord Sandwich [a ship] to St. Augustine, where, upon renewing their Paroles, they were allowed the Liberty of the Town, but were treated with Indignities unsuitable to their former Rank and Condition. Mr. Gadsden expressed his resentment at this Treatment, by refusing a second Parole, and bore with great Fortitude a close Imprisonment in the Castle at that Place for forty-two Weeks.” A listing of those “citizens” captured included Josiah Smith, Edward Blake, Jacob Read, Alexander Moultrie, and Richard Hutson, among others. [13] Following his eventual release, Hutson returned to South Carolina, where he was elected as a member of the Legislative Council of the state, holding that position until 1782. The journal of the House of Representatives of South Carolina for January and February 1782 shows that on 26 January 1782 that, following the appointment of justices of the peace, of ordinaries, and coroners for the several districts of the state, that the House then ordered “Mr. Burke & Mr. R. Hutson do wait on the Senate with the above Message.” Burke then told the body “that Mr. Hutson and himself had diliver’d [sic] to the Senate,

Richard Hutson (1748–1795)719 the Message they had in charge . . .” [14] Hugh Rutledge, the Speaker of the state House, then “[o]rdered that Mr. Hutson do administer to [one of those appointed] the Oaths of Qualification and Allegiance. Mr. Hutson reported that he had Administered the same to Colo. [Colonel] James Postell, and he took his seat accordingly.” [15] During this period, Hutson served in the South Carolina state House of Representatives, in tenures that lasted from 1776 to 1779, in 1781, in 1782, in 1785, and in 1788. [16] In 1782, Hutson was elected as lieutenant governor of South Carolina, a post he held until the following year. In 1783, he was elected as the “Intendant,” or mayor, of Charleston, the first man to hold that office in an election. It appears from contemporary newspapers in South Carolina that Hutson, in his role as “Intendant,” had among his myriad duties the supervision of local elections. In one such advertisement, he wrote in one paper’s edition of 29-23 September 1783, “Public Notice is hereby Given, That an Election, for the purpose of choosing a Warden, to represent Ward no. 13, in the City Council of Charleston, will be held on Thursday next the 25th inst. from the house of nine to twelve in the forenoon.” [17] Other ordinances that he issued and had published included one in which he established rules “for appointing Constables in the several Wards of the City of Charleston.” [18] Utilizing his law degree, in 1784 Hutson was elected as the chancellor of the Court of Chancery for the state of South Carolina, a position he held until 1791. In 1788, he served as a member of the state constitutional convention that ratified the US Constitution, signed in Philadelphia the previous year. On 2 December 1790, Pierce Butler, a former member of the Continental Congress, who represented South Carolina at the Constitutional Convention, wrote to “Chancellor Richard Hudson [sic] Esqr, “On the restoration of the American Governmt in So Carolina, when every virtuous Citizen must have felt the unmerited suffering of Coll: Hayne, & the consequent distress of his family, Mr [sic] McQueen, who has interested himself much in their welfare, applied to me to Assist Young Hayne, who was, he said[,] inconvenienced at Philadelphia for want of money to pay for his education. I hesitated not a moment to draw a bill on Mr [sic] FitzSimmons in Your favor to relieve the Young Man. After a lapse of six

Years I applied to Mr [sic] McQueen for payment; he refers me to You; You are pleased to refer me back to him. I pray You Ask Your own fine & honorable feelings if this is a just recompence [sic] for a disinterested act of kindness.” [19] Remaining on the Chancery court, Hutson was promoted to senior judge of that body in 1791, a position he held until his death. Richard Hutson died in Charleston on 12 April 1795. A small posting in a Charleston newspaper read, “Died, on Sunday last, in this city, Richard Hutson, esq.” [20] He was buried in the Perrineau family vault in the Independent Congregational Church Cemetery, now the Circular Congregational Church Burying Ground, located in Charleston. A plaque placed on a wall next to his grave reads, “Herein Lie the Remains of Richard Hutson 1747-1795. Son of Rev. William and Mary Woodward Hutson[.] South Carolina Patriot, Statesman and Jurist[.] Graduated Princeton 1765[.] Founding Body the College of Charleston 1772-1794[.] Member S.C. General Assembly and Legislative Council 1776-1790[.] Served in Militia and Imprisoned by the British During the Revolutionary War[.] Delegate to the Continental Congress 17781779[.] Signer Articles of Confederation[.] Lieutenant Governor 1782-1783[.] Author of Act Incorporating City of Charleston 1783[.] First Intendant (Mayor) of Charleston 1783[.] Judge[,] Court of Chancery 1784-1794[.] Senior Judge 1791-1794[.]”

[1] Hutson family tree, online at http://www.geni.com/ people/Thomas-Hudson/6000000008630935442?through=6000000008630935416. [2] Hutson, William Maine, “The Hutson Family of South Carolina.” The South Carolina Historical and Genealogical Magazine, IX:3 (July 1908), 127. [3] “Journal of the Provincial Congress of South Carolina, 1776. Published by Order of the Congress” (Charles-Town: Printed. London: Reprinted for J. Almon, Opposite Burlington-House, in Piccadilly, 1776), 130. [4] Salley, A.S., Jr., ed., “Journal of the General Assembly of South Carolina, March 26, 1776 April 11, 1776” (Columbia, SC: Printed for the Historical Commission of South Carolina by the State Company, 1906), 16. [5] See Salley, A.S., Jr., “Capt. John Colcock and Some of His Descendants,” The South Carolina Historical and Genealogical Magazine, III:4 (October 1902), 223. [6] McCrady, Edward, “The History of South Carolina in the Revolution, 1775-1780” (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1901), 212-23. [7] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the

720

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), III:xli. [8] Wallace, David Duncan, “The Life of Henry Laurens, with a Sketch of the Life of Lieutenant-Colonel John Laurens” (New York, G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1915), 288. [9] Prowell, George R., “The Continental Congress at York, Pennsylvania and York County in the Revolution” (York, PA: The York Printing Co., 1914), 321. [10] Burnett, “Letters of Members,” op. cit., III:lxiii. [11] Dargan, Dabney and Marian, “William Henry Drayton & the American Revolution” (Albuquerque: University of New Mexico Press, 1962), 144. [12] The South Carolina Delegates to Rawlins Lowndes, 12 February 1779, in Burnett, op. cit., III:67. [13] “The Siege of Charleston, by the British Fleet and Army under the Command of Admiral Arbuthnot and Sir Henry Clinton, Which Terminated with the Surrender of That Place on the 12th of May, 1780” (Albany, NY: J. Munsell, 82 State Street, 1867), 202-04. [14] Salley, A.S., Jr., ed., “Journal of the House of Representatives of South Carolina. January 8, 1782-February 26, 1782” (Columbia:

Printed for the Historical Commission of South Carolina by the State Company, 1916), 28. [15] Ibid., 30. [16] Hutson official congressional biography, online at http:// bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=H001017. [17] “Public Notice is hereby Given,” South-Carolina Gazette and General Advertiser [Charleston], 20-23 September 1783, 1. See a similar advertisement in the same paper, in the edition of 30 Sept4 October 1783, 4. [18] “State of South-Carolina. An additional Ordinance to the Ordinance for appointing Constables in the several Wards of the City of Charleston,” South Carolina Gazette, and General Advertiser [Charleston], 17-20 July 1784, 4. [19] Lipscomb, Terry W., ed., “The Letters of Pierce Butler, 1790-1794: Nation Building and Enterprise in the New American Republic” (Columbia: The University of South Carolina Press, 2007), 83. [20] “Charleston, Thursday, April 16, 1795,” City Gazette & Daily Advertiser [Charleston], 16 April 1795, 2.

I Independence Hall When it came time to choose where delegates from all of the American colonies would meet, Philadelphia, the economic capital of the colonies, was an easy decision. The State House, also known as Independence Hall in Philadelphia, was chosen as the site for the First Continental Congress in September 1775. Philadelphia, located closer to New Jersey than to most of Pennsylvania, was founded by commissioners named by William Penn, who was given the land by the Crown, in 1681. Two years later, the village that sprung up there was made the capital of the province of Pennsylvania, and it remained so for 117 years. Today Harrisburg is the capital, but by the mid-18th century, Philadelphia was both the economic and financial capital of the American colonies. The name “Philadelphia” and its reasons for being bestowed on this town are unknown, but it is rumored that Penn named it after the city in what is now called the Middle East. Now called Amman, the capital of Jordan, it was originally named “Philadelphia” in honor of Ptolemy II Philadelphus, the Macedonian emperor of Egypt. This was just part of William Penn’s grand plan to make the city a jewel in the crown of the American colonies that belonged to England. [1] The building was officially known as The State House from its construction until 1776. By the time it was completed, Philadelphia’s population was nearly 11,500, second only to Boston, with 13,000. Once the city had a charter and began to grow, it needed a city hall. From the point of the city’s inception until about 1707, there is no record as to where the city fathers met to conduct business. In 1698, however, construction was begun at the intersection of Second Street and Market Street for a city hall, or, a “Town House.” This structure was completed in 1707, and operated as Philadelphia’s first city hall as well as its first courthouse. By 1729, a new city hall was needed for the ever-expanding city. Historian David Belisle wrote in 1859,

“The ‘State House,” originally constructed for the purpose of accommodating legal business, the dispensation of Colonial statutes for Pennsylvania, and the transaction of various other matters, was commenced in the year 1729, and completed in 1734. Its dimensions and architectural plan—the design being furnished by an amateur architect, named John Kearsley, Sr.—were regarded by many as too large and expensive; and the erection of the building was, therefore, quite strenuously opposed.” [2] In 1774 appeared the following description of this “State House,” published in The Universal Magazine and Literary Museum, and reprinted in 1899: The State House is situated on the one side of the City Squares, the front of which lies to the North is bounded by Chestnut Street; the wall on the South by Walnut Street; the wing on the East by Fifth Street, and on the West by Sixth Street, and front the North. It stands about twenty five or thirty feet from the street. It is a large handsome building, two stories high, extending in front one hundred feet. On each side is a wing which joins the main building by means of a brick arcade—each of these wings is fifty feet in length. In the West wing was formerly deposited a valuable collection of books belonging to the Library Company of Philadelphia, but it is now removed to the Carpenter’s Hall. In the lower story of this wing, the keeper of the house lives with a salary of about ₤20 per annum and house rent free. In the East wing are deposited the Rolls of the Province, and in the second story, the Indians make their abode when in town. These wings are arched with brick, that there can be no damage in case of fire . . . [3] It was opened before a colonial Supreme Court chamber could be finished in 1743. Wings were then ordered, on each side, for additional offices; in 1739, the Library Company of Philadelphia was allowed to move its collection of books into the upper floor of the West wing. And, as earlier noted, the empty spaces were used by Native American delegations visiting Philadelphia. In 1750, after the building was completed, additional orders were sent from the colonial Assembly to construct a tower, containing a belfry, which was done in 1753.

722

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

A National Park Service work on the history of Independence Hall described the building upon completion: “The main building had a decked gable roof, balustraded between the chimneys and surmounted by a centrally located cupola .  .  . The first floor contained two chambers about 40 feet square, separated by a spacious center hall about 20 feet wide. . . . The State House was not elegantly furnished. Chairs, tables, curtains, screens, and other items purchased for the building were never unduly expensive . . . The building appears to have been heated originally by open fireplaces for which stoves were later substituted.” In 1751, a bell was cast, in bronze, in a foundry in England, and sent by ship to the colonies, where it was placed in the belfry when completed. The bell, on its first ringing, cracked, and, in 1753, it was melted down and recast. Again, upon its first ringing, it cracked a second time. Despite the crack, on 8 July 1776 it was rung to Herald the signing of the Declaration of Independence to the people of Philadelphia. It was first called “The Liberty Bell” in a poem published in 1837 by the New York Anti-Slavery Society; it became family two years later, when William Lloyd Harrison, one of the leaders of the abolitionist movement in America, republished the 1837 poem in his newspaper, The Liberator, with the title “The Liberty Bell.” Although most people believe that the bell was last rung for the funeral of Chief Justice of the United States John Marshall in 1835, in fact it was last rung in 1846, to honor the life of George Washington. It had been used for other such occasions, including in 1834 to mourn the death of the Marquis de Lafayette. [4]

choose either The State House or Carpenters’ Hall for the home of the Congress:

The delegates reacted differently to holding meetings in The State House. In a letter to his wife, Connecticut delegate Silas Deane penned, “The City have offered us the Carpenters Hall, so called, to meet in, and Mr. Galloway offers the State House and insists on our meeting there, which he says he has a right to offer as Speaker of that House. The last is evidently the best place, but as he offers, the other party oppose. This will be determined on Monday, when I shall add the intermediate occurrences and forward my letter. I spend the remainder of the day out of town . . . ” [5] James Duane of New York, in a diary of the proceedings of those heady first days of what would become the First Continental Congress, wrote of the struggle to

From the time that the Continental Congress moved permanently out of Philadelphia—it moved to several cities during the war, and then moved permanently to New York City prior to its final work in 1789—the delegates used the office space to its maximum potential. However, this put great strain on the structure. The belfry, weighted down by the enormous bell hanging in it, began to crack itself, so much so that by 1781 it had to be demolished for fear of toppling over; it was not replaced until 1828. In fact, starting in 1828, a series of restorations, even up and through the remainder of the 19th and into the entire 20th centuries, were made on the original State House structure. In 1824, as Philadelphia

The Members of the Congress met at Smith’s Tavern. The Speaker of the Pensylvania [sic] Assembly having offered the Congress the use of the State house; and the Carpenters the use of their Hall. It was agreed to take a View of each. We proceeded to the Carpenter’s Hall. Mr. [Thomas] Lynch [Sr., of South Carolina] proposed the Question whether as that was in all respects suitable it ought not to be fixed upon without further Enquiry. I observed that if the State house was equally convenient it ought to be preferred being a provincial and the Carpenter’s Hall a private House. And besides, as it was tendered by the Speaker it seemed to be a piece of respect which was due to him, at least to enquire whether the State House was not equally convenient. The Question was however called for; and a great Majority fixed upon the Carpenters hall [sic]. [6] While the First Continental Congress met at Carpenters’ Hall, the Second Continental Congress, as well as all of the additional meetings held in Philadelphia, were at the building now known as Independence Hall. It was in this latter structure that the Declaration of Independence would be signed in 1776; where the Articles of Confederation was drafted and signed in 1778; and were the Committee of Secret Correspondence, which corresponded with American diplomats overseas to coordinate activities, met from 1775 until it was succeeded by the more-open Committee for Foreign Affairs in April 1777. It was in this building in 1778 where Conrad Alexander Gérard, a French diplomat, presented his credentials as the first diplomatic representative in the new American nation. [7]

Jared Ingersoll (1749–1822)723 prepared to celebrate the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence, The State House was found to be in a run-down condition. Historian Roger Moss noted, “The first conscious effort to restore Independence Hall began with William Strickland’s recreation of the long-lost tower in 1828, followed by John Haviland’s 1831 ‘reinstating’ of the ‘original architectural embellishments’ that had been removed from ‘the Hall of the Declaration of Independence.’ Strickland’s tower—itself now restored—remains one of the most recognizable symbols of the United States. A later effort to return the building to its eighteenth-century appearance prompted the removal of Haviland’s paneling, which eventually found new life as a bank hobby in the High Victorian Building on Market Street, a juxtaposition that further generations of visitors may find amusing if not a little puzzling.” [8] Today, the building is only a small part of what is called Independence National Historical Park, run and protected by the National Park Service. The park has been in existence since being established in 1898. Historian Constance Grieff wrote, “In addition to the areas close to Independence Square, Independence National Historical Park encompasses some relatively far-flung sites. The Deshler-Morris House is in Germantown. In the eighteenth century Germantown, now a part of Philadelphia, was a country village eight miles outside the city . . . The reconstructed Graff House, at the corner of Market and Seventh Streets, is also part of the park . . . Financial and other forms of cooperation with private and public institutions played a key role in the de development of Independence and continue to be an important factor in the park’s operation.” [9]

American Freedom” (Philadelphia: James Challen & Son, 1859), 50-51. [3] See Jordan, John W., “A Description of the State-House, Philadelphia, in 1774,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, XXIII:4 (1899), 417-19. [4] Riley, Edward M., “Independence National Historical Park, Philadelphia, Pa.” (Washington, DC: National Park Service Historical Handbook Series No. 17, 1954), 3-9. [5] Silas Deane to his Wife, 1-3 September 1774, in Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), I:4-5. [6] James Duane, “Notes of Proceedings,” 5 September 1774, in ibid., I:8. [7] Etting, Frank M., “An Historical Account of the Old State House of Pennsylvania Now Known as the Hall of Independence” (Boston: J.R. Osgood and Company, 1876), 10-15. [8] Moss, Roger W., “Historic Houses of Philadelphia” (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1998), 5. [9] Grieff, Constance M., “Independence: The Creation of a National Park” (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1987), 21.

Jared Ingersoll (1749–1822)

See also: Carpenters’ Hall

[1] For additional background on Philadelphia’s early history, see Russell Frank Weigley, eds. et.al., “Philadelphia: A 300-Year History” (New York: W.W. Norton, 1982), as well as J. Thomas Scharf and Thompson Wescott, “History of Philadelphia, 16091884. In Three Volumes” (Philadelphia: L.H. Everts & Co.; three volumes, 1884). [2] Belisle, David W., “History of Independence Hall: From the Earliest Period to the Present Time. Embracing Biographies of the Immortal Signers of the Declaration of Independence, With Sketches of the Sacred Relics Preserved in That Sanctuary of

Remembered for his service as a signer of the US Constitution (1787), Jared Ingersoll is rarely associated with the Continental Congress, despite the fact that he served longer in the latter body (1780) than at the Constitutional Convention. Ingersoll was a longtime Connecticut politician

724

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

who was sent by the colony to England to protest The Stamp Act.

affairs when the elder Ingersoll, named to organize a vice-admiralty court in Philadelphia, moved to the Pennsylvania colony. The Connecticut colony already had great confidence in the younger Ingersoll: In 1764, at the height of the controversy over The Stamp Act, colonial leaders wishing to have the act’s power reduced in Connecticut sent Ingersoll to England to plead for their case. Once his father’s affairs had been settled, Ingersoll followed his family, settling in Philadelphia, where he studied the law. His father, loyal to the Crown and believing that an education in England would bring his son a lifetime of success, sent him to London, where he was admitted to the Middle Temple, one of the four Inns of Court of the English legal system. Historian C. E. A. Bedwell, writing of the men who would eventually sign the US Constitution, took note how many Middle Templars were among that select group: he stated, “Among the Middle Temple signers of the Constitution was the senior representative of New Jersey and first governor of the state, William Livingston. They included also Jared Ingersoll, afterwards twice attorney general of Pennsylvania, and a Philadelphia judge.” [3] After studying at the Middle Temple, he spent some time traveling in Europe, returning to America in 1778 from Paris. He met, and, in 1781, married Elizabeth Pettit, the daughter of Colonel Charles Pettit. The couple had several children.

He was born in New Haven, Connecticut, on 27 October 1749, the son of Jared Ingersoll, Sr., a Loyalist to the Crown, and Hannah (née Whiting) Ingersoll. The elder Ingersoll was a British colonial official who remained a staunch Loyalist even as his son turned against the English Crown and eventually served both in the Continental Congress and as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention. The family originated in Hampshire, England. According to genealogist Charles Stedman Ripley, in 1893 he wrote, “The surname Ingersoll was originally and properly written in England Inkersall, and became corrupted into Ingersoll, either just before or about the time of the settlement of the family in America.” The “originator” of the name is one Richard Ingersoll, who, Ripley related, “[i]n the years 1629, in the reign of Charles I [of England], Richard Ingersoll and his brother John came from Bedfordshire, England, and settled in Salem, Massachusetts. Richard, the elder brother, brought with him to the new continent his wife Ann and a family of two sons and four daughters.” [1] The elder Ingersoll, linked with the royal government of Pennsylvania, has been shadowed by his son’s career. Historian Lawrence Gipson, who wrote the only biography of the elder Ingersoll, explained, “Probably no one was more intimately identified with the last disastrous phases of the British experiment with a reorganized system for administering American affairs than was Ingersoll, and it is also probable that no one in American possessed a more intelligently sympathetic comprehension of what the home government had in mind or strove more earnestly and ably to persuade his fellow countrymen to accept the ministerial program in good faith. Judge Ingersoll stands as representative of a group, the importance and numerical weight of which has not, at least until very recently, been fully appreciated.” [2] The younger Ingersoll, due his father’s wealth, privilege, and influence, received a “classical education”—the study of literature, languages, and mathematics, among other subjects— after which he entered Yale College (now Yale University) in Connecticut. After graduating in 1766, he was placed in charge of his father’s

Ingersoll’s return to America came at the height of the war. Joseph Reed, the president of the Supreme Executive Council of Pennsylvania, offered him several of his friends in Philadelphia for Ingersoll’s law practice. He had renounced his own loyalty to the Crown, angering his father and causing a split between the two men that never truly healed. From 1778 to 1780, he became a leading attorney in Philadelphia. On 1 June 1780, the Pennsylvania legislature elected Ingersoll to represent the state in the Continental Congress. Elected along with Timothy Matlock in addition to a group, led by John Armstrong, elected in November 1779, Ingersoll served from 5 June to about 9 August 1780, and from about 5 September to 23 November 1780. [4] It appears that only one piece of correspondence during his congressional service exists. To his mentor Joseph Reed, dated

Jared Ingersoll (1749–1822)725 4 October 1780, in which Ingersoll discusses foreign matters, he penned: Congress have nearly finished their Arrangements for the Army of next year, the Expence [sic] is calculating. [T]his Day we have been uncommonly busy on a report in Answer to a Letter of Mr. Jayes. [I]t seems that the Court of Madrid oppose violently our claims of a free Navigation up the River Mississipi [sic], and make that the chief pretence [sic] delaying to Conclude a Treaty with us. we have however determined unanimously that, we will not relinquish this, which we think a most important and clear Right, that however our Minister is at liberty to make any reasonable Regulations to assure the Spanish Nation that we do not wish to carry on any contraband Trade to their prejudice. [I]n the Course of the Conversation which Mr. [John] Jay had with the Spanish Minister the latter mentioned with the appearance of great Satisfaction, that he believed by the beginning of next year, they might be able to lend these States forty thousand pounds. [T]he naming such a pitifull [sic] Sum, the strange objections about the Mississipi [sic] and some other parts of the discourse by no means seem flattering.’ [T]he Spanish Minister has also proposed, and that we shall take into Consideration tomorrow, a Contract for the building of Frigates and other Vessels for the Court of Madrid. [5] After his congressional service had ended, Ingersoll returned to his law practice; among his clients was Stephen Girard, a leading merchant of Philadelphia. By 1787, the Articles of Confederation, the blueprint that established the first central government in the infant United States, was nearing a breakdown, as its inherent weaknesses—most notably, the lack of power to force the states to submit tax revenues, making the government in effect beg for funding for the war effort prior to its end in 1783—were being denounced by every side of the political fence. A constitutional convention, to reform the Articles, was called for that summer in Philadelphia; Ingersoll, based on his legal mind, was elected as a delegate to this convention. Historian Martha Lamb, in describing the gathering of men, wrote in 1955, “It would difficult to find in any or country of the world a more interesting assemblage of public characters. They were well educated, at least four-fifths of them were college bred, and in all branches of scholarship and gentlemanly culture they,

as a rule, excelled. They were astute, discreet, energetic, disinterested. They represented the highest civil talent of their respective States, were familiar with the principles of ancient and existing confederacies, had nearly all acquitted themselves nobly in some arm of the public service, and were admirably prepared for serious, searching, conscientious and discriminating investigation and deliberation.” [6] Historians Robert K. Wright, Jr. and Morris J. MacGregor, Jr., writing of Ingersoll’s contribution, explained, “At the Convention, Ingersoll was counted among those who favored [the] revision of the existing Articles of Confederation, but in the end he joined with the majority and supported a plan for a new federal government. Despite his national reputation as an attorney, Ingersoll seldom participated in the Convention debates, although he attended all [of] the sessions.” [7] Part of the eight-man contingent representing Pennsylvania that included such luminaries as Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Mifflin, Robert Morris, George Clymer, and James Wilson, Ingersoll signed the document. Under the new Pennsylvania state constitution, a state government was established, and, in 1790, Ingersoll was named as that Commonwealth’s first state attorney general. He served until 1799, and then again from 1811 to 1817. He also served as the Philadelphia city solicitor from 1798 to 1801. In 1791, he was allowed to practice before the US Supreme Court, and he argued two of the court’s earliest landmark cases, Chisholm v. Georgia (1792) and Hylton v. Georgia (1796), although he was on the losing side in both decisions. Having once been the lawyer for William Blount, when Blount, a sitting US senator, was impeached, Ingersoll defended him during the impeachment proceedings in the US Senate. Near the end of the 18th century, Ingersoll became involved in a legal case known as the case of Quock Walker, or Quok Walker; it was actually a series of cases designed to test the legality of slavery by abolitionists. Based on the case of a slave with that name, he escaped from his owner in 1781 and took refuge in Massachusetts. Shielded by a family named Caldwell, the original owner, Jennison, went to the Caldwell property and seized the former slave. Walker, although devoid of rights, filed

726

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

suit against Jennison for assaulting him. In that case, heard by a Massachusetts jury, it was decided that once free, Walker was a “freeman” and that his rights had been violated, ordering that he be paid ₤50 for the assault. Jennison refused to pay, and he then sued Caldwell for taking his property. A second jury found for Jennison, and ordered that he be paid ₤25. A third case, in which the state sued Jennison for the assault, found that Jennison was guilty. It was through this case that Ingersoll, who sought to end slavery in Pennsylvania, came into the picture. Historian Arthur Zilversmit wrote:

the War of 1812, which, when the election was held, was highly popular, but would soon become a controversial conflict. [9] In March 1821, Ingersoll, in his final office, was named as the presiding judge of the district court of Philadelphia County.

In 1798, Jared Ingersoll, an attorney representing the Pennsylvania Society for Promoting the Abolition of Slavery, was attempting to persuade the Pennsylvania courts that slavery was unconstitutional because it was in violation of the constitution’s equal rights clause. He was greatly encouraged, therefore, when he heard from Judge William Cushing and Senator Theodore Sedgwick that the constitutionality of slavery had been the subject of “a solemn decision in Massachusetts.” Eager to learn more about a case which must have been similar to the one in which he was engaged, Ingersoll wrote to Charles Cushing, clerk of the Supreme Judicial Court at the time the relevant case was decided. Cushing’s reply was disappointing. He told Ingersoll that “the question has never come directly before our Supreme Court.” [8] Ingersoll had been firmly against slavery—and he wanted to use a 1780 Pennsylvania law, which ordered the “gradual reduction of slavery” to abolish the practice. But the 1780 law allowed only for the “gradual reduction,” and not the abolition. Persons born into slavery before the 1780 law were to remain as slaves, while no new slaves could be bought or sold. Even though he fought the law, it was not until 1847 that slavery was completely banned in the state. In 1801, Ingersoll was offered the appointment of a judgeship on a federal court, but he declined the honor. In 1812, the Federalist Party nominated Ingersoll as their vice presidential candidate, on the ticket with DeWitt Clinton of New York. The two men were defeated by the Democratic-Republican Party ticket of James Madison and Elbridge Gerry, 128 electoral votes to 89, although the popular vote, 140,431 to 132,781, was far closer. The main issue of the campaign was

He died in Philadelphia on 31 October 1822, a week after his 73rd birthday. The Daily National Intelligencer of Washington, DC, wrote, “Funeral eulogiums are too frequently trite, common-place, and unmerited. The tears of the community are too often implored in vain by partial friendship, by unfounded vanity, or by undeserving arrogance . . . In the death of the late Jared Ingersoll, of Philadelphia, we lament over the remains of a person undoubtedly of extraordinary worth. Without being gifted by nature with the inherent characters or charms of genius, he attained to the height of learning, ability, integrity, and universal estimation, by the vigour [sic] of his moral excellence and untiring effort of mind.” [10] Ingersoll was laid to rest next to his wife, Elizabeth, who died in 1816; both are entombed in the Old Pine Street Presbyterian Church Cemetery in Philadelphia. His children included Charles Jared Ingersoll, an author, who served in the US House of Representatives (1813-15, 1841-47), and Joseph Reed Ingersoll, who served as an attorney and as the US minister to the Court of St. James (England) during the administration of President Millard Fillmore.

[1] Ripley, Charles Stedman, “The Ingersolls of Hampshire: a Genealogical History of the Family From Their Settlement in America, in the Line of John Ingersoll of Westfield, Massachusetts” (Boston: Alfred Mudge & Son, 1893), vi, 11. See also Greely, A.W., “Richard Ingersoll of Salem, Massachusetts and Some of his Descendants” (Salem, MA: The Essex Institute, 1909). [2] Gipson, Lawrence H., “American Loyalist, Jared Ingersoll” (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 1971), 7. See also Peck, Epaphroditus, “The Loyalists of Connecticut” (New Haven, CT: Published for the Tercentenary Commission by the Yale University Press, 1934). [3] Bedwell, C.E.A., “American Middle Templars.” The American Historical Review, XXV:4 (July 1920), 681. [4] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), V:lxii. [5] Jared Ingersoll to Joseph Reed, the of Pennsylvania, 4 October 1780, in ibid., V:405. [6] Lamb, Martha J., “The Framers of the Constitution” (Fort Wayne, IN: The Public Library of Fort Wayne and Allen County, 1955), 2.

The Intolerable Acts727 [7] Wright, Robert K., Jr., and Morris J. MacGregor, Jr., “SoldierStatesmen of the Constitution” (Washington, DC: United States Army, Center of Military History, 2007), 156. [8] Zilversmit Arthur, “Quok Walker, Mumbet, and the Abolition of Slavery in Massachusetts,” The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, XXV:4 (October 1968), 615-16. [9] See Risjord, Norman K., “Election of 1812,” in Arthur M. Schlesinger, Jr., et al., eds., “History of American Presidential Elections, 1789–1968” (New York: Chelsea House; four volumes, 1971), I:249–96. [10] “The Late Jared Ingersoll,” Daily National Intelligencer [Washington, DC], 26 November 1822, 2.

The Intolerable Acts Also known as The Coercive Acts, these were a series of harsh measures, mostly economic, enacted by the British Parliament in London and directed to the colonies to exact duties or taxes or, like the Boston Port Bill, to punish the colonies for various acts, such as the Boston Tea Party. They are what directly led to the calling of a Continental Congress, and, ultimately, the start of the American Revolution. Historians often break the acts into two groups: The Coercive Acts, which were passed prior to the Boston Tea Party in December 1773; and The Intolerable Acts, enacted in response to that action by the colonists. From the start, the British ruled the colonies with an iron hand, especially during the fight over territory with France known as the French and Indian War (1754-63). English historian Thomas Pownall wrote of the incredible powers that the British Parliament had over the colonies: “Parliament had, by a solemn act, declared that it hath a right to make laws, which shall be binding upon the people of the Colonies, subjects of Great Britain, in all cases whatsoever; while the Colonists say, in all cases which can consist with the fundamental rules of the constitution: by which limitation, they except the cafe of taxation where there is not representation. Hence the Colonists have, by many, been deemed factious, undutiful and disloyal; and even chargeable with treason itself.” [1] On 5 April 1764 the English Parliament enacted The Sugar Act (a modified and updated version of The Sugar and Molasses Act of 1733), followed by The Currency Act on 1 September 1764, and then The Stamp Act on 22 March 1765. The quartet of harsh measures was completed with the enactment of The Quartering Act of 1765 on

24 March of that same year (this law, superseded by a harsher action in 1774, is sometimes known as The First Quartering Act). The Sugar Act’s preamble read that “[w]hereas it is just and necessary, that a revenue be raised in America, for defraying the expenses of defending, protecting and securing the same, We the [C]ommons, &c. towards raising the same, give and grant unto your majesty, after the 29th of September, 1764, upon clayed sugar, indigo, and coffee of foreign produce . . . ” “The Sugar Act” was in fact just a tax on perishable items, including sugar and coffee, which were used to a great degree in the American colonies. England did not see the action as harsh; in fact, in speech after speech, and publication after publication, the “benefits” of such an apparent small tax or tariff on these items was heralded. In one work published that same year, 1764, one anonymous writer stated, “We have read with the greatest pleasure, His Majesty’s late proclamation, for the improving and better regulating the countries and islands, ceded and confirm’d to the crown of Great Britain, by the last treaty of peace; as therein is most conspicuous, the paternal care of the best of Sovereigns, that his loving subjects in his North America dominions, should with all convenient speed avail themselves of the great benefits & advantages, which must thence accrue to their manufactures, commerce and navigation.” [2] The Sugar Act did not fare as well in the American colonies. Historian David Lee Russell wrote, “The Sugar Act was a measure intended to essentially discourage trade between the Northern colonies and foreign colonies in the West Indies. The duty of three pence was not so much the key issue as was the actions defined to enforce the duties. It was said that the New England merchants felt this act was more alarming than even the darkest hour of the French and Indian War.” [3] As hurtful to trade and to New England as The Sugar Act was, The Stamp Act harmed the colonial economy even more. Enacted the year following The Sugar Act, this secondary levy taxed stamps (not postage, but a fixed stamp on items cleared by customs), paper products (wrapping paper, playing cards, etc.), and even glass. Historians Edmund and Helen Morgan wrote in 1953:

728

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

The remarkable thing about these various remonstrances both against the Sugar Act and the proposed stamp tax is that, except in Connecticut, their denial of Parliament’s right to tax the colonies was wholesale and unqualified. Governor Thomas Finch, writing for Connecticut, focused his strictures on internal taxes. But [Gov. Stephen] Hopkins in Rhode Island did not specify the one kind of tax would be more acceptable than another. [James] Otis’ pamphlet specifically rejected any distinction between taxes on trade and internal taxes. New York, of course, rejected “all Taxes not granted by themselves.” Pennsylvania instructed her agent to prevent the stamp tax “or any other impositions or Taxes on the Colonists from being laid by the Parliament, inasmuch as they neither are or can be represented, under their present Circumstances, in that Legislature,” and because such taxes would “have a Tendency to deprive the good People of this Province of their most essential Rights as British Subjects.” [4]

Revenue; but upon no Calculation can it be supposed to be equal to the Demand that must be made upon the Colonies; and therefore a further Tax has been proposed; and it has been even more resolved by a Vote of the House of Commons, that it may be proper to charge certain Stamp Duties in the Plantations; and here the Legislature stoped [sic] last Sessions out of Tenderness to the Colonies. A Stamp Duty, tho’ often used in the Plantations for the Purposes of their own Government, has never been imposed there by Authority of Parliament, and time has been therefore very properly allowed, to enquire whether it will be attended with any Inconveniences, and to provide Expedients of Prevention or Remedy . . . [6]

In another work on the crisis over The Stamp Act, historian Edmund Sears penned, “The English answer to the colonial objections was expressed most authoritatively by Thomas Whatley, Secretary to the Treasure under [George] Grenville.” In a long pamphlet entitled “The Regulations Lately Made Concerning the Colonies and the Taxes Imposed Upon Them, Considered” (London, 1765), Whatley maintained that the Sugar Act was a beneficial regulation of trade as well as a means of raising revenue. In the concluding passage (No. 4) he considered the question of Parliament’s right to raise revenue from the colonies. At the time when it was printed the pamphlet was generally attributed to Grenville himself.” [5] Whatley gave good reasons for a high tariff or tax placed upon such items integral to daily life, including paper, stamps, playing cards, glass, and other items of similar worth and value, to aid the “Mother Country” in defending the colonies. He argued that the duties themselves were low, and would have a minimal impact, and then wrote: On the other hand, they will an improving Revenue; because they are laid upon numerous Articles of general Consumption among an encreasing [sic] People; and if not productive of a great Fund immediately, will be at least a wide Foundation for a considerable future

These combined actions—raising taxes on sugar AND stamps had the opposite effect: The colonists roiled and growled under the chaff of the laws. Patrick Henry, a 29-year old member of Virginia’s House of Burgesses, took to the floor of that body on 29 May 1765 to condemn the laws; he introduced the “Virginia Resolves” to condemn The Stamp Act and The Sugar Act. Although far better known for his speech a decade later, this was the first true outburst against British rule in North America. The resolves, laid out here, are the following: Virginia Resolves. On May 29, 1765, the House of Burgesses of Virginia came to the following resolutions: Whereas the honorable House of Commons in England have late drawn into question how far the general assembly of this colony has power to enact laws for laying taxes and imposing duties payable to the pope of this his majesty’s most ancient colony— For settling and ascertaining the same to all future times, the House of Burgesses of this present general assembly have come to the several following resolutions: Resolved, That the first adventurers and settlers of this his majesty’s colony and dominion of Virginia brought with them and transmitted to their posterity and all others, his majesty’s subjects since inhabiting in this is majesty’s colony, all the privileges and immunities that have at any time been held, enjoyed, and possessed by the people of Great Britain. Resolved, That by the two royal charters granted by King James the First, the colonists aforesaid are declared entitled to all privileges of faithful, liege, and natural

The Intolerable Acts729 born subjects, to all intents and purposes, as if they had been abiding and born within the realm of England. Resolved, That his majesty’s liege people of this his most ancient colony have enjoyed the right being thus governed by their own assembly, in the article of taxes and internal police; and that the same have never been forfeited or any other way yielded up, but have been constantly recognized by the kings and people of Great Britain. Resolved therefore, That the general assembly of the colony, together with his majesty or his substitute have in their representative capacity the only exclusive right and power to levy taxes and impositions on the inhabitants of this colony and that every attempt to vest such a power in any person or persons whatsoever other than the general assembly aforesaid is illegal, unconstitutional, and unjust, and has a manifest tendency to destroy British, as well as American freedom. The following resolves were not passed, though drawn up by the committee. They are inserted as a specimen of the first and early energies of the Old Dominion, as Virginia is often called.

entitled to all liberties, privileges, and immunities of denizens and natural subjects, to all intents and purposes, as if they had been abiding and born within the realm of England. Resolved, That the taxation of the people by themselves, or by persons chosen by themselves to represent them, who can only know what taxes the people are able to bear, or the easiest method of raising them, and must themselves be affected by every tax laid on the people, is the only security against a burthensome taxation, and the distinguishing characteristick [sic] of British freedom, without which the ancient constitution cannot exist. Resolved, That His Majesty’s liege people of this his most ancient and loyal Colony have without interruption enjoyed the inestimable right of being governed by such laws, respecting their internal polity and taxation, as are derived from their own consent, with the approbation of their sovereign, or his substitute; and that the same hath never been forfeited or yielded up, but hath been constantly recognized by the kings and people of Great Britain.

Resolved, That his majesty’s liege people, the inhabitants of this colony, are not bound to yield obedience to any law or ordinance whatsoever designed to impose any taxation whatsoever upon them, other than the laws and ordinances of the general assembly aforesaid.

Resolved therefore, That the General Assembly of this Colony have the only and sole exclusive right and power to lay taxes and impositions upon the inhabitants of this Colony, and that every attempt to vest such power in any person or persons whatsoever other than the General Assembly aforesaid has a manifest tendency to destroy British as well as American freedom.

Resolved, That any person who shall by speaking or writing maintain that any person or persons other than the general assembly of this colony have any right or power to impose or lay any taxation whatsoever on the people here shall be deemed an enemy to this his majesty’s colony.

Resolved, That His Majesty’s liege people, the inhabitants of this Colony are not bound to yield obedience to any law or ordinance whatever, designed to impose any taxation whatsoever upon them other than the laws or ordinances of the General Assembly aforesaid.

Version published widely in newspapers, with additional resolution. There were also some variations from publication to publication: Resolved, That the first adventurers and settlers of this His Majesty’s Colony and Dominion of Virginia brought with them, and transmitted to their posterity, and all other of His Majesty’s subjects since inhabiting this His Majesty’s said Colony, all the liberties, privileges, franchises, and immunities, that have at any time been held, enjoyed, and possessed, by the people of Great Britain. Resolved, That by two royal charters, granted by King James the First, the colonists aforesaid are declared

Resolved, That any person who shall, by speaking or writing, assert or maintain that any person or persons other than the General Assembly of this Colony, have any right or power to impose or lay any taxation on the people here, shall be deemed an enemy to His Majesty’s Colony. [7] On 30 May, the day following Henry’s introduction of these resolves, the Virginia House of Burgesses voted to approve five of them; these are better known as The Virginia Stamp Act Resolutions. In effect, the colonists were throwing down the gauntlet, challenging the very right of the Parliament to pass such resolutions against them.

730

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

In the coming months the crisis over the acts, more aimed at The Stamp Act but in the end targeting both actions, grew as anger swept the colonies. Anonymous pamphlets and letters to newspapers cried out for the laws to be rescinded. In a 1767 work, one of these unknown writers stated his views condemning the acts, and then penned, “The reader easily sees that the subject I mean in the stamp act. This is the measure of the greatest importance, both in itself and in its consequences; referring therefore the other plans of the year to some future hour, it is proposed at present to examine the conduct of the ministry, with regard to this act, from the time at which they came into office . . . ” [8]

Dear Sir, Before the Receipt of this You will possibly have heard that no inconsiderable Mob arose Yesterday in Boston. The approaching Burden of the Stamp Act was realizd [sic] by great and small. The former acted behind the Scene Whilst the Latter appeard [sic] openly to discover their Resentment. To give You a narrative of the whole Transaction would exceed the Bounds of a Let ter. An Imperfect Sketch must suffice for the Present. To Begin Yesterday’s Morn presented the World with the Effigiees of A. O. Our Stamp Officer hung on one of the greate[s]t Trees by Deac[on] Eliots at the south End, resembling him as near in size Form and Dress as such a piece of Pageantry Would admit of with Diverse Libels hung on and a peic [piece] of Low Poetry descriptive of the Minds of the People. Near by was a Boot with a Little Devil peeping out and thrusting the Stamp officer with an Horrid Fork. Two Lines pritty [sic] nearly were these[:]

As opposition grew to The Stamp Act, members of various trade committees, as well as others demanding action, called for a meeting of delegates to be held to discuss the situation. This parley, known as The Stamp Act Congress, was held in New York from 7 to 25 October 1765 in anticipation of the act (enacted that previous March, it did not go into effect until November 1765). The cry of “no taxation without representation!” became the rallying point of those who demanded that the colonists had had no say in the passage of the tax. James Otis, a fiery pamphleteer from Massachusetts, wrote to friends around the colonies and concluded that a colonywide assemblage was necessary to avoid potential violence. This became The Stamp Act Congress. The ultimate success of such an assembly led the British Parliament to vote to repeal the act, a victory for the colonists, and proof that such meetings held promise to gain success in this tug-of-war with the Crown, and would lead seven years later to a call for another congress—the First Continental Congress. [9] The Stamp Act went into effect in November 1765—it forced the colonists to place a stamp, carrying the Tudor rose with the word “America” framed around it, and the French phrase “Honi soit qui mal y pense” (“Shame to Him Who Thinks Evil of It”) emblazoned on the stamp. In August 1765, before the act could go into operation, a “Stamp Act Distributor” for Massachusetts, Andrew Oliver, was taken by those opposed to the act, violently beaten up, tarred, and feathered. In a letter found in the 20th century giving firsthand evidence of the assault, we read the following:

“How Glorious is it to see a Stamp officer hang on a Tree” [10] A boycott of British goods in the colonies took hold, making the revenue coming in even less than it had been prior to the institution of the act. British merchants in the colonies and England began to send messages to the Parliament by the end of 1765 that The Stamp Act was ruining them and, by extension, the English economy. Benjamin Franklin, one of the most respected men in the American colonies, personally appeared before the British House of Commons and told them that the act was doing more harm than good in the colonies. Finally, after much debate, on 18 March 1766, the Parliament voted to repeal The Stamp Act. It was a major victory for the colonists, as well as for the doctrine that economic boycotts had, even on large economies like England’s at that time. On the same day that it voted to repeal The Stamp Act, the British Parliament voted to enact The Declaratory Act, also known as The American Colonies Act (6 Geo. III c.12). in this act, the Parliament asserted that that body had full rights to pass taxation bills against the colonists as it did on British subjects living in England, “in all cases whatsoever.” Although The Stamp Act had been repealed, in fact with this new law the British government hardened its resolve to tax the colonies when it wanted to.

The Intolerable Acts731 Much of the debate surrounding The Declaratory Act was missing from the official record for many years—that is, until historians found the personal notes of a Treasury official in The Public Record Office, now the British National Archives in Kew, England. Historian H.W.V. Temperley, writing in 1912, explained: By way of explanation of both pieces [the debate over The Stamp Act and The Declaratory Act], it may be useful to remind the reader that Parliament reassembled 14 January [1766] and that on that day Secretary Conway presented to the House various letters, petitions, and other papers relating to the disturbances in America caused by the passage of the Stamp Act. These papers, with others of a similar character presented on the 22d, the 27th, and the 28th of January, were referred to the Committee of the Whole House and on 28 January were taken up by that committee, which sat from eight to ten hours on almost every day from that time until 21 February, when the seven resolutions which constituted its report were completed. On 3 February began the debate in committee on the first of these resolutions, introduced by Conway. This debate which is the one here presented, continued until nearly four in the morning, when the resolution passed with but few opposing voices. This resolution, when taken up by the House itself, [on] 24 February was also the subject of some discussion, since, upon its second reading, a motion was made for its postponement, but after a debate the motion was lost and the resolution was adopted. On February 26 the bill for the Declaratory Act was brought in, and, without further debate, it was passed on 4 March. [11] Emboldened by the passage of The Declaratory Act, the British Parliament decided to restore some of the harsh taxes done away with the repeal of The Stamp Act. Charles Townshend, the chancellor of the exchequer (an office comparable to the secretary of the treasury in the United States), advised the Parliament in 1767 that time was ripe to crack down in the antitaxation movement in the American colonies and restore the tariffs imposed on glass, paint, oil, paper, and even British tea sold in the colonies. The action that followed was The Townshend Revenue Act (7 Geo. III c.46). In addition to imposing duties on these items, it established an entire bureaucracy to enforce them. History O.M. Dickerson wrote in 1949:

The first of the Townshend Acts provided for the creation of a separate Board of Customs Commissioners for the colonies with the same authority over all revenue, customs, and commercial regulations as that of the Board of Customs Commissioners in England. The long preamble recited the inconveniences and delays incident to every customs officer in America having to receive his instructions from the commissioners in England and the advantages that would follow for officers and merchants if they could have all customs questions settled by application directly to a commission resident in the colonies. Then the Act empowered the King to create an American Board of Customs Commissioners with such jurisdiction as he thought would best further the needs of trade and revenue. If there were any popular demand for the creation of this commission, the evidence is not available. [12] If the colonists thought that strictures under The Sugar Act and The Stamp Act were painful, they did not realize what was coming under The Townshend Acts. To make sure that duties were being collected, the law allowed courts in the colonies to issue warrants forcing the colonists to pay the levies: these were known as Writs of Assistance. Historian Emily Hickman wrote of them in 1932, “Writs of assistance, first authorized in England, by a statute of Charles II, were warrants issued by a court, upon the application of the surveyor-general of the customs, to an inferior officer of the customs, authorizing him to search for ‘uncustomed’ goods, or goods illegally imported. As ‘general’ warrants available in any case where search was needed, they did not require that specific information in each instance be given previously to the court . . . ” Arguments then broke out whether or not the statute declared a specific right to issue a write. Hickman added, “Colonial jurists, on the other hand, argued that the Townshend Act did not define the nature of the writ; it merely located in the superior or the supreme court of each colony, the source from which a writ of assistance was to issue. For definition of the writs, the colonial lawyers fell back on the statute of 1662, upon which the authority for writs of assistance rested. That statute had authorized the writs only incidentally. It provided merely that it was lawful for any person, authorized by a writ of assistance from the Court of Exchequer, to take an officer and, in the day time, to search for smuggled goods.” [13]

732

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

In the summer of 1768, the full weight of the Townshend duties hit the colonists. A sloop owned by Massachusetts politician John Hancock was seized by British authorities in Boston Harbor for allegedly violating the trade sanctions imposed by the Townshend Acts. A mob of anti-Townshend activists overran a customs office in Boston, forcing royal officials to flee to a British warship stationed in the harbor. Realizing that the situation could get out of control, the royal government of the Massachusetts Bay Colony asked for armed troops to be sent from England, with additional forces dispatched from Nova Scotia in Canada, and they marched into Boston on 1 October 1768. Realizing that they could not fight such a military force, the residents of Boston decided to use the old tactic of the boycott to their advantage this time. Secret groups established nonimportation agreements with merchants, and the sales of goods that were subjected to the duties were not sold. Once again, the British had miscalculated, as the amount coming in from the duties dropped precipitously. British trade in the colonies went down, and the merchants in England who depended on this trade complained to Parliament. Ultimately, the Townshend duties were repealed.

ordered to be branded on the hand (more of a shunning punishment than anything else) and deported back to England. This action, known as the Boston Massacre, was the first time violence had led to deaths in the crisis. It would not be the last. Historian John Philip Reid wrote in 1974, “It does not do to mock those legends of American history that exalt the role of the bar. So few lawyers have been heroes we must cherish every one. There was a time when John Adams stood tall in our legal pantheon, the beau ideal of the common-law tradition–a legal cavalier, devoted servant of the court who championed the despicable cause and defied the clamor of the mob, faithful to a more worthy mistress and oblivious to all but his professional oath. It was a splendid image and a splendid myth: John Adams defending the redcoat soldiers of King George III who had massacred innocent Americans in the town of Boston in the colony of Massachusetts Bay and with dogged courage winning their freedom in the face of overwhelming odds.” [14]

For nearly the next two years, there was quiet— there were no outbreaks of violence, and trade seemed to have calmed the waters. Then, on 5 March 1770, a number of patriots in Boston decided to throw rocks at a contingent of British soldiers. Anger had been growing for some time over the sight of British troops marching in parts of the city that they were not welcome in. The commander of the unit, Captain Thomas Preston, believing that his troops were in danger, ordered them to fire into the crowd of approximately 50 men and boys. Several were struck: three men, including Crispus Attucks, allegedly a former slave, James Caldwell, and Samuel Grey, were killed instantly, while eight others were wounded— two of these, Patrick Carr and Samuel Maverick, died from their wounds. Citizens called for meetings, where it was demanded that Preston and the troops who opened fire be arrested and charged with murder. At their trial, handled by Samuel Quincy and Robert Treat Paine for the prosecution and John Adams and Josiah Quincy II for the defense, the men were acquitted; two were convicted of minor crimes,

The Boston Massacre, followed by the acquittals of those who did the shooting, made the British extremely unpopular in the colonies. Every conceivable way was now found to circumvent or simply ignore British laws and duties. Britain may have realized that time, if anything, was needed to try to heal the gaping wound that had opened up between the two sides. And time did come: for another two years again, there was a relative quiet. Then, in June 1772, another action came that threatened to explode into military action. In Rhode Island, a group of patriots called the Sons of Liberty, who opposed the British laws and government underground, decided to light a flame to the pile of petrol-soaked rags in that colony. The British patrolled the waters off that colony with the ship the Gaspée, commanded by one Lt. William Duddington. On the night of 9 June, a band of the Sons of Liberty sailed a ship past the Gaspée, baiting it to follow. This the British ship did, eventually being cracked on the rocks near the shore. A group of other Sons, led by a man named John Brown, the following night secretly boarded the Gaspée, and burned it. Although nothing came of the incident—no one was ever arrested, although charges were tried against Duddington for allegedly trying to

The Intolerable Acts733 illegally seize goods—the incident added more to the terrible atmosphere of suspicion between the two sides, something that the Intolerable Acts only continued to work on. On 10 May 1773, the British Parliament, in an attempt to aid the British tea market in the colonies, enacted The Tea Act, which, as historian Benjamin Carp explained, “granted the British East India Company certain tax breaks on tea shipped from England and allowed it to ship its surplus tea directly to the American colonies, a privilege that it had not previously enjoyed. These measures would allow the company to undersell smugglers and provide cheaper tea to the colonies.” [15] However, this would force the colonists to drink only British tea, shutting out domestic tea makers and sellers. This act forced the hand of the colonists. On the night of 17 December 1773, a group of men, perhaps members of the Sons of Liberty in Massachusetts, dressed as Native Americans, boarded several ships docked in Boston Harbor and dumped their load, some 340 chests of tea from the British East India Company, into the water. Outrage in England dominated the debate in the House of Commons, which quickly passed a series of laws intending to punish the Massachusetts Bay Colony for this offense. Lord North, in a debate in the House of Commons on 19 April 1774, stated: I have heard so many different opinions in regard to our conduct in America, I hardly know how to answer them. The honourable gentleman, who spoke last, formerly blamed the tame and insipid conduct of government; now he condemns this measure as harsh and severe. The Americans have tarred and feathered your subjects, plundered your merchants, burnt your ships, denied all obedience to your laws and authority; yet so clement and so long forbearing has our conduct been that it is incumbent on us now to take a different course. Whatever may be the consequences, we must risk something; if we do not, all is over. The measure now proposed, is nothing more than taking the election of counsellors out of the hands of those people, who are continually acting in defiance and resistance of your laws. [16] Finally, disgusted by the Boston Tea Party as well as mass opposition to The Stamp Act and the Sugar Act, which drained needed resources

from the “Mother Country” to the colonies, the British Parliament enacted a series of actions starting on 28 March 1774. Collectively known as “The Coercive Acts.” They were a group of laws intending to punish the colonies and the colonists and put an end to the flouting of English law. These laws, enacted over a period that began on 31 March 1774 and ended on 22 June 1774, were: •  T  he Administration of Justice Act, also known as an Act for the Impartial Administration of Justice (14 Geo III c. 39), enacted on 20 May 1774 in the wake of the Boston Massacre, gave all British officials in Massachusetts immunity from any criminal prosecution. The law gave the royal governor of Massachusetts, General Thomas Gage, the extraordinary power to decide which criminal cases would be heard in the colonies, and which would be sent back to England for a hearing; •  The Boston Port Act (14 Geo. III c. 19), also known as The Boston Port Bill, enacted on 3o March 1774, shuttered the port of Boston as a place for trade either in or out of the colonies, with the timeline that it would not be lifted until the tea damaged in the Boston Tea Party be paid for in full; •  The Massachusetts Government Act (14 Geo. III c. 45), enacted 20 May 1774, put incredible restrictions on the meetings held by radicals demanding representation in the British Parliament, or any other person who resisted English rule; at the same time, the Governor’s Council, which had been used as a tool to fight the powers of the royal governor, was changed into a body staffed only through appointment with the British government’s assent; •  The Quartering Act, also called The Second Quartering Act (14 Geo. III c. 54), and enacted on 2 June 1774, forced all colonists, in all of the colonies, to allow British troops to be quartered in their homes, without their permission and without a warrant. A previous act, also known as The First Quartering Act, had been enacted with the same harsh measures, but most of the colonies had ignored its dictates, and this second act put people who refused to comply in more danger; as well, this action forced

734 the homeowners to provide provisions for the soldiers, a fact missing from the first act. A fifth act, The Quebec Act (14 Geo. III c.83), enacted on 22 June 1774, was an administrative law aimed at the Canadian province of Quebec: most importantly, it bestowed freedom of worship on Catholics in all of Canada, seen by Protestants in the American colonies as a further slap in the faces. Instead of meekly taking these actions and accepting them, the colonists inside and outside the Massachusetts Bay Colony reacted with outrage. While the British hoped that the punishment alone would force the other colonies to back off from any assistance to Massachusetts, instead they drew the colonies closer. Committees sprang up in the other colonies, sending money, food, and other assistance to Massachusetts. Provincial congresses, in complete opposition to royal rule, were held in several colonies; these established militias to oppose British law. Historian Arthur Schlesinger noted that songs denouncing the specific acts sprang up in the colonies: this, he noted, gave the patriots an ability to utilize propaganda while at the same time appearing to only be singing. [17] In June, July, and August of 1774, so-called “Committees of Correspondence,” secretly formed in each of the colonies to coordinate their activities in opposition to the royal governments and synchronize their response to The Intolerable Acts, concluded that a meeting of delegates from each colony was needed to send one comprehensive message. This meeting became the First Continental Congress, which met in Philadelphia from 5 September to 26 October 1774. One of the first actions of this parley was to vote to cut off all trade with England unless The Intolerable Acts were immediately retracted by Parliament. It would become the first step on the road to war the following year. See also: The Boston Massacre; The Stamp Act Congress (1765)

[1] Pownall, Thomas, “The Administration of the British Colonies. The Fifth Edition. Wherein Their Rights And Constitution are Discussed and Stated. By Thomas Pownall, Late Governor,

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses Captain General, Commander in Chief, and Vice Admiral of His Majesty’s Provinces, Massachusetts-Bay and South-Carolina; and Lieutenant-Governor of New-Jersey. In Two Volumes” (London: Printed for J. Walter, at Homer’s Head, Charing-Cross; two volumes, 1774), I:iii. [2] “Considerations Upon the Act of Parliament, Whereby a Duty is Laid of Six Pence Sterling per Gallon on Molasses, and Five Shillings per Hundred on Sugar of Foreign Growth, Imported into Any of the British Colonies: Shewing, Some of the Many Inconveniencies Necessarily Resulting from the Operation of the Said Act, Not Only to those Colonies, but Also to the British SugarIslands, and Finally to Great-Britain” Boston: Printed and Sold by Edes and Gill, in Queen Street, 1764), [3] Russell, David Lee, “The American Revolution in the Southern Colonies” (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Co., Publishers, 2000), 26. [4] Morgan, Edmund S., and Helen M. Morgan, “The Stamp Act Crisis: Prologue to Revolution” (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1953; reprint, Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1995), 39. [5] Sears, Edmund S., “Prologue to Revolution: Sources and Documents on the Stamp Act Crisis, 1764-1766” (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press, 1959), 4. [6] Whatley, Thomas, “The Regulations Lately Made Concerning the Colonies, and the Taxes Imposed Upon Them, Considered” (London: Printed for J. Wilkie, in St. Paul’s Church-Yard; and May Be Gad at the Pamphlet-Shops at the Royal-Exchange, and Charing-Cross, 1765), 100-01. The italics are those of the original author, and have been preserved here as originally printed. [7] Morison, Samuel Eliot, ed., “Sources and Documents Illustrating the American Revolution, 1764-1788, and the Formation of the Federal Constitution” (Oxford, UK: Clarendon Press, 1962), 17-18. [8] “A Third Volume of Interesting Tracts on the Subject of Taxing the British Colonies in America” (London: Printed for J. Almon, Opposite Burlington-House, in Piccadilly, 1767), 7-10. The italics used are the original author’s own. In the original work, a typographical error (“from the time”) appears, but it has been fixed here. [9] “Authentic Account of the Proceedings of the Congress held at New-York, in MDCCLXV, on the Subject of the American Stamp Act” (London: Printed for J. Almon [?], 1767). [10] Freiberg, Malcolm, ed., “An Unknown Stamp Act Letter,” Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Third Series, LXXVIII (1966), 138-42. See also Hodge, Helen Henry, “The Repeal of the Stamp Act,” Political Science Quarterly, XIX:2 (June 1904), 252-76. [11] Temperley, H.W.V., “Debates on the Declaratory Act and the Repeal of the Stamp Act, 1766,” The American Historical Review, XVII:3 (April 1912), 564-65. [12] Dickerson, O.M., “England’s Most Fateful Decision,” The New England Quarterly, XXII:3 (September 1949), 389. See also Thomas, Peter David Garner, “The Townshend Duties Crisis: The Second Phase of the American Revolution, 1767–1773” (New York: Oxford University Press. 1987). [13] Hickman, Emily, “Colonial Writs of Assistance,” The New England Quarterly, V:1 (January 1932), 83-84. [14] Reid, John Philip, “A Lawyer Acquitted: John Adams and the Boston Massacre Trials,” The American Journal of Legal History, XVIII:3 (July 1974), 189. [15] Carp, Benjamin L., “Boston Tea Party” in Timothy J. Lynch, ed.-in-chief, “The Oxford Encyclopedia of American Military & Diplomatic History” (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press; two volumes, 2013), I:111. [16] Cobbett, William, “The Parliamentary History of England, From the Earliest Period to the Year 1803. From Which Last-Mentioned Epoch it is Continued Downwards in the Work Entitled ‘The Parliamentary Debates’” (London: Printed by T.C.

William Irvine (1741–1804)735 Hansard, Peterborough-Court, Fleet-Street; 43 volumes, 180320), XVII:1280-81. [17] Schlesinger, Arthur M., “A Note on Songs as Patriot Propaganda 1765-1776,” The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, XI:1 (January 1954), 78-88.

William Irvine (1741–1804)

William Irvine pursued “classical studies”— languages, English, science and mathematics after which he was educated at the University of Dublin, and then entered into the study of medicine to become a physician. He was made a surgeon in the Royal Navy. However, after the end of the Seven Years’ War in 1763, he immigrated to the American colonies, and settled near what is now Carlisle, Pennsylvania. There, he opened a medical practice. He married Anne Callender; the couple had four children, two girls and two boys, with three of them living to adulthood. William Irvine would probably have remained a practicing doctor in Pennsylvania had not the American Revolution begun in 1775. Perhaps due to his Irish background, with a history of antagonism towards England, Irvine joined the patriot cause. He helped to raise troops for the Seventh Pennsylvania Regiment. A notice in a Pennsylvania newspaper on 11 January 1776 denoted that “[t]he following gentlemen are chosen officers of the sixth battalion of this province, which is to be raised in York and Cumberland counties, two companies in the former, and six in the latter.” The first name on the roster was that of Colonel William Irvine. [4]

As a Pennsylvania delegate to the Continental Congress (1787-88), the Irish-born William Irvine was appointed by that body in 1776 as a Colonel of the Sixth Regiment of the Continental Army. While serving his nation, he was taken as a prisoner of war at the Battle of Trois-Rivières (“Three Rivers”) in Canada (8 June 1776). He eventually rose to the rank of brigadier general, during which he commanded the troops serving under him on the Western Front against the British. [1] He was born of Scottish and Irish parents in Ennskillen, a village in Fermanagh, Ireland (now located in Northern Ireland), on 3 November 1741, the son of James Irvine and Ann (née Armstrong) Irvine. [2] According to Emma Siggins White, a compiler of a work of genealogy with ties to the Irvine clan, “The ancestors of General William Irvine came from Scotland, and settled at a little village called Irvinestown, also called Loutherstown, on the banks [of the] Lough Eine, a few miles from Enniskillen, county Fermanagh, Ireland, where he was born.” [3]

Irvine saw service almost immediately at the Battle of Trois-Rivières, Quebec, on the north bank of the St. Laurence River, on 8 June 1776 that Irvine was captured and taken as a prisoner of war. Historian Douglas Cubbison wrote, “[Gen. William] Thompson’s plan was attack in four columns. Colonel William Maxwell commanding the 2nd New Jersey regiment of 390 men in one column, Colonel William Irvine of the 6th Pennsylvania Battalion [in] the second column. Colonel Arthur St. Clair of the 2nd Pennsylvania Battalion commanding the third column containing 700 men, and Colonel Anthony Wayne with three companies of his 4th Pennsylvania Battalion counting 150 muskets comprising the fourth column. Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Hartley of the 6th Pennsylvania Battalion was designated to command a reserve.” [5] The battle quickly turned against the Americans, as another source noted in 1882: “General Thompson and Colonel Irvine, with about forty men (afterwards reduced to seven), were cut off from the main body [of the army], and wandered about the swamps utterly

736

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

exhausted, for twenty-four hours, when, finding themselves surrounded, they surrendered to General [William] Nesbitt, who treated them cruelly, and marched them, under a strong guard, with the common crowd of prisoners, for six miles to headquarters.” [6] Irvine remained a prisoner until he was exchanged on 6 May 1778. Returning to the United States, he was appointed by the Continental Congress as a brigadier general on 12 May 1779, and for the remainder of the war he was involved in, until the fall of 1781, he was the commander of the Second Pennsylvania Brigade. He was then given the command of the western borders of the nation, headquartered at Fort Pitt (now the city of Pittsburgh). One note that appears regarding Irvine’s service at Fort Pitt was his offering a reward of forty dollars for one Thomas Whiteley, “Deserted, from the town of Carlisle, in the state of Pennsylvania.” [7]

sacrifice every consideration to the benefit of the public . . . to the benefit of every individual connected with my local command. Your ready concurrence in all measures I adopted for the public service, deserves the most unfeigned acknowledgements from me.” [9]

For the next several years, William Irvine is associated with military matters. For instance, in October 1783 we find a notification that “[t]he Pennsylvania line, desirous of testifying their attachment to so laudable an institution as that of the Society of [the] Cincinnati, held a meeting at the City Tavern, on the 4th instant, at which seventy officers were present, and having place colonel [sic] Richard Thompson in the chair, proceeded to the election of the following officers, to serve in their state society, for the coming year, conformably to the rules of the said situation, vic. The honorable major general [sic] Arthur St. Clair, President. The honorable brigadier general [sic] Anthony Wayne, vicepresident. The honorable brigadier general [sic] William Irvine, Treasurer.” [8] Days later, another newspaper printed a letter to Irvine, from “the inhabitants of Pittsburg [sic],” who, “having just heard that you intend to retire from the Command to-morrow, would do injustice to our feelings if we did not express our thanks to you, and our sense of your merit as an office.” Irvine responded, “Accept New York sincerest thanks for the address—however flattering— handed me by you for the inhabitants of the town of Pittsburgh.” He continued, “Conscious of the rectitude of my intentions, I am happy they have met with your approbation. This testimony of your satisfaction is to me the most pleasing reward for those anxieties I ever felt to

On 31 October 1786, perhaps for his service to the nation, the Pennsylvania legislature elected Irvine to a seat in the Continental Congress. Reelected on 13 November 1787, at a time when the US Constitution had been drafted and signed in Philadelphia and submitted to the states for unanimous ratification, Irvine attended sessions of the Continental Congress from 17 January to about 13 April 1787, 17 July to 29 October 1787, 19 December 1787, 21 January to about 20 May 1788, and, finally, from 14 July to 1 November 1788. [10] In view of the lack of business in the last years of the Continental Congress, due mostly to some states sending less than full delegations, or having their delegates arrive late or not at all, Irvine, along with others, complained bitterly about doing nothing during their tenure in the Continental Congress. In a letter to James Wilson (in which Irvine used few capital letters for new sentences), he penned: I promised myself the pleasure of writing to you, when any thing [sic] interesting should be likely to take place. there has been hitherto so little prospect of any thing [sic] being done in Congress that I have frequently been almost determined to return home, but have spun out the time from day to day still in expectation that every succeeding day would bring on a full house. all in vain. we have had about one week in this year, nine States on the floor, but most of the time not even seven, you know under these circumstances what can possibly be done. at a favourable [sic] moment either Delaware or Maryland, being represented would have carried Congress to Philadelphia Now South Carolina is off the floor, it therefore requires the attendance of both the former, and Col: Forrest will set out in a few days as none of the other Delegates of Maryland are likely soon to attend he thinks it vain to wait. I almost despair of so good an opportunity presenting for some time as I believed this to be. I regret it the more as I am persuaded, Congress and the Convention sitting at the same time and place, might facilitate the business of the Convention. a free communication of Sentiments would be usefull [sic] to both these bodies, particularly

William Irvine (1741–1804)737 as it might have a tendency to cause the Convention to propose such new articles of confederation, or alterations in the old, as Congress might probably approve, which would doubtless have weight with the several Legislatures. [11] It also appears that Irvine, during his time at Fort Pitt, was not paid, or paid properly, and he complained about back pay to the president of the Continental Congress, Arthur St. Clair: Having observed that an extra allowance has been generally made to officers on seperate [sic] Commands, I applied to the Commissioner of Army accounts to settle with me for the time I Commanded at Fort Pitt, but find he has it not in his power; for notwithstanding he has done it in almost every instance yet he has been authorised [sic] so to do, by special orders or Resolutions—except to Major Generals . . . Permit me to assure your Excellency and the honorable members, that I would not give you this trouble, if I did not consider my claim founded in strict Justice, and sanctioned by precidents [sic]—as I conceive in every other instance no officer that I know of who Commanded in seperate [sic] departments, but what have been settled with. If therefore Congress view my claim in the same light, I hope they will be pleased to order their Com- missioner to settle with me on the same principle he has in all other cases been directed to settle with officers of the same rank when Commanding in seperate [sic] departments. [12] Finally, in a letter from James Madison demonstrating that Irvine’s time in the Continental Congress was not completely wasted, the Virginian thanked Irvine for his contribution to the debate: When I left N. York which was on Thursday last nothing had been done in the business which you had particularly at heart. A motion was made soon after you left us, to the effect which you urged. It was referred to the department to which the subject of it belonged. The report disapproved of the expedient, and it was found needless to pursue it farther in Congress. The next proposition was that the invalidity of the unconstitutional vote, should be declared, as an instruction to the proper department. To the admission of this proposition, the rule formerly entered into, was urged in bar. It was then proposed that the rule should be repealed. This also was refused by those whose concurrence in so thin a Cong[ress] was necessary. No final vote therefore was taken on any of the motions, and in this state I left the matter. [13]

In 1794, a rebellion by farmers, known as the Whisky Rebellion, opened up in western Pennsylvania. Objecting to a high tax on whiskey, the farmers refused to pay the tax, forcing the US government, for the first time, to demonstrate that it either had the power to enforce tax laws as well as other laws, or show the weakness of the government that had been put into place to succeed the weak central government that was in place under the Articles of Confederation. When a force of about 500 men attacked and destroyed the home of one of the tax inspectors in Pennsylvania, President George Washington ordered that the rebels return home or be subjected to military force. When his demand was ignored, the president sent a force of some 13,000 troops, of which the Pennsylvania state troops were led by Irvine, to put down the potential insurrection. There was no major battle, as the farmers realized that they could not win the war against such overwhelming numbers. Some men were tried for treason or other crimes, but Washington later pardoned them. From contemporary sources, however, we find the major role that William Irvine played in the affair. The Pennsylvania Gazette reported on 30 August 1794 that: [a]t a conference between Thomas McKean and William Irvine, commissioners appointed by the governor of Pennsylvania in behalf of the said state; and Messieurs Kirkpatrick, Smith, Powers, Bradford, Marshall, Edgar, Cook, Gallatin, Language, Brackenridge, Morton, and Lucas—appointed at a meeting of the committees from the several townships within the counties of Westmoreland, Washington, Fayette and Alleghany, for the purpose, in behalf of the said counties, had at Pittsburgh in presence of three commissioners appears by the President of the United States, August 20th, 1794. It is insisted upon as a preliminary, by the commissioners for the state, that the gentlemen conferees for the four counties, each for himself, will sign an instrument engaging, that they will at all times be obedient and submit to the laws of the state, and also of the United States of America; and that they will jointly and severally recommend the like obedience and submission to our fellow citizens, within the said counties, and moreover engage to use their utmost exertion and influence to ensure the same. [14] Despite his apparent closeness to President George Washington, in 1792 Irvine had been

738

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

elected as an “anti-Administration” candidate to a seat in the US House of Representatives, where he served through the entire Third Congress (1793-95). He did not seek reelection. He moved to Philadelphia. In March 1801, as a new president, Thomas Jefferson, came into office, he removed the superintendent of military stores and replaced him with Irvine. The Philadelphia Gazette & Daily Advertiser reported, “Col. Samuel Hodgson, Superintendent of public Stores, after having performed the duties of an arduous department, with fidelity and honour, for many years, has bee dismissed by the new President, and General William Irvine, of Carlisle, appointed in his stead.” [15] Irvine served in this role until his death.

[7] “March 1, 1779. Forty Dollars Reward,” The Pennsylvania Packet [Philadelphia], 20 March 1779, 3. [8] “The Pennsylvania line,” The Aurora General Advertiser [Philadelphia], 17 October 1783, 3. [9] The letter to Irvine, and his reply, can both be found in The Independent Gazetteer; Or, The Chronicle of Freedom [Philadelphia], 25 October 1783, 2. [10] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VII:xciv. A notice of Irvine’s reelection can be found in The New-Hampshire Spy, 27 November 1787, 38. [11] William Irvine to James Wilson, 6 March 1787, in ibid., VIII:551. [12] William Irvine to Arthur St. Clair, 4 April 1787, in ibid., VIII:572. [13] James Madison to William Irvine, 5 May 1787, in ibid., VIII:593. [14] “At a conference,” The Philadelphia Gazette, 30 August 1794, 2. Additional letters and documents can be found in the Gazette of the United States [Philadelphia], 30 August 1794, 2, 3. [15] The Philadelphia Gazette & Daily Advertiser, 18 March 1801, 3. [16] “Died,” The Aurora General Advertiser [Philadelphia], 31 July 1804, 2. See the same newspaper, the edition of 1 August 1804, 2.

He died in Philadelphia on 29 July 1804 at the age of 62. The Aurora General Advertiser called him “a distinguished and active officer during the whole of our revolutionary contest.” [16] He was laid to rest in the Gloria Dei, also known as the Old Swedes, Church Burial Ground in Philadelphia. A large obelisk marks his grave; near it is a plaque, which reads:

Ralph Izard (c. 1741–1804)

The Pennsylvania Chapter National Society of the Daughters of Founders and Patriots of America Prepared This Lot, And Here Reset These Tombstones Of Revolutionary Officers Brought From Ronaldson’s Cemetery, Thereby Saving The Same From Destruction And Oblivion.

[1] See Martha L. Moody, Historian General, “Lineage Book. National Society of the Daughters of the American Revolution” (Washington, DC: Daughters of the American Revolution, 1919), L (volume 1904), 87. [2] Irvine family tree, online at http://www.geni.com/people/ Gen-William-Irvine/6000000003333932073. [3] White, Emma Siggins, comp., “Genealogical Gleanings of Siggins and Other Pennsylvania Families. A Volume of History, Biography, and Colonial, Revolutionary, Civil and Other War Records, Including the Names of Many Other Warren County Pioneers” (Kansas City, Missouri: Tiernan-Dart Printing Co., 1918), 310. [4] “Philadelphia, January 11,” The Pennsylvania Evening Post, 11 January 1776, 20. [5] Cubbison, Douglas, “The American Northern Theater Army in 1776: The Ruin and Reconstruction of the Continental Force” (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers, 2010), 111. [6] Jones, Charles Henry, “History of the Campaign for the Conquest of Canada in 1776, From the Death of Montgomery to the Retreat of the British Army Under Sir Guy Carleton” ­(Philadelphia: Porter & Coates, 1882), 76.

South Carolina politician, Izard was named the US commissioner to the Court of Tuscany (1776) by the Continental Congress, after which he served as a delegate to the Continental Congress

Ralph Izard (c. 1741–1804)739 (1782-83). He later served in the United States Senate, and found himself in London during the American Revolution supporting the rebels. Moving his family to France in 1776, that same year he served in a diplomatic post for the infant American nation, where he sought funding for the American military. He was also a defender of slavery and rose to become the president pro tempore of the US Senate. He was born at “The Elms,” his family’s estate, the son of Henry Izard, a wealthy South Carolina planter, and his wife Margaret (née Johnson) Izard. Sources on Ralph Izard’s life give differing dates of birth: some list 23 January 1741, while others list 23 January 1742. Margaret Johnson Izard, Ralph Izard’s mother, died in 1743 at the age of 21. Five years later, in 1748, Henry Izard followed his wife to the grave, he just 31 years of age. [1] According to historian Arthur M. Burke, who cataloged the origins of the Izard family back to the end of the 17th century, Ralph Izard, the great-grandfather of the Ralph Izard who was later to play such a vital role in the foundation of America, was born in London, date unknown, although it is known that he died in 1699. Known as the “Citizen and Grocer of London,” he had four children—three sons and a daughter—one of whom was also named Ralph Izard. This son, born in England, emigrated to the Carolinas in 1682, settling in what is now the city of Charleston in October of that year. He acquired a series of large plantations, while serving in a series of elective offices, including as a justice of the peace, and a member of the colonial House of Representatives and as president of the Indian Commission. [2] This Ralph Izard also had a son named Ralph Izard (1688-1743), who was born in South Carolina, and, upon his father’s death inherited his large estates. Henry Izard, his only son (1717-1749) also served in a number of elective offices, including as commissioner of taxes as well as a member of the colonial House of Representatives. He married Margaret Johnson, the daughter of Robert Johnson, a colonial governor of South Carolina, and together they had four children, including Ralph Izard, their eldest. [3] The only surviving son of four children, Ralph Izard was sent to Hackney, England, at the age of 12, to pursue “classical studies”—languages, mathematics, arts, and literature. He completed

his education at Trinity Hall at Cambridge University, from which he graduated in 1761. In 1764, he briefly returned to the colonies to oversee his father’s estate, but he decided instead to return to England and to spend his life abroad. In May 1767 Izard married Alice de Lancey, the daughter of Peter de Lancey of Westchester, New York (her uncle, James De Lancey, was formerly a chief justice and lieutenant governor of the New York colony), and together the couple had 14 children, including George Izard (17761828), who served as a brigadier general in the War of 1812, and then served (1825-28) as the governor of Arkansas Territory, and Ralph Izard (1785-1825), who served as a Lieutenant in the US Navy and married the daughter of Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, who served as vice president under Thomas Jefferson. He later documented his trip to Canada in a private diary that was published in 1846. [4] With his wife, and his growing family—his first child, a son, was born on a ship headed to Europe, and the remainder of his children were born in Europe— Izard spent years traveling on the Continent. Several times, the couple stopped to have their images painted, and these extant portraitures give us a view of what Izard looked like. [5] Ralph Izard, as others during the 18th century, owned slaves. In what is now the American South, and even in the northern colonies, slaves were utilized on a massive scale, and the abolitionist movement was 30+ years away even in the 1770s. Historian Aaron J. Palmer, examining the role of slavery in the plantation system in the South, wrote: [Peter] Manigault [a slaveowner and close friend of Izard’s] knew the importance of keeping order through discipline, but he also thought it was important to maintain harmony on the plantation. When advising his friend Ralph Izard on the purchase of new plantation lands, he told Izard to purchase land close to existing plantations, “especially as it will be very hard upon the old negroes to be moved such a distance from their friends.” Manigault suggested that Izard reward old slaves who had, in his view, given faithful service. However, he also understood that a slave’s happiness was most important to the extent that it helped preserve order and harmony on the plantation. If a master did not take slave families and friendships into at least some at, it could give the slaves more cause to run away or otherwise cause disruptions. [6]

740

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

By 1771, Izard was residing in London, where he had a front-row seat to the machinations that led to the American Revolution just four years later, including the passage of the “Intolerable Acts” and the attempted putting down of the Boston Tea Party. When he realized by 1775 that war was inevitable, Izard moved his wife and children from London to Paris for their safety. But even here Izard did not feel safe from the war that was breaking his people. He looked for ways to assist the revolution: a rich opportunity arose in July 1777 when he was named by the Continental Congress as the American commissioner to Tuscany, now a part of Italy. The official document notifying him of his commission is in the collections of the papers of the Continental Congress’ Committee on Foreign Affairs: “We enclose to you commissions and instructions for Ralph Izard and William Lee; the first, appointed commissioner to the Court of Tuscany, and the latter to the Courts of Vienna and Berlin. Their instructions are so intimately connected with your own, that we have thought proper to send them open to your confidential care, that you may give information to the gentlemen, and take every due step to forward the execution of the intention of Congress.” The letter was signed by the members of the committee: Benjamin Harrison of Virginia, Robert Morris of Pennsylvania, Thomas Heyward, Jr., of South Carolina, and James Lovell of Massachusetts. [7]

brother, James, and her uncle Oliver De Lancey had become notorious as Loyalist leaders in New York. [8]

Because the Grand Duke of Florence did not wish to openly accept the credentials of a nation at war with his ally, England, Izard corresponded from Paris to Tuscan officials. Historian Mabel L. Webber wrote: He considered that as a diplomatic representative of the United States he had a right to take part in the consultations between the French court and the ministers commissioned to that court, but this right was not recognized by Benjamin Franklin, toward whom Izard developed a bitter antagonism. The latter also contended that his goods should be exempt from duties, and that out of funds collected in France his salary as minister to Tuscany should be paid. These claims, also rejected by Franklin, led to further alienation. With Arthur Lee, Izard was on friendly terms, and John Adams in part upheld him. Meantime, his estates had been sequestered in South Carolina and his wife’s

Through the correspondence that he sent back to the Committee for Foreign Affairs, one can get a better insight into how a foreign diplomat worked in those early heady days of the American Revolution. For instance, here is a letter from Izard to the committee, from Paris, and dated 25 July 1778: The death of the Elector of Bavaria, which happened on the 30th of last December, has produced a war between the Empress Queen and the King of Prussia. This will not, I hope, materially affect America; but it has occasioned an unlucky circumstance. The Empress Queen before this event was very well disposed towards us; and the King of Prussia expressly declared that he would be the second Power in Europe to acknowledge our Independency. The death of the Elector of Bavaria has made an alteration in the political sentiments of both of those Powers. As soon as the Austrian Troops had taken possession of part of Bavaria, the King of Prussia applied to the Court of France as one of the quarantees [sic] to the succession of the Elector of Bavaria, in case of the failure of male issue in the latter, settled at the Peace of Westphalia in 1640. The French Ministry declined giving any succours to the King of Prussia, which has disposed him to look towards England. The Troops of Hanover, Hesse, and Brunswick, together with several other German Princes in friendship with England, may be of considerable service to him, and therefore he is very unwilling at present to offend that Crown. On the other hand the Empress Queen applied to the Court of France for 24,000 Men to assist her against the King of Prussia by virtue of the Treaty of Versailles, concluded in 1756; but the French Ministry declined likewise affording her any assistance. France in that Treaty guaranteed the Dominions which the Empress Queen was at that time poss’ed [possessed] of; and the 24,000 Men therein stipulated to be furnished, could not have been intended to assist her in encreasing [sic] them. The refusal has however offended her; and in consequence of what I have related, the Courts of Berlin, and Vienna have both refused to receive Mr. Lee. The Grand Duke of Tuscany is unfortunately obliged to regulate his proceedings, by those of the Court of Vienna. [9] Working closely with Alexander Gillon, a gentleman named by the Continental Congress to get aid from Tuscany to buy ships, Izard

Ralph Izard (c. 1741–1804)741 used his influence on the European Continent unlike it had been used before, and he found the work stimulating. A 1901 article on “Izard of South Carolina” explained that Izard, “[f]inding it inexpedient to proceed thither, he opened negotiations from Paris; meanwhile aiding Mr. Gillon in securing funds for ships of war and Mr. Lee in the French treaty. This delay in Paris and controversies with Franklin and Deane led to his recall, but when his explanitory dispatches were received Congress approved his course.” [10] In 1779, due to the behind-the-scenes machinations of Benjamin Franklin, who asked the Continental Congress to investigate the use of Izard’s finances given to him by the body, Izard was recalled; however, as noted, an investigation found that Izard’s finances were above board, and he was cleared of any allegations against him. When he returned to America in 1780 for the first time in more than 15 years, he pledged his estate in South Carolina to the Continental Congress for the payment of ships to be used by the infant American Navy. [11] The war, how he had been questioned, and his role in the whole affair sickened Izard. During these harsh years, he was always in personal financial trouble; he was subject to bouts of anxiety, strained nerves, and gout. Despite all of this, Izard remained devoted to the patriot cause. And, despite his illness, on 31 January 1782 the South Carolina legislature elected Izard to a seat in the Continental Congress. Subsequently reelected on 12 February 1783 for a term not specified, he served in the body from 7 June to 31 December 1782, from 1 January to 21 June 1783, 30 June to about 19 August 1783, from about 5 September to about 11 September 1783, and from about 17 October to 21 October 1783. [12] Although there are several pieces of correspondence regarding Izard’s time in the Continental Congress, perhaps one of the most important is a letter to his wife, from Philadelphia, North Dakota dated 7 October 1782, regarding the British invasion of South Carolina and their seizing of the town of Charleston (which he refers to by its name at the time, “Charles Town”): My Dear Wife, We received a day or two ago Dispatches from South Carolina, by which it appears

that the Enemy had embarked all their heavy Artillery at Charles Town, and were waiting for Transports to carry off the Garrison. Nothing will happen, I hope, to make them alter their resolution. About the middle of this Month it is thought they will evacuate the Town, and they will probably go to the West Indies. If they have a sufficient number of Transports, they will carry with them about Twelve Thousand Negroes, which they have now in Charles Town, and which have been stolen in their various expeditions into the Country; in that Number may be reckoned One Hundred and Seventy of mine. They will leave us in a most defenceless [sic] condition, by carrying all the Cannon from the Town, and will carry to a very great amount, property belonging to the Citizens of our State. All this might with the greatest ease have been prevented by M. de Grasse. General Washington entreated him, almost to supplication, after the capture of Lord Cornwallis, to go with him to Charles Town: but his entreaties were in vain, and our Country has in consequence, been almost ruined. I can never think of this affair without the deepest sorrow, and astonishment. The Enemy made an excursion from Charles Town to collect Rice, and other provisions on the 27th of August. General Greene’s Light Infantry attacked them, and unfortunately Lieut’t Colonel Laurens was killed. He certainly was a most excellent Officer, and his loss will be severely felt. I pity his Father exceedingly: he has already had more than sufficient number of misfortunes to contend with. He has written to Congress that he declines serving as a Commissioner for negociating [sic] Peace; and he is expected in America this Winter. [13] Izard followed this missive up with a letter to John Lowell, in describing what was happening in Charleston: We flatter ourselves that in the course of a fortnight we shall receive accounts of the evacuation of Charles Town, as we have had repeated intelligences from New York that a considerable number of Transports are gone thither for the purpose of bringing off the Garrison. It is high time that our unhappy Country should be relieved from her distresses. Your State at present is very respectably represented. But I am very sorry to find that Mr. Jackson purposes to set out soon for Boston; and the more so, as I can not learn that there are any hopes of our seeing you here this Winter. It certainly is of considerable importance that your State should be kept properly, and constantly represented; and I wish it were convenient for Mr. Jackson to stay until the arrival of his Successor. [14]

742

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

With the war over in 1783, one of the leading questions in the nation was the site of a permanent national capitol. Philadelphia seemed a natural choice, as it was still the economic and cultural center of the nation. Other sites were examined, including that of Annapolis in Maryland. On this subject, on 27 April 1784, Izard wrote to Thomas Jefferson:

The conduct of Great Britain towards this Country, has exceedingly distressed all the Friends of order, & tranquility [sic], & has contributed to establish those Doctrines here, which in one Country has [sic] produced unexampled misery & which will probably be extended much further in Europe. The wisdom, & firmness of our Government has hitherto preserved us from the calamities of War. The irritation against Great Britain was never so strong during the last War, as when the proceedings in the West Indies were known here. Immediately War with Great Britain, appeared to be the general wish of the People, & the Government have put their popularity to hazard, by preferring negociation [sic], & by sending Mr. Jay as Envoy Extraordinary to London to demand satisfaction, & indemnification for the injuries which our Merchants have sustained. I am extremely anxious to preserve Peace, & my exertions have been directed to that object. War would certainly be very injurious to this Country; but I (am) believe it would prove much more so to Great Britain, & hope it may be avoided. Indeed I should be extremely glad if Peace could be made between the Combined Powers & France. It is a matter of great difficulty, & I confess I do not see at present how it can be accomplished. [16]

We have had repeated accounts of the disagreeable situation of Congress at Annapolis. That the States should be so inattentive to their interest is much to be lamented; this is a matter I never think of but with a mixture of indignation and sorrow. How can the negligence of Maryland be accounted for? Is the ignorant of the advantages to be derived from the residence of Congress? Or does she suppose, as the citizens of Philadelphia foolishly and presumptuously did that it is impossible for them to go anywhere else? At the commencement of the war I was well aware that at the end of it we should have difficulties to contend with. The inattention and even disrespect shewn [sic] to the federal government by almost every State in the Union, will be productive of the most serious and I fear fatal consequences, and was not one among the number of which I was at the time apprehensive. [15] The drafting, ratification, and implementation of the US Constitution by 1789 allowed each state to name representatives to the lower house of the new national legislature, the US House of Representatives, while two members would be named to the upper house, the US Senate. In elections for the upper house, decided not by the people but by the state legislature, Izard and Pierce Butler were elected to the US Senate. They took their seats on 4 March 1789, the first day of the new US government under the Constitution; Izard served an entire six-year term, ending on 3 March 1795. During the Third Congress (1793-95), he served as the president pro tempore, the presiding member of the body in the absence of the vice president. During his senate term, relations between the United States and England turned sour over trade. A letter missing more than a century and a half, from Izard, was found and published in 1940. In it, to a close British friend, George Livius, Izard writes of the growing tensions between the United States and England, the Jay Treaty, and the efforts to head off a war:

In the last years of his life, Izard was one of the founders of the College of Charleston. He retired from politics, both state and national, to tend to his estates. Izard died near Charleston on 30 May 1804. The Charleston Courier noted that Izard was “for many years one of the greatest ornaments of the United States, by his talents, and his integrity.” [17] The Carolina Gazette stated that Izard “[d] eparted this life . . . in consequence of a paralytic disorder, under which he has suffered seven years, with a fortitude characteristic of his great and energetic mind.” [18] Izard’s remains were interred in the churchyard of the St. James Goose Creek Episcopal Church, near Charleston. A 1901 article on the life of Izard took note of this American patriot: “Mr. Izard was a man of high ability and spirit, of fine appearance, finished manners and taste in art and literature, and excelled in horsemanship and manly exercises.” [19] In 1844, his daughter, Anne Izard Deas, published her father’s correspondence, some of which appeared for the first time. Once out of print, it was republished in 1976 and is now available. Historians of the diplomatic side

Ralph Izard (c. 1741–1804)743 of the work of the Continental Congress would get a view rarely seen by Izard’s dispatches and letters. [20]

[1] Izard family tree, online at http://www.geni.com/people/ Ralph-Izard-U-S-Senator/6000000013319930055. [2] A record from 31 March 1703 shows that Ralph Izard was elected to the colonial House of Commons Assembly for Berkeley County, South Carolina. See Salley, Alexander Samuel, Jr., “Members of the Commons House of Assembly, 1702-1711,” The South Carolina Historical and Genealogical Magazine, XXVII:3 (July 1926), 170. [3] Burke, Arthur Meredyth, ed., “The Prominent Families of the United States of America” (London: The Sackville Press, Ltd., 1908; reprint, Baltimore, Maryland: Clearfield Company, 2008), 46. [4] Izard, Ralph, “An Account of a Journey to Niagara, Montreal and Quebec, in 1765” (New York: W. Osborn, 1846). [5] For instance, see “Copley’s Portrait of Mr. and Mrs. Ralph Izard,” Museum of Fine Arts Bulletin, I:2 (May 1903), 5. See also Maurie D. McInnis, “Cultural Politics, Colonial Crisis, and Ancient Metaphor in John Singleton Copley’s ‘Mr. and Mrs. Ralph Izard,’” Winterthur Portfolio, XXXIV:2/3 (Summer-Autumn 1999), 85-108. [6] Palmer, Aaron J., “‘All Matters and Things Shall Center There’: A Study of Elite Political Power in South Carolina, 17631776” (Ph.D. dissertation, Georgetown University, 2009), 188. [7] The Committee of Foreign Affairs to the Commissioners, 2 July 1777, in “Diplomatic Correspondence of the American Revolution; Being the Letters of Benjamin Franklin, Silas Deane, John Adams, John Jay, Arthur Lee, William Lee, Ralph Izard, Francis Dana, William Carmichael, Henry Laurens, John Laurens, M. Dumas, and Others, Concerning the Foreign Relations of the United States During the Whole Revolution; Together with the Letters in Reply from the Secret Committee of Congress, and the Secretary of Foreign Affairs: Also, the Entire Correspondence of the French Ministers, Gerard and Luzerne, with Congress: Published under the Direction of the President of the United States, from

the Original Manuscripts in the Department of State, Conformably to a Resolution of Congress, of March 27th, 1818” (Boston: N. Hale and Gray & Bowen; twelve volumes, 1829-30), I:310-11. The letter is signed by “T. Hayward,” obviously a misspelling. For another rendition of the commission, see John C. Fitzpatrick, “A Rough Secret Journal of the Continental Congress,” The American Historical Review, XXVII:3 (April 1922), 490. [8] Webber, Mabel L., “Izard, Ralph” in Allen Johnson, et al., “Dictionary of American Biography” (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons; eleven volumes and five supplements, 1958-77), IX:524-25. [9] Ralph Izard to the Committee for Foreign Affairs, 25 July 1778, in “Izard-Laurens Correspondence: From South Carolina Historical Society Collections (Continued),” The South Carolina Historical and Genealogical Magazine, XXII:3 (July 1921), 73-74. [10] “Izard of South Carolina,” The South Carolina Historical and Genealogical Magazine, II:3 (July 1901) , 215. [11] Izard official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=I000053. [12] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VI:lii; VII:lxxv. [13] Ralph Izard to Mrs. Izard, 7 October 1782, in ibid., VI:497-98. [14] Ralph Izard to John Lowell, 23 October 1782, in ibid., VI:525. [15] “Some Letters of Ralph Izard to Thomas Jefferson” (Charleston, SC: Walker, Evans Cogswell Co., 1901), 3. [16] Ralph Izard to George Livius, 10 September 1794, in “An Unpublished Letter of Senator Ralph Izard to George Livius, Esq.,” The South Carolina Historical and Genealogical Magazine, XLI:1 (January 1940), 36-37. [17] “Yesterday, at three o’clock,” Charleston Courier, 31 May 1804, 3. [18] “Departed this life,” The Carolina Gazette [Charleston], 1 June 1804, 3. [19] Izard of South Carolina,” op. cit., 215-16. [20] Deas, Anne (Izard), ed., “Correspondence of Mr. Ralph Izard of South Carolina: From the Year 1774 to 1804, with a Short Memoir” (New York: C.S. Francis, 1844; reprint, New York: AMS Press, 1976).

J David Jackson (c. 173o–1801)

County, Pennsylvania, and died there [author’s italics].” [5] Nothing appears to be known of David Jackson’s mother, even her name. Earning his education at a local academy, David Jackson entered the medical department at the College of Philadelphia (now the University of Pennsylvania), receiving a Bachelors of Medicine degree in 1768. He returned to Chester County, where he worked as a rural physician. He remained there for several years, honing his craft.

A physician and apothecary from Pennsylvania, David Jackson served one year (1785) in the Continental Congress. His official congressional biography gives his date of birth as “about 1730” [1], while the “Dictionary of American Biography” states 1747 with a question mark [2]. Jackson was born in Oxford, in Chester County, Pennsylvania, the son of Samuel Jackson, although his official congressional biography states that he was born in Newtown-Limavady, County Londonderry, Ireland. [3] The University of Pennsylvania notes that Paul Jackson, a Latin and Greek Professor at the College of Philadelphia, who was the brother of David Jackson who was born in 1729 in Chester County, Pennsylvania. [4] From an 1890 work that was privately published, we discover that “Paul Jackson, [the] son of Samuel, was [the] Professor of Greek in the University of Pennsylvania, at Philadelphia, from 1753-58. His father came over early in 1800 and settled first in Virginia and then removed to Chester

With the onset of the American Revolution, he offered his services as a surgeon for the Continental Army. Instead, on 26 November 1776, the Continental Congress named him as a manager of a lottery “for defraying the expenses of the next campaign.” Jackson must have chafed under this command, as he decided to take a position as senior physician at the General Hospital of Philadelphia. On 23 June 1777, he asked the Continental Congress to remove him from the lottery. He was able to join a local Pennsylvania militia unit as a physician, and, on 23 October 1779, he was rewarded for his services by being named as the quartermaster-general of the Pennsylvania militia, but he was moved to serve as a senior surgeon at a military hospital. In late 1779, Jackson was named to the medical staff of Philadelphia General Hospital, where he served until December 1780. According to historian Joseph Jackson, Dr. Jackson was allegedly present at the surrender of Lord Cornwallis and the British army at Yorktown on 19 October 1781, an event which ended the war. [6] With the war over, David Jackson opened an apothecary shop in Philadelphia, and became one of that city’s leading medical experts. He may have also been involved in real estate: An advertisement in The Pennsylvania Packet in January 1784, signed by Jackson, was printed to try to rent a “large, commodicus Tavern in the borough of Chester, now in the tenure of Zebedee Hollingsworth . . .” [7] On 19 February 1785, Jackson was elected by the Pennsylvania legislature to a seat in the Continental Congress. Living right in Philadelphia

Jonathan Jackson (1743–1810)745 allowed him to attend sessions, from 21 April to 4 November 1785, without having to travel far. [8] In the Journals of the Continental Congress we find, for 22 April 1785, that “Mr. David Jackson, a Delegate for Pennsylvania, attended and produced credentials; by which it appears, that on the 19th day of February, 1785, the Hon. Matthew Clarkson and David Jackson, Esqrs. were elected Delegates to represent said State in the Congress of the United States, for the present year.” [9] One letter appears to be extant from Jackson’s Continental Congress service: that to John Dickinson, the president of Pennsylvania, and dated 3 October 1785, in which he states, “I do myself the honor to enclose to your Excellency and the Hon’ble Council three copies of the requisition for the present year which passed in Congress a few days ago. I dare say it will soon come officially thro’ the Board of Treasury, but as it contains matters of much importance, I thought you would wish as early an inspection as possible.” [10] Following his congressional service, Jackson returned to his medical and apothecary practices, becoming a leading citizen in Philadelphia. He remained in this business for the remainder of his life. Jackson died in Oxford, Pennsylvania, on 17 September 1801. The Federal Gazette of Baltimore reported: “Died, yesterday morning, after a lingering illness, Dr. David Jackson, one of the Aldermen of this city. During a long course of activity and usefulness, he has uniformly maintained the character of a good citizen and an honest man.” [11] A few days after his death, an advertisement in a Philadelphia paper, signed by a “Susan Jackson” (perhaps his wife or his daughter), addressed to “The Friends and Customers of the late Dr. David Jackson,” noted that they “are respectfully informed, that the business lately conducted by him, will be continued for the benefit of his Widow and Children; arrangements for which purposes will be shortly concluded with a Gentleman of respectability in that line, and of which further notice will be given.” [12] Jackson was laid to rest in the Oxford Cemetery in that city.

[1] Jackson official congressional biography, online at http:// bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=J000006.

[2] Jackson, Joseph, “Jackson, David” in Allen Johnson, et al., “Dictionary of American Biography” (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons; eleven volumes and five supplements, 1958-77), IX:538-39. It is possible that the author of this article may have been related to Jackson, one reason why his details are so at odds with the others. [3] Another source gives the 1747 date: see Mays, Terry M., “Historical Dictionary of Revolutionary America” (Oxford, UK: Scarecrow Press, Inc., 2005), 145. [4] Information on Paul Jackson courtesy of the University of Pennsylvania, online at http://www.archives.upenn.edu/ people/1700s/jackson_paul.html. [5] Jackson, The Rev. Hugh Parks, preparer, “The Genealogy of the Jackson Family” (Privately Published, 1890), 6. [6] Jackson, Joseph, “Jackson, David,” op. cit., IX:538-39. [7] “To Be Let,” The Pennsylvania Packet [Philadelphia], 20 January 1784, 3. [8] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VIII:xcv. [9] “Journal of the United States in Congress Assembled,” The Providence Gazette [Rhode Island], 1 July 1786, 1. [10] Dr. David Jackson to John Dickinson, 3 October 1785, in ibid., VIII:225. [11] “Philadelphia, September 18. Died,” Federal Gazette and Baltimore Advertiser [Maryland], 19 September 1801, 2. For an additional obituary, see The Philadelphia Gazette [Pennsylvania], 18 September 1801, 3. [12] “The Friends and Customers of the late Dr. David Jackson,” Poulson’s American Daily Advertiser [Philadelphia], 29 September 1801, 1.

Jonathan Jackson (1743–1810)

A revenue officer in Massachusetts, as well as a US Marshal, Jonathan Jackson was a delegate to the Continental Congress from his native Massachusetts (1782).

746

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

He was born in Boston, Massachusetts, on 4 June 1743, the son of Edward Jackson, a merchant and his wife Dorothy (née Quincy) Jackson. According to a biography and genealogical family history, completed in 1866 by Jackson’s son, Dr. James Jackson, “Jonathan derived his name from his grandfather, who was from the Jacksons of Newton, Middlesex County[, Massachusetts].”Jackson’s mother, Dorothy, was a sister of famed soldier Josiah Quincy, born in what was then Braintree, now Quincy, Massachusetts. [1]

of Philadelphia: “Authority have made choice of the honourable major-general [sic] Timothy Danielson, esquire, and Jonathan Jackson, esquire, as delegates to represent this Commonwealth at the honourable the continental congress [sic].” [5] Unfortunately, there are no pieces of correspondence, either to or from Jackson, during this period. In fact, the few official papers on Jackson relate more to his service as a US marshal than his time in the Continental Congress. In 1788, he penned the only work which bears his name: “Thoughts Upon the Political Situation of the United States of America: In Which That of Massachusetts is More Particularly Considered; With Some Observations on the Constitution for a Federal Government, Addressed to the People of the Union” (Printed at Worchester, Massachusetts: by Isaiah Thomas, 1788).

His father being a merchant in Boston, Jonathan Jackson was able to obtain what was called a “classical education,” after which he entered Harvard College (now Harvard University), and graduated from that school in 1761. He then followed in his father’s footsteps, and worked in the business of mercantile in Newburyport, where he worked for several years. [2] As he later served as a US Marshal, the name of Jonathan Jackson has been enshrined in the US Marshal Museum, located in Fort Smith, Arkansas. His biography, contained with his honorary membership, noted, “Before the Revolutionary War, Jonathan Jackson made his living as a merchant and prominent importer of British goods. He was a very wealthy man, and was deeply involved in both local and state politics. As relations with Britain soured, Jackson took a pro-independence stance, despite the fact that his wealth was built on British trade.” [3] The imposition of harsh economic measures on the colonies by England, including the Boston Port Bill and other actions, served to slowly cripple the business atmosphere in the colonies, most notably in Massachusetts. In 1775, angered at these laws, Jackson was named to serve as a delegate to the Provincial Congress held that year, meant to supersede the dictates of the royal government in Boston. Two years later, he was elected as a member of the state House of Representatives. On 2 May 1782, the Massachusetts legislature elected Jackson to a seat in the Continental Congress, “until the fifth day of November 1782.” He ultimately attended sessions of the body only during that same calendar year, from 3 July to 5 November 1782. [4] We find an announcement of his election in The Pennsylvania Packet

Following the ratification of the US Constitution, Jackson was elected to a seat in the Massachusetts state Senate; that same year, however, he was named as a US marshal for the district of Massachusetts, where he served until 1791. A notice in The Gazette of the United States, a Philadelphia paper, stated, “The question whether the seat of the Honorable Jonathan Jackson in the Senate of Massachusetts, is vacated by his federal appointment as Marshal of that district, was determined in the negative by the Senators of that State, the 21st instant.” [6] An expert in financial matters, most likely from his business days, he served as the treasurer of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts from 1802 to 1806. In his final years, he served as an inspector and supervisor of internal revenue for the state, and, finally, as the president of the Massachusetts State Bank as well as of the corporation that ran Harvard. [7] Jackson died in Boston of 5 March 1810 at the age of 66, and he was laid to rest in Boston’s Granary Burying Ground. The Boston Gazette said, “In this town, on Monday last, Jonathan Jackson, Esq. [died] Aged 67. A man of true and exalted honor and inflexible integrity[,] his funeral will be altogether in private in compliance with an express injunction in his will.” [8] Jackson is related to Oliver Wendell Holmes (1809-1894), author, and his son, also

John Jay (1745–1829)747 Oliver Wendell Holmes (1841-1935), who served as an associate justice of the US Supreme Court (1902–32).

[1] Jackson, Dr. James, “Hon. Jonathan Jackson, His Wife, and Many Members of His Family. Notes and Reminiscences, Printed for His Descendants, Written by His Son, James Jackson, M.D.” (Boston: Alfred Mudge & Son, Printers, 1866), 6. [2] Jackson official congressional biography, online at http://­ bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=J000022. [3] “Jonathan Jackson,” courtesy of the US Marshal Museum, online at http://www.usmarshalsmuseum.com/jonathan_jackson. [4] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VI:xlvi. [5] “Boston, May 6,” The Pennsylvania Packet; Or, The General Advertiser [Philadelphia], 21 May 1782, 2. [6] The Gazette of the United States [Philadelphia], 30 January 1790, 335. [7] Jackson official congressional biography, op. cit. [8] “Deaths,” Boston Gazette, 8 March 1810, 2.

John Jay (1745–1829)

A secretary for foreign affairs in the Continental Congress, who became its first chief justice of the US Supreme Court under the US Constitution, John Jay was a major power in New York politics in the years in which the American colonies rose up for their own independence. He also served

as the governor of New York (1795-1801), and, during his time in the Continental Congress (1774-76, 1778-79), served as the 5th president of that body (1778-79). The scion of a family of French immigrants, Jay was born in New York City on 12 December 1745, the sixth son, and eighth child of Peter Jay, a wealthy city merchant, and Mary (née Van Cortlandt) Jay. [1] According to his son, William, who published Jay’s papers in 1833, “[He] left behind him an unfinished history of his ancestors, written in the latter part of his life.” In a letter from John Jay on this subject, he penned, “I have been informed that our family is of Poictou, in France, and that the branch of it to which we belong removed thence to Rochelle. Of our ancestors anterior to Pierre Jay, who left France on the revocation of the Edict of Nantes, I know nothing that is certain. Pierre Jay was an active and opulent merchant, extensively and profitably engaged in commerce.” [2] According to historian George Pellew, Pierre Jay, John Jay’s great-grandfather, was a Huguenot who came from La Rochelle, France, to England, where he died. His son, Augustus, settled in New York in 1686. Peter Jay, Augustus’ son, was able to retire at the age of 40 and settle in a large estate near what is now Rye, New York. [3] Through his mother, John Jay was related to the Dutch Van Cortlandts, one of the more influential families in the colonies in the earlyto-mid 18th century. Peter Jay was one of the largest slaveowners in what is now the northern United States; the sight of his father controlling other human beings, of selling and buying them like property, had an intense reaction in the young John Jay: he would make the antislavery movement a part of his own life, as did his own son, William. John Jay was sent to a boarding school in New Rochelle, New York, then entered King’s College (now Columbia University) in New York City, graduating with a Bachelor’s degree in 1764. He studied the law under a leading attorney, Benjamin Kissam, and was admitted to the New York colonial bar in 1768. For the next several years he practiced the law, not involving himself in the revolutionary movement gathering steam in the colonies against a series of harsh economic measures enacted by the British Parliament against the colonies, including The Stamp Act

748

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

and The Sugar Act. In April 1774, he married Sarah van Brugh Livingston, a scion of the famed Livingston family of New York, merging the Jays, the Van Cortlandts, and the Livingstons under one roof.

Continental Congress; Jay was officially elected on 28 July 1774, and reelected on 22 April 1775 to the Second Continental Congress; he served, in this first tenure in that body, in the sessions of 5 September to 26 October 1774, 13 May to 2 August 1775, from about 12 September to about 3 November 1775, from about 23 November 1775 to about 8 January 1776, and from about 2 March 1776 to about 27 April 1776. Unfortunately, Jay did not get an additional elective post, so he just missed out signing the Declaration of Independence. [6]

John Jay would probably have remained a quaint attorney in New York City, had not the British Parliament decided to punish the Massachusetts Bay Colony for the Boston Tea Party by imposing the Boston Port Bill, which closed that port to trade and commerce until the tea dumped in Boston Harbor was paid for. In other colonies, the sense of outrage caused not fear but a spirit of resistance, and aid and succor was sent to the colonists in Massachusetts. In New York, John Jay joined the Committee of Correspondence, which secretly corresponded with other colonies on methods of action against the British. In the middle of 1774, these committees, in every colony, concluded that a meeting of delegates, held in Philadelphia, was needed: this would become the First Continental Congress. The Pennsylvania Gazette of Philadelphia reported, “Wednesday night last our Committee of Correspondence met, and drew up a sett [sic] of resolves on the present alarming occasion, which were printed in hand bills, and sent by the town the next morning, for the approbation of the inhabitants thereof, who are to assemble at the Coffee-house to-morrow at 12 o’clock, either to approve or disapprove of the same. At the same time the people are to testify their approbation of the five gentlemen, nominated by the Committee to attend as delegates at the general Congress, viz., Mr. [James] Duane, Mr. Philip Livingston, Mr. John Alsop, Mr. Isaac Low, and Mr. John Jay.” [4] At that meeting, all five men were approved to serve as delegates. The following week, they published an open letter “To the Respectable Public.” They wrote, “We conceive the sense of our fellow-citizens, relative to the Delegates to represent them at the proposed Congress (notwithstanding the proceedings of yesterday at the Coffee-House) remains so uncertain, that until the sentiments of the town are ascertained with greater precision, we can by no means consider ourselves, or any others, nominated as Delegates, duly chosen or authorised [sic], to act in so honourable and important a station.” [5] Nevertheless, the five men would serve as delegates to that first

Only two pieces of correspondence from this period relating to his work in the Continental Congress exist; the first deals with the “Continental colors” and certain resolves of the body. In the second, penned to the New York Committee of Safety, Jay wrote, “The Congress having been informed of a very extraordinary oath ordered by Govr. [William] Tryon to be administred [sic] to Passengers in the late Packet, whereby they bound themselves not to disclose any thing relative to american [sic] affairs except to the ministry, have appointed a Committee (of which I am one) to ascertain this Fact. I must therefore request of you Gentlemen, to appoint proper Persons to examine into this Matter, and if possible ascertain the Truth of the Report, by affidavits taken before the Mayor or one of the Judges of the Supr: Court.” [7] When Jay first entered the Continental Congress, the first act of that body was to name a committee “to state the rights of the colonies in general; the several instances in which those rights are violated or infringed; and the means most proper to be pursued for obtaining a restoration of them.” Jay was named to this committee. Soon, this committee drafted an “address to the people of Great Britain” laying out the reasons for the angst in the colonies. No mention was made of possible independence: this idea was barely in any of the heads of the delegates. In fact, the 29-year-old Jay was tasked to write the address. Historian Henry B. Renwick wrote, “He acquitted himself well; the address was adopted by Congress, and was considered by all as no less remarkable for sentiments it contained, than for the manner in which they were expressed.” [8] Thomas Jefferson called it “a production certainly of the finest pen in America.” [9]

John Jay (1745–1829)749 That First Continental Congress adjourned after six weeks, and there did not seem to be a reason to have a second. The colonies had concluded that the harsh economic measures had to be abated or there would be additional measures taken by the colonists. However, the following April, British troops were involved in a military clash with “Minute Men” militia near Lexington and Concord, and the American Revolution began. Now, there was a need for an additional Continental Congress; this one would last until six years after the war would end in 1783. From that first congress, however, John Jay earned a reputation of being a thoughtful writer whose compatriots were impressed by his writing and debating skills. Jay did not sign the Declaration of Independence, as he believed that independence was a fateful step that the American colonies were not prepared for. In 1777, he was recalled back to New York to assist in writing that state’s constitution. Having seen slavery up close, Jay was an abolitionist from an early age. With the onset of American independence, he felt that all of the slaves in the American colonies should be freed, and he made his feelings known when he drafted an antislavery clause in New York’s first state constitution in 1777, although this part of the document was later removed. “I should also have been for a clause against the continuation of domestic slavery,” he wrote to his wife’s cousin, Robert B. Livingston, and to Gouverneur Morris on 29 April 1777. In 1785 Jay, along with others, some of whom actually owned slaves, founded the New York State Society for Promoting the Manumission of Slaves. One of the first abolitionist societies in the United States, the group used political pressure to achieve its ends of complete abolition. Jay also wrote that he wanted to raise funds to educate black children: “I consider education to be the soul of the republic,” he wrote to Benjamin Rush that same year. “I wish to see all unjust and all unnecessary discriminations everywhere abolished, and that the time may soon come when all our inhabitants of every colour [sic] and denomination shall be free and equal partakers of our political liberty.” [10] Two years later, in 1787, Jay helped to found the African Free School, the first school dedicated specifically for blacks in the United States.

Going back to 1777, Jay becomes one of the more important leaders in helping to frame New York state’s constitution. The reward for his work is his appointment, in May 1777, as the chief justice of the state’s courts, although he only remained in the post until December 1778. On 4 November 1778, the New York legislature elected Jay for a second tenure in the Continental Congress, “until the first day of March next.” Re-elected on 8 February 1779, 26 August 1779, and 1 October 1779, Jay only served from 7 December to 31 December 1778, and 1 January to 28 September 1779. Because the constitution of New York stipulated “that the chancellor and judges of the supreme court shall not, at the same time, hold any other office, excepting that of Delegate to the general Congress upon special occasions,” Jay had to resign his court seat to sit in the Continental Congress. [11] During this second tenure in that body, on 10 December 1778 Jay was elected as the 6th president of the Continental Congress. He would serve in that vaunted position until 27 September 1779, when he was succeeded by Samuel Huntington. Historian Edmund Cody Burnett, writing on the history of this littlestudied office, explained that one of the major drawbacks of that office was that the holder had to pay all of his expenses—food, travel, housing, etc.—out of his own salary. Burnett stated, “Thus far Congress had done nothing to relieve the president of his extraordinary expenses and perhaps was slow to do so because the last two presidents, whose combined service covered a period of three and a half years, had been able and willing, if not content, to carry the burden themselves. But the supply of such material for the presidency was now pretty well exhausted. Evidently John Jay, who succeeded Laurens on 10 December, was not the man to shoulder these burdens and no doubt said so. At all events, the very next day after his election a committee was appointed ‘to report a proper allowance for the honorable gentlemen who have been or may be elected presidents of Congress, to defray the expences incidental to the office.’” [12] On 27 September 1779, the delegates of the Continental Congress selected Jay as the new US minister to Spain. The following day he gave his acceptance of the new post, and resigned the

750

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

presidency. John Jay was only 33 years old when the Continental Congress removed him from its chair as president and shipped him off to Spain to serve as the US minister to that nation. Historian Richard B. Morris, covering Jay’s time in Spain, wrote:

Thereupon, Congress proceeded to the election, and being this day informed by a letter of the 9[th] of March last, from Dr. Franklin, that Mr. J. Jay, proposed to embark for America, in the month of April, and this information, corresponding with the intelligence communicated by Mr. Jay himself, in his letters of last year, Mr. Jay was put in nomination; and, the ballots being taken, Mr. John Jay was elected Secretary for foreign affairs [sic], having been previously nominated by Mr. [Elbridge] Gerry. [14]

Since Jay was uncertain whether or not the court at Madrid was prepared to give him accreditation as a minister plenipotentiary from the thirteen rebellious American states, he prudently stayed at Cadiz and dispatched the secretary of the mission, William Carmichael, to proceed to the capital and report back. Unlike Jay, Carmichael had a passable command of Spanish. He was also a clever and ambitious intriguer—Jay did not, in fact, entirely trust him— with some background in the handling of Congress’ business in Europe. In the long run, however, he was to prove a good deal more affable and resilient in dealing with the Spaniards than his unbending and righteous superior; when Jay was called to Paris at the end of his mission in Spain, Carmichael succeeded him as American representative at Madrid. [13] After his mission to Spain ended, Jay was sent to Paris on 14 June 1781, where he worked with John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and others to negotiate a treaty with Great Britain ending the American Revolution. The Treaty of Paris, which did end the war, was signed by both sides, and Jay signed with the others on behalf of the United States. On 1 May 1783, his duties over in this mission, Jay was given a new task: negotiate treaties of trade and commerce with the European powers. The following year, he returned to the United States, and settled back at his home in Rye, New York. It seems, from all outward appearances that his long career was over. But for John Jay, he was far from being done in the cause of serving his nation. Robert R. Livingston, who had been serving as the secretary for foreign affairs, the head of all diplomacy for the Continental Congress, resigned, and this necessitated an election for his successor. We find, in the Journals of the Continental Congress for 7 May 1784, the following: A motion was then made by Mr. [Elbridge] Gerry, seconded by Mr. [Samuel] Hardy, that Congress proceed in the order of the day, to the election of [the] Secretary for foreign [sic] Affairs . . .

On 24 July 1784, his mission in Europe completed, Jay arrived in New York and he received word that he had been elected as the secretary for foreign affairs. He waited until that December to go to the Continental Congress and take up his duties, which he served in until the end of the Continental Congress in March 1789. Jay had to grapple with a lack of funding for his office, while trying to negotiate treaties that had the backing now not of the United Kingdom, but an infant American nation with few assets and even less economic and military strength. Florida and much of the Mississippi River region was held by Spain, Canada by England, and the British held onto forts in certain areas that we now controlled by the United States. The almost moribund Articles of Confederation, which was the blueprint of the “central” US government, gave that central government few powers, weakening Jay’s ability to deal with foreign nations even more than ever. Unable to use any diplomatic force, he merely kept the events at a level of stasis for much of his tenure. He supported a strong national government, one emphasized in the US Constitution signed in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787. Even when this document was ratified, and a new US government was established in March 1789, Jay remained on the job, until his “replacement” as Secretary of State, Thomas Jefferson, could take office in 1790. Jay’s time in the public eye was not over. The US Congress enacted The Judiciary Act of 1789, which established a US Supreme Court as the leading court of the third tier of the government, the judicial branch. Needing to fill six seats on the court—a chief justice and five associate justices—President George Washington, turned to John Jay as his first and only pick for the chief justice set. Washington wrote to his first

John Jay (1745–1829)751 nominee for chief justice, “In nominating you for the important station which you now fill, I not only acted in conformity to my best judgment, but I trust I did a grateful thing to the good citizens of these United States; and I have a full confidence that the love which you bear to our country, and a desire to promote the general happiness, will not suffer you to hesitate a moment to bring into action the talents, knowledge and integrity which are so necessary to be exercised at the head of that department which must be considered as the keystone of our political fabric.” [15] Richard B. Morris, one of the more recent of Jay biographers, wrote in 1988: John Jay was to be the first among equals—serving as Chief of a six-man Court comprising figures politically congenial—assuming the title of the first Chief Justice of the Supreme Court (although the President addressed him as Chief Justice of the United States) . . . [A]mong the Founding Fathers who shaped the destiny of the new nation, John Jay has not received adequate recognition for his seminal contributions as statesman and constitutional expositor. Circumstances have conspired to keep Jay out of the spotlight which has played on the central figures in the great constitutional drama: he did not attend the Constitutional Convention. Unlike other major figures of the time, save Franklin and Hamilton, he never became President (although he did obtain a number of electoral votes for that office.) Yet no one who did not serve in the presidency had the opportunity to distinguish himself in as many different high state and federal offices as Jay. Save for perhaps John Quincy Adams, no one else can claim to have been principal in the negotiation of two major treaties of the United States with foreign nations. [16] James Brown Scott wrote in 1906: The First Chief Justice of the United States will always hold a place apart among the jurists of this country, not- withstanding the fact that the details of his activity during his brief tenure are so meagre, if not fragmentary, that it is impossible to base upon them any just or satisfactory idea of his ability as a judge or his learning as a lawyer. The mere fact that the first president of the United States selected him as the fittest of all his fellows for the position, or rather that Washington offered him the choice of positions in the new government, is in itself proof positive of

the worth and character of the man; and the fact that Jay himself selected the Chief Justiceship as most in accord with his tastes and inclination would go far to establish his fitness for the position if other proofs were lacking. [17] Historian Natalie Wexler added, “John Jay himself underscored the experimental nature of the whole endeavor [of the US Supreme Court] in his first grand jury charge, delivered in April 1790, in which he exhorted his listeners to “patiently abide the Tryal” of the nation’s attempt at self-government.” [18] Today, the US Supreme Court is one of the most powerful entities in government; but in Jay’s time, and until the fourth chief justice, John Marshall, the Court was weak, because of a lack of precedent that it could utilize to decide cases, and the fact that it was housed in poor headquarters in New York City while at the same time the justices had to “ride circuit”—travel to the vast areas of the nation to sit on local courts—which sapped their strength as they rode through all kinds of weather. Jay stated on the court far longer than he wanted to: he resigned on 29 June 1795. He had wanted for a long time to go home to New York; so much so, that in 1792, despite sitting on the Court, he allowed his name to be used as the Federalist candidate for governor of New York, a race he lost to George Clinton after votes from several counties were tossed out for irregularities. On 19 April 1794, even though he was still on the court, Washington named Jay as the envoy extraordinary and minister plenipotentiary to Great Britain. Although he served for less than a year—he resigned this post on 8 April 1795—he traveled to Britain, but he also retained his court seat. In April 1795, his name again was placed before the people of New York for governor; he and his running-mate, Stephen Van Rensselaer, the Federalist candidates, defeated DemocraticRepublican candidates Robert Yates and William Floyd, 53.1% to 46.9%. Jay resigned from the court on 29 June 1795, and went to Albany, where he was sworn in as governor. During his term, which lasted until 1801, he was forced to deal with a horrific yellow fever outbreak, and he tangled with the legislature over various bills that he opposed. In 1796, wishing to express

752

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

his views on the French Revolution, he wrote to a friend, Robert G. Harper, that he always had “the utmost pleasure in the French Revolution, and the warmest wishes for its success.” He expressed a “strong dislike for the former arbitrary government of France,” and he felt that the revolution, even though it was violent, “put a period to it.” [19]

by Madison as a constitution-maker, by Washington as an executive, by Hamilton as a party leader, and by Marshall as a chief justice. Nevertheless, Jay contributed significantly in all of these areas, and he bore a great responsibility for the creation and survival of the United States. Above all, his qualities of intelligence, integrity, and cooperativeness at critical times of great emotional conflict helped institute the civility and compromise necessary for a democratic culture. [22]

In 1801, Jay refused renomination, as well as an appointment from President Thomas Jefferson as chief justice of the US Supreme Court. Instead, he retired to his farm at Bedford, near New York City. There, over the next nearly three decades, he kept out of the political scene. On 17 May 1829, Jay died at his home in Bedford at the age of 85. The Virginia Herald reported, “Just as our paper was going to press . . . we received the melancholy intelligence of the departure from this life of the venerable and illustrious John Jay—the author of the good old Constitution of this state—formerly Chief Justice of the United States, minister from the United States, both to England and to France, and subsequently governor of this State. He died yesterday, at his seat in Westchester County, about eighty-five years of age. The late hour at which we received this intelligence, leaves us no time to indulge our feelings this evening by an appropriate tribute to the character and virtues of the deceased.” [20] The New-York Spectator said of him, “The Committee respectfully report: That the recent decease of the late venerable John Jay, is the cause of deep grief, and the present engrossing subject of private and public feeling. John Jay was a native of our state, and a member of this Bar. The events of the American Revolution called him early into public life. His inherent love of political and religious liberty, made him an early and active agent in laying the foundation of this nation, of which he soon became one of the firmest, and continued one of its fairest pillars.” [21] Summing up his life and impact, historian Jerald A. Combs wrote: Despite John Jay’s contributions to revolutionary America, he has been overshadowed by his more illustrious compatriots. He was eclipsed by Adams as a revolutionary legislator, by Jefferson as an author of revolutionary justifications, by Franklin as a diplomat,

[1] Jay family tree, online at http://www.geni.com/people/ Chief-Justice-John-Jay-6th-Pres-Cont-Congress/ 6000000001034551008. [2] Jay, William, “Life of John Jay: With Selections From His Correspondence and Miscellaneous Papers. By His Son, William Jay. In Two Volumes” (New York: Printed and Published by J. & J. Harper; two volumes, 1833), I:1-3. [3] Pellew, George, “American Statesmen: John Jay” (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1895), 1-2. [4] “New-York, July 18,” The Pennsylvania Gazette [Philadelphia], 20 July 1774, 2. [5] “To the Respectable Public,” Postscript to the Pennsylvania Gazette, No. 2379, 27 July 1774, Supplement, 2. [6] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), I:liv. [7] John Jay to the New York Committee of Safety, 27 April 1776, in ibid., I:432. [8] Renwick, Henry B., ed., “Lives of John Jay and Alexander Hamilton” (New York: Harper & Brothers, 1841), 29. [9] Lewis, William Draper, “Great American Lawyers: The Lives and Influence of Judges and Lawyers Who Have Acquired Permanent National Reputation, and Have Developed the Jurisprudence of the United States: A History of the Legal Profession in America” (Philadelphia: The John C. Winston Company; two volumes, 1907), I:259. [10] John Jay to Benjamin Rush, 24 March 1785, in Landa M. Freeman, Louise V. North, and Janet M. Wedge, comps. and eds., “Selected Letters of John Jay and Sarah Livingston Jay” (Jefferson, NC: McFarland & Company, Inc., Publishers, 2005), 170-71. “Manumission” is the word describing the freeing of slaves by their owners. [11] Burnett, “Letters of Members,” op. cit., III:lvii; IV:lviii. [12] Burnett, Edmund Cody, “Perquisites of the President of the Continental Congress,” The American Historical Review, XXXV:1 (October 1929), 72. [13] Morris, Richard B., “The Jay Papers I: Mission To Spain,” American Heritage, XIX:2 (February 1968), 85. [14] Hunt, Gaillard, ed., “Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789. Edited from the Original Records in the Library of Congress by Worthington Chauncey Ford, Chief, Division of Manuscripts” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; 34 volumes, 1904-37), XXVI:354-55. [15] Washington to John Jay, undated, in William D. Mitchell, “The Supreme Court in Washington’s Time,” American Bar Association Journal, XVIII:5 (May 1932), 341-42. [16] Richard B. Morris, Paul Freund, and Herbert Wechsler, “Columbians as Chief Justice: John Jay, Charles Evans Hughes, and Harlan Fiske Stone,” The Supreme Court Historical Society Yearbook, 1988, 112-19.

Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826)753 [17] Scott, James Brown, “John Jay, First Chief Justice of the United States,” Columbia Law Review, VI:5 (May 1906), 289. See also Casto, William R., “The Supreme Court in the Early Republic: The Chief Justiceships of John Jay and Oliver Ellsworth” (Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press, 1995). [18] Wexler, Natalie, “In the Beginning: The First Three Chief Justices,” University of Pennsylvania Law Review, CLIV:6 (Symposium: The Chief Justice and the Institutional Judiciary) (June 2006), 1374. [19] “Address to Constituents,” undated, in “Select Works of Robert Goodloe Harper: Consisting of Speeches on Political and Forensic Subjects; With the Answer Drawn Up to Him to the Articles of Impeachment Against Judge Chase, and Sundry Political Tracts” (Baltimore: Published by O.H. Neilson, Market-Street; two volumes, 1814), I:15-16. [20] “Death of the Hon. John Jay,” The Virginia Herald [Fredericksburg], 23 May 1829, 3. [21] The New-York Spectator, 22 May 1829, 3. [22] Combs, Jerald A., “Jay, John” in John A. Garraty and Mark C. Carnes, gen. eds., “American National Biography” (New York: Oxford University Press; 24 volumes, 1999), 11:894.

Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826)

Considered as one of the most important figures in American history, Thomas Jefferson was the first secretary of state, the second vice president of the United States, and the third president of the United States. He also served as the second US minister to Paris in the years right after the American Revolution, the governor of

Virginia (1779-81), and he authored and signed the Declaration of Independence. The son of Peter Jefferson, a farmer, and his wife Jane (née Randolph) Jefferson, Thomas Jefferson was born at “Shadwell,” his family’s farm, on 13 April 1743. Until his death, his birth date was never released to the general public; in a letter written while president, he penned, “The only birth-day which I recognize, is that of my country’s liberties.” [1] Jefferson’s genealogy has been widely researched: His family had come from England, and his mother had been born there, to English parents. Historian B.L. Rayner wrote in 1834, “On the paternal side, Mr. Jefferson could number no titles to high or ancient lineage. His ancestors, however, were of solid respectability, and among the first settlers of Virginia. They emigrated to this country from Wales, and from near the mountain of Snowden. His grandfather was the first of whom we have any particular information. He had three sons: Thomas, who died young; Field, who resigned on the waters of the Roanoke, and left numerous descendants; and Peter, the father of the subject . . . who settled in Albemarle County, on the lands called Shadwell.” [2] Peter Jefferson, in addition to being a farmer, was a noted cartographer and surveyor in rural Virginia. In 1751 he and one Joshua Fry mapped the area, creating the Fry-Jefferson map of Virginia, which, for the first time, accurately documented the Allegheny Mountain range. Peter Jefferson died when his son Thomas was but 14, and while he left him an estate of some 5,000 acres of land in rural Virginia staffed with many slaves, the impact of the loss of his father was felt for the remainder of Jefferson’s life. Historian Fawn McKay Brodie wrote, “Like George Washington, whose father died when he was eleven, Jefferson lived all his life with memories of his father as a young and vigorous man, against whom he had never pitted his own strength. Jefferson’s father had died when he was fourteen, before he had come to terms with him as an equal in adulthood, before he could match his weight as giant against giant.” [3] In his autobiography, published in the 20th century, we find that in 1821 when he was 77,

754

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

he made “some memoranda and state some recollections of dates & facts concerning myself, for my own more ready reference & for the information of my family.” Although he discusses his father, he makes only short mention of his death, that “[h]e died Aug. 17. 1757, leaving my mother a widow who lived till 1776, with 6 daurs & 2 sons, myself the elder. To my younger brother he left his estate on [the] James River called Snowden after the supposed birthplace of the family. To myself [he left] the lands on which I was born & live.” [4]

a widow; together, the couple would have six children, only two of whom survived to adulthood. In 1774, when his wife’s father died, the couple received 135 slaves, among them Elizabeth Hemings. One of her daughters was Sally Hemings, who allegedly was the child of Martha Jefferson’s father. Sally Hemings would play a prominent role in Jefferson’s life. [7]

His father imported the absolute necessity of an education on Jefferson who was, a “hard student,” but also a voracious writer and reader. He received his initial education at the boarding school of the Reverend James Maury in Fredericksville Parish, located about 12 miles from his home at “Shadwell.” For a time, Jefferson stayed with the Maury family, and it was here that he began keeping a diary or taking copious notes, learning to write in Latin and Greek while he also studied English literature. After his father’s passing, he continued his education by enrolling in 1760 in The College of William and Mary in Williamsburg, Virginia, from where he graduated two years later. After studying the law under a former teacher at William & Mary, George Wythe, Jefferson was admitted to the Virginia colonial bar in 1769, but he had already begun practicing the law for some time in Albemarle and Augusta counties. During this time, in 1764, when he turned 21, he became of age, and inherited part of his father’s estate, land in excess of 2,750 acres in rural Virginia. In 1768, he began construction, near “Shadwell,” of his own estate, which he called “Monticello.” [5] Within a year, Jefferson entered the political arena, running for a seat in the colonial House of Burgesses, where he would serve from 1769 to 1776, representing Albemarle County. He sat alongside such notables as his cousin Peyton Randolph and Edmund Pendleton, both who served as mentors for the young Jefferson. [6] In 1770, Jefferson suffered a loss when his father’s home, “Shadwell,” burned to the ground, destroying most of Jefferson’s books and personal papers. That year, he moved permanently to “Monticello.” In January 1772, Jefferson married Martha Wayles Skelton,

In 1774, Jefferson published, under a pseudonym (of “a Native”), his landmark work “A Summary View of the Rights of British America.” In this work, he stated that the colonies should be independent entities, and that the British government had mistreated the colonists to such a degree that they had the right to break away if the harsh economic and punitive laws passed by Parliament were not repealed immediately. Jefferson penned: Resolved, that it be an instruction to the said deputies, when assembled in general congress with the deputies from the other states of British America, to propose to the said congress that an humble [sic] and dutiful address be preferred to his Majesty, begging leave to lay before him, as Chief Magistrate of the British empire, the united complaints of his Majesty’s subjects in America; complaints which are excited by many unwarrantable encroachments and usurpations, attempted to be made by the Legislature of one part of the empire, upon those rights which God and the laws have given equally and independently to all. To represent to his Majesty that these his states have often individually made humble application to his imperial throne to obtain, through its intervention, some redress of their injured rights, to none of which was ever even an answer condescended . . . [8] This work was in fact a draft of demands that Jefferson felt should be made when a meeting of delegates from all of the colonies met in September 1774 in Philadelphia. This would become the First Continental Congress. It was sent to London, where the British government dismissed these concerns. On 27 March 1775, the House of Burgesses elected Jefferson to the Second Continental Congress, to replace Peyton Randolph, who had served in the First Continental Congress as a delegate and as president of the body. Having returned to Virginia to retain his seat as the Speaker of the House of Burgesses, a replacement for Randolph was needed. Re-elected on 11 August 1775 and

Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826)755 20 June 1776, Jefferson served from 21 June to 31 July 1775, 2 October to 28 December 1775, 14 may to 4 July 1776, and then 5 July 1776 to 2 September 1776, when he resigned. [9] It is impossible to single out any one piece of correspondence that Jefferson alone wrote during this period or his entire life. Multiple volumes of his correspondence have been published since his death in 1826, and his life has been encapsulated in numerous biographies, the latest by famed historian Dumas Malone. During his relatively short Continental Congress service, Jefferson helped to draft the language of many documents, most notably the Declaration of Independence. Jefferson is most responsible for that singular document. Overall, Jefferson played an important role in the earliest debates of the Continental Congress. The Reverend Charles Goodrich wrote in 1842, “In this enlightened assembly, he soon became conspicuous among the most distinguished for their abilities and patriotism. He was appointed on various committees, towards the discharge of whose duties he contributed his full share. The cause of liberty lay near his heart, nor did he hesitate to incur all necessary hazards in maintaining and defending it.” [10] In the early part of 1776 the Continental Congress, faced with war with England, decided in committee to approve a “declaration” of independence from England. It was a heady move, coming from delegates with no arms and little in the way of funding, in the name of a nation that did not exist. A committee of several men, including Jefferson and Benjamin Franklin, were established to pen the declaration, but it was Thomas Jefferson who wrote most of the draft, while the others on the committee made suggestions and added and subtracted certain phrases and points. The initial document that Jefferson drafted was called “A Declaration of the Causes & Necessity for Taking Up Arms,” surely intended to give reasons for the war but not for any move towards independence. However, over the several weeks that he wrote, the “address” became a fullscale denunciation of the British, and stepped into that void that was independence. After all, there was no power behind such a declaration other than the words on a piece of parchment. He began by basing much of what became the

near-final document—before it was changed by the committee—on his “A Summary View of the Rights of British America,” and then expanded from there. Historian Robert Conrad wrote in 1846, “Eighteen months had passed away since the colonists had learned by the entrenchments at Boston, that a resort to arms was an event, not beyond the contemplation of the British ministry. Nearly a year had elapsed, since the fields of Concord and Lexington had been stained with hostile blood; during this interval, armies had been raised, vessels of war had been equipped, fortifications had been erected, gallant exploits had been performed, and eventful battles had been lost and won; yet still were the provinces bound to their British brethren, by the ties of a similar allegiance; still did they look upon themselves as members of the same empire, subjects of the same sovereign, and partners in the same constitution and laws.” [11] But that was all about to change. When Lord North, the British Prime Minister, sent word that he wished for reconciliation with the colonies based on London remaining in charge, Jefferson changed the “Declaration” to a “Draft of Continental Congress Resolutions on Lord North’s Conciliatory Proposal.” Benjamin Franklin, on the committee, added new language to this second draft document. However, seeing Franklin’s changes gave Jefferson the impetus to make a full-blown declaration of American independence. When the newly written declaration was delivered to the delegates on 2 July 1776, and printed widely two days later by John Dunlap, the American colonists took a step into the unknown: declaring the break of the ties between England and her colonies to be permanent once and for all. The introductory words of that famed document are: When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.” These words, in the preamble to the Declaration, have become some of the most famous in world history. The feelings of the delegates, of the colonists, could not

756

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

be said better—and Jefferson framed the argument right away, in such a way, that nearly 250 years later it is still one of the greatest documents conceived by the human mind. However, as historian Carl Lotus Becker stated, “Nevertheless, the primary purpose of the Declaration was not to declare independence, but to proclaim to the world the reasons for declaring independence. It was intended as a formal justification of an act already accomplished. [12]

are too many of that body to whom they may with better hopes confide this charge, to leave them under a moment’s difficulty in making a new choice. [14]

It appeared that Jefferson did not like spending time in Philadelphia or in the Continental Congress. Historian Lynn Montross wrote, “Thomas Jefferson also remembered to the end of his long life the bothersome horseflies that buzzed through the open windows from a nearby livery stable and hastened a vote on the issue: ‘Resolved, That these United Colonies are, and, of right, ought to be, Free and Independent States; that they are absolved from all allegiance to the British crown, and that all political connexion between them, and the state of Great Britain, is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.’” [13] As stated, once the Declaration was completed, and he felt his work in that body was done, he resigned his seat, to be replaced by Benjamin Harrison. With his leaving, the Continental Congress desired his continued service on behalf of the people. Thus, on 26 September 1776, the body appointed Jefferson as a commissioner to represent the United States in foreign lands, along with Benjamin Franklin and Silas Deane. On 11 October, however, Jefferson refused the offer, writing to the president of the Continental Congress, John Hancock: It would argue great insensibility in me, could I receive with indifference so confidential an appointment from your body. My thanks are a poor return for the partiality they have been pleased to ascertain for me. No cares for my own person, nor yet for my private affairs, would have induced one moment’s hesitation to accept the charge; but circumstances very peculiar in the situation of my family, such as neither permit me to leave nor to carry it, compel me to ask leave to decline a service so honourable, and, at the same time, so important to the American cause. The necessity under which I labour [sic], and the conflict I have undergone for three days, during which I could not determine to dismiss your messenger, will, I hope, plead my pardon with Congress; and I am sure there

At the time that he turned down this offer, Jefferson was sitting in the Virginia House of Representatives, where he sat with another young revolutionary, James Madison. The two men became close friends, and they began to write numerous ideas to each other, a relationship in which some 1,200 pieces of correspondence were exchanged. The following year, 1777, Jefferson began a similar correspondence with John Adams, with whom he had served in the Continental Congress. Jefferson remained in the Virginia House of Representatives until 1 June 1779, when he was elected as governor of that Commonwealth. Historians Amy and Jon Kukla wrote, “Although Jefferson was re-elected the next year, he discovered that his powers as governor were few. The governor could not veto legislation and his own laws had to be approved by the eight-man Council of State that was elected by the legislature as well. When the council made decisions, the governor could only cast a vote in the event of a tie. By the autumn of his second term, Governor Jefferson had grown tired of the office and was eager for his term to end.” [15] In June 1779, Jefferson submitted a proposal to the House of Representatives that included his “Statute for Religious Freedom,” one of the first proposed reforms of religious tests in the nation. In addition, the reforms include a new criminal code, one which called for the institution of capital punishment, and the establishment of a public school system for all children. Although only the abolition of primogeniture—the passing of land and estates from father to son—was initially enacted, seven years later the House eventually accepted the religious reforms as well. In late 1780, François Barbé de Marbois, the secretary to the French legation in Philadelphia, submitted a series of questions to all of the state governors in the United States, asking for specific information on their economy, their territory, etc. Jefferson sent not just mere answers, but he would turn his answers into a major work, “Notes on the State of Virginia” (1784). He used this title of a work “written in the year 1781, somewhat

Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826)757 corrected and enlarged in the winter of 1782, for the use of a Foreigner of distinction, in answer to certain queries proposed by him respecting 1. Its boundaries. 2. Rivers. 3. Sea ports. 4. Mountains. 5. Cascades and caverns. 6. Productions mineral, vegetable and animals. 7. Climate. 8. Population. 9. Military force. 10. Marine force. 11. Aborigines. 12. Counties and towns. 13. Constitution. 14. Laws. 15. Colleges, buildings, and roads. 16. Proceedings as to tories [sic]. 17. Religion. 18. Manners. 19. Manufactures. 20. Subjects of commerce. 21. Weights, Measures and Money. 22. Public revenue and expences [sic]. 23. Histories, memorials, and state-papers.” [16] One could say that Jefferson went slightly overboard, but one could also say that Jefferson exemplified the pride he had in his home state to take so much time documenting every conceivable portion of his state’s economy. In early 1781, as Jefferson was coming to the end of his second term as governor, the British invaded Virginia, sacking and burning the city of Richmond, and forcing the entire government to retreat before they could be captured. In June of that year, Jefferson’s term ended, but before he could hand over the reins of power to his successor, Thomas Nelson, Jr., the British again attacked Virginia, this time striking at Charlottesville, and forcing Jefferson and his family to evacuate “Monticello.” Even though the British had an opportunity to burn the estate, they did not, perhaps because Jefferson had ordered that captured British soldiers be treated humanely. Jefferson’s wife died the following September, after giving birth to her sixth child. Writing to a French friend, Chastellux Ampthill, on 26 November 1782, Jefferson, inconsolable, penned, “Your letter recalled to my memory that there were persons still living of much value to me. If you should have thought me remiss in not testifying to you sooner how deeply I had been impressed with your worth in the little time I had the happiness of being with you[,] you will I am sure ascribe it to it’s true cause the state of dreadful suspense in which I had been kept all the summer & the catastrophe which closed it.” [17] Two months later, in November 1782, the Continental Congress reappointed Jefferson as part of a four-man commission—including John Adams, Benjamin Franklin, and Henry

Laurens—to go to Paris and meet with representatives of the British and try to arrange a peace treaty to end the war. Although he intended to accept the appointment, he could not leave “Monticello” until December due to inclement weather, which caused him to be confined in Philadelphia. Unable to leave, on 1 April 1783 he had to withdraw from the commission. Then, on 6 June 1783, the Virginia House of Representatives again elected Jefferson to the Continental Congress, where he served on 4 November, from 13 to 31 December 1783, and 1 January to 3 May 1784. [18] In December 1783, Congress named Jefferson to a three-man committee (which included Elbridge Gerry and James McHenry) to style a ceremonial party where George Washington’s resignation from the Continental Army would be accepted. In this second tenure in the Continental Congress, one thing that Jefferson worked on was a plan for governing the “Western Territory,” those lands west of the land allocated to the 13 states. On 1 March 1784, Jefferson submitted “A Plan for the Government of the Western Territory,” which listed steps in which these territories would be allowed to enter the American Union as states. Having been on the record of being against slavery, one point of his plan was that slavery would be outlawed in these new states by 1800; however, in a Continental Congress where southern delegates had much influence, this part of the plan was voted down. Without this controversy portion, Congress enacted the Ordinance of 1784 on 23 April 1784. At the same time, Jefferson also worked on the issue of the coinage of money. In March 1784, he submitted a plan to the Continental Congress that changed the system of money, based on the English pound, with an American currency based on 1/100ths of a dollar, based on the Spanish model. His report, “Notes on the Establisment [sic] of a Money Unit” was published in France in 1784 by an unknown publisher. In this paper, Jefferson wrote, “In fixing the Unit of Money, these circumstances are of principal importance. I. They it be of convenient size to be applied as a measure to the common money transactions of life. II. That its parts and multiples be in an east proportion to each other, so as to facilitate the money aristocratic. III. That the unit and

758

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

its parts or divisions be so nearly of the value of some of the known coins, as that they may be easy adoption for the people.” [19]

which of all I had never contemplated, I the least Expected.” During his tenure, which lasted until December 1793, he formed the first stirrings of American diplomacy, handling the reaction of the new government to the revolution in France, and disagreeing with his former friend, vice president John Adams, on policy. When the French revolutionary government sent Edmond Genet as their new minister to the United States in April 1793, Jefferson argued that acceptance of him would imply American acceptance of the mass murders of the upper classes being carried out in France. Ironically, before anyone could call for Genet’s replacement, the new revolutionary government in Paris fell, and Genet was considered persona non grata in that country, and he was forced to take refuge in America and request asylum, which was granted. In December 1793, Jefferson returned home to Virginia, where he wrote to Washington, resigning his office effective 31 December.

On 7 May 1784, the Continental Congress appointed Jefferson as a minister plenipotentiary, to serve with John Adams and Benjamin Franklin to travel to Europe to negotiate treaties of commerce with the various European powers. Jefferson sailed for Europe on 5 July, accompanied by his daughter, Martha, William Short, who was his secretary, and James Hemings, his slave. When he arrived in Paris, Jefferson spent several months getting acclimated to the new city. He also got to work. The following April, he and Adams negotiated a loan from the Dutch to help American finances. Historian R.B. Bernstein wrote, “Fortunately, he liked and respected his fellow negotiators; he was an effective balance between the urbane Franklin and the prickly, suspicious Adams, who disliked each other but agreed on their esteem for Jefferson.” [20] On 17 May 1785, Benjamin Franklin resigned as the US minister to France, and Jefferson succeeded him until the Continental Congress could name a permanent minister. On 12 October 1787, the Congress made Jefferson the permanent minister, and he served until 26 September 1789. He would see the opening shots of the French Revolution before he departed. He was in France during the Constitutional Convention; he did not participate in any way in the framing of the Constitution, or its ultimate ratification. Under the Constitution, however, a new Executive branch of the central government was established, and, in 1788, General George Washington was elected as the first president of the United States. He quickly named Thomas Jefferson as his secretary of state; the US Senate confirmed his nomination on 26 September 1789, and William Short, his secretary, was confirmed as his replacement as minister plenipotentiary. On 28 September 1789, Jefferson left France, but he did not learn of his nomination and confirmation until he arrived in Virginia on 23 November. He waited until February 1790 to accept the post, but he moved to New York to take up his new duties, which he assumed the following month. Of New York, a city he had never seen before, he wrote, “Here, certainly, I found a state of things

For the next several years, Jefferson remained in private life at his home in “Monticello.” Then, in 1796, he was nominated for president; coming in second in electoral votes behind John Adams, Thomas Jefferson became the second vice president in American history. His term last but four years, marked notably with a falling out with his former friend, Adams, again over policy. In 1800, he was nominated for president of the United States once more; a tie between him and Aaron Burr of New York threw the election into the US House of Representatives, where Jefferson was elected as the third president on 17 February 1801. He served two terms as president, from 4 March 1801 to 4 March 1809. What stands out, however, is his negotiations for territory in what is now the central United States, bargaining with Napoleon of France for the Louisiana Territory for $15 million dollars and doubling the land mass of the United States in one fell swoop. In 1801, after years of attacks from pirates in northern Africa, Jefferson went to war with the Barbary States, a conflict that lasted until 1805. Growing anger with England over shipping and the impressment, or capture, of American sailors off ships forced the enactment of the Embargo Act of 1807, which ended British commerce to England but also harmed American merchants, weakening the American economy to such an extent that it was ill-prepared to fight

Thomas Jefferson (1743–1826)759 the War of 1812 with England. Overall, however, historians give Jefferson a positive mark for his two terms as president. Following the sacking of Washington by the British during the War of 1812, the Library of Congress, the early repository of the nation’s literature, was burned, and its entire collection destroyed. Congress, in an attempt to restart this important national resource, passed an act in 1815 that purchased some 6,000 volumes from Jefferson to restart the library. Luther Evans of the Library of Congress wrote in 1952, “At the time of purchase the Jefferson library, certainly the finest collection in private hands in the United States, comprised more than six thousand volumes; today, unfortunately, as a result of fire and the inescapable forfeits of time only approximately a third of the collection survives.” [21] In this collection, which is now a major part of the Rare Books Division of the library, are first editions of rare works, including Bibles, and even some of the earliest copies of the Q’uran published in the United States. A 1952 work, in four volumes, gives a breakdown by subject of the original 6,000 volumes. From his retirement in 1809 until his death, Thomas Jefferson became the nation’s leading statesman. He eventually made up with his former friend John Adams, and their correspondence, numerous letters between the two patriots, have become important reading for two centuries. In 1810, free of the strictures of public life, he wrote to a friend, “My mornings are devoted to correspondence. From breakfast to dinner [in the afternoon], I am in my shops, my garden, or on horseback among my farms; from dinner to dark, I give to society and recreation with neighbors and friends; and from candle light to early bed-time, I read.” On 24 June 1826, as the 50th anniversary of the signing of the Declaration of Independence approached, Jefferson was invited to Washington, DC to celebrate the semicentennial. In what would become the last letter that he penned, Jefferson wrote, “The King invitation I received from you, on the part of the citizens of the City of Washington, to be present with them at their celebration of the fiftieth Anniversary of American Independence, as one of the surviving signers of an instrument, pregnant with our

own and the fate of the world, is most flattering to myself, and heightened by the honourable accompaniment proposed for the comfort of such a journey. It adds sensibly to the sufferings of sickness, to be deprived by it of a personal participation in the rejoicings of that day . . . ” [22] Less than two weeks later, on that celebrated date of 4 July, Jefferson was dead at the age of 83. In Massachusetts, John Adams, who would die later that day, realized that his time was short, said, in his last words, “Jefferson lives.” He was unaware that the man he had been friends with again since 1812 had already passed away. The nation memorialized the deceased Jefferson. The Baltimore Chronicle of Maryland, in large, bold type, heralded, “Thomas Jefferson is No More!” The U.S. Telegraph of Washington, DC, said, “The melancholy intelligence of the death of Thomas Jefferson is confirmed. The patriot, the sage, the friend of liberty, the author of the declaration of the country’s independence, has been called to that undiscovered country from whose bourne no traveller [sic] e’er returns.” [23] The Daily National Intelligencer of Washington, D.C., said in an editorial: The demise of the venerable Jefferson might, in the course of nature, so reasonably have been expected before long to have happened, that the event in itself would have occasioned much less veneration, had it not been connected with peculiar circumstances. When we consider that few of his fellow-citizens had any previous notice of his indisposition that, when the news suddenly met them they had just completed the celebration of the anniversary of a great drama, in which he was the principal actor; that, in many places, and especially this city, he expired at the very instant when the tongue of the Orator was pronouncing his eulogy—a coincidence hardly to be considered fortuitous—it is not to be wondered that the public feeling was greatly moved by the event. [24] Jefferson was buried in the family graveyard at “Monticello.” An obelisk placed next to his grave reads, “Here was buried Thomas Jefferson, Author of the Declaration of Independence of the Statute of Virginia for Religious Freedom and Father of the University of Virginia.” In a collection of Jefferson’s writings, issued in 20 volumes in 1903 and 1904, it was noted, “To

760

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

comprehend Jefferson in any literal sense seems well-nigh impossible. It would seem to require more than Jeffersonian grasp and span to confine within one mental concept the whole of this universal man. Approach him from any side and ever new manifestations of power unfathomed, perhaps even unsuspected, reveal themselves. Today no political platform or declaration of principles excludes him; none can entirely include him, for he looms larger than all of them. The history of education is incomplete without the story of his achievements; no theory of instruction can ignore his principles; no schedule of educational progress can omit his unfulfilled plans and purposes.” [25]

[16] Jefferson, Thomas, “Notes on the State of Virginia: Written in the year 1781” (Paris: Privately Published, 1784), 2. [17] Jefferson to Chastellux Ampthill, 26 November 1782, in ­Holmes, Jerry, “Thomas Jefferson: A Chronology of His Thoughts” (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 2002), 49. [18] Burnett, “Letters of Members,” op. cit., VII:lxvii. [19] Jefferson, Thomas, “Notes on the Establisment [sic] of a Money Unit, and of a Coinage for the United States” (Paris: Privately Published, 1784). [20] Bernstein, R.B., “Thomas Jefferson: The Revolution of Ideas” (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2004), 74. [21] Sowerby, E. Millicent, comp., “Catalogue of the Library of Thomas Jefferson” (Washington, DC: Library of Congress; four volumes, 1952), I:vii. [22] “The Last Letter of the Illustrious Statesman, Thomas Jefferson, Esq. Author of the Declaration of Independence: Being his Answer to an Invitation to Join the Citizens of Washington in Celebrating the Fiftieth Anniversary of American Independence, Monticello, June 24, 1826” (New York [?]: Privately Published, 1826). [23] U.S. Telegraph [Washington, DC], 7 July 1826, 2. [24] Daily National Intelligencer [Washington, DC], 8 July 1826, 2. [25] Lipscomb, Andrew A., ed.-in-chief, “The Writings of Thomas Jefferson. Library edition, Containing his Autobiography, Notes on Virginia, Parliamentary Manual, Official Papers, Messages and Addresses, and Other Writings, Official and Private, Now Collected and Published in Their Entirety for the First Time, Including All of the Original Manuscripts, Deposited in the Department of State and Published in 1853 by Order of the Joint Committee of Congress; with Numerous Illustrations and a Comprehensive Analytical Index” (Washington, DC: Issued Under the Auspices of the Thomas Jefferson Memorial Association of the United States; 20 volumes, 1903-04), XX:iii.

[1] Rayner, B.L., “Sketches of the Life, Writings and Opinions of Thomas Jefferson. With Selections of the Most Valuable Portions of his Voluminous and Unrivalled Correspondence” (New York: Published by A. Francis and W. Boardman, 1832), 18. [2] Rayner, B.L., “Life of Thomas Jefferson, With Reflection From the Most Valuable Portions of His Voluminous and Unrivaled Private Correspondence” (Boston: Lilly, Wait, Colman, & Holten, 1834), 22. [3] Brodie, Fawn McKay, “Thomas Jefferson: An Intimate History” (New York: W.W. Norton & Company, Inc., 1974), 33. [4] “Autobiography of Thomas Jefferson, 1743-1790. Together with a Summary of the Chief Events in Jefferson’s Life. An Introduction and Notes by Paul Leicester Ford, and a Foreword by George Haven Putnam” (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1914), 4-5. [5] Peterson, Merrill D., ed., “The Portable Thomas Jefferson” (New York: Penguin Books, 1977), iii. [6] See John Pendleton Kennedy, ed., “Journals of the House of Burgesses of Virginia, 1773-1776. Including the Records of the Committee of Correspondence” (Richmond, VA: Ed. Waddey, 1905), xii. [7] Bober, Natalie S., “Thomas Jefferson: Draftsman of a Nation” (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2007), 45-50. [8] “A Summary View of the Rights of British America. Set Forth in Some Resolutions Intended for the Inspection of the Present Delegates of the People of Virginia, now in Convention. By a Native, and Member of the House of Burgesses” (Philadelphia: Williamsburg: Printed: Philadelphia: Re-printed by John Dunlap, 1774), 3. [9] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), I:lxv; II:lxx. [10] Goodrich, The Rev. Charles A., “Lives of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence” (Hartford, CT: R.G.H. Huntington, 1842), 386. [11] Conrad, Robert T., ed., “Sanderson’s Biography of the Signers to the Declaration of Independence” (Philadelphia: Thomas, Cowperthwait & Co., 1846), 567. [12] Becker, Carl Lotus, “The Declaration of Independence: A Study in the History of Political Ideas” (New York: Harcourt, Brace and Company, 1922), 5. [13] Montross, Lynn, “The Reluctant Rebels: The Story of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789” (New York: Harper’s, 1950), 3. [14] Thomas Jefferson to John Hancock, 11 October 1776, in Mapp, Alf J., Jr., “Thomas Jefferson: America’s Paradoxical Patriot” (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers, Inc., 1987), 120. [15] Kukla, Amy, and Jon Kukla, “Thomas Jefferson: Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness” (New York: The Rosen Publishing Group, Inc., 2005), 43.

Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer (1723–1790)

A major force in Maryland politics, Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer is remembered more

Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer (1723–1790) 761 for signing the US Constitution than for his service in the Continental Congress (1779-81). A significant landowner, Jenifer was one of eight Marylanders who signed the Declaration of Independence. Noted as being “the son of a colonial planter of Swedish and English descent,” he was born at his family estate, “Coates Retirement” (now called “Ellerslie”), near Port Tobacco, in Charles County, Maryland in 1723, the son of Dr. Daniel Jenifer, a surgeon, and Elizabeth (née Hanson) Jenifer. [1] Dr. Jenifer died when his son was about six years of age, while his wife, who was already a widow from her first husband, then remarried twice more before her own death. She was a sister of John Hanson, who, like her son, would serve in the Continental Congress. There is no evidence that “Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer” was his given name at birth; some historians state that he took it to differentiate himself from relatives with the same name. Dr. Jenifer was called a “chirurgeon”—a more ancient name for a surgeon, the word coming from the Latin for “surgery.” From the Jenifer genealogy, we find that the family originated in Cornwall, England. Of Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer’s mother, her parents were from Huntingdon, Huntingdonshire England, and emigrated to Maryland, where their daughter was born. After her second husband’s death, Elizabeth Jenifer remarried twice: to John Theobalds and Robert Whythill, both of whom served as a stepfather to her son Daniel. [2] Historian Ronald Hoffman reports that Jenifer was “[a] fourth-generation native known to his contemporaries as ‘the Major.’” [3] He inherited large tracts of land upon his father’s death and was definitely well-educated, having a large library of books both in English and French. In fact, when he died, “Jenifer bequeathed all of his books in French to his friend, James Madison, and the rest of his library to his nephew, Michael Jenifer Stone.” [4] Utilizing his father’s wealth, Jenifer purchased his own estate, “Stepney,” in Charles County, Maryland. As a profession, he served as an agent and receiver-general for two landowners in Maryland, but this appears to be his only private service: the remainder was devoted to the public. His first public sector position appears to have been as a justice of the

peace for Charles County, and, at some point, he was given the post for the entire western circuit of the Maryland colony. He also served on a commission dealing with a boundary dispute between Maryland, Delaware, and Pennsylvania. In 1766, he was named as a member of the Maryland Provincial Court, and in 1773 until the start of the American Revolution he served as a member of the Governor’s Council, an advisory group. [5] Almost from the start of revolt against British rule, Jenifer was at the service of the patriot cause. In 1775 we find an announcement that “[a]t a meeting of the Delegates of the province of Maryland, which was convened at Annapolis, 25 July 1775, and continued till the 14th of August 1775, it was, Resolved, That the Honorable Matthew Tilghman and John Beale Bordley, Esqs., and Robert Goldsborough, James Hollyday, Richard Lloyd, Edward Lloyd, Thomas Smyth, and Henry Hooper, Esqrs., residents of the Eastern Shore, and the Honorable Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer, Esq., and Thomas Johnson, Jun., William Paca, Charles Carroll, barrister [sic], Thomas Stone, Samuel Chase, Robert Alexander, and Charles Carroll, of Carrollton, Esqr., residents of the Western Short, or any nine of more of them, be a council of safety for this province.” [6] A broadside, printed in Maryland in 1775, listed the names of the men who attended a conference of delegates which met in Annapolis from 26 July to 14 August 1775: representing Charles County was simply listed “Daniel Jenifer.” [7] Jenifer remained as a member of the Maryland Council of Safety until 1777. The following year, The Pennsylvania Packet of Philadelphia reported on 19 November 1778 that “[w]e hear from Annapolis, that George Plater, William Paca, William Carmichael, ____ [James] Henry, James Forbes, and Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer, Esquirers, are chosen Representatives of Congress for the State of Maryland.” [8] We confirm this date from historian Edmund Cody Burnett, who gives the date of election to his seat in the Continental Congress as 13 November 1778. Reelected on 7 April 1780 and 3 February 1781, he attended sessions of the body from 27 April to 3 July 1779, 14 September to 30 October 1779, from 2 to about 6 June 1780, and from about 21 September to about 26 September

762

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

1780. Although elected to sit in the Congress in 1781, he never did. [9]

to a decision. If Gouverneur Morris summed up procedures in Philadelphia as slow, Ezekiel Cornell provided a more elaborate description of the legislative process: ‘Congress perhaps three months in passing a recommendation to the states, three months more in adopting it and then the sloth there is in some of the states in executing them.’ [Cornelius] Harnett asserted that at times Congress completed more work in three hours than it completed at other times in three days. Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer was sure that if the delegates thought more and talked less congressional business would be conducted more efficiently. Arguments over points of order frequently wasted valuable time.” [13] By 1781, the issues that Jenifer had been writing about were coming to a head—namely, the inability under the Articles of Confederation to get anything done through the nearly impotent central government. That year, he wrote to one John Hall, “Our affairs are in a most wretched situation. Congress is at its wits End—everything [is] at a stand and unless the French fleet and army arrive very soon, we shall in all probability be in the most deplorable situation. The navigation of the Mississippi has prevented us from procuring supplies from Spain, Congress have relaxed & made this point in the Ultimatum negotiable, but too late for any supplies for this Campaign. The Emperor has defered his Mediation, I fear that there is too good an understanding [sic] between the Courts of Vienna & London.” [14]

Numerous pieces of correspondence from the period of Jenifer’s service are extant. One theme that runs through his letters is the utter frustration the delegates had with getting any substantive work completed. In a missive to Thomas Johnson, Jr., the governor of Maryland, he wrote on 9 May 1779: If we talked, less, and thought more than we do in Congress, our business in my opinion would be better conducted. I wish with all my heart that we had an Executive; and agree with you in opinion that the want of it, is a strong reason for entering into some kind of confederation or other. But it has always hurt me, to think of confederating on terms that would not be lasting. I believe that Congress are now more disposed to explain the Confederation than it was some time ago. The necessity of its being done has opened the Eyes of some of the Congress. But at present Business of greater importance takes up all our time. God grant us Wisdom to determine with that Judgment and precision w’ch [which] the grand object requires, we should do. [10] He followed this complaint with another, in another letter to Johnson, this time on 24 May 1779: “Congress have but 602 stand of Arms at this place and those not fit for immediate use. The board of War is directed to get them repaired and to deliver them to our Order it will take some days before this can be done but you may depend they shall be forwarded with all possible dispatch. The Americans are the most supine people in the Universe, they seldom see danger till it is past if we are not roused from our Lethargy we shall be undone.” [11] Payments to soldiers were notoriously late, threatening the entire structure of the Continental Army and the cause; as he later told Johnson, “Some method must be taken to satisfy our Army, it’s impossible for us to keep it together much longer, unless the Depreciation of the Money is made up to the Officers. Connecticut has promised their Troops that it shall be done, but partial promises hurt the Cause more than they help it. [12] This was not a minor argument; as historian Arnold Pavlovsky explained, “In 1779, Elias Boudinot wrote: ‘[I]t is an uphill cause to get anything done here’; and John Armstrong claimed that for three months Congress debated the same measures without coming

While in the Continental Congress, Jenifer took an interest in the financial health and stability of the new country. This remained a going concern for him even after he left that body. At some point between 31 May and 7 June 1782, Jenifer wrote to Robert Morris: The Deranged situation of every Branch of the Public Revenue of this State, has been such, as prevented me the pleasure which I intended myself of seeing you in Philada. before this time. Every day brings with it an increase of Difficulties. The pressing demands made by Officers and Soldiers of the Maryland Line for pay and Cloathing [sic]—the Defence of the Bay— the Cries of one hundred Invalids (and another 100 daily Expected) who cannot be prevailed on to repair to the Continental Hospital—the Expences of Civil Government—the Clamorous and loud Complaints of the States Creditors for their Monies, long since due— and added to all these—the great and unreasonable Quota required of this State by Congress, and not the

Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer (1723–1790) 763 smallest prospect of a Remittance being made into the Continental Treasury, until Specifics can be turned into Specie, and this must be done at such great loss, as to leave the product small indeed . . . [15]

to join with them in considering such alterations and further provisions as may be necessary to render the federal constitution adequate to the exigencies of the union . . .” [18]

News from Philadelphia regarding the events in the Continental Congress was reported in newspapers in June 1784. One paper stated, “We are informed that the Committee of the States have appointed Saturday the 26th of June, for their first meeting at Annapolis, that city being fixed upon by the committee as the place of their deliberation. On the 28th ult.[imo], an ordinance for putting the department of finance into commission was read a third time, and passed in congress; and on the third instant congress proceeded to the election of three commissioners, to be stiled [sic] the board of treasury when the hon. Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer, of Maryland, the hon. Oliver Ellsworth, of Connecticut, and the hon. _____ [William] Denning, of New York, were duly elected. They are not to enter on the business of their appointment before the tenth of November next.” [16]

Jenifer attended numerous sessions of the convention, although it appears that he did not participate in debates. Joseph C. Morton wrote, “He was portrayed, by fellow convention delegate William Pierce as a gentleman who ‘is always in good humour, and never fails to make his company please with him.’ . . . After noting that ‘Mr. Jenifer is a Gentleman of fortune in Maryland’ and that he was affable, was always in good humor, and apparently worked to be pleasing and well-mannered to all he encountered, Pierce continued rather critically to write ‘He sits silent in the Senate, and seems to be conscious that he is no politician. From his long continuance in single life, no doubt but he had made the vow of celibacy. He speaks warmly of the Ladies notwithstanding.” [19] Historian John R. Vile added, “Jenifer’s best-known position at the Convention may have been his first. On 12 June [1787], he was recorded as favoring a three-year term for members of the US House of Representatives, motion that Virginia’s James Madison seconded. Jenifer had favored a threeyear term in preference to terms of one or two years on the basis that ‘too great frequency of elections rendered the people indifferent to them, and made the best men unwilling to engage in so precarious a service.’” [20] In the final document, signed in September 1787, Jenifer, along with James McHenry and “Daniel Carrol” [sic] signed on behalf of the state of Maryland. [21]

From 31 March 1785 to 1 May 1787, Jenifer served as the Intendant of Revenue and the financial agent for the state of Maryland. His letterbooks, now in the Library of Congress, document his clear record-keeping of accounts, of letters he received and sent, and other matters. [17] During his time in the Continental Congress, Jenifer was a staunch critic of the way the Articles of Confederation delegated powers, both to the federal government and to the states, which left the central government weak and unable to properly function. By late 1786 and early 1787, there were clarion calls from many states to hold a convention, of delegates from each state, to reform the moribund Articles. This parley met in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787. In the records of the state of Maryland we find “an act for the appointment of, and conferring powers to deputies from this State to the Federal Convention.” The document reads, “[b]e it enacted by the general assembly of Maryland, That the honorable James M’Henry, Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer, Daniel Carroll, John Francis Mercer, and Luther Martin, esqrs. be appointed and authorized on behalf of this state, to meet such deputies as may be appointed and authorized by any other of the United States, to assemble in convention at Philadelphia, for the purpose of revising the federal system, and

Back in Maryland, as he had been in Philadelphia, Jenifer was one who called on the state to ratify the document. Historian L. Marx Renzulli wrote, “Federalists, on the hand, threw their wholehearted support in favor of the proposed Constitution in its entirety. This group was composed of those conservatives in the state government who had so recently thwarted the debtor faction in their demand for cheap money, and it counted in its ranks such notables as Charles and Daniel Carroll, James McHenry, Thomas Johnson, Edward Lloyd, George Plater, Robert Goldsborough, Thomas Sim Lee, Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer, and Alexander Contee Hanson.” [22] Historian Bernard Steiner, documenting the support the document had as it moved towards potential ratification, stated:

764

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

When Maryland had decided firmly for the Constitution, Washington’s last doubt as to its success was removed. He wrote Gouverneur Morris of the situation in Virginia: “I have not at any moment despaired of this State’s acceptance of the new Constitution, since the ratification of Maryland by so large and decided a majority.” To Benjamin Lincoln he expressed the opinion that Maryland’s decision would tend to fix in favor of the Constitution many before undecided and even reluctant delegates who depended on Maryland’s decision to confirm their opinion. It has been “strongly insisted upon by the opponents in the lower and back counties,” in Virginia, that “Maryland would reject it by a large majority,” but this claim had proven false. In his joy, Washington said to Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer: “Seven affirmative without a negative would almost convert the unerring (sic) sister. The fiat of your convention will most assuredly raise the edifice.” [23]

[2] Unfortunately, there is little in the way of scholarship regarding Jenifer’s genealogy. The closest to an actual source is “Jenifer, Daniel of St. Thomas” in Edward C. Papenfuse, Alan F. Day, David W. Jordan, and Gregory A. Stiverson, eds., “A Biographical Dictionary of the Maryland Legislature, 1635-1789” (Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins University Press; two volumes, 1979), 485. [3] Hoffman, Ronald, “Jenifer, Daniel of St. Thomas” in John A. Garraty and Mark C. Carnes, gen. eds., “American National Biography” (New York: Oxford University Press; 24 volumes, 1999), XI:931. [4] “Jenifer, Daniel of St. Thomas,” in Papenfuse, op. cit., 485. [5] Williams, Mary Wilhelmine, “Jenifer, Daniel of St. Thomas,” in Allen Johnson, et al., “Dictionary of American Biography” (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons; eleven volumes and five supplements, 1958-77), DAB, X:42-43. [6] Hanson, George A., “Old Kent: The Eastern Shore of Maryland; Notes Illustrative of The Most Ancient Records of Kent County, Maryland, and of the Parishes of St. Paul’s, Shrewsbury and I.U. and Genealogical Histories of Old and Distinguished Families of Maryland, and Their Connections by Marriage, &c. With an Introduction, by George A. Hanson” (Baltimore: John P. Des Forges, 1876), 147. For the particulars of the convention that named this group, as well as the official announcement itself, see Maryland, Convention of, “Proceedings of the Convention of the province of Maryland, held at the city of Annapolis, on Thursday the seventh of December, 1775” (Annapolis : Printed by Frederick Green, 1775? 1776?), 61. [7] Maryland, Convention of, “At a Meeting of the Delegates Appointed by the Several Counties of the Province of Maryland, at the City of Annapolis, on Wednesday the 26th Day of July, and Continued till the 14th Day of August, in the Same Year, Were Present . . . ” (Annapolis: Printed by Frederick Green, 1775). [8] The Pennsylvania Packet [Philadelphia], 19 November 1778, 2. [9] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), IV:lii; V:lvii. [10] Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer to Thomas Johnson, Jr., 9 May 1779, in ibid., IV:203. [11] Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer to Thomas Johnson, Jr., 24 May 1779, in ibid., IV:232. [12] Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer to Thomas Johnson, Jr., 1 June 1779, in ibid., IV:245. [13] Pavlovsky, Arnold M., “‘Between Hawk and Buzzard’: Congress as Perceived by Its Members, 1775-1783,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, CI:3 (July 1977), 354. [14] Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer to John Hall, 15 May 1781, in “Letters of Some Members of the Old Congress,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, XXIX:2 (1905), 189. [15] Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer to Robert Morris, 31 May-7 June 1782, in Ferguson, E. James, ed., “The Papers of Robert Morris, 1781-1784” (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press; nine volumes, 1973- ), IV:306. [16] The Pennsylvania Evening Post, 11 June 1784. There is a mystery here—William Denning, announced as being named to this committee of finance, was never elected as a delegate to the Continental Congress. He later served in the US House of Representatives (1809-11), but the question is why he was part of these discussion at all. For an additional copy of this specific announcement, see The Connecticut Gazette, 25 June 1784, 2. [17] See Maryland Intendant of Revenue Papers, in the “Peter Force Papers, Other Collections, 1632-1873,” Series VII, No. 50, Container 95, Library of Congress. [18] “Journals of the American Congress: From 1774 to 1788. In Four Volumes. Volume IV: From April 1, 1782, to November 1, 1788, inclusive. Also, the Journal of the Committee of the States, from the 1st Friday in June, to the 1st Friday in August 1784. With

When not working, Jenifer spent much of his life at his estate, “Retreat,” located near Port Tobacco in Charles County; however, from about 1784 until his death he lived on his 800acre plantation, “Stepney,” located near the South Rover, approximately four miles from Annapolis. [24] Jenifer never married. He died in Annapolis, in Anne Arundel County, Maryland, on 16 November 1790. One newspaper said, “A man so well known and distinguished by his country, that an eulogium on his character is alto unnecessary. We cannot, however, forbear to express our regret at the loss which the community at large, as well as his partisan acquaintance, friends, and connexions [sic], have sustained by the death of this accomplished Gentleman, citizen and friend. In an eminent degree he possessed every useful and social virtue. The many important offices which he held under the former and present government were discharged with the highest reputation; and his benevolence, disinterestness, patriotism, and attachment to the rights of man, were conspicuous the whole course of a long, active and wellspent [sic] life.” [25] He is thought to be buried on his estate, “Ellerslie.”

[1] Wright, Robert K., Jr.; and Morris J. MacGregor, Jr., “SoldierStatesmen of the Constitution” (Washington, DC: United States Army, Center of Military History, 2007), 160-61.

Thomas Johnson (1731–1819)765 an Appendix” (Washington, DC: Printed and Published by Way and Gideon; four volumes, 1823), 33. [19] Morton, Joseph C., “Shapers of the Great Debate at the Constitutional Convention of 1787: A Biographical Dictionary” (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2006), 150, 152. [20] Vile, John R., “The Constitutional Convention of 1787: A Comprehensive Encyclopedia of America’s Founding” (Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-Clio, 2005), 379. [21] United States, Continental Congress, “Journal of the United States in Congress Assembled: Containing the Proceedings from the Sixth Day of November, 1786, to the fifth day of November, 1787. Vol. XII. Published by Order of Congress” (New York: Privately Published, 1787), 162. [22] Renzulli, L. Marx, Jr., “Maryland: The Federalist Years” (Cranbury, NJ: Associated University Presses, Inc., 1972), 54-55. [23] Steiner, Bernard C., “Maryland’s Adoption of the Federal Constitution, [Part] I,” The American Historical Review, V:1 (October 1899), 23. [24] Papenfuse, op. cit., 486. [25] “Annapolis, November 18. Died, in This City,” The New-York Packet, 2 December 1790, 2.

Thomas Johnson (1731–1819)

Born near St. Leonard’s Creek in Calvert County, Maryland, on 4 November 1731, he was the son and fifth child of twelve of Thomas Johnson, a planter, and his wife Dorcas (née Sedgwick) Johnson. The family originated in England: historian Thomas Delaplaine wrote, “About the time of the ‘Glorious Revolution’ in England— when William of Orange appeared at the head of a Dutch Army to save England from [a] Tory régime, and King James II fled to France, after which William and Mary in 1689 jointly ascended to the throne—a vessel, commanded by Captain Roger Baker, clandestinely set sail for America. Among those on board were Mr. and Mrs. Thomas Johnson, a newly married couple. The groom was a young barrister of Norfolk County. He came from a splendid family, his ancestors having taken a prominent part for more than a century in the affairs of Yarmouth.” [1] When Johnson was young, his parents moved to Annapolis; there, he received his education at home, studied the law, and was admitted to the Maryland colonial bar after working in the colonial land office. In 1756, he was admitted to practice in the mayor’s court of Annapolis, rising to be allowed to appear before other courts by 1767. In 1766, Johnson married Anne Jennings, the daughter of his employer at the land office; the couple would have seven children, four daughters and three sons. [2] In 1762, Johnson was elected as a represent to the lower house of Maryland’s colonial General Assembly, representing Anne Arundel County, and he served in this position until 1774. During this time, as well as acting as an attorney, he invested in an iron furnace in western Maryland, and, with three of his brothers, opened an ironworks called the Catoctin Furnace near Frederick, Maryland. [3]

A native Marylander who rose to become an associate justice on the US Supreme Court (179193), Thomas Johnson was a longtime politician who served as a delegate to the Continental Congress (1774-76) and as the first governor of the state (1777-79). Offered the position of secretary of state by President John Adams in 1795, he declined.

In the late 1760s, as a series of harsh economic measures, including The Stamp Act and The Sugar Act, were applied by the British Parliament to the colonies, anger grew against the “Mother Country,” and Johnson was one of those who rapidly came to believe that something had to be done to assuage the growing rift between London and her colonies. Johnson served on a committee to examine the constitutional rights of Maryland citizens, and to offer guidance to the Stamp Act Congress, which met in New York in 1765 to voice opposition to that enactment. On 8 June

766

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

1768, in the Maryland General Assembly, “The order of the day being read, the house took into consideration the letter from the speaker of the house of representatives of the Massachusetts Bay; and Mr. speaker is requested to write a respectful answer in the name of the house, to the same. On reading the late acts of parliament imposing duties on the colonies for the sole purpose of raising a revenue; Unanimously Resolved, that a loyal, dutiful, and humble petition be prepared to be present to his Majesty, on the subject matter thereof: Ordered that Mr. Murdock, Mr. Johnson, Mr. Ringgold, Mr. Hall, Mr. Hollyday, Mr. M[.] Tilghman and Mr. Jennings, do prepare and bring in the same.” [4]

30 November 1775, and from about 7 May to sometime in May 1776. Historian Edmund Cody Burnett wrote:

From the first days of the decade of the 1770s, Thomas Johnson soon found himself on the side that advocated a break with England. On 13 October 1773, the Maryland assembly met and: [r]esolved, unanimously, That a standing Committee of Correspondence and Enquiry be appointed to consist of Eleven Persons, to wit. The Honourable Matthew Tilghman, Esq; Speaker, John Hall, Thomas Johnson, William Paca, Samuel Chase, Edward Lloyd, Matthias Hammond, Josias Beall, James Lloyd Chamberlaine, Brice Thomas Beale Worthington, and Joseph Sim, Esquires, any six of whom to be a Committee; whose Business is shall be to obtain the most early and authentick [sic] Intelligence of all such Acts and Resolutions of the British Parliament or Proceedings of Administration as may relate to, or affect the British Colonies in America, and to keep up and maintain a Correspondence and Communication with our Sister Colonies respecting these important Considerations, and the Result of such their Proceedings from Time to Time to lay before this House. [5] In mid-1774, calls were sent out for a “general meeting” of delegates from all of the colonies to meet in Philadelphia in early September of that same year. Sometime during the election for these seats, which occurred from 22 to 25 June 1774, Johnson was elected to the parley, along with Robert Goldsborough, William Paca, and several others. Johnson would be reelected during a similar convention held from 8 to 12 December 1774, on 14 August 1775, and 21 May 1776, and attend sessions of the body from 6 September to 26 October 1774, 10 May to 21 July 1775, from about 11 September to about

Johnson probably left Congress July 21, 1775, with the other Maryland delegates. He attended the Maryland convention, which met July 26, therefore his appointment on a committee July 3I was in his absence. He was probably one of the Maryland delegates who attended 11 September. He was at least present [on] 22 September. There is no record of his attendance between 6 October 1775 and 9 November (he signed the resolution of secrecy of that date; and the Journals record his attendance 10 November), and it is known that he met with the council of safety at Chester Town [on] 20 October He was appointed on a committee [on] 29 November, but was absent 2 December. He attended the Maryland convention, 7 December 1775, to 18 January 1776. His return to Congress was early in March. He probably left Congress early in May (he is last mentioned in the Journals [on] 26 April), for he attended the Maryland convention which met 8-25 May . . . ” [6] In his diary, Massachusetts delegate John Adams wrote, of him, “Johnson of Maryland, has a clear and cool head . . . He is a deliberating man, but not a shining orator; his passion and imagination do not appear enough for an orator; his reason and penetration appear, but not his rhetoric.” [7] Several pieces of correspondence from Johnson are extant, the first being notes that Johnson took of the meetings he attended, specifically on Benjamin Franklin’s plan for an articles of confederation, specifically a document binding all of the colonies as one national entity, on 21 July 1775: “[Articles 7 and 8.] The Delegates from each colony should be changed as the council is and I believe that if each colony had but one vote in the proposed manner of voting it would be a more equal government; but much may be said on this subject it requires consideration. [Article 9.] This council should consist of one from each colony . . . ” [8] In a letter to the Maryland Council of Safety, dated 17 April 1776, Johnson penned: Yesterday morning just before the Meeting of Congress the Letters from Balt[imore] which occasioned the Resolution of Yesterday came to the Hands of the President. By the same Express, and as

Thomas Johnson (1731–1819)767 I believe under the same Cover, came an Anonymous Letter referring to a copy therein inclosed [sic] from Genl Lee to Mr. Samuel Purviance. I saw and read the Copy which was in Purviance’s Hand Writing. Lee strongly urged the immediate seizing and securing of the Govr. After the Minutes of the preceding Day were read the President began reading the Anonymous Letter, but he had not proceeded far before he came to a part desiring that it might not be made known to the Congress but, as I think, to such only as the President might think proper to trust with the contents. The President hesitated, for he had not before read the Letter, and seemed desirous of running his Eye over it but on being desired to read out he did so. From the Enclosure above mentioned as well as many Expressions in the Letter and Mr. Purviances [sic] being the Hero of the Tale which was told in the first Person I had not the least doubt but that Purviance was the Author and Mr. Andrew Allen who saw the Letter and is acquainted with Purviances [sic] Handwriting says it was his. [9] In a letter to Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer, he explained, “Mr. Wallace and Mr. Green set off Tomorrow morning by one of them we intend to write you fully but as the post may possibly be in before these gent[lemen]. [W]e think it necessary to advise you that all your Deputies here from Maryland approve the Conduct of the Council of Safety and resolve to support it. The Letter to the President gave high Offence to some of the very hot Gent. No Resolution is yet formed on it-but probably will today. R. A. and T. S. join in Respects to you and yr Brethern [sic].” [10] In early 1775, Johnson, signing as “Thomas Johnson, jun.,” signed The Olive Branch Petition, a plea to the British monarch to try to heal the rifts between the two sides before something awful broke out. [11] On 15 June 1775, Johnson was asked to nominate George Washington, a Virginian, to be the commander-in-chief of the Continental Army. In January 1776, Johnson left the Continental Congress to serve as a Brigadier General in the Maryland colonial militia, and during the winter at the end of that year he was in command of troops sent to assist Washington during his retreat through the state of New Jersey. In Maryland, the General Assembly established an election to name a new governor, under statehood,

to run the state. In that election, Thomas Johnson was selected as the chief executive, the first statehood governor in the state’s history on 13 February 1777, gaining 40 votes of out 52, with the remainder going to Samuel Charles, Matthew Tilghman, George Plater, and William Paca. In the proceedings of the House of Delegates, we find the following: Several days after his inauguration, the Legislature considered what it termed “the proper mode of intercourse or communication with the governor.” The Committee appointed to report on the matter established guidelines for the relations of the legislature with the executive. “All affairs or matters of business which the governor may think fit to communicate or in which he would have the advice and direction of the legislature, and which, according to the constitution would properly fall under their deliberation ought to be addressed to the general assembly and laid first before the senate, except what relates to supplies, which ought to be laid before the house of delegates.” The Committee went on to insist “that all applications and addresses to the governor be made jointly, or separately, as occasions and circumstances may require; and when the governor would personally communicate any business to both houses, he may repair to the senate, who shall appoint two of their members to acquaint the house of delegates, that the governor requests their attendance in the senate house.” [12] One newspaper announced, “On Friday last, between the hours of twelve and one o’clock, His Excellency Thomas Johnson, Esq; governor of the state of Maryland, was proclaimed at the Statehouse, in the presence of a great number of people, who expressed the highest satisfaction on the occasion.” [13] Historian Edward Delaplaine explained, “In the summer of 1777, the British fleet under Admiral Howe sailed up the Chesapeake, creating consternation everywhere. Governor Johnson issued a proclamation, in which he called upon the people to lend their aid to repel any possible invasion of Maryland. ‘To defend our liberties requires our exertions,’ he declared. ‘Our wives, our children and our country implore our assistance: motives amply sufficient to arm every one who can be called a man.” Although new to the position as governor, Johnson spurred the people of Maryland on to

768

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

resist the invasion, and it eventually headed, for some reason, to Pennsylvania, invading that state instead. [14]

to move courts to hear certain cases, such as that in the case of one William Hayburn. In Georgia v. Brailsford (3 US 1 [1794]), a decision which came down after Johnson had left the court, the justices decided that the state of Georgia needed a specific injunction to seize British property to pay debts during the revolution. Johnson, in dissent, wrote that Georgia had a “right to the debt in question [which] may be enforced at common law.”

After his time as governor was over in 1779, Johnson moved to Frederick County, Maryland. In 1780, he was elected to the Maryland House of Delegates, the first of three such elections (the other two were in 1786 and 1787). In 1788, he served as a delegate to the Maryland ratifying convention to ratify the new US Constitution drafted the previous year in Philadelphia. In 1789, he was appointed by President George Washington as the first US judge for the district of Maryland, but he declined the honor; instead, in 1790, he was named as the chief judge of the general court of Maryland. An announcement in newspapers in February 1791 reported that “Hon. Thomas Johnson and Daniel Carroll, Esqrs. of Maryland, and Dr. ____ Stewart, of Alexandria, Virginia, are the Commissioners appointed, by the President of the United States, for running the lines of experiment defining the territories on the Potowmac [sic] to be located at the permanent seat of the government of the United States.” [15] We find another newspaper notice in September 1791 related that “Samuel Chase Esq. is chosen chief judge of the general court of the state of Maryland, in the room of Thomas Johnson, Esq. appointed [as] an associate judge of the supreme court of the U. States.” [16] Historian Timothy Hall wrote of Johnson and his short two-year tenure on the US Supreme Court: “Perhaps no justice ever came to a seat on the US Supreme Court more reluctantly than Maryland’s Thomas Johnson, and no justice ever served on the Court for a shorter tenure than he did. By the last decade of the 18th century, age and bodily infirmity had persuaded Johnson to retire from what had been a busy public life. But at the request of President George Washington, a longtime acquaintance and business partner, Johnson made an attempt at the post of associate justice, only to discover shortly that ‘[t]he office and the man do not fit.’ He left his seat on the Court for a long retirement, leaving little record of his brief presence there.” [17] Although he sat through only one actual term of the court, he did participate in two of the court’s landmark early cases: in Hayburn’s Case (2 US 409 [1792]), the court was divided over whether the attorney general had authority, without the express permission of the president,

In August 1795, following the resignation of Secretary of State Edmund Jennings (or Jenings) Randolph, President Washington offered the vacant post to Johnson, who refused the honor. This was not the only office that Johnson declined. In 1801 we find a contemporary account that “William Kilty, esquire, of Annapolis, is appointed chief justice of the district of Columbia, vice Thomas Johnson, esquire, who declined accepting that office.” [18] On 28 February 1801, President John Adams named Johnson as the chief judge of the Territory of Columbia. Johnson’s final public act was his memorial eulogy following the death of President Washington in 1799. Johnson died at “Rose Hill,” the estate of his son-in-law, in Frederick County, Maryland, on 25 October 1819. [19] He was buried in the Johnson family vault in All Saints’ Parish Cemetery in Frederick County; in 1913, however, his remains were removed to Mount Olivet Cemetery, also in Frederick County.

[1] Delaplaine, Thomas S., “The Life of Thomas Johnson. Members of the Continental Congress, First Governor of the State of Maryland, and Associate Justice of the United States Supreme Court” (New York: The Grafton Press, 1927), 11. See also the Johnson family tree, online at http://www.geni.com/people/ Thomas-Johnson-Governor-Assoc-Justice-US-Sup-Ct/3062981. [2] White, Frank F., Jr., “The Governors of Maryland 1777-1970” (Annapolis: The Hall of Records Commission, 1970), 3-9. [3] Marcus, Maeva, “Johnson, Thomas” in John A. Garraty and Mark C. Carnes, gen. eds., “American National Biography” (New York: Oxford University Press; 24 volumes, 1999), 12:---. [4] Pleasants, J. Hall, ed., “Archives of Maryland. LXI. Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly of Maryland, 1766-1768” (Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1944), 360-61. [5] Merritt, Elizabeth, ed., “Archives of Maryland. LXIV. Proceedings and Acts of the General Assembly of Maryland, October 1773 to April 1774” (Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1947), 23-24. [6] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), I:xlvi. See also “Delegates Who Attend the Congress: From Maryland,” The Boston News-Letter and Post-Boy [Massachusetts], 29 September 1774, 4.

William Samuel Johnson (1727–1819)769 [7] Adams, John Quincy, ed., “The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States: With a Life of the Author, Notes and Illustrates” (Boston: Little, Brown and Company; 10 volumes, 1850-56), II:395. [8] Thomas Johnson, Notes on Franklin’s Articles of Confederation, 21 July 1775, in Burnett, “Letters of Members,” op. cit., I:171-72. [9] Thomas Johnson to the Maryland Council of Safety, 17 April 1776, in ibid., I:425. [10] Thomas Johnson to Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer, 23 April 1776, in ibid., I:429. [11] “Aratus,” “From The London Evening Post of February 4, 1775” (London: Printed for J. Miller, No.6, in the Old Bailey, 1775), 5-6. [12] For the election, see “Votes and Proceedings of the House of Delegates of the State of Maryland, February Session, 1777” (Annapolis: Printed by Frederick Green, 1777), 50-51. [13] “Annapolis, March 27,” The Pennsylvania Evening Post, 1 April 1777, 179. [14] Delaplaine, Thomas S., “The Life of Thomas Johnson,” op. cit., 260. [15] The Providence Gazette [Rhode Island], 12 February 1791, 3. [16] General Advertiser [Philadelphia], 13 September 1791, 3. [17] Hall, Timothy, “Supreme Court Justices: A Biographical Dictionary” (New York: Facts on File, Inc., 2001), 25. [18] Federal Gazette, & Baltimore Daily Advertiser, 23 March 1801, 3. [19] “Another Governor Deceased,” The Boston Commercial Gazette [Massachusetts], 22 November 1819, 2. See the opinion piece in The Genius of Liberty [Leesburg, Virginia], 30 November 1819, 2.

William Samuel Johnson (1727–1819)

William Samuel Johnson rose to serve as a delegate to the Stamp Act Congress (1765), judge of the Connecticut Supreme Court

(1772-74), delegate to the Constitutional Congress (1785-87), where he signed the US Constitution, and as a US senator from Connecticut (1789-91). Born in Stratford, Connecticut, on 7 October 1727, Johnson was the son of the Reverend Samuel Johnson (1696-1772), a clergyman of the Church of England who also served as the president of King’s College in New York City (later Columbia University), and his wife Charity (née Floyd) Nicholl Johnson, who was widowed when she married Samuel Johnson. [1] According to a genealogical history, “Robert Johnson [his greatgrandfather] [was] one of the first founders of New Haven” prior to 1670. The original records were kept by Johnson in a quarto Bible printed in Oxford, England, in 1753. We also find from this record that Charity Floyd was born in 1692, and that she married the Reverend Johnson on 26 September 1725. [2] With his father being both one of the leading religious figures in the colonies as well as an educator, William Samuel Johnson was homeschooled by his father. He then entered Yale College (now Yale University) in Connecticut, studied the law, and was admitted to the colonial bar, opening a practice in his hometown of Stratford. In 1761, at the age of 34, he entered the political arena, elected to a seat in the colonial House of Representatives, where he sat for that single year, but was later reelected and sat in 1765, and, in 1766, he was elected to that body’s upper house, where he also sat from 1771 to 1775. [3] This early election date is confirmed by an early newspaper account, which reported that “[t]he Gentlemen nominated by the Freemen of this Colony, to stand for Election in May next,” included William Samuel Johnson as one of the candidates. [4] Still obedient to the Crown, in 1765 he nevertheless attended The Stamp Act Congress in New York, where opposition to that economic measure was debated and argued. Another newspaper took note that “Robert R. Livingston, William Samuel Johnson, and William Murdock, Esqrs. were of the committee to address his Majesty.” [5] Remaining loyal to royal rule, in 1767 Johnson was named as the agent extraordinary to the Court of England, sent to determine colonial title to the lands of Native Americans. He held this post until 1771. In 1772, he was appointed

770

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

as a judge of the Connecticut Supreme Court, where he sat for two years—again, a notice confirmed by contemporary sources: “The Hon. William Samuel Johnson, Esq; is appointed one of the Judges of the Superior Court in Connecticut.” [6]

Although Connecticut lost the arbitration, the defeat does not seem to have harmed Johnson’s reputation in the state. Following the resignation of Charles Church Chandler, a Connecticut delegate to the Continental Congress, Johnson was elected in his stead on 14 October 1784, although he did not attend any sessions in that calendar year. Reelected on 12 May 1785, on 11 May 1786 and 10 May 1787, he attended sessions of the body from 13 January to 25 February 1785, 11 May to 4 May 1785, 19 May to 29 July 1785, 25 August to 21 October 1785, 22 November to 30 December 1785, 2 January to 15 February 1786, 10 March to 29 May 1786, 9-10 June 1786, 3 July to 12 October 1786, 21-23 October 1786, 17 January to 21 February 1787, 19 March to 3 May 1787, 30 May 1787, and 20 September to 12 October 1787. [10]

By 1774, Johnson had moved from being loyal to England to siding with the patriot cause, rising in all of the colonies. On 14 July 1774, The Norwich Packet of Connecticut reported that “[y] esterday the Committee of Correspondence for the Colony of Connecticut met in New-London, agreeable to Appointment, and in Pursuance of an Act of the House of Representatives, at their last Session, they then and there nominated, The Hon. Eliphalet Dyer, The Hon. William Samuel Johnson, Erastus Wolcot, Silas Deane, and Richard Law, Esqrs. and authorized and impowered [sic], either three of them, to meet the General Congress, of the Commissioners or Committees of the sister Colonies; at Philadelphia, on the first Day of September next, or at such other Times and Place as may be agreed upon, to consult Measures for the best Good and Happiness of English America . . . ” [7] In November of that same year, we find another newspaper notice that “[t]he Gentlemen nominated by the Votes of the Freemen, to stand for Election, are as follow[s] . . . ” and included Jonathan Trumbull, Matthew Griswold, Roger Sherman, and William Samuel Johnson. [8] In the next several years, Johnson served in numerous state offices, including the ones listed above. In 1782, he was selected as a commissioner to argue Connecticut’s case before a tribunal over its boundary with Pennsylvania over the Wyoming Valley, a dispute called the “Pennamite-Yankee War.” The newspapers reported that “Last week the court of commissioners for settling the dispute between the states of Connecticut and Pennsylvania met here, and have proceeded to business. The following members of the court are attending: the honourable William Whipple, president; Welcome Arnold, David Brearly, William C. Houstoun, and Cyrus Griffin, esquires. Agents on behalf of Connecticut: Eliphalet Dyer, Jesse Root, and William Samuel Johnson, esquires. Agents on behalf of Pennsylvania: Joseph Reed, William Bradford, James Wilson, and Jonathan Dickinson Sergeant, esquires.” [9]

There are numerous pieces of correspondence from Johnson during his Continental Congress service. Johnson was in constant contact with officials back home in Connecticut, keeping them updated on the events in Philadelphia. In the summer of 1787, Johnson was elected to serve as one of Connecticut’s delegates to the Constitutional Convention, held in Philadelphia as well, to reform the moribund Articles of Confederation or to draft an entirely new US Constitution. In this meeting, he played a key role in brokering compromises over slavery and representation in the new bicameral legislature. In October 1787, following his signing of the Constitution, Johnson was named, and he accepted, the presidency of Columbia College, the school to which his own father had headed. [11] He remained as the president of Columbia until 1800. In 1789, as part of the new US Constitution, Connecticut was able to send two men to serve in the US Senate: elected were Johnson and Oliver Ellsworth. Johnson served in the Senate from 4 March 1789 until he resigned on 4 March 1791. He returned to his position at Columbia, retiring after 1800. William Samuel Johnson died at his home in Stratford, Connecticut, on 14 November 1819, five weeks after his 92nd birthday. [12] He was buried in the Episcopal Cemetery in Stratford. His gravestone, a large flat rock, reads, “M.S. William Samuel Johnson, LL.D. Son of Samuel Johnson, D.D. and Charity Lloyd, his wife. First President of Columbia College, New York, Representative for Connecticut in

Samuel Johnston (1733–1816)771 The Continental Congress, The Constitutional Convention, and The First Senate of the United States. Born at Stratford, Connecticut, October 7th, 1727, and there died November 14th, 1819. Interred in the Johnson Family Vault.”

[1] Johnson family tree, online at http://www.geni.com/people/ William-S-Johnson-Signer-of-the-US-Constitution/ 6000000003939894697. [2] Thomas, Milton Halsey, “The Bible Record of William Samuel Johnson, D.C.L. LL.D., and His Descendants” (New York: Reprinted from The New York Genealogical and Biographical Record, 1939), 3-4. [3] Greene, Evarts Boutell, “Johnson, William Samuel,” in Allen Johnson, et al., “Dictionary of American Biography” (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons; eleven volumes and five supplements, 1958-77), X:131-34. [4] The Connecticut Gazette, 1 November 1765, 3. [5] The Boston Evening Post, 24 March 1766, 1. [6] The Boston Gazette [Massachusetts], 26 October 1772, 3. [7] The Norwich Packet; And The Weekly Advertiser [Connecticut], 14 July 1774, 3. [8] The Connecticut Journal [New Haven], 4 November 1774, 3. [9] “Trenton, November 20,” The Pennsylvania Packet; Or, The General Advertiser [Philadelphia], 26 November 1782, 3. [10] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the ­Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VII:lxiii; VIII:lxxxiii. [11] The Connecticut Courant and Weekly Intelligencer, 22 October 1787, 3. [12] See, for instance, the short obituary in The Connecticut Herald, and General Advertiser [New Haven], 16 November 1819, 3.

Samuel Johnston (1733–1816)

Carolina, Samuel Johnston came to the American colonies and rose to become the governor of his adopted state (1787-89). The son of Scottish planters Samuel Johnston and his wife Helen (née Scrymsoure) Johnston, Sam Johnston was born in Dundee, Scotland, on 15 December 1733. Biographer and historian Robert Digges Wimberly Connor, wrote in 1912: In this fine old city, among its true and loyal people, the ancestors of Samuel Johnston lived, and here, in 1733, be himself was born. The spirit of Dundee, its loyalty to principle, its unconquerable courage, and its inflexible adherence to duty, entered into his soul at his very birth, and developed and strengthened as he grew in years and in powers of body and mind. Throughout his life he displayed in public and in private affairs many of those qualities of mind and character which have given the Scotch, though small in number, such a large place in the world’s history. Says Mr. Henry Cabot Lodge, “six centuries of bitter struggle for life and independence, waged continuously against nature and man, not only made the Scotch formidable in battle, renowned in every camp in Europe, but developed qualities of mind and character which became inseparable from the race.” [1] As a child, Johnston moved with his parents to North Carolina in the American colonies, where his paternal uncle, Gabriel Johnston, was serving as that colony’s royal governor. With such power over appointments in the colony, Governor Johnston named his brother as the surveyor-general of the colony. Samuel and his wife Helen purchased land in Craven County, and then in Onslow County, where he established the plantation, “Poplar Plains,” where he became an important planter in the area. When he died in 1757, Samuel Johnston left his son more than 10,000 acres of land, where he grew a series of sustainable crops such as corn, cotton, and indigo. [2] Samuel Johnston was sent to New England, to New Haven, Connecticut, to attend school; he returned to North Carolina and studied the law, and was admitted to the colonial bar. In 1760, he entered the political arena when he was elected to the North Carolina state Assembly, serving until 1775 in this body.

An Irish-born planter who served in the Continental Congress (1780-81) from North

Johnston was elected as the clerk of the courts for the Edenton district; he also served as a

772

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

naval officer for the port of Edenton. In 1773, as royal rule broke down across the colonies, he was elected as a member of the Committee of Correspondence, and over the next two years was elected to the first four North Carolina Provincial Congresses, serving as president of the third and fourth. At the North Carolina Provincial Congress that met at New Bern on 25 August 1774, Samuel Johnson is listed as a delegate from Currituck County. In September 1775, a report stated that “[o]n being appointed one of the Treasurers of the State, Richard Caswell resigned his appointment as [a] delegate to the Continental Congress, and John Penn, of Granville County, was appointed [as] successor. The public finances were in much disorder. The Convention ordered, on the 7th [of] September, $125,000 in bills of credit. Richard Caswell, Samuel Johnston, Andrew Knox, and Richard Cogdell were to superintend the printing and sign the bills, and deliver them over to the two treasurers[:] Samuel Johnston for the Northern division and Richard Caswell for the Southern.”

the command of General Kniphausen[,] have been some time past embarked, though we have not yet any advice of their having sailed, and their destination is kept a profound secret in New York. Congress have sent a Colonel Palfray, formerly paymaster of the army, to France, in the character of consul from the United States. Colonel Laurens, son of the late President, is appointed a minister for a particular purpose to the court of France. This last appointment is much disapproved of by some of the members, apprehensive of its disgusting Dr. Franklin, and by that means impeding rather than promoting our interest at that court. Mr. Dana, secretary to Mr. Adams, is appointed minister to the Empress of Russia. it is uncertain how he may be received, but the general opinion is, that the old lady will not be displeased with the compliment. [5]

[3]

A member of the provincial Council of Safety, and, in 1775, serving as the district paymaster of militia troops, in 1779 Johnston was elected to the North Carolina state Senate, where he was also elected in 1783 and 1784. On 30 April 1780, Johnston was elected to a seat in the Continental Congress, and he attended sessions from 29 December 1780 to 28 February 1781. Historian Edmund Cody Burnett notes that “Although Johnston did not take his seat until 29 December, he was in Philadelphia 21 December or earlier.” [4] Several pieces of correspondence from Johnston during his Continental Congress service have been found: the first, to James Iredell, proves that Johnston indeed was in Philadelphia on 21 December 1780: Congress seem[s] to be very busy; but as I have not yet taken my seat in it, I am acquainted with but few particulars, and if I was acquainted with any thing [sic] interesting, I should be afraid to write it by the post, as there is reason to apprehend that, before this reaches you, the enemy may be in possession of some of the towns in Virginia through which the post passes, as we have certain advices that 4,000 troops, under

In the second missive, again to Iredell, he stated, “There is great reason to apprehend that the British mean to fortify and support their station at Portsmouth, or some other in that neighborhood, in order to shut up the navigation of the bay, and by making frequent incursions into the country, prevent the State of Virginia from sending aid to the Carolinas. Congress is every day engaged in a variety of matters, but under our present situation, it is probably best to say little as to the particulars. I hope to have some opportunity before long by which I may be more communicative.” [6] The third letter, once more to Iredell, concentrated on financial matters of the nation: “Our accounts from General Cornwallis are very alarming, but we hope it will not be long before both be and Arnold will repent of their rashness. Congress are not inattentive to the state of the Southern States, but the unfortunate mutinies in the Army, and other unavoidable accidents have prevented them sending on more Troops, and put it out of their power to make such ample provision for those that were sent as would have been wished . . . General Washington will not neglect the relief of North Carolina, when circumstances will admit. I dare not be more particular, but hope before this reaches you, Arnold’s fate will be decided.” [7] While in the Continental Congress, Johnston was elected by the delegates as the first president of the body under the Articles of Confederation, but he refused the honor. He returned to North Carolina following his service and participated

Samuel Johnston (1733–1816)773 in politics in that state. In 1788 and 1789, he served as a delegate to the state constitutional conventions, presiding over both meetings. On 20 December 1787, Johnston was elected by the General Assembly as the sixth statehood governor of North Carolina, succeeding Richard Caswell. He served for nearly two years, until 17 December 1789, twice reelected to the three short terms. We find in a newspaper rot on 30 January 1788 that “The hon. Samuel Johnston is appointed governor of the state of NorthCarolina.” [8] Although his tenure is rarely discussed, historian John H. Wheeler wrote in 1885, “Governor Johnston was mentally and physically ‘every inch a man.’ His intellect was of the highest order, cultivated by learning and experience. His person was imposing, of a large and powerful frame, erect and stately in his carriage, and of iron will. He joined the graces of the scholar with the wisdom of the statesman.” [9] In another sign of what he did as governor, we see in a contemporary report, “At a meeting of the commissioners for improving the navigation of Albemarle Sound, North-Carolina, the 8th of May, 1789. Present, Samuel Johnson, Charles Johnson, Nathaniel Allen, Josiah Collins, and Christopher Clark, Esqrs. The committee appointed to view the place where Raleigh Inlet is proposed to be cut, reported as follows: That Samuel Johnston, Josiah Collins, Charles Johnson, and Christopher Clark, four of the committee appointed to view the place where Raleigh Inlet is proposed to be cut, and three of the other commissioners . . . ” [10] In another, there is this report: “State of North-Carolina, in Convention. Whereas the general convention which met in Philadelphia, in pursuance of a recommendation of congress, did recommend to the citizens of the United States a constitution or form of government . . . Done in convention this 21st day of November 1789. (Signed) Samuel Johnston, President of the convention.” [11] Under the US Constitution, signed in Philadelphia in September 1787 and ratified by the states, each state was entitled to send two men to serve in the US Senate, the upper body of the new bicameral national legislature. On 17 November 1789, the legislature elected Johnston and Benjamin Hawkins to the two spots; Johnston served from 26 November

1789 until the end of his term on 3 March 1793 (Johnston drew the four-year term, which Hawkins received the six-year term). Johnston had been succeeded as governor by Alexander Martin, as one newspaper noted: “The legislature of North-Carolina have elected the honorable Alexander Martin, Esq[.] Governor of the state, in the room of his Excellency Samuel Johnston, Esq., appointed a Senator to the Congress of the United States.” [12] Following his US Senate career, Johnston returned to North Carolina, where he served as a judge of the Superior Court of the state from 1800 to 1803. He died near Edenton, in Chowan County, on 17 August 1816 at the age of 82. One newspaper noted, “Died. On Friday Evening last, at his seat in Skewarkey (N.C.) in the 83d year of his age, the Hon. Samuel Johnston, formerly Governor of that State, and late one of the Judges of the Superior Court of Law and Equity.” [13] Johnston was buried in the Johnston burial ground on the Hayes Plantation, now known as the Johnston family cemetery, located near Edenton. (His gravestone mistakenly reads, “He served as the Governor of North Carolina from 1787 to 1889”—it should read “1787 to 1789.”) Historian Robert Digges Wimberly Connor wrote in 1906 of Johnston’s legacy: In the great crises of our history in which he figured so largely, immediately following the American Revolution, Samuel Johnston with keen penetrating vision saw more clearly than any of his colleagues the true nature of the problem confronting them. This problem was, on the one hand, to preserve in America the fundamental principles of English liberty against the encroachments of the British Parliament, and on the other, to secure the guarantees of law and order against the well-meant but ill-considered schemes of honest but ignorant reformers. For a full quarter of a century he pursued both of these ends, patiently and persistently, “with a fixity of purpose which never weakened, a tenacity which never slackened, and a determination which never wavered.” [14]

[1] Connor, Robert Digges Wimberly, “Samuel Johnston, Governor of North Carolina, 1787-1789” (Raleigh, NC: Edward & Broughton Printing Co., 1912), 4.

774

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

[2] Johnston official congressional biography, online at http:// bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=J000198. [3] Wheeler, John H., “Historical Sketches of North Carolina, From 1584 to 1851. Compiled from Original Records, Official Documents, and Traditional Statements, With Biographical Sketches of Her Distinguished Statesmen, Jurists, Lawyers, Soldiers, Divines, Etc.” (Philadelphia: Lippincott, Grambo and Co.; two volumes, 1851), I:65, 74. [4] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), V:lxi. [5] Samuel Johnston to James Iredell, 21 December 1780, in ibid., V:495-96. [6] Samuel Johnston to James Iredell, 15 February 1781, in ibid., V:572. [7] Samuel Johnston to James Iredell, 27 February 1781, in ibid., V:585. [8] The Freeman’s Journal: Or, The North-American Intelligencer [Philadelphia], 30 January 1788, 3. [9] Wheeler, John H., “Reminiscences and Memoirs of North Carolina and Eminent North Carolinians” (Washington, DC: Henkle & Co., 1885), 120. [10] The Pennsylvania Packet [Philadelphia], 27 July 1789, 2. [11] The Freeman’s Journal: Or, The North-American Intelligencer [Philadelphia], 28 January 1789, 2. [12] The New-Hampshire Gazette, and Historical Chronicle, Containing the Freshest Advices, Foreign and Domestic, 27 ­January 1790, 2. [13] The American Beacon and Commercial Diary [Norfolk, Virginia], 22 August 1816, 3. [14] Connor, Robert Digges Wimberly, “Revolutionary Leaders of North Carolina: North Carolina State Normal & Industrial College Historical Publications, No. 2” (Raleigh, NC: Published by the College, 1906), 104.

Carolina in the days surrounding the start of the American Revolution.

Allen Jones (1739–1798)

With his brother, Willie, Allen Jones was part of the group of powerful leaders who ruled North

Allen Jones was born in Edgecombe County, now Halifax County, North Carolina, on 24 December 1739, the son of Robert (or Robin) Jones and Sarah (née Cobb) Jones. [1] Allen Jones’ great-grandfather, James Jones, came from Wales and settled in the Virginia colony, in what is now Prince George County. Robin Jones was sent as a child to the prestigious Eton school in England; he earned the view of Lord Granville, and was sent back to the colonies to act as an agent for the province of North Carolina. After marrying Sarah Cobb, he had several children, including Willie, born in 1741, and Allen, born two years later. After his wife died, the elder Jones remarried Elizabeth Eaton of North Carolina, and had one daughter with her. [2] Influenced by England and by his time at Eton, Robin Jones sent his sons, between 1748 and 1752, to Eton. Historian Blackwell Pierce Robinson wrote in 1941, “[i]t is known, however, that Allen left Eton in 1753, while Willie continued at the school until 1758, after which he spent some time on the Continent making the ‘grand tour.’” [3] When Allen Jones returned home to North Carolina, he decided against a career in the law, and instead built and operated his own plantation, “Mount Gallant,” where he became a leader in agriculture. In 1762, he married Mary Hayne, but she died soon after, and Jones then married Rebecca Edwards in 1768. Jones served as a clerk of the Superior Court for the Halifax district prior to the start of the revolution; however, in 1773, he was elected to the North Carolina General Assembly, representing Northampton County, where he served until 1775 when he was elected as a member of the Committee of Safety for Halifax County; as such, he opposed any continuation of royal rule in the colony. In April 1776, when the North Carolina Provincial Congress met in Halifax, he was elected as a member, serving as vice president of the meeting. During the parley, Jones argued that the North Carolina delegates to the Continental Congress should be instructed to push for

Allen Jones (1739–1798)775 American independence from England, a stillradical idea even two months prior to the signing of the Declaration of Independence. When this resolution passed, a committee to provide for the defense of North Carolina from invasion was established, as well as one to create a new government in the wake of the collapse of royal rule. [4] In 1778, elected to the North Carolina state Senate, Allen Jones was named as Speaker of the body, wielding great power in the formation of North Carolina’s first postrevolutionary government. He volunteered for service in the North Carolina militia during the revolution, attaining the rank of brigadier general. He served in the North Carolina state Senate from 1777 to 1779, in 1783, in 1784, and in 1787. When a North Carolina delegate to the Continental Congress resigned his seat in October 1779, the North Carolina legislature elected Allen Jones, on 25 October, to replace him. Jones, re-elected on 30 April 1780, served from 8 to 31 December 1779, and 1 January to about 21 June 1780. [5] One piece of correspondence from Jones during his Continental Congress service to Governor Richard Caswell of North Carolina, dated 23 December 1779 reads: I take this opportunity of shewing [sic] you that I am not unmindful of my promise but that rather than be worse than my word I write tho [sic] I have nothing worth communicating. When I came here I found our money depretiated [sic] beyond Bounds and Congress taken up in finding out Ways and means to remedy the Evil. Before my arrival they had adopted the plan of recommending a Limatation [sic] of Prices to the Different States, a plan from which I do not promise myself much relief as I am apprehensive it will not be generally adopted. In the mean time they are busy in forming other Schemes of Finance, the foundations of which are Loans, both foreign and Domestic. From these Schemes likewise I fear nothing Advantageous will arise. We have found it dangerous from experience to tamper with our money, Every step hitherto taken to appretiate [sic] it, having had the contrary Effect. If we could check the Expence [sic] in the

Departments of the Commissary, and Quarter Masters, I believe it would be a radical cure and untill [sic] we do this, I shall think all other Schemes useless. In order to do this Congress seem determined to call on all the States for a certain part of their annual Quota of Continental Tax, in kind, to be deposited in proper Magazines by such Officers and at such places as the Different States may think proper to direct. Upon the Success of this plan, our Salvation seems to me to depend, as by these means we should be able to do without a Set of men who have taken care to amass most princely fortunes, at the same time that they have loaded us with Debt and difficulties. I could descend to particulars on this Subject but it would carry me beyond the bounds of a Letter. [6] After his Continental Congress service was completed in 1780, Jones took a leading role in the formation of the state government in North Carolina. Historian R.L. Hilldrup wrote, “When the legislature convened soon afterwards Governor Nash was so displeased with the arbitrary emergency powers of the board of war and the manner in which it had neglected to consult him that he declined to seek reelection. The legislature chose Thomas Burke governor and replaced the board of war with a council extraordinary, composed of Alexander Martin from the board of war, General Allen Jones, and General Caswell.” [7] The following year, in 1781, Jones was a member of the Board of War. Historian Elizabeth McPherson noted, “When the Legislature met in January, 1781, Governor Nash complained that the Board of War had usurped his powers. For that body the Assembly substituted a Council Extraordinary, electing Richard Caswell, Alexander Martin, and Allen Jones as members.” [8] In another letter to Governor Richard Caswell, 8 September 1777, he wrote, “I do not know whether my return is proper, for I confess my ignorance in military affairs.” He did, however, argue that time, and events, were on the side of the Americans in the war: “No reverse of fortune can possibly damp my spirits or occasion any despondency, so thoroughly

776

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

am I convinced that time and America must overcome all opposition.”

ner’s Sons; eleven volumes and five supplements, 1958-77), X:159-60.

In 1788, Jones served as a delegate to the state ratifying convention, which rejected the proposed US Constitution. He then retired from politics.

Joseph Jones, Sr. (1727–1805)

Jones died at his plantation, “Mount Gallant,” near Roanoke Rapids, in Northampton County, North Carolina, on 10 November 1798, six weeks short of his 59th birthday. He was buried in the Jones’ family cemetery on the grounds of “Mount Gallant.” [9] Historian A.R. Newsome wrote of him, “Unlike his more famous brother, Willie, who was the anti-Federalist leader, he was a strong advocate of the federal Constitution but was defeated for a seat in the Hillsborough convention of 1788 and for the second federal convention, whose convocation was expected. In 1790 he was the owner of 177 slaves, the fourth largest slaveholding in the state. He was a friend of education and a promoter of plans to improve the transportation facilities of the Roanoke Valley and the Albemarle Sound region.” [10] See also: Willie Jones

[1] Jones family tree, online at http://www.geni.com/people/ Brig-General-Allen-Jones-Colonial-Militia/ 6000000003277800558. [2] For more on Robin Jones, see “The Origin of the Regulation in North Carolina,” The American Historical Review, XXI:2 (January 1916), 322. [3] Robinson, Blackwell Pierce, “Willie Jones of Halifax,” The North Carolina Historical Review, XVIII:1 (January 1941), 3. [4] Ganyard, Robert L., “Radicals and Conservatives in Revolutionary North Carolina: A Point at Issue, The October Election, 1776,” The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, XXIV:4 (October 1967), 582. [5] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), IV:lx; V:lxi. [6] Allen Jones to Richard Caswell, 23 December 1779, in ibid., IV:548-49. [7] Hilldrup, R.L., “The Salt Supply of North Carolina During the American Revolution,” The North Carolina Historical Review, XXII:4 (October 1945), 415. [8] McPherson, Elizabeth G., “Unpublished Letters from North Carolinians to Washington,” The North Carolina Historical Review, XII:2 (April 1935), 157. [9] http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay. pl?index=J000209 [10] Newsome, A.R., “Jones, Allen, in Allen Johnson, et al., “Dictionary of American Biography” (New York: Charles Scrib-

The uncle of James Monroe, himself a delegate to the Continental Congress and later president of the United States, Joseph Jones served in a variety of Virginia offices, and twice as a delegate to the Continental Congress (1777, 1780-83). A judge, he served as a major general of the Virginia state militia prior to his death. “Few details of the life of Joseph Jones are accessible, although he appears to have played a part by no means unimportant in Virginia politics during and subsequent to the Revolution.” [1] He was born in King George County, Virginia in 1727, the son and one of six children—three sons and three daughters—of James Jones and his wife Hester (née Jones) Lampton Jones, who was once widowed before marrying Jones, her second husband. [2] His sister, Elizabeth, married Spence Monroe, whose son, James, as noted, served in the Continental Congress and as president of the United States. [3] His official congressional biography states that he then served “as a member of the [Virginia] colonial House of Burgesses.” [4] Joseph Jones married twice: to Mary Taliaferro (1722-1777),

Joseph Jones, Sr. (1727–1805)777 and then to Elizabeth Brewton (her name is also given as Waugh and/or Dawson) (1723-1786); he had several children from these unions, including James Jones, who served in the Continental Army during the American Revolution. Starting in 1775, Jones took the side of the patriotic cause, serving on the Virginia Committee of Safety that year, and the following year served in the Virginia Convention. In the reports of cases tried before the Virginia Supreme Court of Appeals in 1798 and 1799 is a notation on Jones, that “a bill of exceptions was filed, stating, that the plaintiffs gave in evidence a memorandum in writing, signed by Joseph Jones, in behalf of one Lucy Newsum [sic], bearing [the] date [of] 27th of January 1776 . . . ” [5] It does not appear that Jones was a party to the lawsuit. On 22 May 1777, the Virginia legislature elected Jones to a seat in the Continental Congress, and he attended session from 11 August to about 20 December 1777. Historian Edmund Cody Burnett wrote that Jones served on a committee with Robert Morris of Pennsylvania and Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, appointed 28 November 1777, “to confer with General George Washington and was absent on the mission from about 29 November to 15 December. The report of the committee, which was drawn up by Jones, was presented [to the Continental Congress on] 16 December. The last mention of him in the Journals is his participation in a report of the Board of War [on] 20 December.” [6] Despite this obvious proof of service, historian Terry Mays wrote that “Jones declined [his seat] in order to serve as a Virginia judge,” [7] although we know that Jones in fact did take his seat, albeit for a short period of time. Following his Continental Congress service, Jones was appointed as a judge of the Virginia General Court on 23 January 1778, and he served until his resignation in October 1779, although he was reappointed to the same court on 19 November 1789. On 14 December 1779, the Virginia legislature elected Jones a second time to the Continental Congress, although he did not attend any sessions in that calendar year. Re-elected on 21 June 1780, he attended during this second tenure from 24 April to 7 September 1780, and 29 January to 28 February 1781. [8] According to the Journals of

the Continental Congress, on Monday, 29 January 1781, “Mr. Joseph Jones, a delegate of Virginia, attended and took his seat in Congress.” [9] During this second service, there are several pieces of correspondence to and from Jones. He complained to General George Washington on the lack of credit available to the nation to pay its bills, as well as the general feeling in the Congress: The present distress is to be ascribed in great part to the resolution not to issue any more Bills of Credit before a sufficiency of money was provided and supplies secured for the Army had proper precaution been taken in these matters, and the new scheme of Finance been ready for the public consideration, the determination not to increase the quantity of money and the alteration introduced by the new system would not have been so sensibly felt or occasioned the distress in the several Departments they have produced. From these I think we are nearly emerging as the new money is coming into use in the several States and will probably greatly relieve us. But by those and several other proceedings Congress have been gradually surrendering or throwing upon the several States the exercise of powers they should have retained and to their utmost have exercised themselves, untill [sic] at length they have scarce a power left but such as concerns foreign transactions, for as to the Army the Congress is at present little more than the medium through which the wants of the Army are conveyed to the States. This Body never had or at least in few instances have exercised powers adequate to the purposes of War and such as they had, have been from embarrassment and difficulties frittered away to the States and it will be found I fear very difficult to recover them. [10] To Thomas Jefferson, then the governor of Virginia, he penned, “We hear our Assembly are about to reconsider their determination respecting the scheme of finance recommended by Congress, and that it was expected the measure would yet be adopted. I am happy to hear it; being confident the rejection of the proposition and the emission of more paper money could not fail of producing the worst of consequences. Let us not depart from the determination not to increase the quantity. That resolution has already appreciated the money, and a steady adherence to the measure will at length effectually do it. The present is the season for accomplishing the great work of Confederation. If we suffer it to pass away I fear it will never return.” [11] Finally, Jones wrote

778

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

to Washington sometime in early August 1780 on the addition of French forces in aid of the American cause: “I have my hopes we shall yet be able to do something important upon the arrival of the French reinforcement as I presume their Fleet will then command the water without which I confess, I have no sanguine expectations. With the command of the water the enterprise may be successful. Mr. [William] Bingham [of Pennsylvania] has recd. a Letter from Martinique informing him the combined Fleets fell to Leeward on the 5th July supposed for Jamaica thirty three or thirty six ships of the line and 12ooo Troops. They expected a reinforcement of a few thousand Troops more. If this account be true it is probable Jamaica will fall and that we may have them along our coast.” [12]

the ratification of the US Constitution, signed in Philadelphia the previous September, Jones served as a delegate. According to the minutes of the convention, Jones was active member who voted on the issues before the parley. [15]

While he sat this second time in the Continental Congress, a committee was established to look into the border questions between Pennsylvania and Connecticut. The Journals then noted that “[t]he said agents also laid before Congress the following instrument of agreement: ‘It is agreed between the agents for the commonwealth of Pennsylvania and the state of Connecticut, that Congress be requested to approve the appointment by the said agents of the honourable William Whipple, Welcome Arnold, David Brearly, William Churchill Houston, Cyrus Griffin, Joseph Jones and Thomas Nelson, esquires, and to constitute them or any five or more of them, [as] a court of commissioners to hear and finally determine the dispute between the said states, relative to their respective claims and possessions . . . ’” [13] Jones’ name appears in a few official or contemporary documents of the period. In one, a collection of “acts passed at [the] General Assembly . . . of Virginia” in 1783, we find Jones mentioned as part of “An Act to vest the Gun-Factory and public lands at Fredericksburg, in Trustees for the purpose of an Academy,” in which it was stated that “the said gun-factory and the lands thereto adjoining belonging to the public, together with all the buildings and appurtenances thereon, be, and the same are hereby vested in Richard Henry Lee, Henry Lee, junior, Joseph Jones, John Skinker, William Fitzhugh, Charles Carter, Edward Stevens, French Strother, William Moore, Thomas Towles, Mann Page, Edmund Pendleton, and Thomas Lomax, Trustees, and their successors . . . ” [14] At the Virginia ratifying convention held in Richmond, starting on 25 June 1788, to consider

Jones served as a judge in Virginia and as a Major General of state militia during the 1790s. In 1800, we find a notation on Jones that he served as an elector for president and vice president in Virginia, listed as “General Joseph Jones of Dinwiddie” on the Republican ticket. [16] In December of that same year, Jones’ nephew, Governor James Monroe, “issued his Proclamation purporting that on examination in Council of the returns made by the Commissioners ordered to hold elections in the several counties of that Commonwealth, of Electors to chuse [sic] a President and VicePresident of the United States, it appears that the following persons are elected to that office . . . ” Listed ninth on the list is, again, “General Joseph Jones of Dinwiddie.” [17] In his last service prior to his death, Jones was named as the postmaster of Petersburg, Virginia, replacing J. Grammar. [18] Joseph Jones died in Fredericksburg on 28 October 1805. The Enquirer newspaper of Richmond stated that he died “after an illness of about three weeks in this town . . . ” The paper then editorialized, “In the character of this truly excellent man were combined the tender sensibilities and cobbling virtues of the common heart. With strong powers of mind, his judicial conduct was regarded as the most upright and praise worthy . . . frank, affable, humane, and benevolent, he imperceptibly won the affections of his acquaintance[s] . . . ” [19] Jones’ burial place is unknown. See also: James Monroe

[1] “Letters of Joseph Jones of Virginia, 1777-1787” (Washington, DC: Department of State, 1889), iii. [2] Jones family tree, online at http://www.geni.com/people/ Joseph-Jones/6000000002649873475. [3] Hartzler, Martha Jones, “Descendants of Joseph Jones and Elizabeth Miller” (Privately Published, 1949). [4] Jones official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=J000241. [5] Virginia, Supreme Court of Appeals, “Reports of Cases Argued and Determined in the Court of Appeals of Virginia. By Bushrod Washington. Vol. I-II” (Richmond: Printed by Thomas Nicolson; two volumes, 1798-99), 88-89. [6] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), II:lxx.

Noble Wimberly [Wymberley] Jones (c. 1723–1805)779 [7] Mays, Terry M., “Historical Dictionary of Revolutionary America” (Oxford, UK: Scarecrow Press, Inc., 2005), 149. [8] Burnett, “Letters of Members,” op. cit., IV:lxv, V:lxiv. [9] United States, Continental Congress, “Journals of Congress, and of the United States in Congress Assembled. For the Year 1781. Published by Order of Congress. Volume VII” (Philadelphia: Printed by David C. Claypoole, 1782), 22. [10] Joseph Jones to George Washington, 19 June 1780, in ibid., IV:227. [11] Joseph Jones to Thomas Jefferson, 30 June 1780, in ibid., IV:244-45. [12] Joseph Jones to George Washington, 6 August [?] 1780, in ibid., IV:314-15. [13] “Journals of Congress, Vol. VII” (1782), op. cit., 442. [14] Virginia, “Acts Passed at a General Assembly of the Commonwealth of Virginia. Begun and Held at the Public Buildings in the City of Richmond, on Monday the Fifth day of May, in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and EightyThree” (Richmond, VA: Printed by John Dunlap and James Hayes, Printers to the Commonwealth, 1783), 10. [15] “Richmond, State of Virginia. In Convention, Wednesday the 25th of June, 1788,” The Pennsylvania Packet [Philadelphia], 7 July 1788, 2. [16] Gazette of the United States [Philadelphia], 17 May 1800, 3. [17] The Mercantile Advertiser [New York], 1 December 1800, 3. [18] See the announcement in The Providence Gazette [Rhode Island], 25 February 1804, 3. [19] The Enquirer [Richmond, Virginia], 5 November 1805, 3. “Cobbling” is defined as “roughly assemble or put together something from available parts or elements.”

Noble Wimberly [Wymberley] Jones (c. 1723–1805)

Noble Wimberly Jones was one of the early revolutionaries in Georgia at the start of the American Revolution. Born in Lambeth, near London, England in 1723, Noble Wimberly Jones [1] was the eldest son and child of Colonel Noble Jones, a close friend and intimate of James Oglethorpe, the founder of the Georgia colony, who, on his own, was a military officer and surveyor, and his wife Sarah (née Hack) Jones. [2] In 1733, the Jones’ followed Oglethorpe to Georgia on the ship Anne, becoming one of the first pioneer white families in the colony. In Georgia, the Jones family thrived. Historian William M. Kelso explained, “Noble Jones applied for a lease of five hundred acres on the Isle of Hope in 1737 or 1738, dividing the island with Henry Parker and John Fallowfield. The exact date of the application is not known, but Colonel William Stephens, secretary for the colony, wrote in July 1740 that Jones had ‘occupied it two or three years.’” [3] From this grand of land, the elder Jones named the plantation there “Wormslow” (later changed to “Wormsloe”). Noble Jones taught his son medical skills. Historian William Harris Bragg explained, “Medical instruments of the second and third generations of the Jones family survive, though in the case of Noble Wimberly Jones only a pocket lancet is in the De Renne Family Papers; there is, however, a photograph of his medical kit and instruments, present whereabouts unknown.” [4] The junior Jones married Sarah Davis in 1755, moving from “Wormslow” to his own plantation, “Lambeth,” located on the Little Ogeechee River. With Sarah, Noble Wimberly Jones had fourteen children, of whom only one, George Jones, outlived his father. A description of “Wormsloe,” published in London in 1745, reported, “Wormsloe is one of the most agreeable spots I ever saw, and the improvements of that ingenious man are very extraordinary; He commands a company of Machines who are quartered in huts near his house, which is also a tolerable defensible place with small arms. From the house there is a vista of near three miles cut through the woods to Mr. Whitefield’s Orphan House, which has a very fine effect on the sight.” [5]

A physician, born in England, who served in the Continental Congress (1781-82) from Georgia,

In the next few years, Noble Wimberly Jones was involved in military service and then as

780

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

a physician in Savannah. A 1907 biography stated, “Coming to Georgia at a tender age, he secured a cadet’s appointment in Oglethorpe’s regiment. Having in time studied medicine and received his degree, he was promoted to a first lieutenancy, and, with the rank and pay of surgeon, was assigned to a company of Rangers in the pay of the Crown. After a few years passed in military service, he resigned from the army, and entered upon the practice of his profession in Savannah. He rose rapidly in the public esteem, as a citizen and as a physician winning golden opinions from the community.” [6]

Department, as then expected. It has since taken place. And from the Character of Lord Dartmouth we may hope there will be no more of those arbitrary proceedings in America that disgraced the late Administration . . . Enclosed I send you a small quality of Upland Rice from Cochin China. It grows on dry ground, not requiring to be overflowed like the common rice . . . I send also a few seeds of the Chinese Tallow Tree . . . T’is a most useful Plant.” [8]

In the year he married, 1755, Jones entered the political field when he won election to the Georgia Commons House of Assembly, the lower house of Georgia’s colonial legislature. He served there until 1775. During the 1760s, as Britain enacted several harsh economic measures against the colonies, Jones came to rebel against royal rule. In 1768, outspoken against such actions as The Stamp Act, Jones was elected as the Speaker of the Commons House. Governor James Wright, backed by London, told the legislature that Jones was unacceptable as a Speaker, and, when the delegates persisted and elected him a second time, the governor dissolved the Commons. George Gilman Smith described Noble Wimberly Jones: “He was a man of means, intelligence and character, and was a physician by profession. He was an ardent Whig, much to the sorrow of his excellent father, who was loyal to the last. He was obnoxious to Governor Wright, because of his liberal views, and when he was elected Speaker, as we have seen, Governor Wright dissolved the Assembly, and when he was again elected on its reassembling, James Habersham, [the] acting governor, did the same thing.” [7] The delegates refused to take such orders, and Jones was elected Speaker several times between 1771 and 1773, never being able to take office. An agriculturalist, Jones used his plantation, “Lambeth,” to grow such items as indigo. Benjamin Franklin, the agent for the Pennsylvania colony in England, penned in a letter to Jones, “In my last I acquainted you with the change in Ministry in the American

The Intolerable Acts, another series of actions by the British Parliament against the colonies, drove many to oppose royal rule, including Jones. He and several other Georgians who opposed the government met in January 1775 and established the Provincial Congress, which named Jones, Lyman Hall, and Dr. John Joachim Zubly as delegates to the Continental Congress, held the previous September in Philadelphia and soon to reconvene. [9] Historian A.E. Sholes wrote, “[On] 4 July [1775], the Provincial Congress of Georgia met at Tondee’s Tavern, with Archibald Bulloch, President: George Walton, Secretary. The delegates from the town and district of Savannah were: Archibald Bulloch, Noble Wimberly Jones, Joseph Habersham, Jonathan Bryan, Ambrose Wright, William Young, John Glen, Samuel Elbert, John Houstoun, Oliver Bowen, John McCluer, Edward Telfair, Thomas Lee, George Houstoun, Joseph Reynolds, John Smith, William Ewen, John Martin, Dr. J.J. Zubly, William Joseph Clay, [and] Seth John Cuthbert . . . ” [10] However, because they believed that they did not have enough support in Georgia to be elected as delegates to the Continental Congress, Jones and the two others he was elected with declined the honor. After fighting broke out between American Minute Men and British troops in Massachusetts in April 1775, Jones, along with Joseph Habersham, John Milledge, and Edward Telfair, broke into Savannah’s royal armory and seized some 600 pounds of gunpowder, some of which they sent to the rebels in Massachusetts. In July 1775, another provincial congress met in Savannah, and again Jones was elected to the Continental Congress—this time, he accepted the honor. On

Noble Wimberly [Wymberley] Jones (c. 1723–1805)781 13 September 1775, the Continental Congress met and enacted a resolution regarding events in Georgia the delegates stated: The alarming and critical situation of affairs upon the continent of America, having, at length, roused the attention of this province, and the several inhabitants thereof, being desirous of uniting with their sister colonies in the great and important cause, a general election was held throughout the province for delegates to sit in provincial Congress; and the said delegates having so met in Savannah, on the fourth day of July, proceeded upon the consideration of such business as appeared to be fit and necessary; and among other things, they made choice of five delegates to represent this province in the grand Continental Congress, now sitting in Philadelphia, viz. Archibald Bullock [sic], esq. John Houston [sic], esq. the rev. Dr. Zubly, Noble Wimberly Jones, esq. and Lyman Hall, esq. [11] His father, however, was dying, so he could not leave for Philadelphia. By the end of 1775, Jones was named to the Council of Safety of Georgia, a post he accepted. In 1777, Jones was elected to the Georgia state House of Representatives, where he served until 1778. In that latter year, he moved his physician’s practice to Charleston, South Carolina. Unfortunately for him, the British invaded South Carolina soon after, and when Charleston fell in 1780 Jones was captured and sent to a prison at St. Augustine, Florida. It was not until 1781 that he was exchanged for British captives, and upon his release Jones moved to Philadelphia, where he opened a medical practice. [12] Despite now living in Philadelphia, on 17 August 1781 the Georgia legislature elected Jones as a delegate to the Continental Congress. Reelected on 10 February 1782, he attended sessions of the body from 27 September 1781 to 2 November 1782. [13] Unfortunately, there are no letters published from the time of Jones’ Continental Congress service, and no works on his life give but a cursory statement that he served. In 1782, his service ended, Jones returned to Georgia, where he was elected to the state Assembly, and, in a throwback to earlier times, he was again elected Speaker of that body. When this service was concluded, he spent his time between his estate in Georgia and business interests in Charleston, but in 1788 he settled permanently in

Savannah. In 1791 he was named to a committee to welcome President George Washington to Savannah; four years later he was named as the president of the Georgia state Constitutional Convention. In 1804, in his last public service before his death, he was elected the president of the Georgia Medical Society. [14] Noble Wimberly Jones died in Savannah on 9 January 1805. The Augusta Herald of Georgia said, “In every honorable attempt on the part of this country at reconciliation, had failed, and the oppressive acts of the mother country had reduced America to the sad alternative of surrendering her rights, or making a nasty stand in defence of them. Doctor Jones was chosen President of the first Provincial Congress in this state, which set aside the Powers of the Royal Government . . . he was afterwards employed in several confidential and important appointments, until the fall of Charleston.” [15] The City Gazette of Charleston added, “The age of this worthy and lamented citizen was not exactly known, but he was among the first settlers of the state . . . Since the establishment of peace, he has been repeatedly called on by his country to advise on the means of securing the freedom thereby established, and has on all occasions produced the fullest evidences of his attachment to her interests and her republican institutions.” [16] Jones was laid to rest in Bonaventure Cemetery in Savannah, the burial place of his father, as well as the patriots Patrick and George Houstoun and Edward Telfair.

[1] Historian Charles C. Jones, Jr., in his work of biographies of the men who served in the Continental Congress from Georgia, uses “Wymberly” as his middle name, but we use the more commonly accepted version here. See Jones, Charles C., Jr., “Biographical Sketches of the Delegates from Georgia to the Continental Congress” (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin, 1891), 124. [2] Jones family tree, online at http://www.geni.com/people/DrNoble-Wimberly-Jones/6000000002774344223. [3] Kelso, William M., “Captain Jones’s Wormslow: A Historical, Archaeological, and Architectural Study of an Eighteenth-Century Plantation Site Near Savannah, Georgia” (Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press, 1979), 6. [4] Bragg, William Harris, “De Renne: Three Generations of a Georgia Family” (Athens, GA: The University of Georgia Press, 1999), 447. [5] Harden, William, “A History of Savannah and South Georgia” (Chicago: The Lewis Publishing Company; two volumes, 1913), II:534. [6] “Noble Wimberly Jones” in William J. Northen, ed., “Men of Mark in Georgia: a Complete and Elaborate History of the State

782

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

from its Settlement to the Present Time, Chiefly Told in Biographies and Autobiographies of the Most Eminent Men of Each Period of Georgia’s Progress and Development” (Atlanta: A.B. Caldwell; six volumes, 1907-12), I:208. [7] Smith, George Gilman, “The Story of Georgia and the Georgia People, 1732 to 1860” (Macon, GA: George G. Smith, Publisher, 1900), 78. [8] Benjamin Franklin to Noble Wimberly Jones, 8 October 1772, in Elfrida De Renne Barrow and Laura Palmer Bell, “Anchored Yesterdays: The Log Book of Savannah’s Voyage Across a Georgia Century” (Savannah, GA: From the Press of the Review Publishing and Printing Company, 1923), 60. [9] See “Proceedings of the First Provincial Congress of Georgia, 1775” in “Collections of the Georgia Historical Society, V:1 (Savannah, GA: Braid & Hutton, Printers and Binders, 1901), 9. [10] Sholes, A.E., comp., “Chronological History of Savannah, From Its Settlement by Oglethorpe down to December 31, 1899, Together with a Complete Record of the City and County, and Savannah’s Roll of Honor, A Roster of the Soldiers Who Have in Three Wars Gone Forth at Their Country’s Call, from This City” (Savannah, GA: The Morning News Print, 1900), 54-55. See also F. D. Lee and J. L. Agnew, “Historical Record of the City of Savannah” (Savannah, GA: Printed and Published by J.H. Estill, Morning News Steam-Power Press, 1869), 37. [11] Entry for 13 September 1775 in “Journals of the American Congress: From 1774 to 1788. In Four Volumes” (Washington, DC: Printed and Published by Way and Gideon; four volumes, 1823), I:136. [12] Jones official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=J000244. [13] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VI:xlv. [14] Coulter, E. Merton, “Jones, Noble Wymberly,” in Allen Johnson, et al., “Dictionary of American Biography” (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons; eleven volumes and five supplements, 1958-77), X:196-97. [15] Augusta Herald [Georgia], 24 January 1805, 3. [16] City Gazette [Charleston], 21 January 1805, 3.

American Revolution. Despite these tendencies, he was considered a leading attorney in the state. Historian Paul Cushman wrote, “[Richard] Varick was a good choice for New York State attorney Gen., as the task complemented a separate major undertaking of his, the systematic codification of the laws of the state of New York. Chosen by the legislature in 1786 to ‘collect, revise, and digest the acts of New York and the laws passed,’ Varick and eminent lawyer Samuel Jones took over two years to complete this huge project. Published in two volumes in 1789, the document laid down the fundamental basis of New York State law.” [3]

Samuel Jones (1734–1819) A Loyalist, Samuel Jones was nevertheless elected to the Continental Congress from New York, but he declined to attend. He was born in Oyster Bay, on New York’s Long Island, on 26 July 1734, the son of William Jones and Phebe (née Jackson) Jones. [1] One family genealogical record reads, “Samuel Jones[,] Son of William Jones, Son of Thomas Jones of Fort Neck Long Island, of Oyster Bay West Neck in Queens County on Nassau Island in the Province of New York, was born the 26th Day of July 1734.” [2] Samuel Jones studied the law and was admitted to the New York colonial bar. He married Cornelia Haring, and together the couple had several children. Samuel Jones was a Loyalist who remained loyal to the British Crown even during and after the

While working on this project, Jones was elected on 16 December 1788 by the New York legislature to a seat in the Continental Congress, in its final days before it was succeeded by the new bicameral legislature consisting of a US House of Representatives and a US Senate. Although historian Edmund Cody Burnett states that Jones “[d]id not attend,” [4], his official congressional biography states that he refused to. [5] One source noted of Jones, “[a] distinguished lawyer, Jones of Queens County represented the southern district in the New York state senate from 1791 to 1799. [6] Jones died in Oyster Bay, on Long Island, on 21 November 1819 at the age of 85. He was buried in the Jones’ family graveyard in Massapequa, New York. His original gravestone is cracked and illegible; a plaque near his grave states, “Burial Place of Samuel Jones, Esquire. 1734–1819. Voted for Ratification of the US Constitution, 7-26-1788.” His sons include William Jones (1771–1853) and Elbert Haring Jones (1773– 1854).

[1] Jones family tree, online at http://www.geni.com/people/ Samuel-Jones/6000000018033335103. [2] The Colonial Dames of the State of New York (Jeannie Floyd Jones Robison and Henrietta Collins Bartlett, eds.), Genealogical Records: Manuscript Entries of Births, Deaths and Marriages, Taken from Family Bibles, 1581-1917” (New York: The Colonial Dames of the State of New York, 1917), C-119. [3] Cushman, Paul, “Richard Varick: A Forgotten Founding Father: Revolutionary War Soldier, Federalist Politician & Mayor of New York” (Amherst, MA: Modern Memoirs Publishing, 2010), 111. [4] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VIII:xci.

Willie Jones (1740–1801)783 [5] Jones official congressional biography, op. cit. [6] Marcus, Maeva, ed., “The Documentary History of the Supreme Court of the United States, 1789-1800” (New York: Columbia University Press; eight volumes, 1985), V:98.

Willie Jones (1740–1801)

for their surname. Thus Robert ap John, or Robert son of John, became Robert John or Johns, and by inserting e for euphony, became Johnes or Jones.” He added, “Robert or Robin Jones and wife, Sarah Cobb, had two sons, Allen and Willie, and one daughter, Martha. While studying law in London, Robin had become known to Lord Granville, who owned large possessions in the colonies. He now sent his sons, Allen and Willie, to Eton College to be educated, and they were put under the charge of Lord Granville. These two brothers became planters, owning large estates on the Roanoke [River].” [2] After completing his education at Eton, Willie Jones returned to North Carolina, where he engaged in agricultural pursuits, namely using his estate, known as “The Castle,” as a center for planting several crops. However, he tore this home down and built another near the town of Halifax. Historian Blackwell Pierce Robinson wrote:

With his younger brother, Allen Jones, Willie Jones was one of the leaders of the early revolutionary movement in North Carolina. Both brothers aided in the overthrow of royal rule, and then worked for the institution of a democratically-elected government that moved towards statehood. He later served in the Continental Congress (1780), and was elected as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, but he declined to serve. Jones was born in Northampton County, North Carolina, on 24 December 1740, the son and one of three children of Robert, also known as Robin, Jones, a planter in rural North Carolina, and his wife Sarah (née Cobb) Jones. [1] Historian Colonel Cadwalader Jones wrote, “The name Jones is Welsh, and is derived from John. The Welsh had no surname until compelled in Parliament. Then they took their father’s name

Situated in an immense park of native white oaks, and surrounded by a beautiful grove of shrubbery, crepe myrtles, and mock oranges, this house is worthy of special note as one of the outstanding homes in colonial North Carolina. Built in accordance with the demands of the times in regard to hospitality and lavish entertainment, it was very large and substantial, and its construction was elaborate and ornate. Of particular interest was a large bay window—said to have been the first built in North Carolina—which formed a semi-circle with one wide center window and two small ones on each side . . . This house soon became the council hall of many important meetings and the focal point for the belles and young blades of the section—both groups of which sought Halifax as the political and social mecca of northeastern North Carolina. There are, indeed, many contemporary accounts which elaborate on the town of Halifax and its importance. A brief glance at a few of them may throw some light upon Willie Jones’s environment and thereby be of assistance in understanding his life. [3] Although most sources on Jones’ life mark 1774 as the year that he was involved in the North Carolina political scene, we find that he was in fact elected to the General Assembly in 1770 and served into 1771. In that assembly of 1770 and 1771, historian Jo. Seawell Jones explained, “Cornelius Harnett, ‘the Samuel

784

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Adams of North Carolina,’ represented the town of Wilmington, Samuel Johnston the county of Chowan, Willie Jones the town of Halifax, Joseph Hewes the town of Edenton, Abner Nash the county of Halifax, and John Harvey the county of Perquimons.” [4]

of Genl. Gates. From the Circumstances of his Conduct, particularly his rapid Retreat, and the Length of it, and some Hints in one of his Letters, and Strictures in others, it appears to us that Genl. Gates can no longer continue in that Command with Satisfaction to himself, or with a prospect of rendering essential Service to the United States. We hope your next favour [sic] will throw some Light on this Subject . . . Congress has recommended to the several States to make provision for the support of their Delegates, so that they may not draw out of the Continental Treasury. The Reasons are the exhausted state of the Treasury, and the obvious Impropriety of allowing Delegates to draw at Will. You will be pleased to mention this Circumstance to our Assembly, at their next meeting, that some provision may be made; otherwise their Delegation may possibly be defeated[?], or at least involved in distressing and shameful Circumstances. [8]

In 1774, and again in 1776, Jones was one of the leaders in establishing the North Carolina Provincial Congress. Historian Jo. Seawell Jones added, “There were five characters of that day, whose extraordinary services in the cause of the first Provincial Congress deserve to be particularly noticed. John Harvey, William Hooper, Willie Jones, Samuel Johnston, and James Iredell, were the principal pioneers in that great and perilous undertaking. If I may judge from their letters, they were, as early as the 1st of April, 1774, contemplating the organization of a Provincial Congress or Assembly, directly from the people, and independent of the authority of the governor. The proposition to organize a Continental by the immediate agency of a Provincial Congress, was first made to our committee of correspondence by the committee of Massachusetts, about the 1st of June . . . ” [5] In 1776, Jones served as the president of the North Carolina Committee of Safety, and, upon the declaration of statehood, he stepped in and served as the governor ex officio of the new state, until elections could be held. He served as a delegate to the first North Carolina constitutional convention, and, with elections to a state House of Commons mandated under that new constitution, he was elected and served from 1776 to 1778. [6] On 30 April 1780, the state House of Commons elected Jones to serve as a delegate to the Continental Congress, where his brother was already serving. He only attended sessions of 22 June to 13 December 1780 [7]; the sole piece of printed correspondence from this period is in a letter to Governor Abner Nash of North Carolina, dated 1 October 1780, in which he wrote: Mr. [Whitmell] Hill and myself flattered ourselves that we should have received, ere this, an account of the proceedings of our late Assembly, and their Sentiments, as well as your private Opinion, respecting the Conduct

Seven years later, in 1787, a newspaper reported on Willie Jones, “His Excellency Richard Caswell, and the Honourable Alexander Martin, Willie Jones, Richard Dobbs Spaight, and William Richardson Davie, Esquires, have been lately appointed Deputies from the state of North-Carolina, to the Convention to be held at Philadelphia, on the first Day of May next.” [9] The following year, Jones was elected as a member of the state constitutional convention, called to ratify the US Constitution signed in Philadelphia the previous summer. After this last service, Jones retired to his home near Raleigh. Willie Jones died at his summer home near Raleigh, North Carolina, on 18 June 1801 at the age of 60. The National Intelligencer said, “It may be held unnecessary to speak of a life and character so generally known and respected as Mr. Jones’s. With regard to in, who will long continue to live in the hearts and affections of his country, it is undoubtedly unnecessary, and of no moment to do Sons of Liberty but with respect to those who survive him, it may have its use; inasmuch as it may lead to an imitation of those virtues, and of that conduct, which so deservedly raised the established him in the estimation of all.” [10] A Deist, Jones was buried without a marked grave, believed to be on the site of what is St. Augustine’s College in Raleigh.

Willie Jones (1740–1801)785 See also: Allen Jones

[1] Jones family tree, online at http://www.geni.com/people/ Colonial-Gov-Willie-Jones/6000000001793120109. [2] Jones, Colonel Cadwallader, “A Genealogical History” ­(Columbia, SC: Ye Bryan Printing Company, 1900), 1-2, 5. [3] Robinson, Blackwell Pierce, “Willie Jones of Halifax,” The North Carolina Historical Review, XVIII:1 (January 1941), 3-4. [4] Jones, Jo. Seawell, “A Defence of the Revolutionary ­History of the State of North Carolina, From the Aspersions of Mr. ­Jefferson” (Boston: Published by Charles Bowen, 1834), 70. [5] Ibid., 123-24.

[6] Willie Jones official congressional biography, online at http:// bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=J000262. [7] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), V:lxi. [8] Willie Jones to Abner Nash, 1 October 1780, in ibid., V:394. [9] The Maryland Journal, 9 February 1787, 2. See also The Newport Mercury [Rhode Island], 5 March 1787, 3. [10] The National Intelligencer and Washington Advertiser [Washington, DC], 3 July 1801, 2.

K John Kean (1756-1795)

Historians wrote of South Carolina delegate to the Continental Congress (1785-87) John Kean, “If John Bull was the last of the old colonial aristocracy from the Beaufort District, then John Kean was the first of a new breed of energetic and ambitious national politicians.” [1] Kean also served as the first Cashier of the Bank of the United States, from its organization until his death. Kean was born in Charleston, South Carolina, sometime in 1756—the exact date is unknown; his father’s name is reported as John Kean as well. [2] “The first of this family of who I known anything was John Kean, born at 1757 at Beaufort, South Carolina. His father came from the West Indies, and is said to have been of Scottish descent.” [3] The elder Kean died when his son was young, and Lucy Kean was forced to bring up her son alone, eventually remarrying a man who served as John Kean’s stepfather and mentor. There is no record of John Kean’s education; he apparently engaged for several years in “mercantile pursuits.” He married Sarah Livingston, the daughter of Peter Van Brugh

Livingston and a member of the famed Livingston family of New York. In 1780, when the British invaded South Carolina and sacked Charleston, Kean, who supported the American Revolution, was captured by British General Henry Clinton, and sent to a prison warship where he remained for several months. Upon his release, General George Washington named him to a commission to audit the financial accounts of the Continental Army. [4] Although his congressional biography does not list him as serving in an elective capacity in the state House of Representatives, nevertheless historian Edward McCrady does in fact have his service in the state House, in a “list of the members of the South Carolina legislature elected in 1781 under Governor [John] Rutledge’s Proclamation, Which Met in Jacksonborough in January, 1781, commonly known as the Jacksonborough Assembly.” [5] On 11 February 1785, the South Carolina legislature elected Kean to a seat in the Continental Congress. Reelected on 16 February 1786 and 6 March 1787, he served from 31 May 1785 to 25 May 1786, from 3 to about 7 July 1786, from about 13 September to about 20 September 1786, on 24 November 1786, from 17 January to 21 February 1787, and from 29 May to 27 October 1787. [6] Historian Edmund Cody Burnett wrote: It is significant that on April 17 a committee (Henry Lee, Rufus King, and John Kean) was appointed “To report the power which Congress may rightfully exercise to compel the attendance of the members.” Who made the motion is not recorded, but Nathan Dane had at least stirred the question in his letter to Samuel Adams [on] 11 February 1786. The committee, in its report (12 June) took high ground, laying down these principles: “that the Confederation is a compact between the several states; that the union, under authority of that compact, has a right to demand of the states the performance of the duties stipulated in the compact; that the first claim which the whole has on its parts is a compliance with the formation of the sovereignty, such a compliance being essential to the execution of the purposes of the Confederation; that, subject to the qualifications of the

John Kean (1756-1795)787 fifth article of the Confederation, the states have a right to appoint their delegates as they please; that thereupon it becomes the duty of the states seasonably to send forward their delegates and that the state neglecting to do so becomes responsible to the union for the delays and evils which may ensue from such neglect.” [7] Historian George C. Rogers wrote, “Already in New York when the summer began were the South Carolina delegates to Congress. David Ramsey had withdrawn from Congress of 12 May, but John Bull, John Kean, John Parker, Jr., Daniel Huger, and Charles Pinckney were in attendance that summer.” [8] During this period of service in the Continental Congress, several pieces of correspondence from Kean were found, involving his concern over the foreign policy of the American government. In a letter to John Jay, the secretary for foreign affairs—the equivalent of the secretary of state under the US Constitution—Kean penned, “Herewith I send you sundry papers relative to the ship South Carolina’s expedition, against the Bahama Islands in 1782, in conjunction with the forces of Spain, under the command of General [Juan Manuel de] Cagigal, which may serve to elucidate the claim of the State of South Carolina for an allowance for their ship on that expedition, and which the Minister at the court [sic] of Madrid is directed by resolution of the 3rd May, 1784, to use his best endeavors to obtain.” Kean followed this missive up on 11 November, when he wrote, “I should have sooner done myself the honor of answering your note of the 8th instant, but having no such accurate knowledge of the subject as I wished to communicate to you, I thought to have obtained some information from my colleagues; I did not receive all their answers until this morning, but find them wholly unacquainted, so I must give you what I have heard, observing that it has been gathered from transient conversation in Carolina, and not from any examination of authentic papers . . . The frigate South Carolina, for whose use the compensation is now required of the Court of Spain, was the property of the Prince de Luxenburgh, she was chartered by Mr. Gillon in behalf of the State of South Carolina. The Prince was to receive as her hire a certain proportion of all the prizes she should take. Upon this it is that I found my idea that the Princes entitled to a share of whatever money may be received by the court [sic] of Spain, as a

compensation for the use of this vessel. What the proportion is I cannot say absolutely, but think it is twenty-four per cent.” [9] In an “act of cession of South Carolina,” dated 9 August 1787, we find, “Resolved, That Congress are ready to accept the claim of the State of South Carolina, to the tract of country described in the act of said State, whenever the delegates will execute a deed conformable to said act . . . In virtue of the powers in them vested, the delegates of the State of South Carolina, for and in behalf of the said State, executed the following deed of cession to the United States of America: To all who shall see these presents: We, John Kean and Daniel Huger, the underwritten delegates for the State of South Carolina, in the Congress of the United States, send greeting . . . ” [10] Kean served as a delegate to the ratification convention of the new US Constitution, held in May 1788, representing St. Helena’s Parish. [11] In 1791, President Washington appointed Kean as the cashier of the Bank of the United States. On 25 October the directors of the Bank of the United States selected Thomas Willing as the bank’s first president, and John Kean as its first cashier. He would hold this position until his death. Kean died in Philadelphia on 4 May 1795, aged either 38 or 39, and he was laid to rest in the now-defunct St. John’s Churchyard. Kean’s great-grandson, Hamilton Fish Kean (18621941) served as a Republican in the US Senate (1929-35), his great-grandson John Kean (18521914) served in the US House of Representatives as a Republican (1883-85, 1887-89), and in the US Senate (1899-1911), his great-great-grandson Robert Winthrop Kean (1893-1980) served as a Republican in the US House of Representatives (1939-59), and his great-great-grandson Thomas Kean (1935- ) served as governor of New Jersey (1982-90).

[1] Rowland, Lawrence S., Alexander Moore, and George C. Rogers, Jr., “The History of Beaufort County, South Carolina” (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press; two volumes, 1996), I:264. [2] Kean family tree, online at http://www.geni.com/people/ John-Kean/6000000011460191361. [3] Rives, George Lockhart, “Genealogical Notes, Collected by George Lockhart Rives” (New York: Privately Printed by the Knickerbocker Press, 1914), 73. [4] Kean official congressional biography, online at http:// bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=K000027.

788

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

[5] McCrady, Edward, “The History of South Carolina in the Revolution, 1780-1783” (New York, The Macmillan Company; 1902), 740. [6] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VIII:xcvii. [7] Ibid., xxiii-xxiv. [8] Rogers, George C., “Evolution of a Federalist: William Loughton Smith of Charleston (1758-1812)” (Columbia: University of South Carolina Press, 1962), 142. [9] John Kean to John Jay, 4 November 1786, and John Kean to John Jay, 11 November 1786, both in “Diplomatic Correspondence of the American Revolution; Being the Letters of Benjamin Franklin, Silas Deane, John Adams, John Jay, Arthur Lee, William Lee, Ralph Izard, Francis Dana, William Carmichael, Henry Laurens, John Laurens, M. Dumas, and Others, Concerning the Foreign Relations of the United States During the Whole Revolution; Together with the Letters in Reply from the Secret Committee of Congress, and the Secretary of Foreign Affairs: Also, the Entire Correspondence of the French Ministers, Gerard and Luzerne, with Congress: Published under the Direction of the President of the United States, from the Original Manuscripts in the Department of State, Conformably to a Resolution of Congress, of March 27th, 1818” (Boston: N. Hale and Gray & Bowen; twelve volumes, 1829-30), VI:328, 360-61. [10] “Act of Cession of South Carolina, Resolutions of Congress, 9 August 1787,” in Thomas Cooper; and David James McCord, eds., “The Statutes at Large of South Carolina. Edited, under Authority of the legislature, by Thomas Cooper [and] David J. McCord” (Columbia, SC: Printed by A.S. Johnston; 10 volumes, 1836-41), I:168. [11] “Debates which Arose in the House of Representatives of South-Carolina, on the Constitution Framed for the United States, by a Convention of Delegates Assembled at Philadelphia. Together with Such Notices of the Convention as Could be Procured” (Charleston, SC: Printed by A.E. Miller, 1831), 82.

Dyer) Kearney. [1] Rebecca Dyer Kearney’s greatgrandfather, William Dyer (1609-1672) was from Middlesex, England; her grandfather William Dyer came to the colony of Delaware in 1659. [2]

Dyre Kearney (c. 1722-1791)

Dyre Kearney studied the law and was admitted to the state bar of New Castle County, Delaware, in 1784, and he opened a practice in the capital, Dover. [3] On 3 February 1787, Kearney (listed as “Dyre Kearny”) was elected as a delete the Continental Congress, “until the first Monday in November next, in the Place and Stead” of delegate Gunning Bedford, who had resigned. He was reelected on 10 November 1787, and attended sessions of 1 March to 27 October 1787, 21 January to 17 June 1788, and 10 July to 14 October 1788, as the Continental Congress wound down in its final days, to be succeeded by a bicameral legislature enacted under the US Constitution, which was signed in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787. [4] The Journals of the Continental Congress note for Thursday, 1 March 1787 that “Mr. Dyre Kearney, a delegate for Delaware, attended, and produced credentials by which it appears, that on the 3d of February he was elected a delegate in the room of Gunning Bedford the elder, esq., resigned, to represent the said state in Congress, until the first Monday in November next.” [5] There is only one reference to Kearney after he left the Continental Congress: according to the minutes of the Council of the Delaware State, from 29 January 1789: Mr. Bishop a member of the House of Assembly, was admitted and delivered the following papers, which were read. A letter from Dyre Kearney to the Speaker of the House of Assembly, his accounts, and the report of the Auditor thereupon; also the following resolution, viz: IN THE HOUSE OF ASSEMBLY, WEDNESDAY, P.M., January 28, 1789. The committee to whom was referred the letter from Dyre Kearney, Esq., and the Auditor’s report, dated the 27th instant, upon the accounts of the said Dyre Kearney, brought in their report, which was read, and thereupon:

A delegate to the Continental Congress from Delaware (1787 to 1788), Kearney was an attorney in his native state. He was born about 1722, the son of Edward Kearney and his wife Rebecca (née Dyre or

Resolved, That there was due to the said Dyre Kearney, Esq., for his attendance as a Delegate from this State to Congress, from the 18th day of January, 1788, to the 14th at of October following, including his traveling charges, £540, of which he has received £300, and that there is due to him the sum of £240.

Rufus King (1755-1827)789 Sent for concurrence. JAS. BOOTH, C.H.A. [6] According to his official congressional biography, Kearney resumed his legal practice in Dover, Delaware, where he died approximately 1 November 1791. His burial place is unknown.

[1] This information, which does not appear in any of the myriad of short biographies of Dyre Kearney, comes from a genealogical website, with the information supplied by one David Dyer, who may or not be a relative of Dyre Kearney’s. [2] See “Dyer Genesis—1657” in John Bozman Kerr, comp., “Genealogical Notes of the Chamberlaine Family of Maryland (Eastern Shore), and of the Following Connected Families: NealeLloyd, Tilghman-Robins, Hollyday-Hammond-Dyer, HughesStockton, Hayward, Nicols-Goldsborough, and Others” (Baltimore: Printed by John B. Piet, 1880), 91-92. [3] Kearney official congressional biography, http://bioguide. congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=K000031. [4] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VIII:lxxxiv. [5] Entry for 1 March 1787, in “Journals of The American Congress: From 1774 to 1788. In Four Volumes. Also, the Journal of the Committee of the States, From 1st Friday in June, to the 1st Friday in August, 1784. With an Appendix” (Washington, DC: Printed and Published by Way and Gideon; four volumes, 1823), IV:724. [6] “Minutes of the Council of The Delaware State, 1789,” Papers of the Historical Society of Delaware, VI (Wilmington: The Historical Society of Delaware, 1887), 1176.

Rufus King (1755-1827)

Rufus King served in the Continental Congress (1784-87), signed the US Constitution (1787), served in the US Senate (1789-96, 1813-25),

and was appointed US minister to Great Britain (1796-1803). He was also the Federalist candidate for vice president in 1804, for governor of New York in 1816, and that party’s candidate for president in 1816. He was born in Scarboro (aka “Scarborough”), Maine, then a part of Massachusetts, on 24 March 1755, the son of Richard King, a local merchant, and his wife Isabella (née Bragdon) King. [1] Rufus King’s grandson, Charles R. King, wrote, “His father, Richard, was the son of John King, who came to America from Kent, England, soon after the year 1700, settled in Boston, and in 17 14 married Sarah Allen, by whom he had a son, who died in infancy. Upon her death, he married Mary Stowell, daughter of Benjamin Stowell, of Newton, Massachusetts, in 17 18, and by her had several children, of whom Richard, the eldest, was born in Boston in 1718.” [2] Rufus King’s half-brother, from a different mother, was Cyrus King (1772-1817), who would serve in the US House of Representatives (1813-17) as a member of the Federalist Party. Rufus King attended local schools, then the Dummer Academy in South Byfield (King’s grandson calls it “the Byfield Academy in Newburyport”), Massachusetts. He then entered Harvard College (now Harvard University) in 1773, and graduated from that institution four years later. Historian Steven E. Siry wrote, “Soon he began a lifelong membership in the Episcopal church and with his fellow students shared the excitement kindled by the Coercive Acts and the movement toward independence. Though the son of a Tory, he denounced the arrival of British troops in June 1775. ‘America spurns the production of the petty tyrant,’ asserted King, ‘and treating it with deserved contempt, stands firm upon the pillars of liberty, immovable as Heaven and determined as fate. One kindred spirit catches from man to man.’” [3] For a short period he served as a general’s aide during the later years of the American Revolution. Desiring an occupation, he read the law in the office of the famed Massachusetts attorney Theophilus Parsons (he would later, on his own, serve as the chief justice of the Massachusetts Supreme Court), and was admitted to the state bar in 1780, opening a practice in Newburyport.

790

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

In 1783, King entered the political arena, when he was elected to the Massachusetts General Court, the state legislature of the Commonwealth; he would hold this seat until 1785. On 3 November 1784, this body elected King to a seat in the Continental Congress; he was ultimately reelected on 16 June 1785 and 27 June 1786, attending sessions from 6-24 December 1784, 11 January to 31 December 1785, 2 January to 5 September 1786, 28 September to 24 November 1786, 17 January to 18 May 1787, and 20 September to 16 October 1787. Historian Edmund Cody Burnett wrote that “King was a member of the committee (with James Monroe) to confer with the Pennsylvania legislature and was absent on that mission [from 6-24 September 1786. He attended the Federal Convention from May 21 to the close.” [4]

Government, Congress would adjourn without day. Something of this kind must be done. It is a mere farce to remain here as we have done since last October. Foreigners know our situation and the friends of free Governments through the world must regret it. Resolves have been passed upon Resolves—and letter after letter has been sent to the deficient States, and all without the desired effect. We are without money or the prospect of it in the Federal Treasury; and the States, many of them, care so little about the Union, that they take no measures to keep a representation in Congress. The civil list begin to clamour [sic]—there is not money to pay them: they are now unpaid for a longer period than since the circulation of Paper Money. The handful of troops over the Ohio are mutinous and desert because they are unpaid. The money borrowed in Europe is exhausted and this very day our Foreign Ministers have it not in their power to receive their salaries for their support. [6]

In 1787, the states sent delegates to Pennsylvania to attend the Constitutional Convention, to reform the moribund Articles of Confederation, or draft an entirely new constitution for the United States: King was elected as one of these delegates. The previous year, as a delegate to the Continental Congress, he had written several pieces of correspondence demonstrating his fear at the growing loss of power regarding the Articles. To Jonathan Jackson, a delegate to the Continental Congress (1782) from Massachusetts, he penned, “The situation of the federal Government is now critical; the authority of the confederation is found to be inadequate to bring money into the common Treasury, and the credit of the States is not sufficient to procure loans at home or abroad: indeed if the public credit was better, it could not, in my Judgment, be reconciled to the principles of common honesty to borrow, without fore seeing the means of Repayment.” [5] Writing to fellow Massachusetts delegate Elbridge Gerry, on the inherent flaws of the Articles of Confederation, he stated: We go on in Congress as when you left us. Three days since October only have nine States been on the Floor. Eight are now here, when we shall have nine is a melancholy uncertainty. I proposed a few days since that Congress should resolve, that provided on a certain day, sufficiently distant for information to reach all the States in season, the States were not so represented as to give power to administer the

King was just 32 when he attended the Constitutional Convention; he was one of the youngest members in attendance. He served on the Committee on Postponed Matters and the Committee of Style, the latter which drew up the actual Constitution on parchment. Historian Joseph C. Morton wrote, “Rufus King was one of the leaders of the large-state nationalistic caucus at the Constitutional Convention. ‘Distinguished for his eloquence and great parliamentary talents,’ he utilized his impressive oratorical skills to speak often, and persuasively, in support of the Virginia Plan, which was highly favorable to the large states and to those delegates who favored the creation of a strong, almost omnipotent national government.” [7] Max Farrand, one of the leading chroniclers of the events at the Constitutional Convention, wrote in 1911, “Without question, the . . . most important notes to that which have been considered are the notes of Rufus King, that have no received the attention they deserve, because of the form in which they were first printed. The original notes are, in the main, memoranda taken at the time in the Convention on odds and ends of paper. Each sheet or scrap of paper is dated and most of them are endorsed with date and substance of the contents, so that in only one or two cases can there be any doubt as to the place and order of the notes.” [8] King returned to Massachusetts, where he was a leader in the ratifying convention, speaking out for the direct

Rufus King (1755-1827)791 election of members of the proposed US House of Representatives.

again, 122 electoral votes to 47, and 124,732 votes to 62,431 votes in the popular vote.

Just after he participated in the ratifying convention in Massachusetts, King gave up his Massachusetts law practice, and moved to New York State, where he entered that state’s political arena. He won a seat in the state legislature, where he served from 1789 to 1790. In the former year, he was elected by his new political allies to the first seat of two in the new US Senate, the upper body of the bicameral national legislature mandated under the US Constitution. Although elected without a political party backing him, in the Senate King stood with the group supporting a strong central government, to be known as the Federalists, backing the economic plans of the administration of President George Washington, as well as the work of Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton. In one of his most unpopular votes, King supported the treaty negotiated by John Jay with England in 1794. Despite this vote, in 1795 he was reelected to the US Senate, but after only a year of this second term President George Washington appointed him to the plum diplomatic post of US minister to Great Britain, where he served from 20 May 1796 to about 16 May 1803, when he presented his recall notice. Historian Junius P. Rodriguez noted, “A Federalist, King remained suspicious of Continental Europeans on American life but agreed to serve as US Minister to Great Britain. He proved to be a skilled diplomat, helping to prevent a break in severely strained AngloAmerican relations.” [9] Ultimately disgusted with the British attitude regarding trade and the impressment of American sailors from ships, King resigned as minister in 1803.

King retired after this second defeat, to his estate, “King Manor,” on New York’s Long Island, which he had bought in 1805, and he pursued agricultural pursuits. However, his public service was not over. In November 1812, the New York legislature elected him again to the US Senate, where he served from 4 March 1813 to 3 March 1825, acting during the Sixteenth Congress (1819-21) as the chairman of the Committee on Roads, and in the Seventeenth Congress (1821-23) as the chairman of the Committee on Foreign Relations. In 1816 he was dually nominated for governor of New York, and by the Federalists for president of the United States. King lost both races: in the latter, running as a former harsh critic of the War of 1812 who changed his mind when the British invaded and sacked Washington, DC, he was defeated by James Monroe, 183 electoral votes to 34 electoral votes, and by a spread of 76,592 to 34,740 in the popular vote.

Returning to America, he was named as the Federalist candidate for vice president, on the ticket that year with Charles Cotesworth Pinckney of South Carolina. The two men were defeated by Thomas Jefferson and George Clinton, 162 electoral votes to 14, and 104,110 votes to 38,919 votes in the popular vote—a true landslide. Four years later, perhaps not having believed that two signers of the US Constitution could not win a presidential election, the Federalist Party renominated both Pinckney and King; this time, faced by the DemocraticRepublican candidates James Madison and George Clinton, the Federalists were defeated

In a speech in which he supported strong presidential power, King said on the US Senate floor on 12 January 1818, “Without adverting to the several branches of the executive power, for the purpose of distinguishing the cases in which it is exclusively vested in the President, from those in which it is vested in him jointly with the Senate, it will suffice on this occasion to observe that, in respect to foreign affairs, the President has no exclusive binding power, except that of receiving the Ambassadors and other foreign Ministers, which, as it involves the decision of the competence of the power which sends them, may be an act of this character; to the validity of all other definitive proceedings in the management of the foreign affairs, the Constitutional advice and consent of the Senate are indispensable.” [10] Remaining in the Senate until 1825, King was a firm opponent of the Missouri Compromise, which allowed slavery to exist in new territories, something the abolitionist King hated. In reward for his lifetime of service, in 1825 President John Quincy Adams named him a second time as the US minister to Great Britain, where he served from 5 May to 11 November 1825. According to several sources, his commission was only during a recess of the US Senate, and he was never

792

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

confirmed; however, a contemporary newspaper article reported that “the nomination of Rufus King, to be [the] Minister of the United States to London, was confirmed, and also that of [his son] John Adams King, to be [the] Secretary of Legation to the same Government.” [11] However, several months later, King resigned the commission and returned to America.

[7] Morton, Joseph C., “Shapers of the Great Debate at the Constitutional Convention of 1787: A Biographical Dictionary” (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2006), 157. [8] Farrand, Max, ed., “The Records of the Federal Convention of 1787” (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press; four volumes, 1911), I:xix-xx. [9] Rodriguez, Junius P., “The Louisiana Purchase: A Historical and Geographical Encyclopedia” (Santa Barbara, CA: ABC-Clio, 2002), 173. [10] Speech by King, 12 January 1818, 15th Congress, 1st Session, in “The Debates and Proceedings in the Congress of the United States; With an Appendix, Containing Important State Papers and Public Documents, and All The Laws of a Public Nature; With a Copious Index. Compiled From Authentic Materials” (Washington, DC: Printed and Published by Gales and Seaton; 42 volumes, 1834-56), 31:106-07. [11] Daily National Intelligencer [Washington, DC], 21 December 1825, 4. [12] “Death of Rufus King,” Daily National Intelligencer [Washington, DC], 3 May 1827, 3. [13] “Hon. Rufus King,” Christian Register [Boston, Massachusetts], 12 May 1827, 4.

On 29 April 1827, he died at his home, “King Manor,” on Long Island, one month past his 72nd birthday. Newspapers hailed him for his long history of service to the American nation, in both foreign and domestic politics. [12] He was buried in the Grace Episcopal Churchyard in Jamaica, Queens County, New York. The Christian Register stated, “Few men with whom we have been personally acquainted, and the exhibition of whose various talents we have had the opportunity to witness, were better qualified for eminence as pons and statesmen than Mr. King. Industrious in the acquisition of knowledge, cool and deliberate in debate, and powerful in delivery, he had very few rivals in senatorial eloquence. We have rarely if ever heard so finished a public speaker. His personal appearance was dignified, his voice clear and harmonious, his style chaste and correct, and his delivery in the highest degree oratorical and persuasive.” [13]

[1] King family tree, online at http://www.geni.com/people/ The-Honorable-Rufus-King-Signer-of-the-U-S-Constitution/6000000000986046481. See also Charles King, “Rufus King: Soldier, Editor, and Statesman,” The Wisconsin Magazine of History, IV:4 (June 1921), 371-81. For additional information, see “The King Family—Hon. Rufus King—His Ancestors and His Descendants,” The New-York Daily Times, 23 January 1857, 3. [2] King, Charles R., “The Life and Correspondence of Rufus King, Comprising His Letters, Private and Official, His Public documents and His Speeches” (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons; six volumes, 1894), I:1. [3] Siry, Steven E., “King, Rufus” in John A. Garraty and Mark C. Carnes, gen. eds., “American National Biography” (New York: Oxford University Press; 24 volumes, 1999), 12:---. [4] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VII:lxviii; VIII:lxxxviii. [5] Rufus King to Jonathan Jackson, 11 June 1786, in “Letters of Rufus King,” Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Third Series, XLIX (November 1915), 85. [6] Rufus King to Elbridge Gerry, 30 April 1786, in “The Life and Correspondence of Rufus King,” op. cit., I:133-34. See also “Letters of Rufus King,” Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, IX (January 1866), 9-10.

Francis Kinloch (1755-1826)

A delegate from South Carolina to the Continental Congress (1780) and member of the landed gentry of that colony and state, Francis Kinloch spent much of his life outside his native land, mostly in Switzerland. The son of Francis Kinloch, Sr., and Anne Isabella (née Cleland) Kinloch, Francis Kinloch was born in Charleston, South Carolina, on 7 March 1755. [1] Historian Nathalia Wright

Francis Kinloch (1755-1826)793 explained, “One of the most distinguished though short-lived families in the history of South Carolina in the late colonial and early national period was the Kinloch family, a branch of the Kinlochs of Scotland descended from Sir Francis Kinloch of Gilmerton, Bart., and his son the Hon. James Kinloch. Of this branch the brothers Francis and Cleland Kinloch, born in the 1770’s, were representative. Both were educated at Eton and travelled as youths on the continent. Francis was an author, soldier, civil office holder, and planter. Cleland owned Weehaw Plantation near Georgetown and later built the large and beautiful estate of Acton near Stateburg.” [2] Historian Michael O’Brien wrote that the influential Middleton family of South Carolina was directly related to Francis Kinloch. He penned, “The Middletons were, in turn, intermarried with the Kinlochs. Francis Kinloch, who was educated at Eton, the Middle Temple, and in Geneva, but who went reluctantly to fight for the Whig cause in the American Revolution, returned to England in 1790 and then lived between 1802 and 1806 mostly in Geneva.” [3] Born in England about 1730, the elder Kinloch died in 1768 at the age of 38, leaving his son without a mentor; this space was soon taken up by the elder Kinloch’s friend, Thomas Boone. Historian Philip Hamer noted that “Kinloch had been sent abroad in 1768 and placed by his guardian, the former royal governor of South Carolina, Thomas Boone, at Eton. He was sent in 1774 to Geneva to continue his studies there.” [4] Taken under the elder gentleman’s wing, Francis Kinloch earned an education, which culminated at Eton, at England’s Middle Temple, and then further studies, as noted, in Switzerland. Francis Kinloch later wrote a belated letter to Boone, published in a work in 1819: Thirty years have passed over us, since I saw you: since, having exhorted me to give up those prospects, which circumstances had encouraged me to form, and to yield with good grace to what seemed the decided opinion of a great majority of my countrymen, but above all to conduct myself with honour and fidelity in whatever situation I might be placed, we parted, never, as it should seem, to meet again. I can never forget that moment, or the years which preceeded [sic] it; that having been committed to your care by the last will of my father, you continued to me that

regard you has felt for him, and that you instructed me by your advice, and animated me by your example, to deserve the esteem of all good men. [5] Although many sources report that Kinloch studied at the Middle Temple, his official congressional biography reports that it was actually done at Lincoln’s Inn, another one of the four Inns of Court of the English legal system. [6] Whichever school it was, Kinloch entered in 1774, and was admitted to the bar in London. He continued his studies in both Paris and Geneva, concluding in the latter city in 1777. Historian H.D. Bull, a Kinloch biographer, related, “Kinloch planned to return to America but tarried for a while, living with his cousin, Sir David Kinloch, of Gilmerton, Fifth Baronet, on his estate in Scotland. From there he went to England whence he sailed in April, 1778, for home. His ties with the mother country were strong, and he does not appear to have been eager to take part in the struggle for independence. John Laurens wrote his father, 24 September 1778: ‘I am sorry that Kinloch did not return to America sooner. His former sentiments on the present contest give reason to suspect, if he is a convert, that success on our side has alone operated the change. Something may be drawn in palliation of his conduct from the education he received and the powerful influence which his guardian had over him.’” [7] Kinloch then returned to the United States, now at war: Kinloch volunteered for service in the South Carolina militia, rising to the rank of captain before his military service ended in 1781. Kinloch entered the political fray in the state, and was elected to a seat in the South Carolina state House of Representatives, serving in 1779 as well as from 1786 to 1788. On 1 February 1780, that body elected him to a seat in the Continental Congress, where he sat from 25 March 1780 to about 9 November of the same year. He was not re-elected to another term, and, from all sources, there does not appear to be any correspondence, either to or from Kinloch during this service. [8] Historian Felix Gilbert stated: [A]s a wealthy plantation owner and member of South Carolina’s ruling class he had a share in the politics of his home state. He served . . . in the state convention which ratified the Federal Constitution in 1788, and

794

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

in the state constitutional convention of 1790. Yet the part that he played in these political assemblies was never conspicuous, and his name is no longer given in currently published biographical cyclopedias. Evidently his political gifts and ambitions were not very great. His true interests lay in the world of art and literature, and here he has left two works: [a] Eulogy on George Washington . . . and two volumes of Letters from Geneva and France. The latter is a work of definite charm and is full of interesting information, although a verbose style and lengthy discussions of a purely didactic character make the reading sometimes difficult. [9]

He wrote, “I proceed with confidence, therefore, and with a degree of melancholy satisfaction, to take a transient view of the many amiable and valuable qualities which adorned that illustrious character: A character alike distinguished for a pious resignation to the decrees of Providence, and for unconquerable resolution in every emergency: For moderation in success, for patience in adversity, for prudence when retreat was unavoidable, joined to all the active valour [sic] of attack, and for a degree of integrity as unbounded as the confidence of his countrymen. Such was General George Washington.” [12]

In a newspaper from May 1788 an announcement emanated from Charleston: “Yesterday the delegates to represent the Parishes of St. Philip and St. Michael, in the state convention, appointed to meet in this city the 12th [of] May next, were declared to be as follows.” Among the names were Thomas Pinckney, Charles Cotesworth Pinckney, Dr. David Ramsey, Thomas Bee, Henry Laurens, and Francis Kinloch. [10]

Kinloch traveled to Europe from 1803 to 1806, but the trip, and the lack of attention to his rice plantation, almost drove him to bankruptcy. He returned to America and retired from public life.

In the years that he was not in public service, Kinloch lived at his rice plant, “Kensington,” in the Georgetown district of South Carolina. In 1789, he was elected as the warden of the city of Charleston, and as a justice of the peace and quorum, and then as a member of the South Carolina state Legislative Council that same year. In 1790, he served as a delegate to the state constitutional convention. North Carolinian James Iredell, a judge, wrote to his wife, Hannah, on 18 June 1790, “Had the weather not been so hot, my Circuit would have been quite a jaunt of pleasure, for I have been every where [sic] received, by every body [sic] with the utmost distinction & politeness, and by many of the first Families in South Carolina with a degree of unaffected kindness which was gratifying indeed. I spent one day upon Charleston Harbour at a place called Hadrell’s point with Mr Francis Kinloch, a young Gentleman of great fortune & extremely agreeable, who is married to Mr Rutledge’s oldest daughter, a very amiable young Lady, & they have two lovely little children.” [11] Following the death of former President George Washington in December 1799, Kinloch self-published a eulogy to the former commander-in-chief of the Continental Army.

He died in Charleston, South Carolina, on 8 February 1826, a month short of his 71st birthday. His son, Frederick, wrote in the City Gazette of Charleston, “It has become my melancholy duty publicly to record the irreparable loss of an inestimable parent . . . My father died in this city—sustained in his last moments by the best medical skill that Charleston could afford, and soothed and comforted by all the attention that filial piety could offer. He has descended honored and wept into the unconscious earth, and had died worthy the regret of all good men— of none more so . . .” [13] Kinloch was buried in St. Michael’s Church Cemetery in Charleston.

[1] Kinloch family tree, online at http://www.geni.com/people/ Francis-Kinloch-Continental-Congress/6000000024421140265. [2] Wright, Nathalia, “Francis Kinloch: A South Carolina Artist,” The South Carolina Historical Magazine, LXI:2 (April 1960), 99. [3] O’Brien, Michael, “Conjectures of Order: Intellectual Life and the American South, 1810-1860” (Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina Press; two volumes, 2004), I:95. [4] Hamer, Philip M., ed., et al., “The Papers of Henry Laurens” (Columbia: Published for the South Carolina Historical Society by the University of South Carolina Press; sixteen volumes, 19682003), IX:227. [5] Kinloch, Francis, “Letters From Geneva and France, Written During a Residence of Between Two and Three Years, in Different Parts of Those Countries, And Addressed to a Lady in Virginia. By Her Father” (Boston: Printed for Wells and Lilly; two volumes, 1819), I:xi. [6] Kinloch official congressional biography, online at http:// bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=K000223. [7] Bull, H.D., “Kinloch of South Carolina,” The South Carolina Historical and Genealogical Magazine, XLVI:2 (April 1945), 65-66.

James Kinsey (1731-1803)795 [8] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), V:lxiii. [9] Gilbert, Felix, “Letters of Francis Kinloch to Thomas Boone 1782-1788,” The Journal of Southern History, VIII:1 (February 1942), 87-88. [10] “Charleston (S.C.), April 17,” The Pennsylvania Packet [Philadelphia], 7 May 1788, 3. [11] James Iredell to Hannah Iredell, 18 June 1790, in in Maeva Marcus, ed., “The Documentary History of the Supreme Court of the United States, 1789-1800” (New York: Columbia University Press; eight volumes, 1985), II:79-80. [12] “Eulogy on George Washington, Esq. deceased, Late Commander in Chief of the American Armies, and Some Time President of the United States” (Georgetown, SC: Printed by John Burd, 1800), 6. [13] “Obituary,” City Gazette and Commercial Daily Advertiser [Charleston, South Carolina], 14 February 1824, 2.

James Kinsey (1731-1803)

(1665-1735), of whom historian Joseph Solomon Walton wrote, “[His] grandfather, John Kinsey the first, was one of the commissioners sent out by the proprietors of West New Jersey in 1677. The elder Kinsey was taken ill on the good ship Kent, and his devoted son put him ashore at the Swedish settlement at Shackamaxon, where he died in a few days. He was buried in the land promised unto him, the land for which he had mapped and planned a Quaker settlement before him ‘old England.’ His burial place was subsequently known as Burlington, New Jersey.” [1] Of John Kinsey, the father of James, Isaac Sharpless wrote in 1919, “After William Penn, no colonial Quaker had the absolute confidence of Friends in church affairs, and at the same time the strong leadership in the state to the extent possessed by John Kinsey. During the last decade of his life he was the clerk of the yearly meeting and its most responsible and influential member. He was also the chief justice of the Supreme Court of the Province, Speaker of the Assembly and the undoubted leader of its party in political management.” [2] James Kinsey attended the local schools of Philadelphia; he then studied the law, and was admitted to the New Jersey colonial bar in 1753, despite his family having no ties to that colony. He practiced in both colonies, while residing in Burlington County, New Jersey. In 1772, he entered the political realm when he was elected to the colonial General Assembly, serving until 1775. In 1774, for a term that lasted until the following year, he served as a member of the Committee of Correspondence for Burlington County.

Although he was born in Pennsylvania, James Kinsey served as a delegate to the Continental Congress (1774-75) from New Jersey. A respected attorney, he would rise to serve as the chief justice of the New Jersey state Supreme Court, a post he held in the last decade of his life. The son of John Kinsey, a noted Philadelphia attorney and judge, and his wife Mary (née Kearny) Kinsey, James Kinsey was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, on 22 March 1731. The family was descended from John Kinsey

On 23 July 1774, the General Assembly elected Kinsey to a seat in the meeting soon to come together in Philadelphia that September known as the First Continental Congress. Reelected on 24 January 1775 to serve in what became the Second Continental Congress, he attended sessions of both bodies from 5 September to about 26 October 1774, from 10 to about 14 May 1775, and from about 9 October to sometime in November 1775. Historian Edmund Cody Burnett wrote, “It is doubtful whether Kinsey remained to the end of the session of 1774, for while he signed the Association [on] 22 October, he did not sign the petition to the King [on] 26 October. After the opening day of the

796

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Congress of 1775 there is no record of Kinsey’s presence until 9 October . . . and the last record in the Journals is [for] 17 October. He attended the New Jersey assembly [on] 15-19 May and 15 November to 6 December [1775] He resigned about 13 November [1775].” [3] We find Kinsey listed among the other delegates from New Jersey—Stephen Crane, William Livingston, and Richard Smith—who all sat at the same time in the Continental Congress. [4] In the Journals of the Continental Congress, for 22 November 1775, we find the following notice: “The [New Jersey House of Assembly] took into consideration the request of James Kinsey and John De Hart, Esqrs. two of the delegates appointed by this house to attend the Continental Congress, for leave to resign their said appointment. Resolved, That the reasons given by those gentlemen for their resignation appear to this house to be satisfactory, and that their resignation therefore be accepted . . .” [5] In the remaining years of his life, Kinsey served as a judge, appointed at Carpenters’ Hall of the New Jersey state Supreme Court on 20 November 1789.

need of an obituary eulogium. Independence of mind, ever disdaining to stoop even in the appearance of dissimulation; manly rectitude of principle and unspotted integrity, directing a vigorous and enlightened understanding; honorable and social pursuits were the strongly marked textures of his public character . . . ” [6] Kinsey was laid to rest in the Friends’ Burial Ground, a Quaker cemetery, in Burlington, New Jersey.

He served until his death in Burlington, New Jersey, on 4 January 1802 at the age 70. Most biographies list his death on 4 January 1803; contemporary newspapers give the former date. The New-York Evening Post said, “The valuable and eminent qualities of this worthy gentleman, are too well and generally known to us and in

[1] Walton, Joseph Solomon, “John Kinsey: Speaker of the Pennsylvania Assembly and Justice of the Supreme Court of the Province” (Philadelphia: Friends’ Book Association, 1900), 3. For additional information on John Kinsey, father of James, see Peeling, James H., “John Kinsey,” in Allen Johnson, et al., “Dictionary of American Biography” (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons; eleven volumes and five supplements, 1958-77), X:421-22. [2] Sharpless, Isaac, “Political Leaders of Provincial Pennsylvania” (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1919), 156. [3] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), I:l. [4] United States, Continental Congress, “Extracts from the Votes and Proceedings of the American Continental Congress, at Philadelphia on the 5th of September 1774. Containing the Bill of Rights, a List of Grievances, Occasional Resolves, the Association, an Address to the People of Great Britain, and a Memorial to the Inhabitants of the British American Colonies” (Annapolis, MD: Printed by Anne Catharine Green, and Son, 1774), 14. [5] Ford, Worthington Chauncey, et al., eds., “Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; thirty-four volumes, 1905-37), III:397. [6] “Died,” New-York Evening Post, 20 January 1802, 3. See also New-York Herald, 23 January 1802, 4.

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE

CONTINENTAL CONGRESSES

Volume 2

CONTINENTAL CONGRESSES

Volume 2 L–Z

Timeline Primary Documents Appendixes Bibliography Index

978-1-61925-175-5

4919 Route 22, PO Box 56, Amenia, NY 12501 518-789-8700 • 800-562-2139 • FAX 845-373-6360 www.greyhouse.com • email: [email protected]

continental_congresses_v2.indd 1

ENCYCLOPEDIA OF THE

GREY HOUSE PUBLISHING

3/19/15 1:00 PM

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses First Edition Volume 2 L–Z

MARK GROSSMAN

PUBLISHER: EDITORIAL DIRECTOR: MANAGING EDITOR: PRODUCTION MANAGER: MARKETING DIRECTOR:

Leslie Mackenzie Laura Mars Diana Delgado Kristen Thatcher Jessica Moody

AUTHOR: Mark Grossman COMPOSITION: Lumina Datamatics® Grey House Publishing, Inc. 4919 Route 22 PO Box 56 Amenia, NY 12501 518.789.8700 FAX 845.373.6390 www.greyhouse.com e-mail: [email protected] While every effort has been made to ensure the reliability of the information presented in this publication, Grey House Publishing neither guarantees the accuracy of the data contained herein nor assumes any responsibility for errors, omissions or discrepancies. Grey House accepts no payment for listing; inclusion in the publication of any organization, agency, institution, publication, service or individual does not imply endorsement of the editors or publisher. Errors brought to the attention of the publisher and verified to the satisfaction of the publisher will be corrected in future editions. Except by express prior written permission of the Copyright Proprietor no part of this work may be copied by any means of publication or communication now known or developed hereafter including, but not limited to, use in any directory or compilation or other print publication, in any information storage and retrieval system, in any other electronic device, or in any visual or audio-visual device or product. This publication is an original and creative work, copyrighted by Grey House Publishing, Inc. and is fully protected by all applicable copyright laws, as well as by laws covering misappropriation, trade secrets and unfair competition. Grey House has added value to the underlying factual material through one or more of the following efforts: unique and original selection; expression; arrangement; coordination; and classification. First Edition published in 2015 © 2015 Grey House Publishing, Inc. All rights reserved Printed in the USA Publisher’s Cataloging-In-Publication Data (Prepared by The Donohue Group, Inc.) Grossman, Mark. Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses / — First edition. 2 volumes: illustrations; cm Includes bibliographical references and index. Contents: Volume 1. A-K—volume 2. L-Z. ISBN: 978-1-61925-175-5 1. United States. Continental Congress—Encyclopedias. 2. Legislators—United States—Biography. 3. United States—Politics and government—1775-1783—Encyclopedias. 4. United States—Politics and government—1783-1789—Encyclopedias. 5. Encyclopedias and dictionaries. I. Title. E303.G76 2015 973.3/12

Table of Contents Volume 1 Preface ................................................................................................................................................xvii Introduction......................................................................................................................................... xxv A Andrew Adams....................................................................................................................................... 1 John Adams............................................................................................................................................ 3 Samuel Adams...................................................................................................................................... 12 Thomas Adams..................................................................................................................................... 18 Robert Alexander.................................................................................................................................. 19 Andrew Allen........................................................................................................................................ 21 John Alsop............................................................................................................................................ 24 Benjamin Andrew................................................................................................................................. 27 Annapolis State House......................................................................................................................... 28 John Armstrong, Sr.............................................................................................................................. 31 John Armstrong, Jr.............................................................................................................................. 33 Jonathan Arnold................................................................................................................................... 36 Peleg Arnold......................................................................................................................................... 38 The Articles of Confederation.............................................................................................................. 41 John Baptista Ashe............................................................................................................................... 46 Samuel John Atlee................................................................................................................................ 48 Crispus Attucks..................................................................................................................................... 50 B Reverend Isaac Backus......................................................................................................................... 51 Abraham Baldwin................................................................................................................................. 53 John Banister........................................................................................................................................ 57 The Bank of the United States.............................................................................................................. 59 Robert Gibbes Barnwell....................................................................................................................... 62 Dr. Josiah Bartlett................................................................................................................................ 64 John Bubenheim Bayard...................................................................................................................... 69 John Beatty........................................................................................................................................... 73 Gunning Bedford.................................................................................................................................. 76 Gunning Bedford, Jr............................................................................................................................. 78 Thomas Bee.......................................................................................................................................... 82 Egbert Benson...................................................................................................................................... 84 Richard Beresford................................................................................................................................. 87 Edward Biddle...................................................................................................................................... 89 William Bingham.................................................................................................................................. 90 Jonathan Blanchard............................................................................................................................. 94 Richard Bland....................................................................................................................................... 96 Theodorick Bland................................................................................................................................. 99 Timothy Bloodworth...........................................................................................................................102 William Blount....................................................................................................................................106 Simon Boerum..................................................................................................................................... 110 The Boston Massacre............................................................................................................................111 The Boston Port Bill............................................................................................................................ 116

v

vi

Table of Contents

Elias Boudinot..................................................................................................................................... 119 James Bowdoin....................................................................................................................................124 Carter Braxton.....................................................................................................................................126 John Brown.........................................................................................................................................129 Nathan Brownson................................................................................................................................132 John Bull..............................................................................................................................................134 Archibald Stobo Bulloch...................................................................................................................... 135 Thomas Burke...................................................................................................................................... 137 Dr. William Burnet..............................................................................................................................140 Robert Burton......................................................................................................................................142 Pierce Butler........................................................................................................................................143 C Lambert Cadwalader........................................................................................................................... 147 Canada and Canadian Relations.........................................................................................................149 Capitals of the Continental Congress.................................................................................................. 155 William Carmichael............................................................................................................................. 161 Carpenters’ Hall...................................................................................................................................168 Edward Carrington..............................................................................................................................170 Charles Carroll “Barrister”.................................................................................................................. 175 Charles Frémont Carroll III “of Carrollton”....................................................................................... 178 Daniel Carroll......................................................................................................................................183 Richard Caswell...................................................................................................................................186 Jeremiah Townley Chase..................................................................................................................... 191 Samuel Chase.......................................................................................................................................193 Abraham Clark.....................................................................................................................................199 Matthew Clarkson...............................................................................................................................201 Joseph Clay......................................................................................................................................... 203 William Clingan.................................................................................................................................. 206 George Clinton.................................................................................................................................... 208 George Clymer.....................................................................................................................................213 The Coercive Acts................................................................................................................................216 John Collins.........................................................................................................................................216 The Committee of Five........................................................................................................................218 The Committee of Fifty....................................................................................................................... 220 The Committee of Fifty-One...............................................................................................................222 The Committee of Safety/Council of Safety........................................................................................222 The Committee of Secret Correspondence.........................................................................................224 Committees of Correspondence..........................................................................................................227 Committee of Foreign Affairs..............................................................................................................229 The Conciliatory Resolution of 1775...................................................................................................229 Silas Condict....................................................................................................................................... 230 Benjamin Contee.................................................................................................................................231 The Continental Association...............................................................................................................233 Joseph Platt Cooke..............................................................................................................................237 John Cooper.........................................................................................................................................239 Ezekiel Cornell.................................................................................................................................... 240 Tench Coxe..........................................................................................................................................242 Stephen Crane.....................................................................................................................................245 William Cumming...............................................................................................................................247 Thomas Cushing................................................................................................................................. 248

Table of Contents

vii

D Francis Dana........................................................................................................................................252 Nathan Dane........................................................................................................................................255 Second Lord Dartmouth, William Legge............................................................................................259 John Dawson.......................................................................................................................................259 Elias Dayton.........................................................................................................................................262 Jonathan Dayton.................................................................................................................................264 Silas Deane..........................................................................................................................................267 The Declaration of Independence.......................................................................................................274 John De Hart.......................................................................................................................................287 Charles DeWitt................................................................................................................................... 289 Samuel Dick.........................................................................................................................................291 John Dickinson....................................................................................................................................293 The “Dickinson Draft” of the Articles of Confederation.....................................................................301 Philemon Dickinson........................................................................................................................... 304 Diplomacy of, and by, the Continental Congress............................................................................... 305 William Henry Drayton...................................................................................................................... 309 James Duane....................................................................................................................................... 317 Reverend Jacob Duché........................................................................................................................322 William Duer.......................................................................................................................................329 Reverend George Duffield...................................................................................................................333 John Dunlap........................................................................................................................................334 Eliphalet Dyer......................................................................................................................................337 E Pierpont Edwards................................................................................................................................342 Samuel Elbert......................................................................................................................................346 William Ellery..................................................................................................................................... 348 Oliver Ellsworth...................................................................................................................................352 Jonathan Elmer...................................................................................................................................357 Espionage Tactics by the Continental Congress.................................................................................359 The Essex Principles, also known as The Essex Result......................................................................363 Nicholas Eveleigh................................................................................................................................373 F The Fairfax County Resolves...............................................................................................................377 John Fell..............................................................................................................................................381 William Few, Jr.................................................................................................................................. 384 The Henry Fite House........................................................................................................................ 388 William Fitzhugh................................................................................................................................ 389 Thomas Fitzsimons.............................................................................................................................391 William Fleming..................................................................................................................................393 William Floyd......................................................................................................................................396 Nathaniel Folsom............................................................................................................................... 398 James Forbes.......................................................................................................................................401 The Department of Foreign Affairs.................................................................................................... 402 Uriah Forrest...................................................................................................................................... 408 Abiel Foster..........................................................................................................................................410 Relations with France..........................................................................................................................413 Benjamin Franklin............................................................................................................................... 415 The “Franklin Draft” of the Articles of Confederation........................................................................424

viii

Table of Contents

Fraunces Tavern..................................................................................................................................425 Frederick Frelinghuysen.................................................................................................................... 428 The French Arms Tavern.....................................................................................................................431 George Frost........................................................................................................................................433 G Christopher Gadsden...........................................................................................................................436 Joseph Galloway..................................................................................................................................441 Leonard Gansevoort........................................................................................................................... 449 John Gardner...................................................................................................................................... 450 Joseph Gardner...................................................................................................................................452 David Gelston......................................................................................................................................454 George William Frederick, King George III of Great Britain and Ireland.........................................456 George Germain, 1st Viscount Sackville.............................................................................................462 Elbridge Gerry.................................................................................................................................... 466 John Lewis Gervais..............................................................................................................................474 William Gibbons..................................................................................................................................478 John Taylor Gilman............................................................................................................................ 482 Nicholas Gilman..................................................................................................................................485 Robert Goldsborough......................................................................................................................... 488 Mary Katherine Goddard....................................................................................................................491 Nathaniel Gorham...............................................................................................................................497 William Grayson................................................................................................................................. 500 Great Seal of the United States.......................................................................................................... 504 Cyrus Griffin....................................................................................................................................... 509 Second Earl of Guilford....................................................................................................................... 515 James Gunn......................................................................................................................................... 515 Button Gwinnett.................................................................................................................................. 517 H John Habersham................................................................................................................................. 521 Joseph Habersham..............................................................................................................................526 John Hall.............................................................................................................................................528 Lyman Hall.......................................................................................................................................... 531 Alexander Hamilton............................................................................................................................536 John Hancock......................................................................................................................................546 Edward Hand.......................................................................................................................................553 John Hanson.......................................................................................................................................557 Samuel Hardy......................................................................................................................................563 John Haring.........................................................................................................................................565 Cornelius Harnett................................................................................................................................568 Benjamin Harrison..............................................................................................................................572 William Harrison, Jr...........................................................................................................................578 John Hart............................................................................................................................................ 580 The Hartford Convention....................................................................................................................582 John Harvie........................................................................................................................................ 588 Benjamin Hawkins.............................................................................................................................. 591 Jonathan J. Hazard.............................................................................................................................597 William Hemsley................................................................................................................................600 James Henry....................................................................................................................................... 602 John Henry, Jr.................................................................................................................................... 603

Table of Contents

ix

Patrick Henry...................................................................................................................................... 606 William Henry.....................................................................................................................................613 Joseph Hewes......................................................................................................................................616 Thomas Heyward, Jr...........................................................................................................................621 Stephen Higginson..............................................................................................................................627 Whitmell Hill.......................................................................................................................................632 Michael Hillegas, Jr.............................................................................................................................634 James Hillhouse................................................................................................................................. 638 William Hillhouse............................................................................................................................... 640 William Hindman................................................................................................................................642 Samuel Holten.................................................................................................................................... 646 William Hooper.................................................................................................................................. 650 Esek Hopkins.......................................................................................................................................655 Stephen Hopkins................................................................................................................................ 660 Francis Hopkinson............................................................................................................................. 664 Josiah Hornblower.............................................................................................................................. 671 Titus Hosmer.......................................................................................................................................674 Hospital Department of the US Continental Army............................................................................677 William Churchill Houston................................................................................................................ 680 John Houstoun................................................................................................................................... 684 William Houstoun.............................................................................................................................. 688 John Eager Howard.............................................................................................................................691 David Howell...................................................................................................................................... 694 Richard Howly [Howley].................................................................................................................... 699 Daniel Huger.......................................................................................................................................701 Charles Humphreys.............................................................................................................................703 Benjamin Huntington.........................................................................................................................707 Samuel Huntington..............................................................................................................................711 Richard Hutson................................................................................................................................... 716 I Independence Hall.............................................................................................................................. 721 Jared Ingersoll.....................................................................................................................................723 The Intolerable Acts............................................................................................................................727 William Irvine......................................................................................................................................735 Ralph Izard..........................................................................................................................................738 J David Jackson......................................................................................................................................744 Jonathan Jackson................................................................................................................................745 John Jay...............................................................................................................................................747 Thomas Jefferson................................................................................................................................753 Daniel of St. Thomas Jenifer...............................................................................................................760 Thomas Johnson.................................................................................................................................765 William Samuel Johnson....................................................................................................................769 Samuel Johnston................................................................................................................................. 771 Allen Jones..........................................................................................................................................774 Joseph Jones, Sr..................................................................................................................................776 Noble Wimberly [Wymberley] Jones..................................................................................................779 Samuel Jones.......................................................................................................................................782 Willie Jones.........................................................................................................................................783

x

Table of Contents

K John Kean............................................................................................................................................786 Dyre Kearney...................................................................................................................................... 788 Rufus King...........................................................................................................................................789 Francis Kinloch....................................................................................................................................792 James Kinsey.......................................................................................................................................795

Volume 2 L Lancaster Court House........................................................................................................................797 John Langdon......................................................................................................................................798 Woodbury Langdon............................................................................................................................ 802 Edward Langworthy........................................................................................................................... 804 John Ten Eyck Lansing, Jr................................................................................................................. 806 John Laurance.................................................................................................................................... 809 Henry Laurens.....................................................................................................................................812 Richard Law.........................................................................................................................................819 Arthur Lee........................................................................................................................................... 820 Francis Lightfoot Lee.......................................................................................................................... 824 Henry Lee........................................................................................................................................... 828 Richard Henry Lee............................................................................................................................. 830 Thomas Sim Lee..................................................................................................................................835 William Lee..........................................................................................................................................837 William Legge, Second Earl of Dartmouth........................................................................................ 840 Daniel Leonard................................................................................................................................... 843 Francis Lewis...................................................................................................................................... 843 Lexington and Concord...................................................................................................................... 846 Ezra L’Hommedieu..............................................................................................................................853 The Library of the Continental Congress............................................................................................855 Samuel Livermore...............................................................................................................................857 Philip Livingston.................................................................................................................................861 Robert R. Livingston...........................................................................................................................867 Walter Livingston................................................................................................................................874 William Livingston............................................................................................................................. 878 Edward Lloyd...................................................................................................................................... 884 Pierse Long......................................................................................................................................... 886 James Lovell....................................................................................................................................... 890 Isaac Low............................................................................................................................................ 896 John Lowell........................................................................................................................................900 Loyalists.............................................................................................................................................. 904 The Lundin Letter................................................................................................................................ 911 Thomas Lynch.....................................................................................................................................914 Thomas Lynch, Jr................................................................................................................................ 917 M James Madison....................................................................................................................................919 James Manning...................................................................................................................................926 Henry Marchant..................................................................................................................................929 The Massachusetts Convention...........................................................................................................933

Table of Contents

xi

Massachusettensis vs. Novanglus......................................................................................................935 John Mathews.................................................................................................................................... 938 Timothy Matlack.................................................................................................................................942 Eleazer McComb..................................................................................................................................945 Alexander McDougall......................................................................................................................... 948 James McHenry...................................................................................................................................952 Lachlan McIntosh................................................................................................................................957 Thomas McKean..................................................................................................................................961 James McLene.....................................................................................................................................965 The Mecklenburg Declaration of Independence............................................................................... 966 James Mercer..................................................................................................................................... 969 John Francis Mercer............................................................................................................................972 Samuel Meredith.................................................................................................................................976 Arthur Middleton................................................................................................................................979 Henry Middleton................................................................................................................................ 984 Thomas Mifflin................................................................................................................................... 989 Nathan Miller..................................................................................................................................... 994 Nathaniel Mitchell.............................................................................................................................. 996 Stephen Mix Mitchell......................................................................................................................... 999 The Model Treaty..............................................................................................................................1002 James Monroe...................................................................................................................................1004 John Montgomery.............................................................................................................................1010 Reverend Joseph Montgomery......................................................................................................... 1012 William Montgomery........................................................................................................................ 1014 Cadwalader Morris............................................................................................................................ 1016 Gouverneur Morris............................................................................................................................ 1019 Lewis Morris......................................................................................................................................1024 Robert Morris....................................................................................................................................1027 John Morton...................................................................................................................................... 1031 Isaac Motte........................................................................................................................................1034 Daniel Mowry, Jr...............................................................................................................................1036 Frederick Augustus Conrad Muhlenberg..........................................................................................1039 N Abner Nash........................................................................................................................................1042 Nassau Hall, Princeton, New Jersey.................................................................................................1046 Native Americans and Their Relations with the Continental Congress...........................................1048 Thomas Nelson, Jr.............................................................................................................................1053 New York City, City Hall....................................................................................................................1056 The Nicola Affair................................................................................................................................1058 The Nonexportation Agreement of 1774...........................................................................................1060 The Nonimportation Agreement of 1774..........................................................................................1063 Frederick North, Lord North, Second Earl of Guilford....................................................................1066 The Northwest Ordinance.................................................................................................................1070 O The Olive Branch Petition.................................................................................................................1075 Henry Osborne.................................................................................................................................. 1077 Samuel Osgood..................................................................................................................................1079 Samuel Allyne Otis............................................................................................................................1083

xii

Table of Contents

P William Paca..................................................................................................................................... 1088 Mann Page.........................................................................................................................................1092 Ephraim Paine...................................................................................................................................1095 Robert Treat Paine............................................................................................................................1098 Thomas Paine.................................................................................................................................... 1104 The Treaty of Paris.............................................................................................................................1110 John Parker........................................................................................................................................1116 George Partridge................................................................................................................................. 1117 William Paterson................................................................................................................................1121 John Patten.........................................................................................................................................1125 Dr. Nathaniel Peabody.......................................................................................................................1127 William Peery.................................................................................................................................... 1130 Philip Pell, Jr..................................................................................................................................... 1133 Edmund Pendleton.............................................................................................................................1135 Nathaniel Pendleton.......................................................................................................................... 1138 John Penn...........................................................................................................................................1141 Pennsylvania State House..................................................................................................................1145 Richard Peters, Sr...............................................................................................................................1145 Charles Pettit..................................................................................................................................... 1148 Philadelphia State House...................................................................................................................1152 William Leigh Pierce, Jr.....................................................................................................................1152 Charles Pinckney................................................................................................................................1154 George Plater..................................................................................................................................... 1160 Zephaniah Platt................................................................................................................................. 1163 Richard Potts..................................................................................................................................... 1166 The Post Office Department.............................................................................................................. 1168 The Powder Alarm..............................................................................................................................1172 Presidents of the Continental Congress.............................................................................................1175 Princeton, New Jersey........................................................................................................................1191 The Prohibitory Act............................................................................................................................1191 Q The Quebec Act.................................................................................................................................. 1196 R David Ramsay.................................................................................................................................... 1199 Edmund Jenings Randolph...............................................................................................................1204 Peyton Randolph................................................................................................................................1211 George Read........................................................................................................................................1215 Jacob Read.........................................................................................................................................1220 Joseph Reed.......................................................................................................................................1224 James Randolph Reid........................................................................................................................1229 Religion and the Continental Congress............................................................................................1230 Samuel Rhoads..................................................................................................................................1236 Richard Ridgely.................................................................................................................................1239 Daniel Roberdeau..............................................................................................................................1240 Caesar Rodney...................................................................................................................................1244 Thomas Rodney.................................................................................................................................1248 John Rogers.......................................................................................................................................1253 Jesse Root.......................................................................................................................................... 1255

Table of Contents

xiii

David Ross, Jr....................................................................................................................................1258 George Ross.......................................................................................................................................1259 Benjamin Rumsey.............................................................................................................................1262 Benjamin Rush..................................................................................................................................1263 Edward Rutledge...............................................................................................................................1268 John Rutledge.................................................................................................................................... 1272 S James Schureman.............................................................................................................................1278 Philip John Schuyler.........................................................................................................................1280 Gustavus Scott...................................................................................................................................1285 John Morin Scott...............................................................................................................................1287 Dr. Nathaniel Scudder.......................................................................................................................1290 James Searle......................................................................................................................................1292 Secrecy in the Continental Congress.................................................................................................1295 The Secret Journal of the Continental Congress.............................................................................. 1295 Theodore Sedgwick............................................................................................................................1298 Joshua Seney..................................................................................................................................... 1301 Jonathan Dickinson Sergeant...........................................................................................................1303 William Sharpe..................................................................................................................................1307 Shays’ Rebellion.................................................................................................................................1309 Roger Sherman...................................................................................................................................1315 Dr. William Shippen..........................................................................................................................1322 John Sitgreaves..................................................................................................................................1324 Slavery and the Continental Congress..............................................................................................1326 James Smith......................................................................................................................................1332 Jonathan Bayard Smith..................................................................................................................... 1335 Melancton Smith............................................................................................................................... 1337 Meriwether Smith..............................................................................................................................1340 Richard Smith....................................................................................................................................1342 Thomas Smith....................................................................................................................................1345 William Smith....................................................................................................................................1348 The Solemn League and Covenant....................................................................................................1349 Richard Dobbs Spaight...................................................................................................................... 1353 Joseph Spencer..................................................................................................................................1358 The Stamp Act Congress.................................................................................................................... 1361 The Stars and Stripes.........................................................................................................................1365 The State House, Philadelphia..........................................................................................................1368 Arthur St. Clair..................................................................................................................................1368 The Staten Island Conference........................................................................................................... 1374 John Stevens...................................................................................................................................... 1376 Charles Stewart..................................................................................................................................1378 Richard Stockton............................................................................................................................... 1381 Thomas Stone....................................................................................................................................1384 Jonathan Sturges...............................................................................................................................1387 James Sullivan...................................................................................................................................1389 John Sullivan.....................................................................................................................................1392 John Swann.......................................................................................................................................1398 James Sykes.......................................................................................................................................1399 John Cleves Symmes......................................................................................................................... 1401

xiv

Table of Contents

T George Taylor....................................................................................................................................1405 Edward Telfair...................................................................................................................................1408 Thanksgiving, Resolution by the Continental Congress....................................................................1411 George Thatcher/Thacher................................................................................................................. 1413 Charles Thomson............................................................................................................................... 1416 Dr. Matthew Thornton...................................................................................................................... 1421 Matthew Tilghman............................................................................................................................1425 Dr. James Tilton................................................................................................................................1429 Paul Trapier.......................................................................................................................................1433 John Treadwell..................................................................................................................................1434 The Treaty of Paris............................................................................................................................1436 Treaty of Alliance with France..........................................................................................................1439 Trenton, New Jersey..........................................................................................................................1442 Joseph Trumbull...............................................................................................................................1444 Dr. Thomas Tudor Tucker.................................................................................................................1446 V Nicholas Van Dyke............................................................................................................................1449 James Mitchell Varnum.....................................................................................................................1451 John Vining.......................................................................................................................................1454 W James Wadsworth............................................................................................................................. 1457 Jeremiah Wadsworth........................................................................................................................1459 John Walker......................................................................................................................................1462 George Walton...................................................................................................................................1464 John Walton......................................................................................................................................1469 Artemas Ward....................................................................................................................................1470 Samuel Ward.....................................................................................................................................1474 George Washington........................................................................................................................... 1477 John Wentworth, Jr..........................................................................................................................1482 Samuel Wharton................................................................................................................................1484 William Whipple................................................................................................................................1487 Dr. James White................................................................................................................................1490 Phillips White....................................................................................................................................1493 Right Reverend William White.........................................................................................................1495 John Williams, V...............................................................................................................................1497 William Williams...............................................................................................................................1499 Hugh Williamson............................................................................................................................... 1501 Thomas Willing.................................................................................................................................1504 James Wilson.....................................................................................................................................1506 Paine Wingate....................................................................................................................................1509 Henry Wisner.................................................................................................................................... 1510 John Witherspoon..............................................................................................................................1512 Oliver Wolcott.....................................................................................................................................1516 Joseph Wood..................................................................................................................................... 1518 Turbutt Wright..................................................................................................................................1520 Henry Wynkoop.................................................................................................................................1522 George Wythe.................................................................................................................................... 1525

Table of Contents

xv

Y Abraham Yates...................................................................................................................................1530 Peter Waldron Yates..........................................................................................................................1532 York, Pennsylvania, Courthouse....................................................................................................... 1533 Z John Joachim Zubly.......................................................................................................................... 1537 Historical Timeline............................................................................................................................1539 Primary Documents...........................................................................................................................1549 Appendixes........................................................................................................................................ 1614 Bibliography......................................................................................................................................1628 Index..................................................................................................................................................1700

Preface “By the rude bridge that arched the flood, Their flag to April’s breeze unfurled, Here once the embattled farmers stood And fired the shot heard ’round the world.” Ralph Waldo Emerson, “Concord Hymn,” 1837

The story of the Continental Congresses is a tale not only of the men who served (and those who declined to serve) as delegates at a time when such service meant being targeted by British forces fighting in North America, but also of the numerous issues which the nation had to confront, issues dealing with Native Americans, with the changing role of women in society, with how we handled diplomacy, with American independence, just to name a few, many of which are still part of the political and social conversation today, more than 200 years later. The Story Behind the Story This reference work is the product of more than 25 years of research. In 1987, the nation marked the celebration of the 200th anniversary of the signing of the US Constitution. As part of those celebrations, The Miami Herald, then one of the largest newspapers in the US, printed a series of daily articles, from the start of the year until September, showing what happened dayby-day at the Constitution Convention of 1787 in Philadelphia, as part of the series “‘We the People’: The Constitution—a Celebration.’” As an historian, I collected each day’s articles. During that year, doing cursory research into the events behind the Convention, I found that there was no single volume that discussed that event, the people behind it, or what other events and persons had been important at that time. I also noted that no work covered the Continental Congress. Thus, in 1987, the idea for this work was born. Since that time, I put this work on the shelf several times as other projects took precedence.

During 14 trips to the United Kingdom from 1996 to 2005, including living in London for a period in 2005, I researched the Continental Congress as well as British documents relating to the colonies. The amount of the material used to research this book is stunning. Hours spent at the British Library, the British Library Newspaper Library, the British National Archives, formerly the Public Record Office, and Oxford University was time well spent. I also spent countless hours at the Library of Congress, the National Archives, the library at the US Department of the Interior, all in Washington D.C., and at the New York Public Library, Columbia University, the New-York Historical Society, and other institutions, including Arizona State University in Tempe, and the State Library of Iowa in Des Moines. Leading up to the First Continental Congress Even before the First Continental Congress convened in September 1774, the clash between the colonies and England was a done deal. Years of growing anger and controversy, starting after the end of the French and Indian War, plagued the relationship between Britain and her colonies. The Stamp Act, The Sugar Act, the Boston Massacre, the Boston Tea Party—all were momentous footsteps in a tale which led to the shooting at Lexington and Concord on 19 April 1775. William Eddis, the Surveyor for Annapolis, who had a front row seat for the conflict that was about to reach a tipping point, wrote to a friend in England on 28 May 1774: “All America is in a flame! I hear strange language every day. The colonists are ripe for

xvii

xviiiPreface any measure that will tend to the preservation of what they call their natural liberty. I enclose you the resolves of our citizens; they have caught the general contagion. Expresses are flying from province to province. It is the universal opinion here that the mother country cannot support a contention with these settlements, if they abide steady to the letter and spirit of their associations. Where will these matters end? Imagination anticipates, with horror, the most dreadful consequences. If the measures adopted at home are founded on the principles of justice, [the] administration [must] be firm and decisive. If they are not, it will be advisable, even on the score of interest, not to abandon the substance for a shadow. True policy will suggest the expediency of embracing a conciliatory system.” [1] But no “conciliatory system” would forthcoming . . . all that came was war.

be

In mid-1774, to counter the growing crisis, and have a “national meeting” of delegates from all thirteen colonies, a “General Congress” was called for in September 1774. In the first days of what would become the First Continental Congress in Philadelphia, Massachusetts delegate John Adams, in a letter to his wife Abigail, noted that he was impressed by the gathering of men from all corners of the place known as the American colonies: “There is in the Congress a collection of the greatest men upon this continent in point of abilities, virtues, and fortunes. The magnanimity and public spirit which I see here make me blush for the sordid, venal herd which I have seen in my own Province . . . Be not under any concern for me. There is little danger from any thing we shall do at the Congress. There is such a spirit through the colonies, and the members of the Congress are such characters, that no danger can happen to us, which will not involve the whole continent in universal desolation; and in that case, who would wish to live?” [2] We find these sentiments in the varied correspondence of the time. For instance, Joseph Warren, who was not a delegate but was an influential member of Massachusetts society (he would die at Bunker Hill), wrote to Arthur Lee on 16 May 1775:

“The Continental Congress is now sitting. I suppose before I hear from you again, a new form of Government will be established in this colony. Great Britain must not make the best she can of America. The folly of her Minister has brought [on] this situation. If she has strength sufficient even to depopulate the colonies, she has not the strength sufficient to subjugate them. However, we can yet without injuring ourselves offer much to her. The great nevertheless advantages derived from the colonies may, I hope, yet be repaed [sic] by her from us. The plan for enslaving us, if it had succeeded, would only have put it in the power of the Administration to provide for a number of their unworthy dependants [sic], whilst the nation would have been deprived of the most essential benefits which might have arisen from us by commerce; and the taxes raised in America would, instead of easing the Mother Country of her burdens, only have been employed to bring her into bondage.” [3] While the Continental Congress was not an all-powerful body, nevertheless it was an important congregating place for the men who shaped the first years of America’s existence. In his 1888 work “The Critical Period of American History,” historian John Fiske explained: “A remarkable body was this Continental Congress . . . for the vicissitudes through which it passed, there is perhaps no other revolutionary body, save the Long Parliament, which can be compared to it. For its origin we must look back to the committees of correspondence devised by Jonathan Mayhew, Samuel Adams, and Dabney Carr. First assembled in 1774 to meet an emergency which was generally believed to be only temporary, it continued to sit for nearly seven years before its powers were ever clearly defined; and during those seven years it exercised some of the highest functions of sovereignty which are possible to any governing body. It declared the independence of the United States; it contracted an offensive and defensive alliance with France; it raised and organized a Continental army; it borrowed large sums of money, and pledged what the lenders understood to be the national credit for their repayment; it issued an inconvertible

Prefacexix paper currency, granted letters of marque, and built a navy. All this it did in the exercise of what in later times would have been called ‘implied war powers,’ and its authority rested upon the general acquiescence in the purposes for which it acted and in the measures which it adopted.” [4] After a call from all of the colonies for a “General Congress” to discuss various issues relating to the relationship between England and the colonies, the delegates met at Carpenters’ Hall, near the State House, in Philadelphia, on 5 September 1774. Peyton Randolph, of Virginia, was unanimously elected as President. Charles Thomson was elected as the body’s official Secretary, a position he would hold for the entire existence of the Congress, until 1789. When the Congress met, there was no war: this would not happen until the following May, when shooting began at Lexington and Concord. The Continental Congress then formed the Continental Army, established rules for the formation of units and raising monies for uniforms, guns, ammunition, and salaries for the troops. Ethan Allen, of Vermont, and his group known as “The Green Mountain Boys,” snuck up on the fortress at Ticonderoga and seized it on behalf of the American nation which existed in name only. As he later wrote: “I ordered the commander, Captain Delaplace, to come forth instantly or I would sacrifice the whole garrison . . . when I ordered him to deliver me the fort instantly, he asked me by what authority I demanded it. I answered him, ‘In the name of the great Jehovah and the Continental Congress.’” [5] Even after Lexington and Concord and Ticonderoga, the delegates at the Continental Congress wished for reconciliation with England, calling on Allen and Benedict Arnold to return the captured cannons and arms to the British as soon as the hostilities had ended. An anonymous man in Virginia wrote to his friend in Edinburgh, Scotland, on 1 September 1775: “As to the present state of Virginia, I refer you to them. Tears stand in my eyes when I think of this once happy land of liberty. All is anarchy and confusion. A brave people struggling in opposition to the acts of the British Parliament.

We are all in arms, exercising and training old and young to the use of the gun. No person goes abroad without his sword, or gun, or pistols. The sound of war echoes from north to south. Every plain is full of armed men, who all wear a hunting shirt, on the left breast of which are sewed, in very legible letters, ‘Liberty or Death.’ May God put a speedy and happy end to this grand and important contest between the mother and her children. The Colonies do not wish to be independent; they only deny the right of taxation in the Parliament. They would freely grant the King whatever he pleases to request, of their own Assemblies, provided the Parliament has no hand in the disposing of it.” [6] Had England been willing to offer conciliation with the colonies to end the war, it is probable that America might still be colonies of that nation. But England wanted America to surrender, and to capitulate to all of the harsh economic and social laws enacted by the British Parliament. This the colonies, and the Continental Congress, would not do. It was left for a British-born pamphleteer, Thomas Paine, to push for a complete separation of America from the land of his own birth. In early 1776, Paine, published “An American Crisis,” in which he stated words which would ring in the ears of those pushing for independence from England: “These are the times that try men’s souls. The summer soldier and the sunshine patriot will, in this crisis, shrink from the service of their country; but he that stands it now, deserves the love and thanks of man and woman. Tyranny, like hell, is not easily conquered; yet we have this consolation with us, that the harder the conflict, the more glorious the triumph. What we obtain too cheap, we esteem too lightly: it is dearness only that gives every thing [sic] its value. Heaven knows how to put a proper price upon its goods; and it would be strange indeed if so celestial an article as freedom should not be highly rated. Britain, with an army to enforce her tyranny, has declared that she has a right (not only to tax) but ‘to bind us in all cases whatsoever,’ and if being bound in that manner, is not slavery, then is there not such a thing as slavery upon earth. Even the

xxPreface expression is impious; for so unlimited a power can belong only to God.” [7] Over its 14-plus year history, the Continental Congress met in various cities, due to British military advances, additional strife, or the desire to see new vistas. From York, Pennsylvania, to Trenton, New Jersey, to its final home in New York City, the delegates shifted their movements to meet current events, although the moves imposed great hardships on men who had to travel sometimes hundreds of miles by carriage, often without pay, leaving their families for long stretches of time. While most men elected to the Continental Congress did indeed serve, many refused, or simply did not show. Cities were crowded, and some diseases, like smallpox, were rife. The war did not end until 1783, making life an uneasy series of circumstances. The men who did serve placed their lives, their fortunes, and their names, in great jeopardy. The signing and ratification of the US Constitution in 1787 rounds out an historical period that lasted for less than 20 years but gave birth to the nation we call the United States of America. That story—the people, places and events that form the early portion of America’s history—is contained in this work. Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses Despite this being a work on the Continental Congresses, not on the American Revolution, some material naturally overlaps. For example, the entry on Commodore Esek Hopkins, who commanded the Continental Navy, is included because of difficulties he had with the Continental Congress, not because he served in the American Revolution. But while this is not a work on the American Revolution, it does include events involving that conflict that helped shape the atmosphere that established the Continental Congress. In the preface to the 1855 edition of his work, “The Pictorial Field-Book of the Revolution,” historian Benson J. Lossing wrote: “The story of the American Revolution has been well and often told, and yet the most careless observer of the popular mind may perceive that a large proportion of our people are but

little instructed in many of the essential details of that event, so important for every intelligent citizen to learn. Very few are ignorant of the most conspicuous circumstances of that period, and all who claim to be well-informed have a correct general knowledge of the history of our war for independence. But few even of that intelligence class are acquainted with the location of the various scenes depicted by the historian, in their relation to the lakes and rivers, towns and cities, whose names are familiar to the ears of the present generation.” [8] In telling this story, I discovered no central repository for a history of the Continental Congress itself, of biographies of the men who served in it, or of the other people and places connected to the Continental Congress. The leading collections of historical American biographies of the twentieth century, the “Dictionary of American Biography” and the “Biographical Directory of the US Congress,” have a random collection of information, from in-depth biographies to small nuggets of information. What was not found in these sources, was found in books, dissertations, newspaper articles and historical papers. Now, in the Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses, that central repository exists. There was indeed a First Continental Congress and a Second Continental Congress. The first parley met from September to October 1774, issuing the “Olive Branch Petition” to try to get the British government to lessen their harsh economic measures. A “Continental Association” was also established to enforce a colony-wide boycott of English goods. The second convening conference issued a Declaration of Independence in 1776, established a framework for a national government with the Articles of Confederation drafted in 1777, and witnessed the call for a federal convention to formulate a new US Constitution in 1787. On 3 March 1789, the Continental Congress ended, giving way to the new US government with George Washington as its first President. How did the body that we examine here come to be termed as a “Continental” Congress? Historian James Blake wrote:

Prefacexxi “The voices of the past are frustratingly silent. Records of the deliberations at the First Continental Congress are notoriously thin, especially on the decision to adopt that title. But one delegate, James Duane, noted that in the first meeting, ‘A Question was then put what Title the Convention should assume & it was agreed that it should be called the Congress.’ Closer examination suggests that the adjective ‘continental,’ despite its widespread use, was only an unofficial part of the institution’s title. It does not appear in the majority of the Congress’ broadsides or even in the Articles of Confederation. How is it that a bunch of individuals as diverse and contentious as the delegates of the First Continental Congress, a group that began its first meeting with an argument over whether to open with a prayer, could silently accede to the notion they were a continental body? These delegates, like the colonists as a whole, faced challenging hurdles as they searched for ways to recast or sever their relationship with Britain. The diversity both among and within the colonies presented fault lines along which unified resistance could break.” [9] To discuss how the Continental Congress worked, we turn to a letter, dated 16 August 1778, by Titus Hosmer, a delegate from Connecticut to the Continental Congress. Hosmer discussed the internal workings of that body: “I hope you are determined and preparing to come here as soon as possible [when] you give me leave to introduce you to Congress, & attempt to give you an imperfect Idea of the Course of Business in Congress and in the several Substitute divisions of Congress. We meet at nine & continue sitting till two in the after noon [sic], after prayers the States are called, nine are a quorum to proceed on Business, the public Letters are first read & disposed of. Next Reports from the Treasury & then Reports from the Board of War. These matters by a standing Order must be gone thro’ [through] before any other Business can be moved, for the Rest points are started, debated, and determined in nearly the same manner as in our Assembly, [saying] that much Time is spent, too much I think in all Conscience in debating points of Order, they are referred to the House, and the Decision does not seem to depend on any

fixed or known Rules, but the present Opinion of what is decent & proper in the Case before us, which gives much the same, in deed a greater Latitude than in debating points of Common Law in our Courts. Besides the General Business which is originated & discussed in Congress, the House is subdivided into standing Committees or Boards each of which is to pay their Attention to some one [sic] Capital Branch, give Orders in the Executive part, and report to Congress where its Aid is wanted to regulate and enforce. These are as follows[:] 1. [A] Board of Treasury, this should consist of one Member from a State, five are a Quorum, they Superintend the finances, consider in the first Instance all applications for money, & Report what is to be advanced regulate the Striking of Bills, give their Opinion when Emissions are necessary, & prepare draughts of Resolves for that purpose, consult of & propose ways and means for raising Money, propose Regulations to prevent Counterfeiting, Depreciation of or to Appreciate the Currency they examine Claims, adjust Accounts & in general do every thing [sic] in this Branch, they are assisted by an Auditor General & Commissioner of Claims,- the Auditor keeps Accounts & the Comm’r [Commissioner] examine the particular Articles correct over-charges, reject improper ones & State Balances, all sums to be granted in Advance, on Account or for Ballances [sic] due are reported to Congress, granted by them, & drawn for by warrant under the Hand of the president. 2. [A] board of War, formerly consisting of Members of Congress, now of Commissioners chosen at large, assisted by some Members, the Objects of their Duty is particularly enumerated in the Resolve for Constituting & impowering [sic] them which I trust you have Seen, it extends to the superintending the Departments of the Commissary Gen.1. Quartermaster Gen1. Clothier Gen1. Adjutant General, Commissary General of Ordnance & Military stores planning Expeditions & in short every thing [sic] almost that related to the Army or Military Operations. 3. Marine Comittee [sic]. [T]his board considers of Rules and Regulations for well governing the Navy, the number of Ships & other Vessells

xxiiPreface [sic] to be built, superintend & direct the Building and employing them, examines into all mismanagement of Officers, directs Enquiries & Trials furnishes Transports & in short exercises the Office of Lord high Admiral with more extensive Powers than any Britishoner [sic] ever had & are only checked by the Necessity of obtain’g the sanction of Congress to their rules and Regulations which however in general is given of Course, as few Gentlemen have ability or Leisure to Canvass [ ?] their measures, this Observation may indeed be extended to all the other Committees General as well as the marine Comittee [sic]. 4. [A] Commercial Comittee [sic]. [A]ll the Commercial Business of Congress is under their Direction & is you will find a very extensive & perplexed branch of Business[.] 5. [A] Committee of Foreign Affairs, they Correspond with our Ministers at foreign Courts, with Agents in Europe and with all such Gentlemen of Character in foreign parts as are disposed to give us Intelligence, they prepare Instructions for Ministers & propose proper Courts or States to send embassys [sic] to. 6. [T]he Committee of Foreign Applications, they are Gentlemen acquainted with the French or other European Languages, and receive Applications from foreign officers, proposals, Schemes, & projects from a Shoal of Europeans who wish to fish for Wealth or Honour [sic] in our troubled Waters 7. [A] Medical Committee, who superintend the medical Department in the Army, & are consulted by & direct the Director General. These Committees proceed in general upon the present State of Information & decide upon the Circumstances of each particular Case without any general or established Rules, at least if they have such Rules I have not been able to find them, some of them are Temporary & will end with the War, others are in their Nature permanent, these last it is an object with Congress, when they can find Time to put into Commission & critically to limit, define & regulate their Jurisdiction.” [10]

Acknowledgments The material in many of the biographies of the men who served in the Continental Congress come from “The Biographical Directory of the United States Congress.” Printed in numerous volumes over the years to reflect the growing number of Representatives and Senators, it eventually was placed on the internet; the main page of this invaluable source is http://bioguide. congress.gov/biosearch/biosearch.asp. Finally, I would like to thank The British Library, both at the old building at The British Museum, and the new one at St. Pancras, where I spent literally thousands of hours over nine years copying books, articles, papers, and spending a small fortune doing it. I would like to thank the myriad members of the staff of that noble institution, who put up with my countless questions, my numerous book and article requests, and the many times I had paper jams in the copy room in the Humanities 2 section of the building. I also thank the staff of the British National Archives at Kew (and of the former archives, the Public Record Office in London), the New York Public Library, the Library of Congress, and Arizona State University in Tempe, Arizona, as well as the hundreds of people around the world who supported this effort. Without these magnificent institutions, their staff, and their collections, this work would still be on the drawing board. [1] Eddis, William, “Letters from America, Historical and Descriptive; Comprising Occurrences from 1769, to 1777, Inclusive. By William Eddis, Late Surveyor of the Customs, &c. At Annapolis, in Maryland” (London: Printed for the Author, and Sold by C. Dilly, in the Poultry, (1792), 158-61. [2] John Adams to Abigail Adams, 8 September 1774, in Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), I:20. [3] Joseph Warren to Arthur Lee, 16 May 1775, in Frank Arthur Mumby, “George III and the American Revolution: The Beginnings” (Boston: Houghton Mifflin Company, 1925), 406-07. [4] Fiske, John, “The Critical Period of American History, 1783-1789” (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1899), 92-93. [5] Lossing, Benson J., “The Pictorial Field-Book of the Revolution: Or, Illustrations, by Pen and Pencil, of the History,

Prefacexxiii Biography, Scenery, Relics, and Traditions of the War for Independence” (New York: Harper & Brothers, Publishers; two volumes, 1855), I:125. Historian Paul F. Boller, Jr., states that Allen made this quote up. Boller writes, “Some of the men who were at the fort with Allen later said the Vermonter had shouted, ‘Come out of here, you damned old Rat.’ Others remembered his exclamation: ‘Come out of there, you sons of British whores, or I’ll smoke you out.’” See Paul F. Boller, Jr., and John George, “They Never Said It: A Book of Fake Quotes, Misquotes, and Misleading Attributions” (Oxford, United Kingdom: Oxford University Press, 1989), 4. [6] Extract of a Letter from a Gentleman in Virginia to his Friend in Edinburgh, Scotland, dated Middlesex, September 1, 1775 in Peter Force, ed., “American Archives: Consisting of a Collection of Authentick Records, State Papers, Debates, and Letters and Other Notices of Publick Affairs, the Whole Forming a Documentary History of the Origin and Progress of the North America Colonies; of the Causes and Accomplishment of the American Revolution; and of the Constitution of Government for the United States, to the Final Ratification Thereof. In Six Series”

(Washington: Published by M. St. Clair Clarke and Peter Force; ten volumes, 1837-53), IV:III:620. [7] “The Life of Thomas Paine, Secretary for Foreign Affairs to Congress in the American War; Author of ‘Common Sense,’ ‘Rights of Man,’ Etc. Interspersed with Sundry Letters, &c. Not Before Published, and Containing His Last Will and Testament, Verbatim; With Notices of the American and French Revolutions. Compiled from Authentic Documents. ” (Glasgow [Scotland]: Printed and Published by Muir, Gowars, * Co. 42, Argyll-Street, Opposite the Buck’s Head, 1833), 8. [8] Lossing, Benson J., “The Pictorial Field-Book of the Revolution,” op.cit., 4. [9] Drake, James D., “Appropriating a Continent: Geographical Categories, Scientific Metaphors, and the Construction of Nationalism in British North America and Mexico,” Journal of World History, XV:3 (September 2004), 325. [10] Smith, Paul H., ed., “Letters of Delegates to Congress, 1774-1789” (Washington, DC: Library of Congress; 26 volumes, 1976-2000), X:450.

Introduction In the Grey House tradition of providing reference works that offer unparalleled information and insight, we are pleased to present a new first edition–Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses–the most comprehensive look at the subject ever presented. This work includes not only detailed essays of those members who served in the First and Second Continental Congress, but also of those individuals who had an impact on the workings of this formative body, despite not having served. Here you will read about members, men who were elected but declined to serve, women who influenced important issues, the many men who fought for freedom at great personal risk, and advocates of the cause—the man who printed the Declaration of Independence, the tavern owner who hosted early meetings of the Congress, and the farmer who encouraged his neighbors to stand firm against unjust taxes. In addition to these detailed biographies, this reference work includes in-depth accounts of places, battles, laws, treaties, and court cases that were significant to the workings of the Continental Congress.

the passage of The Sugar Act and the Currency Act, both of which led to protest in the colonies. It ends in 1789, when the U.S. Senate and House of Representatives met in New York City, marking the official end to the Continental Congress. These 131 entries are detailed and informative. Primary Documents The 31 Primary Documents in this section offer additional insight into this period of American history in general, and the workings of the Continental Congress in particular. These fully reprinted documents include speeches, letters, resolutions, declarations, and more. Here you will find the usual suspects, like John Henry’s famous speech, as well as more obscure documents, like a letter from John Adams describing his journey to the First Continental Congress. All documents include a brief but illuminating introductory note. Appendices These six appendices offer interesting details in an easy-to-find format: A–Delegates to the Continental Congress by State B–Signers of the Declaration of Independence by Occupation C–Signers of the Articles of Confederation by State D–Presidents of the Continental Congress E–Places and Times of Sessions of the Continental Congress F–Statistics on the Thirteen Colonies

As the author’s Preface indicates, finding the comprehensive story of the Continental Congress was not easy. Personal records were scattered and poorly kept, and official material was not consistent. This compilation is one of a kind. A to Z Listings The Table of Contents lists the 509 entries in the Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses, from Andrew Adams to John Joachim Zubly. Browsing down the list, you’ll note an impressive collection of topics, including The Bank of the United States, Relations with France, Lexington and Concord, Nassau Hall, and The Olive Branch Petition. All entries include either a photo or a state seal, italicized excerpts from relevant documents, and footnotes. Historical Timeline Following the A to Z listings, the back matter starts with an Historical Timeline, beginning in 1764 and

Bibliography This comprehensive Bibliography groups material by type. The majority of the entries are listed under Books and Articles. However, a significant number of resources fall under additional categories: Unpublished Dissertations, Master’s Theses, and Other Works; Newspapers and Magazines Used; Continental Congress and Other Federal Colonial Documents; U.S. Government Documents post 1789; Colonial and State Government Documents; Other U.S.

xxv

xxviIntroduction Government Documents; British Government Documents; and Manuscript Collections. Subject Index This detailed Subject Index helps readers quickly find just what they are looking for, including

individuals, places, battles, acts, and other items of interest to the Continental Congresses. Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses is also available as an ebook. For more information, visit www.greyhouse.com.

L Lancaster Court House In early September 1777, as British troops moved towards Philadelphia, the Continental Congress voted to meet in Lancaster to discuss a retreat. They convened at the Lancaster Court House on 27 September 1777; when the British continued their move into the state, the delegates continued their flight to York. On 14 September, as the British approached Philadelphia, the delegates voted “[t]hat if Congress shall be obligated to remove from Philadelphia, Lancaster shall be the place at which they shall meet.” [1] On 18 September, the Journals of the Continental Congress report that “[d]uring the adjournment, the president received a letter from Colonel Hamilton, one of General Washington’s aid[e]s, which intimated the necessity of Congress removing immediately from Philadelphia; Whereupon, the members left the city, and, agreeable to the resolve of the 14[th], repaired to Lancaster.” [2] The delegates arrived in Lancaster on 26 September, and they held their single session the following day. Historian Jacob Mombert wrote that “[t]he archives, treasure and, it is said, even the State House Bell were by a circuitous route sent to Lancaster. The enemy were still in Chester County, and in order to evade him the route pursued was by the way of Bristol and Reading.” [3] The delegates selected the Court House, the largest building at the time in the city for all of the delegates to meet in, located in [ ] Square. The building was already 30 years old when chosen. A brick structure of two floors, the building had a clock tower with two different clock faces. Witham Marshie, writing in 1744, five years after the courthouse was constructed, wrote: Messrs. Calvert, Craddock and myself went into, and viewed the court-house of this town. It is a pretty large brick building, two stories high. The ground room, where the justices of this county hold their court, is very spacious. There is a handsome bench, and railed in, whereon they sit, and a chair in the midst of it, which is filled by the judge. Below this bench is a large

table, of half oval form; round this, and under their Worships, sit the county clerk, and the several attornies [sic] of the court, who, here, as well as in most other courts of the plantations, please as counsellors. There are particular seats and placed allotted to the sheriff, crier, &c. Fronting the justices’ bench, and on each side of it, are several long steps, or stair, raised each above the other, like the steps leading into the north door of St. Paul’s. On these steps, stand the several auditors and spectators, when a court is held here. It was on these, that the Indian chief sat, when they treated with the several governments. The court-house is capable to contain above 800 persons, without incommoding each other. [4] According to a history of the US Department of State, “Congress held only one session in Lancaster, on 27 September 1777 . . . the record of this session indicates that all of the business conducted on that day related to military matters. At the end of the day, Congress resolved to adjourn to York, across the Susquehanna River, ‘there to meet on Tuesday next at 10 o’clock.’” [5] The entire day’s proceedings fill up just one page in the printed Journals of the Continental Congress. [6] In June 1784, the original structure was destroyed by a fire. A new building was completed on the same site in 1787.

[1] Ford, Worthington Chauncey, et al., eds., “Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; thirty-four volumes, 1905-37), VIII:742. [2] Ibid., VIII:754. [3] Mombert, Jacob Isidor, “An Authentic History of Lancaster County: In the State of Pennsylvania” (Lancaster, PA: J.E. Barr & Co., 1869), 265. [4] “Witham Marshe’s Journal of the Treaty Held with the Six Nations by the Commissioners of Maryland and Other Provinces, at Lancaster in Pennsylvania, June, 1744” (Boston: C.C. Little and J. Brown, 1801), in “Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society, For the Year MDCCC” (Boston: Printed by Samuel Hall, No. 53, Cornhill, 1801), 176. [5] Burke, Lee H., “Homes of the Department of State, 1774-1976: The Buildings Occupied by the Department of State and Its Predecessors” (Washington, DC: Historical Office, Bureau of Public Affairs, US Department of State, 1977), 4. [6] Ford, Worthington Chauncey, et al., eds., “Journals of the Continental Congress,” op. cit., VIII:755.

798

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

John Langdon (1741-1819)

Gazette from 30 March 1764, from Portsmouth is found, at which “the Annual Meeting of the Freeholders and other inhabitants of this Town, the following Persons were chosen to their respective Offices, viz.,” and denotes that John Langdon was elected as a selectman for the city. [3] Portsmouth in the mid-1700s was a growing and prosperous port on the Piscataqua River, sending products to all points of the world, and John Langdon wanted to go to sea from an early age. Through Rindge’s business, he went on several voyages to the West Indies. Earning an increasing wage, he would purchase his own ships, and, within a few years, ships run by him and his brother Woodbury’s company were taking such products as lumber and beef to various ports, and importing rum and sugar. By 1770, both men were rich, owning considerable property in the Portsmouth area. [4]

A merchant and politician in his native New Hampshire, John Langdon served twice in the Continental Congress (1774-75, 1787), as well as governor of his state (1805-09, 1810-11) and as a US senator from New Hampshire (1789-1801). He also was a signer of the US Constitution. The son of John Langdon, Jr., and his wife Mary (née Hall) Langdon, both farmers, John Langdon was born on his parents’ farm in Portsmouth, in Rockingham, New Hampshire, on 26 June 1741. His older brother, Woodbury Langdon (1739-1805), would also serve in the Continental Congress from New Hampshire. The younger John Langdon was the great-great-grandson of another John Langdon, born in 1600, and the great-grandson of Tobias Langdon, Sr. born in Cornwall, and who immigrated to the American colonies prior to 1660. [1] John Langdon attended Major Samuel Hale’s Latin School in Portmouth and then worked in Daniel Rindge’s countinghouse as a clerk. [2] Although all sources on John Langdon’s life do not mention political office prior to the 1770s, a contemporary account from The New-Hampshire

Although the harsh economic measures enacted by England against the colonies in the 1760s and early 1770s, including The Stamp Act and The Sugar Act, harmed the Langdon brothers economically, it did not destroy them, and they were able to work within the strictures of the laws. But this all changed in October 1771, when British customs agents took control of a ship, the Resolution, not owned by Langdon but one that carried his goods, and held for carrying molasses not bearing a stamp of the British government. Langdon appealed to an admiralty court in London, but this tribunal upheld the seizure. This, along with the general atmosphere of British interference in the lives of New Hampshirites, served to turn Langdon from being apolitical to sympathizing with the slow-burning uprising that was consolidating against the British in the American colonies. [5] From 1774, Langdon threw his lot in with the colonists who desired revolt against British rule, participating in the raid in Portsmouth against a British fort and seizing munitions for use by the rebels. Elected that year to the General Court, the rebellious New Hampshire legislature, he served as Speaker of the body. Historian William A. Robinson wrote, “The journals of the latter body show that he had numerous duties, being a member of committees on the purchase of woolen goods and ordnance, and with Franklin, John Adams, and other notables, of another committee ‘to make enquiry in all the colonies, after virgin lead, and

John Langdon (1741-1819)799 leaden ore, and the best methods of collecting, smelting, and refining it.’” [6] On 25 January 1775, Langdon was elected by the General Court to a seat in the Second Continental Congress. Reelected on 23 January 1776, he attended sessions from 10 May to 2 August 1775, 16 September to 12 November 1775, and 23 December 1775 to 2 January 1776. [7] The NewHampshire Gazette reported on 5 September 1775, “Yesterday Morning John Langdon, Esq. and Josiah Bartlet [sic], Esq; Delegates from this colony, set off for Philadelphia, to join the Grand Congress, who were adjourn’d to this Day.” [8] Although there are numerous pieces of correspondence to Langdon from various persons during this service, there appears to be only one letter from Langdon: this was a short missive to Matthew Thornton, the chairman of the Committee of Safety in New Hampshire: “Sir, I am in some hopes that the Congress will rise in abt. [a] fortnight, but this is meer [sic] conjecture, as it will depend on what news we may receive from our army, and some other matters. I am very sorry to be alone, in so great and important Business as that representing a whole Colony, which no man is equal to, but how to avoid it, I know not . . .” [9] In June 1776, Langdon resigned his seat in the Continental Congress when he accepted a post as an agent to oversee prize ships–those taken or captured in war–for the US government, and at the same time he used his experience in shipbuilding and commissioning to supervise and administer the construction of several ships of war to be used by the Continental Navy. Elected again to the New Hampshire state House of Representatives, rising to the rank of Speaker. In the session of 1777, he offered up his entire fortune to assist in the equipping of an expedition against the British, which was carried out by General John Stark against the forces of British General John Burgoyne. He volunteered for military service, and saw action at the battle of Bennington, Vermont (16 August 1777), which actually took place over the border in Walloomsac, New York. As well, he commanded a company of New Hampshire volunteers at Saratoga (19 September and 7 October 1777) and in several clashes in Rhode Island. That same year, Langdon married Elizabeth Sherburne, and together the couple had one child, a daughter.

In 1782, additional ships built under Langdon’s tutelage were constructed. Historian Nathaniel Adams wrote in 1825, “The ship America, pierced for 74 guns, was launched on Tuesday the 5th day of November, at Rising-Castle, an island belonging to the honourable John Langdon, who was the agent for building her. She moved majestically on her ways to her destined element, without any incident, amidst the rejoicing of an immense number of spectators, who lined the shores; this ship does great credit to Colonel James Hackett, the master builder, and the other workmen employed in constructing her. Congress, finding it difficult to procure materials for completing her for sea, made a present of her to the King of France.” Four years later, in 1786, Adams noted that “His Excellency John Langdon rebuilt the bridge over the dock, commonly called Canoe-Bridge, and presented the same to the town.” [10] Two years later, in 1784, Langdon served in the New Hampshire state Senate. In 1785, he was elected as president of New Hampshire, an office comparative to governor; he was elected a second time, for the same one year term, in 1788. On 14 June 1786, the legislature again elected Langdon to the Continental Congress, “for the term One Year from and after the first Monday in November next.” Langdon did not serve in the Continental Congress in 1786; instead, he merely attended for three days, from 25 to 28 September 1787. At the same time, the Constitutional Convention was being held in Philadelphia to reform the Articles of Confederation or draft an entirely new constitution; Langdon attended this parley from 23 July until the document was signed on 17 September 1787, and he signed on behalf of the state of New Hampshire. [11] During his second Continental Congress tenure, only one piece of correspondence has been published, a letter to John Sullivan, the president of New Hampshire, dated 20 September 1786: “It is out of my power at present to Determin[e] whether I shall be able to proceed on to Congress or not, this will depend on the Situation of my Business. If I can Arrange my Affairs to my Mind, so as to Set out from home by the first of November next, shall go if necessary; tho’ I would by no means, wish that the State should Remain in any Uncertainty on my Acct.; if either of the other Gentlemen who are Elected, Choose to go on, shall be happy in being Excused.” [12]

800

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Langdon returned to New Hampshire, and served as a delegate to the state convention that ratified the US Constitution. Under this document, each state was allowed to send two men to the US Senate, the upper body of the new national bicameral legislature; under this plan, Langdon and Paine Wingate were sent to New York, where the new government was sitting. Langdon ultimately served from 4 march 1789 until 3 March 1801; on 6 April 1789, he was elected as the first-ever president pro tempore, or one who officiates over the body, so that the Senate could count the electoral votes for president and vice president (George Washington and John Adams were declared elected). Langdon also served as the president pro tempore during the Second Congress (1791-93).

with, having one moment to spare. In the conversation held between Mr. [John] Adams, Mr. [John Gilman] Taylor and myself, Mr. Adams certainly expressed himself (as far as my memory serves me) in the very words mentioned in your letter, viz. That he hoped or expected to see the day when Mr. Taylor and his friend Mr. Giles would be convinced, that the people of America would not be happy without an hereditary Chief Magistrate and Senate—or at least during life.

On 5 December 1794, Langdon wrote to one Fulwar Skipwith in Philadelphia, on the sudden end to the French Revolution: The fall of that Monster Robertspeare [sic; should be “Robespierre”] was a most fortunate Circumstance for France, his fate will be a Constant warning to all those who are hereafter entrusted with the Rights of the people and betray their Trust. We are highly pleased with the Reception of our Minister (Mr. Monroe) by the National Convention, I am full in the Belief, he will do himself honor, and Render his Country essential service. We have nothing here worth Communicating, to be very particular, little good would arrise [sic] and prudence forbids, the astonishing successes of the French, exceed every Conception we probably would have had. I am fully senseable [sic] your time must be greatly taken up with your numerous Correspondence, but as often as leisure and opportunity offers I shall be greatly gratified in hearing from you; If any thing [sic] Turns up in the Sniping way or furnishg of Masts or provisions from our Part of the Continent, I shall be ready to Direct the Business. [13] In a letter to one Samuel Ringgold, 19 October 1800, Langdon penned: Your agreeable favour [sic] of the 4th instant has this moment come to hand; I am greatly rejoiced to see Gentlemen of property and influence coming forward at this eventful moment, in the common cause of our country: I have no doubt we shall yet be saved. I am now packing my baggage; [I] shall set out in the stage to-morrow morning for the city of Washington; hope to be in Baltimore the beginning of next month—this prevents my answering your letter, so fully as I could

[14]

In 1801, after leaving the US Senate, Langdon was offered the post of secretary of the navy by President Thomas Jefferson, but he declined the honor. Instead, he returned home to New Hampshire, where he was elected as a member of the legislature again, serving this time until 1805, the last two terms as Speaker of the body. On 14 June 1802, the National Intelligencer reported that “[o]n the 3d instant the legislature of New-Hampshire, convened at Concord; when on the election of a Speaker, John Prentice was elected, having 83 votes, and John Langdon, having 63 votes.” [15] On 12 June 1804, the United States’ Gazette stated that “The Boston Chronicle of Thursday last says, ‘A report was current in town last evening that the hon. [sic] John Langdon had been chosen governour [sic] of New-Hampshire, by the legislature of that state.’” [16] Langdon would serve as governor until 1811, with the exception of 1809. 1808: The state Senate of the state of New Hampshire met on 2 June 1808 to choose a governor. According to the minutes of that body, “The Senate met in Convention with the Honorable House, to proceed in the elections; when the committee appointed to examine, compare, and cast the votes for Governor, reported, That the whole number of legal votes is 15,899. Honorable John Langdon has 12,641. Honorable John T. Gilman has 1261. Honorable Oliver Peabody has 405. Honorable Timothy Farrar has 398. Honorable Jeremiah Smith has 839. Other scattering votes [were] 355. 7950 make a choice. Honorable John Langdon having 12,641, is elected.” [17] Langdon then addressed the members of the legislature as the new governor. He said, “I have a high sense of the honor done me by the good people of this State in electing me their Chief Executive Magistrate for the

John Langdon (1741-1819)801 present year. For this repeated mark of their respect and confidence, permit me, Gentlemen, through you, to return them my grateful acknowledgement.” [18] In 1812, when the Federalist Party nominated DeWitt Clinton for president, they offered the second spot on the ticket, but he declined due to being nearly 71 years old. The National Intelligencer of Washington, D.C., reported on 15 February 1812 that “[t]he venerable John Langdon has declined a re-election to the office of Governor of H. William Plumer, Esq. is nominated by the Republicans of that state as a candidate to succeed him.” [19] Langdon died in Portsmouth on 18 September 1819 at the age of 78. Newspaper across the country lauded him and his service to the nation. The Daily National Intelligencer of Washington, DC, said, “It was not the fault of the People that he had not filled a higher office; he having positively declined the honor of an election to the Vice-Presidency when tendered to him. The venerable patriot had descended to the tomb full of years, crowned with public honors, and enjoying universal respect.” [20] The Alexandria Gazette, quoting the NewYork Gazette, pronounced, “The death of John Langdon, Esq. formerly in the senate [sic] of the United States, and late Governor of Newhampshire [sic], is noticed in the eastern papers, with the high encomiums due to his highly respectable character.” [21] The New-Hampshire Sentinel stated, “The remains of the Hon. John Langdon, late Governor of Newhampshire [sic], were entombed with every mark of respect. Military honors were performed by the battalion of US troops under Col. Wallace, and minute guns were fired while the procession moved. The forts, navy-yard, shipping, etc. displayed their flags at half mast.” [22] Langdon was buried in the Langdon tomb in the North Cemetery, in Portsmouth, Rockingham County, New Hampshire. The wording on the gravestone merely reads, “Governor John Langdon.” Considered one of the leaders of his state in a time of war and peace, John Langdon was called “easy, polite, and pleasing in his manners, and social in his habits.” [23] In his last years, he became increasingly interested in religion, giving away much of his fortune to Congregational churches in Portsmouth, as well as to the American and New Hampshire Bible societies.

See also: Woodbury Langdon

[1] Langdon family tree, online at http://www.geni.com/ people/Gov-John-Langdon-Signer-of-the-US-Constitution/ 6000000009427116946. [2] Langdon official congressional biography, online at http:// bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=L000067. [3] “Portsmouth, March 26th,” The New-Hampshire Gazette, and Historical Chronicle [Portsmouth], 30 March 1764, 1. [4] Additional details of their business can be found in the biography on Woodbury Langdon. [5] Van Atta, John R., “Langdon, John” in John A. Garraty and Mark C. Carnes, gen. eds., “American National Biography” (New York: Oxford University Press; 24 volumes, 1999), 13:138-39. [6] Robinson, William A., “Langdon, John” in Allen Johnson, et al., “Dictionary of American Biography” (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons; eleven volumes and five supplements, 1958-77), X:587-88. According to the Journals of the Continental Congress, the men named to the committee included Langdon, John Adams, Stephen Hopkins, Silas Deane, George Clinton, Stephen Crane, ‘Doctor [Benjamin] Franklin,’ Caesar Rodney, William Samuel Johnson, Patrick Henry, Joseph Hewes, Christopher Gadsden, and Lyman Hall. See “Journals of the American Congress: From 1774 to 1788. In Four Volumes” (Washington, DC: Printed and Published by Way and Gideon; four volumes, 1823), I:134. [7] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), xlix. [8] “Portsmouth, Sept. 5,” The New-Hampshire Gazette, and Historical Chronicle, Containing the Freshest Advices, Foreign and Domestic [Portsmouth], 5 September 1775, 2. [9] John Langdon to Matthew Thornton, 3 July 1775, in Burnett, op. cit., I:150. [10] Adams, Nathaniel, “Annals of Portsmouth: Comprising a Period of Two Hundred Years from the First Settlement of the Town: With Biographical Sketches of a Few of the Most Respectable Inhabitants” (Portsmouth, NH: By The Author, 1825), 276, 286. [11] Burnett, “Letters of Members,” op. cit., VIII:lxxxix. [12] John Langdon to John Sullivan, 20 September 1786, in ibid., VIII:469. [13] John Langdon to Fulwar Skipwith, 5 December 1794, in “Letters of Some Members of the Old Congress,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, XXIX:2 (1905), 204-05. [14] “Extract of a letter from John Langdon, Esq. Senator in Congress from New-Hampshire, to Samuel Ringgold, Esq. of Maryland, Portsmouth, October 19, 1800,” Raleigh Register, or, North-Carolina State Gazette, 2 December 1800, 1. [15] National Intelligencer [Washington, DC], 14 June 1802, 2. [16] United States’ Gazette, For the Country [Philadelphia], 12 June 1804, 2. [17] “A Journal of the Proceedings of the Honorable Senate of the State of New-Hampshire, at Their Session, Begun and Holden at Concord, on the First Wednesday of June, 1808. Published by Authority” (Manchester, NH: From the Press of George Hough; ten volumes, 1784-1813), X:7. [18] Ibid., X:9. [19] National Intelligencer [Washington, DC], 15 February 1812, 2. [20] “Died,” Daily National Intelligencer [Washington, DC], 25 September 1819, 3. [21] The Alexandria Gazette [Virginia], 28 September 1819, 2. [22] New Hampshire Sentinel [Keane], 2 October 1819, 3. [23] Adams, Nathaniel, “Annals of Portsmouth: 200 Years from the First Settlement of the Town; With Historical Sketches of a Few of the Most Respectable Inhabitants” (Portsmouth, New Hampshire: Published by the Author, 1825), 372.

802

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Woodbury Langdon (c. 1739-1805)

countinghouse of Henry Sherburne, who ran the business in Portsmouth. In 1765 he married Sherburne’s daughter, Sarah and, within five years he was a wealthy man. However, it was during this period that conflict rose between the colonies and the British government, particularly over a series of harsh economic policies, such as The Stamp Act, enacted to get increased tax revenue from the colonies. There was great resistance to these actions—but Woodbury Langdon believed that the pieces of legislation did little to harm his own business, and when there was a move in 1770 to get New Hampshire involved in a nonimportation agreement, to force merchants not to import British goods as part of a colony wide protest, Langdon spoke out and was a key figure in keeping the port of Portsmouth out of the agreement. In a letter to Lord North, 7 February 1777, Langdon wrote to reiterate that he had tried to head off any movement to independence, that he was “repeatedly successful in influencing the trade of that province [New Hampshire] to reject the earnest solicitations of the disaffected party in the neighbouring provinces to enter into non Importation agreements.” [3]

The brother of famed New Hampshire politician John Langdon, Woodbury Langdon served, like his brother, as a delegate to the Continental Congress (1779), but is better known as an important merchant in pre- and postrevolutionary New Hampshire. The eldest son of John Langdon and his wife Mary (née Hall) Langdon, Woodbury Langdon was born in 1738 or 1739 in the town of Portsmouth, New Hampshire. [1] The genealogical history of the Langdon clan can be found under John Langdon, but the family had been in New Hampshire since the middle of the 17th century, while Mary Hall Langdon was a relation to Governor Thomas Dudley of the Massachusetts Bay Colony. The elder John Langdon, a planter near Portsmouth, served several times as a selectman for that town. He was able to fund his children’s education; Woodbury attended the Latin Grammar School, run by Major Samuel Hale, before he became “engaged in mercantile pursuits” [2], taking a position in the

Woodbury Langdon took a more conservative viewpoint regarding relations with England than his brother, one of the leading agitators against England in New Hampshire. In a meeting in Portsmouth on 16 December 1773, Woodbury Langdon stood against his brother, rising in the meeting to state his opposition to a series of resolutions enacted by the town against British policy. Historians Robert K. Wright, Jr., and Morris J. MacGregor, Jr., explained, “[t] he brothers entered local politics on the eve of the Revolution. Despite similar educations and business careers, however, they represented opposite ends of Portsmouth’s political spectrum. While Woodbury Langdon rapidly rose to become a leader of the conservative merchants, John served on the town committees elected to protest the tax Parliament enacted on the tea trade and to enforce the Continental Association, a boycott of British goods organized throughout the colonies. Illustrating divided political opinion in the colony, both brothers were elected in 1774 to represent Portsmouth in the New Hampshire legislature.” [4] On 4 May 1775, “the General-Assembly of this Province, met

Woodbury Langdon (c. 1739-1805)803 here [in Portsmouth], at which Time the following Persons were returned as Members to sit in the Assembly.” From Portsmouth were listed Jacob Sheafe, Esquire, Captain Woodbury Langdon, and Captain John Langdon. [5] Despite his outspoken opposition to the policies of his colony, Langdon not only won election to the provincial assembly in 1774, but to the convention that overthrew royal rule the following year, and resent him back to the Assembly in February 1775. Lawrence S. Mayo, a biographer of his brother John, wrote, “After war broke out Langdon went to England to conserve ‘a considerable sum of money’ belonging to him there. Much of what he did during the next two years is a mystery. He visited France twice, and Lord George Germain believed that he was concerting a plan of trade between that country and the United States. When Langdon returned to America in the summer of 1777, he landed at New York and was held a prisoner within the British lines. In December 1777 he escaped and returned to Portsmouth.” [6] In 1778, Langdon was elected to the New Hampshire state House of Representatives, where he served until 1779.

appear to me the least probability that Vermont will be allowed to be a seperate [sic] State and every step that has been or may be taken by New Hampshire to countenance it weakens her claim far beyond what many Gentlemen of New Hampshire have any conception off and will be so construed in desiding [sic] the dispute, therefore I wish most heartily that New Hampshire and the Inhabitants of what is called the Grants or Vermont would for the interest of both lay aside every thought of making the latter a seperate [sic] State and unite in their endeavours [sic] to be one State in which case in my opinion they will succeed, but if Vermont persists in endeavoring to be a seperate [sic] State and New Hampshire appears to acquiesce they will very likely both be disappointed and in all probability Vermont will be adjudged to New York. [8]

On 3 April 1779, Langdon was elected to a seat in the Continental Congress, “until released, or recalled by order of the General Assembly of this State.” Reelected on 3 November 1779, he attended sessions from 3 to 17 September 1779, and from 27 September to 19 or 20 November 1779. According to historian Edmund Cody Burnett, “The credentials of [Nathaniel] Peabody and Langdon, presented [on] 22 June, state that they were elected ‘in the room and stead’ of Josiah Bartlett and John Wentworth, Jr.” [7]

In New Hampshire, Langdon was named as a member of the state Executive Council, where he served from 1781 to 1784. In 1782 he was elected as a judge of the state superior court, later being reelected to that position and serving from 1786 to January 1791, when he resigned. In January 1784 was published “[a] list of the members of the Council and House of Representatives, who constituted the Assembly of this State, at their late Session in Concord.” The Council for the county of Rockingham included Meshech Weare, Josiah Bartlett, and Woodbury Langdon, among others. [10] In July of that same year we find that “[t]he following gentlemen are elected Senators for the year ensuing.” The list, for the county of Rockingham, included Joseph Gilman, John McClary, Timothy Walker, John Langdon, and Woodbury Langdon. [11] In 1790, President George Washington named him as a commissioner to settle claims made by certain persons during the American Revolution.

While there are several pieces of printed correspondence during his Continental Congress service, only one letter from Langdon, mentioning the possibility of Vermont becoming a part of New Hampshire, is relevant. In this letter to New Hampshire president Meshech Weare, Langdon wrote: You will have received sundry Resolutions relative to Vermont from the President of Congress a Copy of the last of which I herein inclose [sic], the others of the 24th September were pass’d while I was confined I and I cannot say are altogether to my mind, this Business in my opinion is of the greatest consequence to New Hampshire and requires her most serious attention for many very weighty Reasons . . . indeed there does not

It appears that Langdon was on friendly terms with John Adams, delegate from Massachusetts. James Lovell wrote to Adams’ wife, Abigail Adams, in part, on 23 November 1779, “Col. Langdon Yesterday carried some Papers from me directed to Mr. A[dams] in his Absence to the Navy Board. They were only of the Kind now sent, but former Numbers.” [9]

In May 1801, the following announcement was found: “Woodbury Langdon, Esq. is appointed Navy Agent at Portsmouth (N.H.) in the room of Jacob Sheaffe [sic], Esq. dismissed. But where in the navy Mr. L. is to superintend?” [12] On 9 June 1801, The New-Hampshire Gazette reported

804

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

“[f]rom the General Court,” that “[w]e have only been able to learn by the kind attention of a correspondent, that the whole number of votes for Speaker” was 72 for the Honorable John Prentice, and 65 for “Mr. Langdon.” [13]

[10] Thomas’s The Massachusetts Spy: Or, Worcester Gazette [Worcester, Massachusetts], 29 January 1784, 2. [11] Thomas’s The Massachusetts Spy: Or, Worcester Gazette [Worcester, Massachusetts], 1 July 1784, 2. [12] Gazette of the United States [Philadelphia], 23 May 1801, 3. [13] “Portsmouth, June 9,” The New-Hampshire Gazette, and Historical Chronicle, Containing the Freshest Advices, Foreign and Domestic [Portsmouth], 9 June 1801, 3. [14] The New-Hampshire Gazette [Portsmouth], 15 January 1805, 3. See also the short obituary for Langdon in National Intelligencer, and Washington Advertiser [Washington, DC], 20 February 1805, 3. [15] Batchellor, Albert Stillman, “Early State Papers of New Hampshire. Including the Journals of the Senate and House of Representative and Records of the President and Council, from June, 1787, to June, 1790. With an Appendix, Containing Biographical Sketches of Men Who Sustained Important Relations to the State Government during that Period, Taken from the Manuscript Biographies of Governor William Plumer; Also Correspondence and Acts of the Legislature Pertaining to the Federal Constitution and the Relations of New Hampshire to the Federal Government” (Concord, NH: Ira C. Evans, Public Printer; 40 volumes, 1867-19?), XXI:815.

Woodbury Langdon died in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, on 13 January 1805. “On Sabbath morning departed this life, the Honorable Woodbury Langdon, Esq. after a tedious illness. The death of this firm advocate for the rights of man will be greatly regretted by his extensive acquaintance[s] throughout the United States, and his friends in the most respectable nations abroad. May this stroke of Divine Providence be abundantly compensated to the bereaved and affected family and relatives. In the death of this Citizen, it may be truly said, a great man is fallen in our stead . . .” [14] He was buried in the North Cemetery in Portsmouth.

Edward Langworthy (c. 1738-1802)

The Federalist William Plumer, from New Hampshire, wrote of him, “He was a man of great independence and decision—bold, keen, and sarcastic, and spoke his mind of men and measures with great freedom . . . He was naturally inclined to be arbitrary and haughty but his sense of what was right, and his pride prevented him from doing intentional evil.” [15] See also: John Langdon

[1] Langdon family tree, online at http://www.geni.com/people/ Woodbury-Langdon/6000000009427325285. [2] Woodbury Langdon official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=L000068. [3] Mayo, Lawrence Shaw, “John Langdon of New Hampshire” (Concord, NH: The Rumford Press, 1937), 49. [4] Wright, Robert K., Jr., and Morris J. MacGregor, Jr., “SoldierStatesmen of the Constitution” (Washington, DC: United States Army, Center of Military History, 2007), 100-01. [5] “Province of New-Hampshire,” The New-Hampshire Gazette, and Historical Chronicle, Containing the Freshest Advices, Foreign and Domestic [Portsmouth], 12 May 1775, 1. [6] Mayo, Lawrence S., “Langdon, Woodbury,” in Allen Johnson, et al., “Dictionary of American Biography” (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons; eleven volumes and five supplements, 1958-77), X:590. [7] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), IV:lv. [8] Woodbury Langdon to Meshech Weare, 12 October 1779, in ibid., IV:486. [9] James Lovell to Abigail Adams, 23 November 1779, in Lyman Henry Butterfield and Marc Friedlaender, eds., “The Adams Papers: Adams Family Correspondence” (Cambridge, MA: Belknap Press of Harvard University Press; eleven volumes, 1963- ), III:239.

A delegate from Georgia (1777-79) to the Continental Congress, Edward Langworthy signed the Articles of Confederation. Born in Savannah, probably in 1738, he was an orphan, left at the Bethesda Orphan House in that city. [1] He attended a school that was connected to the orphan house, and later became an instructor at the institution. [2] In a Georgia newspaper, an advertisement for Langworthy reads, “The subscriber having taken a convenient

Edward Langworthy (c. 1738-1802)805 house, proposes to board eight young gentlemen at ₤22 per annum, and to instruct them in the Latin and Greek Languages, Writing, Arithmetick [sic], and several Principles of the Mathematicks [sic]. The greatest care will be taken to improve them in the English language, and to accustom them to a just and agreeable manner in pronounciation [sic] and reading. Young Ladies may be taught English Grammar, Writing, &c. privately. Edward Langworthy.” [3] It is assumed that Langworthy remained as a teacher for the first years of the crisis that led to the American Revolution. He also married a girl who was the sister of Ambrose Wright, but she died early in their marriage; he had no children and did not remarry. Historian Edmund Cody Burnett explained, “Langworthy’s first appearance upon the political stage was as one of the signers of the Loyalist protest against the Savannah resolutions of 10 August 1774. A year later, however, he had so completely reversed his position that he was chosen secretary to the Council of Safety and served the succeeding Revolutionary bodies, provincial congress, Council of Safety, and convention, in the same capacity.” [4] Historian Burton Alva Konkle added: Langworthy was thirty-five years old and living in Savannah when the Revolution began to take shape and on 11 December 1775, became Secretary of the Council of Safety of Georgia then formed. Within two months he became a member of the Georgia Provincial Congress and was chosen Secretary of that body also, and signed the credentials of the first delegates from Georgia to the Continental Congress on the following February 2, 1776, one of whom was Button Gwinnett, who signed the Declaration of Independence a few months later and who signed so few other papers that his is the most sought for signature among all who put quill to that immortal instrument. Gwinnett was about six years older than Langworthy and was President of the Provincial Council, and the two were warm friends. [5] On 7 June 1777, Langworthy was elected by the Georgia legislature to a seat in the Continental Congress. Reelected on 26 February 1778, he served from 17 November to 31 December 1777, 1 January to about 27 June 1778, 15 August to about 26 December 1778, and from 1 January to 12 April 1779. [6] Historian Burnett explained, “[I]n so far as existing records indicate, his service was not conspicuous. If he took an active part in the

discussions on the floor of Congress, the Journals give but little intimation of it. He is not recorded as at any time having made a motion, although he did on two occasions (18 and 23 March 1779) second motions made by others, and on two other occasions (16 December 1778, and 27 March 1779) he called for the yeas and nays. This record is not, however, especially different from those of a good many other member.” [7] However, it should be noted that Langworthy signed the Articles of Confederation, sending this governmental blueprint to the states for ratification. There is only one printed letter from Langworthy during his Continental Congress service, that to William Duer, who served in that body from New York. Dated 8 or 18 December 1778, Langworthy penned: Being just got to Congress and finding as usual we cannot proceed to business for want of a sufficient Number of States, I have sate [sic] down at the Table to scribble and communicate to you a few of my Sentiments. You have no doubt heard of the resignation of his Excellency Henry Laurens Esqr, and of the extraordinary Oration he delivered previous thereto. Mr[.] Deans [sic, should be Deane’s] publication was particularly aimed at; but notwithstanding the Phantasticability [sic] and absurdity of the President, the House were of Opinion there should not be the least restraint on the Liberty of the Press. As for my part I shall rejoice to see more publications on the proceedings of Congress. A little gentle Satyr will be useful on many occasions and will restrain the Spirit of Intrigue and Cabal. I shall say no more on this subject, until I have the happiness of seeing you, only that there never was a time when I wanted your presence more . . . [8] In addition to this, a letter from Langworthy to one John Davis, was located in Davis’ papers in the Library of Congress, dated 14 July 1783: Sir, As Peace is restored to this Country, I am under the Necessity of returning to my State, and in consequence thereof am settling all my Affairs in this part of America. You had of me in the beginning of February, 1780, a Piece of blue flowered Everlasting 29 Yards @ 7/6, which amounts to ten Pounds Seventeen Shillings and sixpence (£10’17’6); I have not had an opportunity of conversing with you since: I met you once accidentally in the Street at Philadelphia and you desired me to call at the Indian Queen (your Lodgings), which I did several times, but cou’d not see you. You have likewise been a great Stranger to this Town. I have now drawn on you for the Money, payable at sight to Colo.

806

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Thos. Hartley, which request you to comply with, as otherwise I have ordered him to settle that and some other of my Affairs thro’ the medium of the Law. [9]

[3] See The Georgia Gazette, 25 October 1769, 3. See an additional advertisement in The Georgia Gazette, 8 November 1769, 5. [4] Burnett, Edmund Cody, “Langworthy, Edward” in Allen Johnson, et al., “Dictionary of American Biography” (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons; eleven volumes and five supplements, 1958-77), X:599. [5] Konkle, Burton Alva, “Edward Langworthy,” The Georgia Historical Quarterly, XI:2 (June 1927), 166. [6] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), II:xliv; III:lii; IV:li. [7] Burnett, Edmund Cody, “Edward Langworthy in the Continental Congress,” The Georgia Historical Quarterly, XII:3 (September 1928), 211. [8] Edward Langworthy to William Duer, 8 (18?) December 1778, in Burnett, “Letters of Members,” op. cit., III:540. [9] “An Edward Langworthy Letter,” The Georgia Historical Quarterly, XVII:3 (September 1933), 234. [10] The Maryland Journal and Baltimore Advertiser, 25 January 1785, 3. [11] Mackall, Leonard L., “Edward Langworthy and the First Attempt to Write a Separate History of Georgia, with Selections from the Longlost Langworthy Papers,” The Georgia Historical Quarterly, VII:1 (March 1923), 1. [12] The Philadelphia Gazette & Daily Advertiser, 4 November 1802, 3. See a smaller obituary in Boston Gazette. Commercial and Political [Massachusetts], 15 November 1802, 2.

In 1785, Langworthy moved to Baltimore, where he established a life there, becoming the part owner and editor of the Maryland Journal & Baltimore Advertiser newspaper. In an open letter to his readers, he and co-owner William Goddard wrote, “It would perhaps be to little Purpose to descant on the many Advantages derived from the Art of Printing; that the present Age is esteemed an Enlightened One, and that we are in the enjoyment of Political Independence, and Perfect Freedom in the important Concerns of Religion, may, in a great Degree, be ascribed to the Liberty of the Press.” [10] In 1787, however, Langworthy returned to Georgia, where he began work on the first history of that state. Historian Leonard Mackall explained, “Mr. Langworthy had collected a variety of papers, and from his peculiar position during the period of our difficulties with England, must have been possessed of rare materials for our revolutionary history. He left Georgia after the establishment of the Constitution, and settled in Maryland, where he died, and his papers have never been recovered.” [11] In 1795, Langworthy returned to Baltimore, where, that year, he was named as the Clerk of Customs of the city. This was his final public service.

John Ten Eyck Lansing, Jr. (1754-c. 1829)

Langworthy died on 2 November 1802. One obituary stated, “[A]fter a severe illness of six days . . . the spirit of Edward Langworthy, Esq. deputy naval officer of the port of Baltimore, took its flight for ‘another and a better world.’ To eulogize the defunct is not the intention of the writer of this paragraph, suffice it to say, that his public and private walks in life were such as many may endeavor to intimate, but a few will attain to equal perfection.” [12] Langworthy was originally buried in the yard of the Old Episcopal Church in Baltimore; however, in 1891, the church was torn down and the records of the graveyard lost.

[1] Finding “genealogical information” on Langworthy is thus impossible. See some information on his life online at http:// www.politicalfamilytree.com/samples%20content/members/ signers/Langworthy-GA-1.pdf. [2] Langworthy official congressional biography, online at http:// bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=L000075.

A member of the New York state Assembly, the Continental Congress (1785), and the

John Ten Eyck Lansing, Jr. (1754-c. 1829) 807 .

Constitutional Convention (1787), John Lansing, Jr., went missing in 1829 while mailing some letters in New York City, and he was never found, presumably murdered. He is the only member of the Continental Congress to have died such a mysterious death. The son of Gerrit Jacob Lansing, a merchant, and his wife Jannetje (née Waters) Lansing, John Lansing, Jr., was born in Albany, New York, on 30 January 1754. [1] His grandfather, Gerrit Gerritse Lansing, was born in Hasselt Overijsell, in The Netherlands, in 1637; the family originated in the Hasselt Province with Frederick Lansinck, born about 1546. Gerrit Lansing emigrated from the Netherlands about 1640, and was one of the early settlers of the manor of Rensselaerwyck, a large tract of land that was given in a grant to Killiaen Van Rensselaer, now a part of New York State along the Hudson River, where many early Dutch colonists to the New World settled. [2] His father did not encourage his son to go to college, instead gaining for him a legal apprenticeship with famed early American attorney Robert Yates in Albany, and then lawyer James Duane in New York City. Lansing would be tied to Yates for much of his life, eventually serving with him in the federal constitutional convention in 1787. John Lansing was admitted to the New York colonial bar in 1775. Before Lansing’s legal practice could grow, the American Revolution began. Historian Joseph C. Morton wrote, “The outbreak of hostilities with Great Britain in April 1775 provided countless opportunities for a legally trained, ambitious man like John Lansing to make his mark. The legal practice, which he had begun to build soon after admission to the bar, was closed when, in 1776, the 22-year-old budding barrister joined the American army.” [3] From 1776 to 1777, Lansing served as the military secretary to General Philip Schuyler. When his military service was completed, he returned to Albany, where he reopened his law practice. After several years of legal practice, Lansing entered the political arena, winning a seat in the New York state Assembly, where he served from 1781 to 1784, then in 1786 and 1789, serving as the Speaker of that body in 1786 and 1789. [4] Alexander Hamilton wrote to Robert Morris, 13 August 1782, “In the assembly the leading members are, Mr. [William] Malcom, Mr. [John] Laurance, Mr. Lansing,

Judge [Thomas] Tredwell and Mr. [Cornelius] Humphreys . . . Laurance is a man of good sense and good intentions—has just views of public affairs—is active and accurate in business. He is from conviction an advocate for strengthening the Fœderal government and for reforming the vices of our interior administration. Lansing is a good young fellow and a good practitioner of the law; but his friends mistook his talents when they made him a statesman. He thinks two pence an ounce upon plate a monstrous tax. The county of Albany is not of my opinion concerning him.” [5] On 3 February 1784, the New York Assembly elected Lansing to a seat in the Continental Congress. Reelected on 26 October 1784, he did not attend any sessions of the body during that calendar year. Elected a third time on 26 January 1787, he attended sessions from 13 to 27 June and 11 to 22 July 1785 only. [6] We find contemporary evidence of his first election, when newspapers reported that “[t] he Hon. John Jay, Walter Livingston, John Lansing, Jun. Zephaniah Platt, and Egbert Benson, Esquires, were yesterday elected [as] Delegates to represent this State in the Congress of the United States, for the ensuing year.” [7] Unfortunately, any work that Lansing did in the Continental Congress seems to have been passed over, and there are no printed pieces of correspondence from the period. In 1786, Lansing was elected the mayor of Albany, he post he held until 1790. In 1787, with the call for a convention to be held in Philadelphia to address severe deficiencies in the Articles of Confederation, Lansing was elected as one of the delegates representing New York State in that conference. One newspaper reported, “On Friday last, the Hon. the Legislature, elected the Hon. John Haring, Melancton Smith, Abraham Yates, jun. Egbert Benson, and John Lansing, jun. Esquires, [as] Delegates to represent this State in the Congress of the United States, for the current year.” [8] Historian Carol Berkin explained, “A staunch supporter of Governor George Clinton, to whom he owed much of his political success, Lansing went to the Philadelphia convention suspicious that it might go beyond simply amending the Articles of Confederation and concerned that it might produce a challenge to New York’s autonomy.” [9] Historian Stephen Schechter added, “As the Convention inexorably

808

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

moved toward a more national government, Yates and Lansing became increasingly more disenchanted. They finally left the Convention on 10 July and did not return. Various reasons have been given to explain Yates’ and Lansing’s departure from the Convention and their refusal to return. Early in the Convention, Lansing told his brother Abraham that he and Yates ‘had no prospect of succeeding in the measures proposed, and that he was at a stand whether it would not be proper for him to Leave.’” [10]

Lansing continued to serve the citizens of New York even after his walkout from the Constitutional Convention. In 1789, in an open letter to the people of Albany, it was written, “[a] Number of our Friends, from several districts of this county, have also had a meeting in this city and unanimously agreed and concluded to hold up the following persons as candidates: George Clinton, Governor; Pierre V. Cortlandt, Lieutenant-Governor; Henry Oothoudt, John Lansing, Jr., Senators . . .” [12] Instead of winning the state Senate seat, Lansing was again elected to the state Assembly, and he served as the Speaker of that body that same year.

Upon their return to New York, Yates and Lansing published a letter in New York newspapers explaining their reasons why they walked out of the Constitutional Convention. One paper wrote, “[l]ate yesterday evening we were favored by a correspondent, with the following copy of a letter from the Hon. Robert Yates, jun. and John Lansing, Esquires, members of the general convention, lately held in the city of Philadelphia, assigning their reasons for giving their dissent to the constitution agreed upon by that body, and which was laid before the legislature by his excellency the Governor, at the opening of the session, on Friday last. From a consideration of the very interesting nature of this Letter to the public, notwithstanding the late hour of its receipt, the editor thus expeditiously presents it to the public view.” The letter, titled “Reasons of Dissent,” stated: We do ourselves the honor to advise your excellency, that in pursuance of concurrent resolutions of the honorable senate and assembly, we have, together with Mr. [Alexander] Hamilton, attended the convention, appointed for revising the articles of confederation, and reporting amendments to the same. It is with the sincerest concern we observe, that in the prosecution of the important objects of our mission, we have been reduced to the disagreeable alternative, of either exceeding the powers delegated to us and giving our assent to measures which we conceived distructive [sic] of the political happiness of the citizens of the United States, or opposing our opinion to that body of respectable men, to whom those citizens had given the most unequivocal proofs of confidence. Thus circumstanced, under these impressions, to have hesitated, would have been to be culpable: we therefore gave the principles of the constitution, which has received the sanction of a majority of the convention, our decided and unreserved dissent . . . [11]

Despite his age, over the next two decades Lansing served in a series of posts, including as a member of a commission in 1790 to settle a boundary dispute between New York and Vermont. That same year, he was named as a justice of the New York state Supreme Court, where he served until 1801; in 1798, he was promoted to chief justice of the court, and held that position until he stepped down in 1801 to become the chancellor of New York State, where he served until 1814. In 1817 he served as a commissioner to again settle a dispute between New York State and Vermont. Once concluded with that task, he served as a regent of the University of the State of New York from 1817 until his death. [13] In the counting of electoral votes for president in the New York state Senate in 1824, Lansing was listed as gaining 80 votes for the candidates backed by William Crawford, a former secretary of the treasury. [14] John Lansing vanished on 12 December 1829, when he traveled from Albany to New York City, checked into a hotel, and, following dinner, walked outside to mail a letter. He was never heard from again. One newspaper stated: On Saturday evening, the 12th inst. Chancellor Lansing, of Albany, arrived in this city, and put up at the City Hotel; he breakfasted and dined there. Shortly after dinner he retired to his room, and wrote for a short time, and about the hour that the persons intending to go to Albany usually leave the Hotel, he was observed to leave the room. He left his trunk, cane, &c. in his room. His friends in the city have heard this morning from Albany that he has not returned home. It is supposed that he had written a letter to Albany, and that he intended to put it on board the

John Laurance (c. 1750-1810)809 steamboat, that left here for that place at five o’clock that afternoon. He had made an engagement to take tea at 6 o’clock that evening with Mr. Robert Kay, of this city, who resides at No. 29, Marketfield-street. He was dressed in black, and wore powder in his hair. He was a man of large and muscular frame of body, and about five feet nine inches in height. He was upwards of 76 years of age. He was in good health, and has never been known to have been affected by any mental aberration. [15] One source noted, “[New York politician] Thurlow Weed[,] in later years[,] claimed that he had discovered the secret of Lansing’s death. According to Weed, Lansing was murdered because he knew too much about a certain case that involved the interests of an influential and highly placed group of citizens of New York. Weed always refused to give more precise information, and descendants of Lansing who investigated his story were satisfied that it had no basis in fact. The most likely solution of the mystery is that Lansing, who was seventy-five at the time of his disappearance, missed his footing on the dock or the gangplank in the dim evening light, fell in the river, and was swept out to sea. Another possibility is that he was robbed and murdered on his way to the boat.” [16]

[11] “Reasons of Dissent,” The New-York Journal, and Daily Patriotic Register, 14 January 1788, 3. [12] “Letter addressed to the Inhabitants of the County of Albany,” The Albany Register, 6 April 1789, 4. [13] Lansing official congressional biography, online at http:// bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=L000087. [14] “The New York Election,” The National Gazette and Literary Register [Philadelphia], 20 November 1824, 2. [15] “Notice,” Farmers’ Cabinet [Amherst, New Hampshire], 2 January 1830, 3. [16] Lansing, John, Jr. (Joseph Reese Strayer, ed.), “The Delegate from New York, or, Proceedings of the Federal Convention of 1787: From the Notes of John Lansing, Jr.” (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1939), 4.

John Laurance (c. 1750-1810)

A memorial was erected in the Albany Rural Cemetery in New York in his honor.

[1] Lansing family tree, online at http://www.geni.com/people/ John-Lansing/6000000006591588178. [2] Munsell, Claude Garfield, “The Lansing Family. A Genealogy of the Descendants of Gerrit Frederickse Lansing Who Came to America from Hasselt, Province Overijssel, Holland, 1640. Eight Generations” (New York: Privately Published, 1916), 1-2. [3] Morton, Joseph C., “Shapers of the Great Debate the Constitutional Convention of 1787: A Biographical Dictionary” (Westport, CT: Greenwood Press, 2006), 168. [4] The New-York Packet, 16 January 1786, 3. [5] Alexander Hamilton to Robert Morris, 13 August 1782, in Ferguson, E. James, ed., “The Papers of Robert Morris, 1781-1784” (Pittsburgh: University of Pittsburgh Press; nine volumes, 1973- ), VI:191, 192. [6] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VII:lxxi; VIII:xci. [7] The New-York Journal, and State Gazette, 28 October 1784, 2. [8] “New-York, January 31,” The Connecticut Courant, 5 February 1787, 3. [9] Berkin, Carol, “A Brilliant Solution: Inventing the American Constitution” (New York: Harcourt Books, 2002), 220. [10] Schechter, Stephen L., ed., “The Reluctant Pillar: New York and the Adoption of the Federal Constitution” (Troy, NY: Russell Sage College, 1985), 62-63.

A US representative (1789-93) and US senator (1796-1800) from New York, who served as a US judge for the district of New York (1794-96), John Laurance stepped onto the historical stage when he presided over the trial of British spy John André in 1780. He served as a member of the Continental Congress from New York (1785-87). He was born near Falmouth, in Cornwall, in the southwestern corner of the United Kingdom, allegedly in 1750; nothing is known of his family. Historian Harry M. Ward wrote, “The identity of his parents is not established nor are the circumstances that led him to leave England for New York City in 1767.” [1] He settled in New York City, where he studied the law under Cadwallader Colden, who later served as lieutenant governor of New York, and was

810

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

admitted to the New York colonial bar in 1772. The previous year, he purchased 1,000 acres of land in what was then upstate New York (now Vermont). A Whig, who gradually came to support the patriotic movement, in around 1774 Laurance married Elizabeth McDougall, the daughter of a leading New York merchant; the couple would have one child, a son.

trial before a board of officers. Laurance, his fellow Briton, was named as the judge of the tribunal. When André was found guilty of being a spy, Washington offered a trade: André for Arnold, but the British refused. On 2 October 1780, André was hanged in Tappan. While many sources discuss the trial and the hanging, few go into Laurance’s role in finding André guilty. [4] Laurance had also presided over a court-martial for Arnold before true evidence of his treachery had come to light. [5]

In 1775, Laurance was named as a lieutenant in the New York militia at the start of the American Revolution, and he saw action in the expedition against Canada. When his fatherin-law, Alexander MacDougall, was promoted to the rank of brigadier general in August 1776, he had his son-in-law named as his aide-decamp, and Laurance saw limited action in the defense of New York from British invasion. [2] On 11 April 1777, he was named as the judge advocate general (jag) of the Continental Army, on the staff of Commander-in-Chief General George Washington, succeeding William Tudor. Laurance held this post until June 1782; on 9 November 1780 the Continental Congress resolved, “That by a certificate from the Commander in Chief communicated by your Committee and dated the 29th of October last, it appears that Mr. Lawrence [sic] has uniformly discharged the duties of his office with great uprightness, diligence and ability, by which he has acquired the esteem of the army and merited the consideration of his Country.” [3] In a moment that has been enshrined in early American history, a British spy, John André, was captured by American troops and put on trial. Like Laurance, John André was born in London in 1750, the son of Huguenot parents. Schooled in Geneva, Switzerland, he purchased a lieutenant’s commission in the British army in 1771. When he American Revolution broke out, he went to Fort Saint-Jean on the Richelieu River, but he surrendered when American forces captured it, and it was not until he was exchanged in 1776, later seeing action at several clashes, including at Brandywine Creek (9 September 1777) and Germantown (4 October 1777). In 1780, he became a key figure in meeting with the American General Benedict Arnold, who switched sides to aid the British. André was captured carrying papers from Arnold, and taken to Tappan, New York, where General George Washington ordered a

After the war, Laurance remained involved politically. Historian Charles Worthen Spencer explained, “After the war his civil career in New York was active and varied. He made an excellent reputation for legal learning. He was associated with Robert R. Livingston in the movement to provide a water supply for the city, and in 1784 he was elected vestryman of Trinity Church and trustee of Columbia College.” [6] At the same time, Laurance became an important land investor in New York State. Historian Arthur J. Alexander wrote: It was not until after the Peace of Paris had been signed and the British had evacuated New York City that Judge Laurance again seems to have become interested in the acquisition of real property. The Judge would seem to have prospered exceedingly in the interim between acquiring his first tract in the Disputed Grants’ and the end of the Revolutionary War. Laurance delayed until the spring of 1784 before he embarked upon the purchase of confiscated loyalist lands, in which process he invested huge sums. From May, 1784, through August, 1787, Laurance invested no less than £13,706.15 in confiscated lands in New York and Westchester counties, a sum exclusive of a £500 investment jointly made with John D. Crimshire in the purchase of George Folliot’s confiscated estate. [7] On 19 March 1785, Laurance was elected to a seat in the Continental Congress; he was reelected on 26 March 1785, “from the first Monday in November next for the Term of one year thence next ensuing,” and on 24 February 1786. He attended sessions of 27 April to 20 May 1785, 30 May to 2 July 1785, 26 July to 6 October 1785, 28 October 1785 to about 16 March 1786, 1-15 May 1786, 1 to about 5 June 1786, 19 to 20 July 1786, 16 August to about 1 September 1786, about 30 October to 24 November 1786, and 17 January 1787. [8]

John Laurance (c. 1750-1810)811 Sources state that he did not enter the New York state Senate until 1789, but historian Tadahisa Kuroda credits Laurance with introducing a bill on presidential electors in 1788. He wrote: Federalist John Laurance introduced a bill on presidential electors in the senate on 13 December 1788. As reported out by the committee of the whole, this bill stipulated that the house and senate separately appoint four of the eight electors assigned to New York. Concurrently, Laurance introduced another bill for the appointment of U.S. Senators. This measure proposed that when two Senators were to be appointed, each house would select one; if only one Senator was to be chosen, each house would make a nomination and seek concurrence from the other house until agreement had been reached. These bills sought to give the state senate and therefore the Federalists at least half of the electors and Senators representing New York, and to deny the Antifederalist majority in the state assembly total control of the state delegations to the electoral college and the U.S. Senate. Antifederalist senators who opposed such measures attempted to amend the bills but lacked the votes, and the senate sent the separate bills to the assembly, which rejected both bills on December 22 and 23. [9] In the elections mandated by the US Constitution for the First Congress (1789-91), Laurance was elected to a seat in the US House of Representatives, the lower body of the new bicameral legislature. He would serve in that Congress as well as the Second Congress (179193), from 4 March 1789 to 3 March 1793. In 1790, Laurance took a leading role, with several others, to demand an end to the slave trade in America, asking for Congress to pass laws “that effectual provision may be made to restrain vessells [sic] from fitting and clearing out in any of the ports in this State for the purpose of a trade to Africa for slavery.” [10] Historian Arthur Alexander wrote: The decade 1790-1800 coincided with increased interest in the manumission movement in the State of New York, and on 25 January 1785, Judge Robert Troup was present at the first meeting of a Society for promoting the manumission of slaves and protecting such of them as have been or may be liberated. At the next meeting, at which Chief Justice John Jay presided and at which Troup was again present, accompanied by his friends Alexander Hamilton and John Laurance, a set of “Rules” was promulgated. These “Rules” were the product of a committee which

had been selected at the first meeting and of which Judge Troup was a member. Among the signers, the first of whom was Judge Troup himself, were John Jay, Judge James Duane, Alexander Hamilton, Judge John Laurance, Francis Child, General Matthew Clarkson and John M. Pintard.1 However, it must be borne in mind that not all those who were interested in the organization signed the “Rules.” [11] Senator Robert C. Byrd, Democrat of Virginia, wrote in a history of classic speeches delivered in the US Senate, “At the very First Congress (1789-91), petitions on the subject were presented, if I mistake not, from different states. The Pennsylvania society for promoting the abolition of slavery took a lead, and laid before Congress a memorial, praying [that] Congress to promote the abolition by such powers as it possessed. This memorial was referred, in the House of Representatives, to a select committee, consisting of Mr. [Abiel] Foster of New York, Mr. [Elbridge] Gerry of Massachusetts, Mr. [Benjamin] Huntington of Connecticut, Mr. Lawrence [sic] of New York, Mr. [Thomas] Sinnickson of New Jersey, Mr. [Thomas] Hartley of Pennsylvania, and Mr. [Josiah] Parker of Virginia—all of them, sir, as you will observe, northern men but the last.” [12] In May 1794, after leaving the House, Laurance was appointed by President George Washington as the US judge for the district of New York, where he served until 8 November 1796. The resignation came about when the New York legislature, to fill a vacancy in the US Senate caused by the resignation of Rufus King, elected Laurance to the open seat. Laurance would serve in the Senate until his own resignation in August 1800. During this period, he served as the president pro tempore in the Fifth Congress (1797-99). Following John Adams’ Message to the Sixth Congress (1799-1801), the action that became the Judiciary Act of 1801 was introduced. Historian Kathryn Turner wrote, “Almost immediately, both Houses of Congress appointed all-Federalist committees to report revisions of the judiciary system: Uriah Tracy of Connecticut, John Laurance of New York, Jacob Read of South Carolina, Samuel Dexter of Massachusetts, and James Ross of Pennsylvania, in the Senate; Robert Goodloe Harper of South Carolina, James Bayard of Delaware, Samuel Sewall of Massachusetts, Chauncey Goodrich of Connecticut, and John Marshall of Virginia, in the House.” [13]

812

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Although most sources do not make mention of it, contemporary newspapers discuss Laurance’s role in the Bank of the United States. For instance, in one paper, is the following: “At the annual meeting of the stockholders of the bank [sic] of the United States held yesterday, the following gentlemen were elected directors for the current year.” Listed in the first line are Thomas Willing and John Laurance. [14]

[7] Alexander, Arthur J., “Judge John Laurance: Successful Investor in New York State Lands,” New York History, XXV:1 (January 1944), 37-38. [8] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VIII:xci. [9] Kuroda, Tadahisa, “New York and the First Presidential Election: Politics and the Constitution,” New York History, LXIX:3 (July 1988), 326. [10] Laurance introduced the resolution in New York, while others pushed it in other cities. See diGiacomantonio, William C., “‘For the Gratification of a Volunteering Society’: Antislavery and Pressure Group Politics in the First Federal Congress,” Journal of the Early Republic, XV:2 (Summer 1995), 173. [11] Alexander, Arthur J., “Federal Officeholders in New York State as Slaveholders 1789-1805,” The Journal of Negro History, XXVIII:3 (July 1943), 328-29. [12] Byrd, Robert C., “The Senate, 1789-1989: Classic Speeches, 1830-1993” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office, 1994), 42. [13] Turner, Kathryn, Federalist Policy and the Judiciary Act of 1801,” The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, XXII:1 (January 1965), 10. [14] Gazette of the United States [Philadelphia], 3 January 1797, 3. [15] New-York Herald, 22 April 1802, 3. [16] See a notice only of Laurance’s death in New-York Evening Post, 12 November 1810, 3.

In his final years, Laurance was a leading spokesman for Federalist policies, for supporting the Alien & Sedition Act of 1799, and for his increasing land speculation in New York State; by the time of his death, he owned some 40,000+ acres in New York’s Mohawk Valley. His first wife died in August 1790, but he remarried to Elizabeth Lawrence, a widow, the following year. In April 1802, an announcement involved “a numerous meeting of Federal Republican Electors of the City of New-York, held at the Tontine Coffee-house, in pursuance of public notice, on Wednesday evening, 21st of April, 1802, John Laurance, Esq. in the chair, Resolved unanimously, that Samuel Jones, Esq. be supported at the ensuing election, as Senator for the southern district of this state.” [15]

Henry Laurens (1724-1792)

In 1809 Laurance suffered from a debilitating stroke from which he never recovered. He died in New York City on 11 November 1810, probably aged 60. [16] Laurance was buried in the First Presbyterian Church, located at Fifth Avenue and Twelfth Street in New York City.

[1] Ward, Harry M., “Laurance, John” in John A. Garraty and Mark C. Carnes, gen. eds., “American National Biography” (New York: Oxford University Press; 24 volumes, 1999), XIII:—. [2] Laurance official congressional biography, online at http:// bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=L000120. [3] Ford, Worthington Chauncey, et al., eds., “Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; thirty-four volumes, 1905-37), XVIII:1037. [4] For one recent piece of research, see Nelson, Paul David, “William Alexander, Lord Stirling: George Washington’s Noble General” (University, AL: The University of Alabama Press, 1987), 159. [5] See “Proceedings of a General Court Martial of the Line, Held at Raritan, in the State of New-Jersey, by Order of His Excellency George Washington, Esq. General and Commander in Chief of the Army of the United States of America, for the Trial of Major General Arnold, June 1, 1779. Major General Howe, President. Published by Order of Congress” (Philadelphia: Printed by Francis Bailey, in Market-Street, 1780), 3. [6] Spencer, Charles Worthen, “Laurance, John” in Allen Johnson, et al., “Dictionary of American Biography” (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons; eleven volumes and five supplements, 1958-77), XI:31-32.

A leader among the delegates who served from South Carolina in the Continental Congress

Henry Laurens (1724-1792)813 (1777-80), Henry Laurens was elected as the president of that body, the fourth such executive in its short history, serving from 1 November 1777 to 9 December 1778. He later was named as the US minister to Holland, but while sailing to take up his post he was captured on the seas by the British and imprisoned in the Tower of London for fifteen months. Laurens was born in Charleston, South Carolina, on 6 March 1724, the eldest son and third child of Jean Samuel Laurens and Hester (née Grasset) Laurens. [1] Jean Samuel Laurens was born in La Rochelle, in Charente-Maritime, France, in 1696; the Laurens clan had a long, although undocumented, history in France. Historian David Duncan Wallace wrote in 1915: We are not able to trace the Laurenses into a very remote antiquity. The name was common in the west and southeast of France and was borne by many families having no known connection, so much so, indeed, that many years before our family left France there were members of Laurenses in New York, sometimes with the same Christian name as the ones were are tracing. The family in which we are interested in, however, were evidently people of good standing in France; for some time after 1716 their descendants were generally too proud to follow trades; the coat of arms appears to back to the old French home; the possession of old title deed, and particularly of old commissions, by Henry Laurens’ father indicates previous prominence, as does also the prosperity of a near kinsman in Holland early in the eighteenth century. [2] Jean Samuel Laurent came to America with his parents in the late 17th century and settled with them in New York; he later married Hester Grasset, a native of Staten Island in New York, in either 1715 or 1716. It was about this time that the Laurenses moved from New York to Charlestown, South Carolina, where Henry Laurens would be born nearly a decade later. His mother died in 1741 at the age of 42, and his father remarried Elizabeth Wickling before his own death in 1747. As the eldest son, he inherited his father’s estates and wealth. Laurens received his early education in Charleston; however, in 1744, at age 19, he was sent to England to learn the ways of business, a trip that lasted for three years and only ended when he returned following his father’s death. For several years, utilizing his father’s wealth,

Henry Laurens fashioned himself into a leader of the merchant class of South Carolina, trading goods with England and the West Indies. From the center of his operations was his plantation along the Cooper River, which was exceedingly large and had at least 300 slaves working on it, he also imported slaves from Africa and sold them at a profit in the colonies. Laurens served two dual posts in the 1750s: as the holder of local offices, and as a lieutenant colonel during a campaign against the Cherokee Indians from 1757 to 1761. In the former year, he was elected to the Commons House of Assembly, and remained there for every session, save for one, until the American Revolution exploded in 1775. [3] He had married Eleanor Ball in 1750; however, when she died in 1770, Laurens left office for a year to take care of his children. At the same time, he also worked on his business pursuits; realizing that the number of harsh economic measures enacted by the British Parliament against the colonies, most notably The Stamp Act and The Sugar Act, among others, was inciting anger against the Crown, he traveled to London to try to mitigate the policies, to no effect. In the next several years, Laurens gradually moved away from England and towards the patriot movement in the colonies. He refused two appointments to the King’s Council in the Carolina in 1764 and 1768. After returning from Europe in December 1774, he quickly found himself out of step with the royal government. On 9 January 1775 he was named as a delegate to the First Provisional Congress of South Carolina; that June, he was elected president of the convention. That same year, he also served as president of the general committee and then the first Council of Safety of the colony. He then served as a delegate to the Second Provincial Congress, held from November 1775 to March 1776, and then as president of the Second Council of Safety in 1775 and 1776. In March 1776, to establish a government in the wake of the collapse of royal rule, he was elected as the vice president of South Carolina, holding the post from March 1776 to 27 June 1777. One area of contention we find in Laurens’ life at this juncture is the rapid descent into abolitionism that his son, Colonel John Laurens, took once he saw battle. Writing to his father on 26 August 1776, he explained:

814

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

The equitable Conduct which you have resolved upon with respect to your Negroes, will undoubtedly meet with great Opposition from interested Men. I have often conversed upon the subject and I have scarcely ever met with a Native of the Southern provinces or the W. Indies, who did not obstinately recur to the most absurd Arguments in support of Slavery; but it was easy to perceive that they consider’d only their own advantage arising from the Fact, and embarassed [sic] themselves very little about the Right; indeed when driven from everything else. They generally exclaim’d Without Slaves how is it possible for us to be rich? There may be some Inconvenience and even Danger in advancing Men suddenly from a state of Slavery, while possessed of the manners and Principles incident to that State, there may be danger I say in advancing such Men too suddenly to the Rights of Freemen. The Example of Rome suffering from Swarms of bad Citizens who were freedmen is a warning to us to proceed with Caution; and the necessity for it is an Argument of the complete Mischief occasioned by our continued Usurpation. We have sunk the African and their descendants below the standard of Humanity, and almost render’d them incapable of that Blessing which equal Heaven bestow’d upon us all . . . [4]

to whom they had sold them, pretending to set the poor wretches free but basely trepan & sell them into ten fold [sic] worse Slavery in the West Indies, where probably they will become the property of Englishmen again & of some who sit in Parliament; what meanness! What complicated wickedness appears in this scene! O England, how changed! How fallen! [5]

During a return home in August 1776, Laurens wrote about slavery to his son, Colonel John Laurens, in defense of the practice: My negroes there, all to a man, are strongly attached to me—so are all of mine in this country; hitherto not one of them has attempted to desert; on the contrary, those who are more exposed hold themselves always ready to fly from the enemy in case of a sudden descent. Many hundreds of that Colour have been stolen & decoyed by the Servants of King George the third. Captains of British Ships of War & Noble Lords have busied themselves in such inglorious pilferage to the disgrace of their Master & disgrace of their Cause. These Negroes were first enslaved by the English. Acts of Parliament have established the Slave Trade in favour of the home residing English & almost totally prohibited the Americans from reaping any share of it. Men of War Forts Castles Governors Companies & Committees are employed & authorized by the English Parliament to protect regulate & extend the Slave Trade. Negroes are brought by English Men & sold as Slaves to Americans. Bristol[,] Liverpoole [sic][,] Manchester[,] Birmingham &c. &c. live upon the Slave Trade. The British Parliament now employ their Men of War to steal those Negroes from the Americans

But there were limits on how far any Southern politician, either inside or outside the Continental Congress, could go against slavery in 1770s America. Historian Gregory Massey explained, “One of Washington’s young aides, John Laurens, observed these proceedings with great interest. On 14 January [1778] he wrote to his father Henry, the president of the Continental Congress. Laurens asked his father to release to him ‘able bodied men Slaves, instead of leaving me a fortune.’ With a complement of slaves, Laurens was convinced that he could train and equip a black regiment before the next campaign commenced. ‘I am sure of rendering essential Service to my Country,’ he said. ‘I am tired of the Languor with which so sacred a War as this, is carried on.’” Massey noted, “John Laurens and Henry Laurens were the only prominent native South Carolinians who consistently expressed misgivings about the institution of slavery. Their dialogue has been cited by numerous historians, and some scholars have briefly surveyed John Laurens’s attempt to form a black regiment. In general these studies have allotted the Laurenses a small part in a larger framework. What is missing is an examination of motive and context. This essay will explore the motivation behind the Laurenses’ antislavery pronouncements and consider the factors that prompted each man to pursue a divergent course on the slavery issue. Their separate paths and ultimate fates suggest the parameters of antislavery thought in the revolutionary lower South.” [6] On 10 January 1777, the South Carolina legislature elected Laurens as a delegate to the Continental Congress; he was reelected on 21 January 1778, 5 February 1779, and 1 February 1780; he attended sessions of 22 July to 31 December 1777, 1 January to 31 December 1778, 1 January to about 11 February 1779, 25 February to 22 October 1779, about 8 November 1779, and 1 July to 12 August 1780. In the papers announcing his election—with that of William Henry Drayton, we see the following:

Henry Laurens (1724-1792)815 State of South Carolina. In the General Assembly, the 21st Day of January 1778. The Members of this House and of the Legislative Council proceeded to ballot jointly, for Five Delegates to represent this State in the Congress of the United States. And the Ballots being reckoned, Mr. Speaker reported, That upon casting up the Ballots it appeared that the Honourable Christopher Gadsden, Arthur Middleton, Henry Laurens, and William Henry Drayton, Chief Justice of this State, had the Votes of a Majority of the Members present: whereupon they were declared duly elected Four of the Representatives of this State in the Congress of the United States. General Gadsden and Mr. Middleton each offering Reasons for requesting Leave to decline the Appointment . . . [7] Until he departed from the Continental Congress in 1780, he played a key role in the body’s deliberations. With the resignation of President John Hancock in 1777, the Continental Congress needed a new leader. Historian Jennings Sanders explained in 1930: Francis Lightfoot Lee seems to have been spoken of some weeks before Hancock’s retirement, as the Bostonian’s successor, but this talk came to nothing. As early as April, 1777, the rumor of the President’s intended leave was abroad, and Robert Morris was requested by his friends to take the office. This he declined to do because of the pressure of public affairs. Mrs. Morris wrote the following . . . letter to her mother: “Mr. Hancock intends resigning his seat in Congress, and going home; it is imagined he will be appointed Governor of Boston [sic]. They meant to have complimented Mr. Morris with the Presidentship [sic], but he told the gentlemen who informed him of it be could not serve, it would interfere entirely with his private business, and so begged it might be dropped . . . Don’t you feel quite important? I assure you I do, and begin to be reconciled to Independence.” [8] John Wereat of Charleston wrote to Laurens, a piece of correspondence that may have led the South Carolinian to take the presidency of the Continental Congress: “I now begin to tremble for the fate that awaits this devoted country; honesty, integrity, and love of justice being the declared and avowed principles of any man, are crimes sufficient to secure him the hateful

name of tory [sic], and to hold him up to the resentment of the people as an enemy to his country. I think I told you some time ago that I though[t] the augmentation of the present representation under our present circumstances a great evil; every day’s experience convinces me that it is so, and it requires no great degree of prescience to declare that Georgia cannot exist as a separate State twelve months longer, without the immediate interposition of Congress.” [9] One of the key moments in Laurens’ presidency was his overseeing of the drafting and signing of the Articles of Confederation, the first blueprint of national government in the United States, in 1781. Submitted to the states, it took two full years for the states to ratify the document. Historian William M. Dabney wrote, “Henry Laurens and William Henry Drayton, two South Carolina patricians and men of means, were colleagues in the Continental Congress for eighteen months during the middle of the War for American Independence. It might have been predicted at the beginning of this time that the two delegates would be in agreement on most issues which might arise. The record shows, however, that on most questions they took opposite stands. An explanation of this circumstance is of interest in that it may throw some light on the factional wrangling that racked the Congress, and in that it may substantiate the existence of a southern sectional awareness.” [10] In his letter of resignation from the presidency, Laurens penned, “I shall have less cause to regret the carrying my intended purpose into effect, foreseeing that you may immediately fill with advantage, the vacancy which will presently happen. I shall hold myself particularly answerable to my constituents for my present conduct, & in general to all my fellow Citizens throughout these States, when properly questioned. Finally, Gentlemen, from the considerations above mentioned, as I cannot, consistently with my own honor, nor with utility to my country, considering the manner in which Bussiness [sic] is transacted here, remain any longer in this Chair, I now resign it.” [11] Laurens had good reason to leave the Continental Congress: On 21 October 1779, he was elected by that body to serve as the US minister to The Hague, now part of Holland; he sailed for the

816

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

new post in August 1780. An announcement that October in a newspaper stated:

shew [sic], that what he had done was agreeable to the established notions of right, and this in a train of argument which its absurdity rendered unanswerable. It would have been as difficult to prove the truth of an axiom of Euclid, as to demonstrate the falsehood of the reasons which Mr. Laurens published to the world in vindication of his conduct. [14]

Yesterday arrived [in New York] the ship Patty, captain [sic] Marquis, from Glasgow, which place he left seven weeks ago; by her we learn, that the packet bound from Philadelphia to Holland, in which Henry Laurens, esquire [sic], late president of Congress, was [a] passenger, was captured by his Majesty’s frigate Vestal, captain [sic] Keppel, one of the fleet on the Newfoundland station, the 2d of September last; the mail, containing papers of the greatest importance, was thrown overboard before the Vestal came up with the packet, but as it did immediately sink, it was taken on board the Vestal undamaged. The prize was carried into St. John’s, where the contents of the mail were found to be of such consequence, that a frigate was immediately dispatched to carry it and the person of Henry Laurens to Britain. [12] Two months later, the same paper printed a letter from George Germain, the 1st Viscount Sackville, David Murray, Viscount Stormont, and Wills Hill, Lord Hillsborough and the 1st Marquess of Downshire, reporting on the capture and imprisonment of Laurens: “The commitment of Mr. Laurens to the tower of London, by the three Secretaries of State, on Friday last, runs thus: These are in his majesty’s name to authorise [sic] you to receive into your custody the person of Henry Laurens, esq; sent herewith in suspicion of high treason, whom you are to keep safe until he shall be delivered by due course of law: for so doing this if your warrant.” [13]

A Scottish magazine wrote in 1780, after Laurens was captured: These things are yet recent; and this nation, moreover, still boils with indignation at American treachery in the refusal of Congress to fulfill the terms concluded upon by their own Gen., disgraceful as they were to this country—But few of us know that Mr. Laurens was the principal, if not the original adviser of this breach of the faith of nations. He even added insult to injury; for, instead of telling us openly, and with a manly confidence, that as the safety of the people was paramount to all conventions and stipulations between individuals, the troops could not be allowed to leave America, as this event would enable us to make such vigorous exertions as would probably destroy their beloved scheme of independence; he attempted to

A letter soon appeared to “Charles, Earl Cornwallis, Constable of the tower of London, or his Deputy: Thus far for the London paper. On which we cannot but remark on the equivocation of the warrant, which says, on suspicion of hightreason; by which it appears that those three eastern wise men, the Secretaries of State, could not tell whether it was treason or not, or at least they are afraid to call it so, lest it should turn out a glorious revolution, supported and approved [of] by all of Europe. The circumstances of Mr. Laurens’s commitment are thus related. On his arrival in England, he was attended by the above Secretaries, who after informing him of their rank and character, ask[ed] him, ‘Is your name Henry Laurens?’ ‘It is.’ ‘Are you the same Henry Laurens who was the present of the American Congress?’ ‘I am.’ ‘We are ordered by the King and Council to examine you, and have certain questions to propose.’ ‘Your Lordships may save yourselves the trouble of an examination, as I think it my place to answer no questions you may put.’ ‘Sir, we are directed to commit you [as a] prisoner to the Tower.’ ‘I am ready to attend.’ This is to[o] much like the decisive character of Mr. Laurens, that we give it to the public on the presumption of its being a fact.” [15] The transcripts of the questioning of Laurens by British leaders were published verbatim in the American newspapers, probably the first time this had ever happened in a foreign nation. Here is just a portion of the questions posed to him: “When Mr. Laurens was called in, before the three Secretaries of State, he was addressed by Lord Hillsborough with much politeness nearly as follows: Lord Hillsborough. ‘Sir, we only trouble you to know whether you are the general who was taken by Capt. Kepple on board the Vestal frigate.’ Mr. Laurens. ‘Yes, my Lord, I am that gentleman.’ Capt. Kepple was asked if he was the same person; he replied yes.

Henry Laurens (1724-1792)817 Lord Hillsborough. ‘And whether you are the Henry Laurens, said to have been President of the Congress, in America?’ Mr. Laurens. ‘My Lord, I shall make no hesitation, in acknowledging that I am the Henry Laurens who had the honor of being appointed ore of the American Congress. But, my Lords, having acknowledged thus much, your Lordships will, I trust, excuse me, if I avail myself of a right peculiar to gentlemen in my situation, of not answering any more questions whatsoever, not having had the opportunity of consulting my friends or council [should be “counsel”] on this occasion; because your Lordships must know, that by answering the questions which may be put to me, my replies, may, perhaps, tend to a crimination of myself, which, I am sure, your Lordships would by no means wish.’” [16] Newspapers reported in the first months of 1782 the events surrounding Laurens’ continued captivity. For instance, in March we find the following notice: “Yesterday Henry Laurens, esquire, who has been for some considerable time imprisoned in the tower [sic] of London, was by order of government carried before Lord Mansfield. His lordship acquainted Mr. Laurens that if he would enter security for his appearance in six months after he would be called for, he would be set at liberty, and might go wherever he pleased. Mr. Oswald, an American merchant, offering to be security accordingly; the chief justice accepted him at bail, and Mr. Laurens was discharged.” [17] A month later, in April 1782, there is a further report: “Yesterday afternoon Mr. Laurens, attended by the Deputy Governor of the Tower, waited upon the Privy Council, and after upwards of an hour’s examination, during which he quitted himself with great ease and perspicuity, in answering every question that was put to him. He was referred to Lord Mansfield, at his chamber in Serjeant’s Inn, where his Lordship attended in person, and admitted Mr. Laurens to bail. It was expected [that] this gentleman would set out either last night or this morning for Bath, being recommended to the waters of that place by his physicians for the recovery of his health.” [18] On 31 December 1781, Laurens was released in exchange for British prisoners of war held from the war. The released prisoner made his way to

Paris, where he participated in the negotiations with England over the end of the war in America. He then was one of the signatories to the concordat, known as the Treaty of Paris. [19] Laurens spent some time in England to recover his health. On 28 March 1784, Laurens wrote to Charles Thomson, the Secretary of the Continental Congress, from Bath, England, where he was recuperating to improve his weakened health. He penned: Doctor Franklin lately conveyed to me a copy of your letter of the 5th of January last, directed to the Ministers of the United Senate for treating with Great Britain. It found me at this place, in a very ill state of health. Ill as I was, I should have repaired immediately to Whitehall, had not Mr. David Hartley, who still retains his commission, happened to have been present, and just going to London. I requested him to propose to Lord Caermarthen a convention for extending the stipulated term for exchanging ratifications of our definitive treaty of the 3d of September and for that purpose I would without delay repair to London for executing it on the part of the United States if necessary to add that if the formality might be dispensed with without prejudice to either of the contracting parties I desired the assent of the Minister should be signified to me in writing This morning brought me a letter from Mr. Hartley a copy of which will accompany this I flatter myself that the contents will afford the same satisfaction to Congress as I feel upon the occasion. [20] After several months in England, Laurens returned home to South Carolina, where he had not been since 1777, after his work in Paris was completed. Ironically, although named as the US minister to The Hague, he never arrived there or took up his diplomatic duties. He landed in South Carolina on 3 August 1784, and retired to his plantation, “Mepkin,” located on the Cooper River near Charleston. In the next three years, he was elected to the Continental Congress, to the South Carolina state legislature, and to the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia in 1787, but he refused all of these elective offices. [21] Laurens remained at “Mepkin” until his death there on 8 December 1792 at the age of 68. Lauded by fellow Americans for his lifetime of service to his nation, he was remembered as a giant of South Carolina politics. Newspapers

818 that announced Laurens’ death and his funeral published an oratorio, headlined “Lines written on reading the singular manner in which Henry Laurens, Esq. ordered his corpse to be disposed of.” The lines read: The Pagans oft their funeral piles have made, To offer victims, or consume their dead; But who in Christian lands, e’er built a fire To expatiate their crimes, or burn a Sire! Will Christian people dread the worms or earth, Since they expect to rise to second birth? When Jesus bids the grave its prey resign, In his blest likeness they may hope to shine. AMICUS [22] Laurens was cremated, and his remains were interred in the private cemetery on “Mepkin.” One Masonic magazine editorialized in 1826, “Of all the worthies of the American Revolution there was not one who was more remarkable for his peculiarities than Mr. Laurens. He was a stern Republican, a man of the strictest probity, and who would not turn to the right or to the left to avoid responsibility. A few circumstances of his life are within the recollection of the writer as communicated by a contemporary, and, for a considerable time, one of his official family.” [23]

In summing up the life of this man, historian C. James Taylor explained: In both his public and private life, Henry Laurens’ commitment to duty and hard work were recognized and admired. Unfortunately, his impatience and criticism of individuals who did not meet his standards made him appear petty and inflexible. As the strongest political figure in South Carolina during the transition from provincial to state government, he worked to protect the rights of Loyalists and moderate the zeal of the radicals. In Congress his constancy during the British occupation of Philadelphia and the trying exile at York may have been his most significant contribution to the national cause. The poor health he endured after confinement in the tower and the emotional shock of his son John’s death in August 1782 robbed him of the vigor that had marked his career to that time. [24]

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

[1] Laurens family tree, online at http://www.geni.com/ people/Henry-Laurens-5th-President-of-the-ContinentalCongress/6000000001226788060. [2] Wallace, David Duncan, “The Life of Henry Laurens, with a sketch of the life of Lieutenant-Colonel John Laurens” (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons, 1915), 2-4. [3] Laurens official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=L000121. [4] “Letters from John Laurens to His Father, Hon. Henry Laurens, 1774-1776,” The South Carolina Historical and Genealogical Magazine, V:4 (October 1904), 205-06. [5] “A South Carolina Protest Against Slavery: Being a Letter from Henry Laurens, Second President of the Continental Congress, to His Son, Colonel John Laurens, Dated Charles, SC, August 14th, 1776. Now First Published from the Original” (New York: G.P. Putnam, 532 Broadway, 1861), 9-10. [6] Massey, Gregory D., “The Limits of Antislavery Thought in the Revolutionary Lower South: John Laurens and Henry Laurens,” The Journal of Southern History, LXIII:3 (August 1997), 495-96. [7] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), II:lxviii; III:lxi; IV:lxiii; V:lxiii. [8] Sanders, Jennings Bryan, “The Presidency of the Continental Congress, 1774-89; a Study in American Institutional History” (Chicago: Privately Published, 1930), 15. [9] John Wereat to Henry Laurens, 30 August 1777, in “Correspondence of Henry Laurens, of South Carolina” in Frank Moore, ed., “Materials for History, Printed from Original Manuscript, With Notes and Illustrations” (New York: Printed for the Zenith Club, 1861), 39. [10] Dabney, William M., “Drayton and Laurens in the Continental Congress,” The South Carolina Historical Magazine, LX:2 (April 1959), 74. See also Frech, Laura P., “The Career of Henry Laurens on the Continental Congress, 1777-1779” (Ph.D. dissertation, University of North Carolina, 1972). [11] “The Resignation of Henry Laurens, President of Congress, 1778,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, XIII:2 (July 1889), 236. [12] The Pennsylvania Packet; Or, The General Advertiser [Philadelphia], 21 October 1780, 3. [13] “London,” The Pennsylvania Packet; Or, The General Advertiser [Philadelphia], 12 December 1780, 2. [14] “Some Account of Henry Laurens, Esq; formerly President of the American Congress, lately taken on his passage to the Hague in an American packet boat by an English frigate, and now prisoner in the tower of London,” The Edinburgh Magazine, or, Literary Amusement [Scotland], L (19 October 1780), 45-47. [15] Thomas’s Massachusetts Spy, Or, American Oracle of Liberty [Worcester, Massachusetts], 28 December 1780, 3. [16] “London, Nov. 24. A further account of the Examination and Commitment of Henry Laurens, Esq;,” The Norwich Packet [Connecticut], 22 March 1781, 1. [17] “Foreign Intelligence. London, January 1, 1782,” The Pennsylvania Packet; Or, The General Advertiser [Philadelphia], 26 March 1782, 2. [18] “London, January 1,” Thomas’s Massachusetts Spy, Or, American Oracle of Liberty [Worcester, Massachusetts], 11 April 1782, 2. [19] The text of the accord appeared in many American newspapers months later. For instance, see “Treaty of Peace,” Thomas’s Massachusetts Spy, Or, American Oracle of Liberty [Worcester, Massachusetts], 3 April 1783, 3. [20] Henry Laurens to Charles Thomson, 28 March 1784, in Sparks, Jared, ed., “The Diplomatic Correspondence of the Ameri-

Richard Law (1733-1806)819 can Revolution: Being the letters of Benjamin Franklin, Silas Deane, John Adams, John Jay, Arthur Lee, William Lee, Ralph Izard, Francis Dana, William Carmichael, Henry Laurens, John Laurens, M. de Lafayette, M. Dumas, and Others, Concerning the Foreign Relations of the United States during the whole Revolution: Together with the Letters in Reply from the Secret Committee of Congress, and the Secretary of Foreign Affairs: Also, the Entire Correspondence of the French Ministers, Gerard and Luzerne, with Congress: Published under the Direction of the President of the United States, From the Original Manuscripts in the Department of State, Conformably to a Resolution of Congress, of March 27th, 1818” (Boston: N. Hale and Gray & Bowen; twelve volumes, 1829-30), I:757-58. [21] Laurens official congressional biography, online at http:// bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=L000121. [22] The oratorio appeared in numerous newspapers; see, for instance, The New-Jersey Journal [Elizabethtown], 6 March 1793, 4. [23] “Mr. Laurens,” The Escritoir; Or, Masonic and Miscellaneous Album [Albany, New York], 27 May 1826, [24] Taylor, C. James, “Laurens, Henry” in John A. Garraty and Mark C. Carnes, gen. eds., “American National Biography” (New York: Oxford University Press; 24 volumes, 1999), 13:263.

Richard Law (1733-1806)

The son of the governor of Connecticut, Richard Law, a delegate to the Continental Congress from that state (1777, 1781-82), was a noted judge and later chief justice of the Connecticut Supreme Court; he was appointed by President George Washington as a US district judge for Connecticut. Born in Milford, Connecticut, on 7 March 1733, he was the son of Jonathan Law, an attorney who

later served as the 12th governor of Connecticut, and his wife Eunice (née Hall) Law. According to a biography of Jonathan Law published in 1901, he was born in Milford in 1674, the grandson of Richard Law, who served as the king’s attorney in England before he immigrated to the American colonies in 1635. Jonathan Law studied at Harvard, studied the law, and became the chief judge of the New Haven county court. In 1742, he was named as the governor of the Connecticut colony, serving until 1751. [1] He died in 1750, and his widow later remarried twice before her own death in 1774. Richard Hall underwent the teaching of “classical studies”—usually languages, science, and perhaps literature—before he was admitted to Yale College (now Yale University). He graduated in 1751. Hall then studied under Jared Ingersoll (1722-1781) of New Haven, after which he was admitted to the Connecticut colonial bar in 1755. He then opened a law practice in Milford, but two years later removed it to New London. In 1765, Law began a lifetime of public service to the people of Connecticut when he was elected that year to a seat in the colonial General Assembly as well as serving as a justice of the peace. For the next several years, according to every biography of him, including his official congressional biography, there is no record of him, and it can be supposed that he returned to his law practice. [2] In 1773, he was appointed the chief judge of the New London County Court. Three years later, however, with the collapse of royal rule, he was elected as a member of the Connecticut Council of Safety in May 1776. On 10 October 1776, the Connecticut General Assembly elected him to a seat in the Continental Congress; he attended no sessions that year, but only from 25 June to 3 December 1777. [3] There is no correspondence from what would be Law’s first tenure in that body. In 1776 he had been elected to the Governor’s Council, an advisory group that aided the new state in a time of the vacuum of royal government; he would remain as a member of this body until 1786. In the meantime, he was reelected to the Continental Congress on 11 May 1780, and reelected on 9 May 1782, and attended sessions from 22 October 1781 to about 16 May 1782. [4] Only one piece of

820

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

correspondence from Law during this second service exists, written to Jonathan Trumbull, also of Connecticut and dated 6 November 1781, in which Law penned:

survived him, he was the father of several children, including Lyman Law (1770-1841), who served as a Federalist in the US House of Representatives (1811-17), and as well was the grandfather of John Law (1796-1873), who served as a Democrat in the US House of Representatives (1861-65).

Sir, I do myself the Honor to Inclose to your Excellency this Days [sic] Paper in which you’ll see a particular Return of the Prisoners, ordonance [sic], Stores etc. delivered up on the Surrender of Cornwallis and his Army. Mr. [John] Hanson of Maryland is chosen president for the current year. Congress have but a Thin House as yet, Mr. [Roger] Sherman set off for home Yesterday, so that the State of Connecticut is unrepresented, hope some Delagates [sic] from thence will soon arrive. As there has nothing new turned up since Mr. Sherman left this, beg Leave to refer your Excellencey [sic] to him for what was antecedent [sic]. A motion was this day made in Congress upon the Petition of Pensilvania [sic] to take up the Wioming [sic] Controversy and Citation will of Course go out to cite in the State of Connecticut to be heard thereon. [5] Following his Continental Congress service, Law returned to Connecticut, where in 1784 he was elected as the mayor of New London, serving in that capacity until 1806. In the meantime, that same year he was appointed to the Supreme Court of Connecticut, where he sat until 1789. In May 1786, he was appointed as the chief justice of the superior court for the state. On 24 September 1789, President George Washington named Law to serve as a US District Court judge for the District of Connecticut. A note on the opening of that court on 22 April 1790, stated, “On 22 April the court convened with Chief Justice John Jay, Associate Justice William Cushing, and Judge Richard Law in attendance. After the opening of the court, John Jay delivered a charge to the grand jury. Although the record book does not note successive meetings, John Jay noted in his diary that the court met again on 23 April and on 24 April, when it adjourned to the next session.” [6] Law remained on this final court until his death. He died in New London on 26 January 1806 at the age of 72, and he was buried in Cedar Grove Cemetery in New London. His gravestone, a large obelisk, reads, “To the Memory of the Hon. Richard Law. Judge or Connecticut District. Mayor of the City; and for many years, Chief Justice of the Superior Court in this State.” Having married Anna Prentiss, who

[1] “Jonathan Law” in Frederic Calvin Norton, “Biographies of the Governors of Connecticut,” The Connecticut Magazine, VII:1 (March-April 1901), 74. [2] Law official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=L000127. [3] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), II:xlix. [4] Ibid., V:lv; VI:xliii. [5] Richard Law to Jonathan Trumbull, 6 November 1781, in ibid., VI:258, [6] “Circuit Court for the District of Connecticut, 22 April 1790, New Haven, Connecticut,” in Maeva Marcus, ed., “The Documentary History of the Supreme Court of the United States, 17891800” (New York: Columbia University Press; eight volumes, 1985), II:49.

Arthur Lee (1740-1792)

One of the members of the famed Lee family of Virginia, which included Richard Henry Lee,

Arthur Lee (1740-1792)821 Francis Lightfoot Lee, and General Robert E. Lee, Arthur Lee was, in addition to being one of the leading diplomats of the infant American republic in its first years, a member of the Continental Congress (1782-84). His role as the US commissioner to France in 1776 and to Spain in 1777 also marked him as one of the most important early leaders in the field of diplomacy. Lee was born at his family’s estate, “Stratford Hall,” in Westmoreland County, Virginia, on 20 December 1740, the son of Thomas Lee, a wealthy planter in rural Virginia, and his wife Hannah Harrison (née Ludwell) Lee. [1] The youngest of eleven children, Arthur Lee’s older brother was the famed American patriot Richard Henry Lee, who wrote of his brother: His ancestors were English; and the first of them, who came to Virginia, were among the earliest emigrants to that colony. Arthur was brother of Richard Henry Lee, of whose character and services his country is informed. Arthur was the youngest son of the family; and, according to the customs of that day, in regard to the younger sons, was left, until an advanced period of boyhood, with the children of his father s slaves; to par take of their fare, and to participate in their hardy sports and toils. Hence his body was early inured to hardship, and his mind accustomed to unrestrained exercise and bold adventure. His father dying, when he was only ten years of age, Arthur was left to the care of his eldest brother. His early education was conducted by a private teacher, who, at the same time, taught his brothers, Richard Henry, Francis, and William, who, like himself, acted conspicuous and useful parts in our revolutionary struggle. [2] In 1750, both Thomas Lee and his wife Hannah died, leaving their eldest sons, Phillip Ludwell Lee and Thomas Ludwell Lee as the inheritors of their wealth and property, estimated at some 30,000 acres. The two older sons took their brothers and sisters under guardianships, and they sent Arthur to England to further his education, and he entered the prestigious Eton School. From here, he moved to the University of Edinburgh, where he studied medicine, receiving in 1764 an M.D. degree. (He is listed in the annals of that school under the class of 1864 in Latin as “Arthur Lee, Virginiensis. De Cortice Peruviano.”) [3] After spending some time traveling across Europe, Lee returned to Virginia, and opened a medical practice in Williamsburg in 1766.

Lee came back to America at a time when The Stamp Act was being pressed against the colonies by England, and while his politics prior to this time are unsure, that agitation seems to have turned him against the “Mother Country.” Despite his growing anger, he remained loyal to England; in 1768 he returned to London, where he entered the Middle Temple, one of the four Inns of Court of the English judicial system. He received a law degree and was admitted to the bar in 1775. [4] Again, he returned to Virginia, this time with another degree in his hands. However, he could not avoid the political arena for long. The publication of John Dickinson’s “Letters from a Farmer in Pennsylvania,” which called on farmers to resist any British laws, prompted Lee to publish his own reply, “The Monitor’s Letters,” in which he called Dickinson’s work “alarming” in its scope. In response to a series of documents called “The Junius Letters,” Lee wrote his own letters, which he signed “Junius Americanus.” At a time when any thoughts of independence were far off, Lee was congratulated for his writings, including by Samuel Adams, who got him named as the American agent for Massachusetts in London. While in England, Lee penned “An Appeal to the Justice and Interests of the People of Great Britain,” in which he wrote, “A State of contention between Great Britain and America, is not only disagreeable but dangerous. We have every influence of interest and affection to attach us to each other, and make us wish to preserve the union indissoluble. The same laws, the same religion, the same constitution, the same feelings, sentiments and habits, are a common blessing and a common cause. We have these general benefits to defend against the rest of the world, which is hostile to all, or the greater part, of them. With ties so strong to bind us to each other, is it not strange, is it not deplorable, that we should differ? Do they who talk of chastising our colonies, and reducing them to obedience, consider how much hazard when we dissolve these ties?” [5] Historian Charles F. Heartman wrote, “Almon [the publisher of the pamphlet] claims in his memoirs that [Benjamin] Franklin sent him the manuscript, which led different writers for a while to believe that Franklin was the author. But as [Worthington Chauncey] Ford says: ‘Arthur Lee unquestionably wrote

822

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

it.’ [Obadiah] Rich says, ‘The author of this Appeal is an able advocate for the Colonists, not as composing distinct States, but as having, in common with British subjects an indefensible right to an exclusive disposal of their own property; after denying the right, he proceeds to expose the impolicy of raising a revenue in America against the will of the people; and this leads him to severe reprehension of the late measures and alarming predictions of their consequences.” [6]

towards reducing all America to an acknowledgment of the right of Parliament to impose taxes upon her, and to a submission to the exercise of that right. The Americans who are here, have thought it of so much consequence, that they have petitioned the three branches of the Legislature, against passing such a bill; but as you may imagine, without success. [9]

The following year, the outbreak of hostilities at Lexington and Concord caused Lee to write a “second appeal,” in which he explained, “The worst event that I apprehended from our unhappy difference with our fellow subjects in America, is now come to pass. The civil sword, with all its terrible formalities, is drawn in our colonies. I did indeed conceive, that, if not compelled by additional injuries and irritation, the Americans would rather acquiesce, for a time, under their formal grievances, than meet the administration in arms; or that if they did make such an attempt, defeat and destruction must, at first, be their inevitable lot. Such was the fate of the United Provinces, when they were compelled to resist Spain; and yet, in the end, that resistance was fatal to the oppressor.” [7] But it was too late: the war for independence had started. Lee and his brother William, in England, decided to use their contacts in London to their advantage, and for a time he desired to run for a seat in the British Parliament. At the same time, however, it appears that Arthur Lee became disillusioned with the war, and leaned further and further towards independence for the colonies. He called on his British friends to try to intervene with the government to lessen the tax burden on the colonies to end the conflict, all to no avail. [8] Lee wrote to his brother Francis Lightfoot Lee, 2 April 1774: The Parliament are now bringing the question to that decision, which makes me tremble for the virtue, the character, the liberties of my countrymen. They have passed an act to take away the port of Boston, till every compensation is made for the tea, and perfect obedience is acknowledged. And then it is to be restored in such portions as the King pleases. What makes this more alarming is, that no accusation is brought against the town; no evidence produced to criminate it; and it is avowed, that this is the first step

Then, in November 1775, Lee was quietly asked by the Continental Congress to serve as a secret agent for that body in London, and he jumped into the role. One Virginia newspaper quietly praised him as “the amiable Dr. Lee, admired by all for his literary abilities and excellent pieces in Vindication of the colonies, shines conspicuously as one of the first patriots of his age.” In his service for the Continental Congress, Lee contacted Pierre-Augustin Caron de Beaumarchais, a French playwright in London spying for France, to serve as a conduit to send French arms and aid to America. This assistance gave the early American fight its first true support. For his services, Lee was named, along with Benjamin Franklin and Silas Deane, as American commissioners to France, and his brother William as an American agent in France. Finding Deane in Paris, Lee went to Spain to see what he could get for the colonies there, arranging for aid from the Spanish crown before he moved to Berlin in early to mid-1777, where he refused recognition because of Hessian aid to England. Back in Paris, Lee watched as Deane received additional aid from Beaumarchais, and he came to believe that Deane was quietly profiting from the assistance. Lee thus began a noted letter-writing campaign to members of the Continental Congress, complaining of Deane’s alleged corruption; when Benjamin Franklin sided with Deane, Lee accused the elder statesman of being involved in the misconduct. To his brother Richard Henry Lee he wrote on 12 September 1778, “I am more and more satisfied that the old doctor [Franklin] is concerned in the plunder, and that in time we shall collect the proofs.” [10] In the meantime, the Continental Congress added two more commissioners, William Lee and Ralph Izard, to their roster in Europe, with Lee being named as the commissioner to Berlin and Vienna, and Izard to Tuscany. All of these men remained in Paris, leading to clashes among them. Deane continued to work on his contacts, and a treaty with France, largely his work, was signed in February 1778. Based on Lee’s charges, however,

Arthur Lee (1740-1792)823 he had been recalled by the Continental Congress in December 1777, and he returned to America. Deane discovered that Lee was his main accuser, and he charged that the Virginian did not have the confidence of the French Foreign Minister, Charles Gravier, Comte de Vergennes, forcing a split in the Continental Congress between proDeane and anti-Deane factions. Finally, after a lengthy investigation, the Continental Congress could not find who was at fault in the Lee-Deane controversy; it resolved “[t]hat in the course of their examination and enquiry, they find many complaints against the said commissioners, and the political and commercial agency of Mr. Deane, which complaints, with the evidence in support thereof, are delivered, and to which the committee beg to refer; [t]hat suspicions and animosities have arisen among the said commissioners which may be highly prejudicial to the honor and interests of these United States.” [11] Months later, probably because of this episode, Arthur Lee was dismissed from his post on 27 September 1779, having followed Izard and William Lee. Only Benjamin Franklin remained among those who had been in these diplomatic positions. Undeterred, Lee returned to America in September 1780, and was elected to a seat in the Virginia state House of Delegates, where he served from 1781 to 1783, then in 1785 and 1786. On 28 December 1781, Lee was elected by the House of Delegates to a seat in the Continental Congress, “until the first Monday in November next.” Reelected on 15 June 1782 and 6 June 1783, he served in session from 19 February to 20 April 1782, 27 June to 4 October 1782, 27 January to 1 April 1783, 24 April to 12 May 1783, 16 July to 19 September 1783, 25 September to 4 November 1783, 13 to 31 December 1783, 1 January to 12 April 1784, 5 to 19 May 1784, and 25 May to 3 June 1784. [12] From the correspondence that has been published, we find that even in the Continental Congress, Lee continued to find corruption in the case of Silas Deane and Benjamin Franklin. He wrote to James Warren of Massachusetts, 8 April 1782: The detection of Mr. Deane, seems not to have drawn any punishment nor even odium on those who countenancd and profited by his wickedness. Among these Dr. Franklin and Mr. R. Morris, are the most conspicuous. The latter was obligd to acknowledge in the Newspapers that he was in partnership with

Mr. D[eane] but pretended he thought him a man of honor. The Doctor by Letters of the strongest recommendation endeavord to deceive Congress into a renewal of their confidence in him, with a new and important appointment. There are Letters in town from Mr. Searle, late member of Congress, declaring that he has been repeatedly scandalizd by hearing Mr. Deane utter the abuse against America and France, which is containd in his intercepted Letters, at Dr. F[ranklin]’s table, without any reprehension from the Doctor. Under all these suspicions, Dr. Franklin is appointed one of the Commissioners to negociate [sic] a peace, because France wills it; and Congress are complaisant enough to say they trust in his zeal and integrity. God forgive them! [13] Lee found another “enemy” when he wrote to Samuel Adams: The Session of the Assembly of Virginia in May, calls me from Congress for a month or two to attend my duty there. Indeed I do not see of what material use my attendance here can be, where I can only lament what I cannot prevent, and make vain efforts to redeem an infatuated Majority from the bondage of folly and private interest.’ For what can be expected from an Assembly in which a Member is allowed to sit, who is avowedly an Agent for the Enemies to our cause and Country, an Insolvent, and a profligate Adventurer. I mean Mr. Samuel Wharton. This Man, Sir, that in a Petition on the table of Congress declares himself insolvent, not only sits and votes, but treats the Members with magnificent Dinners. I am perfectly persuaded that it is the interest of the Companies which this Man is an Agent for and a member of to reduce us to the domination of G. Britain, because their Members being chiefly British and of great influence they woud by that means be secure of obtaining the Lands which it is impossible they shoud do while we are independent. And as these Agents are using every art to seduce us and to sow dissention among the States, I think they are more dangerous than the Enemy’s Arms. [14] In another missive, to Francis Dana, Lee even saw enemies in the seat of the Continental Congress, Philadelphia: “Our embarrassments for money are great; not that there is any real want of it, but because by the Constitution of a Bank, and until lately a most prosperous Commerce, in this Tory City, has accumulated all the money here, and consequently disenabled the other states from paying taxes to support the war. The residence of Congress in the bosom

824

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

of Toryism, and the encouragement given to them, is as impolitic as it is unjust. It puts such advantages into their hands, as in case the war should take a turn, may enable them to deliver us up tied and bound to the enemy.” [15]

[8] Sainsbury, John, “Arthur Lee of Virginia: The Forgotten Revolutionary” in Nancy L. Rhoden and Ian K. Steele, eds., “The Human Tradition in the American Revolution” (Wilmington, DE: SR Books, 2000), 213. [9] Arthur Lee to Francis Lightfoot Lee, 2 April 1774, in Force, Peter, ed., “American Archives: Consisting of a Collection of Authentick Records, State Papers, Debates, and Letters and Other Notices of Publick Affairs, the Whole Forming a Documentary History of the Origin and Progress of the North America Colonies; of the Causes and Accomplishment of the American Revolution; and of the Constitution of Government for the United States, to the Final Ratification Thereof. In Six Series” (Washington, DC: Published by M. St. Clair Clarke and Peter Force; ten volumes, 1837-53), IV:I:237. [10] Lee, Richard Henry, “Life of Arthur Lee, LL.D.,” op. cit., II:148. [11] Entry of 15 April 1779 in “Journals of The American Congress: From 1774 to 1788. In Four Volumes. Volume III: From August 1, 1778, to March 30, 1782, inclusive” (Washington: Printed and Published by Way and Gideon, 1823), 251-52. See also “Papers in Relation to the Case of Silas Deane” (Philadelphia: Printed for the Seventy Six Society, 1855). [12] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VI:liii; VII:lxxvii. [13] Arthur Lee to James Warren, 8 April 1782, in ibid., VI:326. [14] Arthur Lee to Samuel Adams, 21 April 1782, in ibid., VI:331. [15] Arthur Lee to Francis Dana, 6 July 1782, in ibid., VI:379.

Prior to leaving the Continental Congress, Lee was named as a commissioner to negotiate treaties with Native American nations at Fort Stanwix (22 October 1784) and Fort McIntosh (21 January 1785). In July 1785, despite his absence during a mission to scout out a new federal city, he was named as a member of the body’s Treasury Board, and, although opposing the adoption of the US Constitution in 1787, he held the post until the new US government came into existence in March 1789. He never married, and retired from government to his estate, “Lansdowne,” in Middlesex County, Virginia. Lee died suddenly on 12 December 1792, eight days short of his 52nd birthday. He was buried in the Lee family tomb on the grounds of “Lansdowne.” See also: Richard Henry Lee; Francis Lightfoot Lee

[1] Lee family tree, online at http://www.geni.com/people/ Arthur-Lee/6000000003525920721. [2] Lee, Richard Henry, “Life of Arthur Lee, LL.D. Joint Commissioner of the United States to the Court of France, and Sole Commissioner to the Courts of Spain and Prussia, During the Revolutionary War. With the Political and Literary Correspondence and His Papers on Diplomatic and Political Subjects, and the Affairs of the United States During the Same Period” (Boston: Published by Wells and Lilly, Court Street; two volumes, 1829), I:11-12. [3] “List of the Graduates in Medicine in the University of Edinburgh from MDCCV to MDCCCLXVI” (Edinburgh, Scotland: Printed by Neill & Company, 1867), 8. [4] Burnett, Edmund Cody, “Lee, Arthur” in Allen Johnson, et al., “Dictionary of American Biography” (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons; eleven volumes and five supplements, 1958-77), X:96-98. [5] Lee, Arthur, “An Appeal to the Justice and Interests of the People of Great Britain, in the Present Disputes with America. By an Old Member of Parliament” (London: Printed for J. Almon Opposite Burlington-House, in Piccadilly, 1774), 1. [6] Heartman, Charles F., “The Cradle of the United States, 1765-1789. Five Hundred Contemporary Broadsides, Pamphlets, and a Few Books Pertaining to the History of The Stamp Act, The Boston Massacre and Other Pre-Revolutionary Troubles, The War for Independence and The Adoption of The Federal Constitution. Alphabetically Arranged with Index to Items Issues Anonymously but Listed Under Author’s Name. Bibliographically, Historically and Sometimes Sentimentally Described by the Owner” (Perth Amboy, NJ: Privately Published, 1922), 67. [7] Lee, Arthur, “A Second Appeal to the Justice and Interests of the People, on the Measures Respecting America, by the Author of the First” (London: Printed for J. Almon, Opposite BurlingtonHouse, Piccadilly, 1775), 5.

Francis Lightfoot Lee (1734-1797)

A member of the famed Lee family of Virginia, Francis Lightfoot Lee was a delegate to the

Francis Lightfoot Lee (1734-1797)825 Continental Congress (1775-79), during which time he signed the Declaration of Independence. He was also a member of the Virginia state House of Delegates and state Senate. Lee was born at his family’s estate, “Stratford Hall,” in Westmoreland County, Virginia, on 14 October 1734, the fourth son, and one of eleven children, of Thomas Lee, a planter in Virginia, and his wife Hannah Harrison (née Ludwell) Lee. The family can be traced back to Hamon de Leigh, a great-grandson of Gilbert de Venables, who accompanied William the Conqueror in his invasion which occurred with the battle of Hastings in 1066. [1] “Stratford Hall” was built between 1725 and 1730: It was stated that “[a]n old mansion has been declared to be a history in itself; its rooms being the chapters; its stories, volumes; its furniture, illustrations, and its inmates the characters,” and that Stratford Hall fit this description perfectly. [2] Thomas Lee, prior to his and his wife’s deaths in 1750 was a leading Virginia planter, owning some 30,000 acres of land just before he died. His property was bestowed to his eldest children; the younger ones, including Francis, were part of a guardianship that took care of the entire family. Francis Lightfoot Lee was taught by private tutors, including a Reverend Craig who moved into “Stratford Hall” to teach him on a full-time basis. [3] By the time he reached his majority, however, relations soured between Lee and his older brother, Phillip Lee, who controlled all of their parents’ money and property. Believing that he was due a portion of these funds, Francis Lightfoot Lee and several of his siblings actually sued Phillip Lee for their share of their parents’ will. The lawsuit failed, but Lee and his brothers and sisters did ask the court to have a cousin, Henry Lee, assigned as their guardian. The Lees, a noted family in Virginia, was tearing itself apart, and the controversy threatened to undermine their position in the colony. It took a reconciliation between Francis Lightfoot Lee and his older brother to put aside their differences; Francis Lightfoot Lee was eventually granted a portion of his family’s wealth, and he took possession of a family estate in Loudoun County. Interested in the politics of that time, Lee ran for a seat in the House of Burgesses, where he served from 1758

to 1768. In extracts from the journal of the Virginia House of Burgesses, for 7 April 1768, we find a notice “[t]hat it is the opinion of this Committee, That an [sic] humble and dutiful petition be presented to or most Gracious Sovereign, to assure him of our most cordial and inviolable attachment to his sacred person and government.” The committee ordered that several named men, including “Mr. Francis Lightfoot Lee,” “do draw up an humble and dutiful petition to his Majesty.” [4] In 1769, Lee married Rebecca Tayloe; he then moved from Loudoun to Richmond County, where he and his wife moved into their plantation, which he called “Menokin,” which was a wedding gift from his wife’s father. During the crisis over The Stamp Act, Lee took a leading role when he signed the Westmoreland Resolves (some sources call them the Westmoreland Association) [5], which was a protest by businesses against the act, later repealed by the British Parliament under colonial pressure. It was the first action by Lee against the Crown, but it would not be the last. In 1769, Lee’s new neighbors elected him to the House of Burgesses, but he seemed to have tired of politics and only served occasionally. In 1770 he was named as a justice of the peace for Richmond County, where he served until the end of royal rule in 1774, serving in that position for Loudoun County as well in 1771. The crash of royal rule in late 1774, the calling of a “general congress” among the colonies in Philadelphia in September of that year, and the growing confrontation between England and her colonies pushed Lee into a more political stance. On 20 March 1775, a convention of delegates, “for the counties and corporations in the colony of Virginia” met at Richmond, resolving “that there be a suspension of administration of justice in civil suits, and that the parties refer the decision thereof to judicious neighbors,” the delegates, for Richmond, are listed Robert Wormley Carter and Francis Lightfoot Lee. [6] Following the resignation from the Second Continental Congress of Virginia delegate Richard Bland, on 15 August 1775 Lee was elected in his stead. He moved to Philadelphia with his wife, and stayed with his sister and

826

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

brother-in-law, William Shippen, who later served in the Continental Congress from 1779 to 1780. Lee was reelected on 29 June 1776, 22 May 1777, and 29 May 1778, and attended sessions of the body from 11 September 1775 to 4 July 1776, 5 July 1776 to 27 February 1777, 2 April to 31 December 1777, 1 January to about 2 June 1778, 9 November to 3 December 1778, and 1 January to 16 April 1779. As to his final period in office, historian Edmund Cody Burnett explained, “Francis Lightfoot Lee was one of four who resigned in May and whose places were filled in June . . . He is last recorded as voting [on] 14 April, but his account for attendance gives 6 April as the date of its termination.” [7]

It is probable that Francis Lightfoot Lee did not sign the Declaration until as late as August 1776. A newspaper report, from Williamsburg, dated 4 July 1776, announced that “[y]esterday the honourable Convention made choice of the following Gentlemen to represent this dominion in General Congress for one year, viz. George Wyle, Thomas Nelson, Jun. Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, and Francis Lightfoot Lee, Esquires.” [11] In addition, a letter, signed by “A” and addressed to the editor of the Daily National Intelligencer of Washington, DC, 5 January 1821, stated, “It would be desirable to know from Mr. Trumbull, through the medium of your paper, why he has not favored us with a portrait of Francis Lightfoot Lee, one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence, in his Painting representing that event? This gentleman represented Virginia in the Congress of ’76, at the same time with his brother, Richard Henry Lee. The writer of this saw his signature to the original draft of the Declaration, in the Secretary of State’s office. Mr. F. Lee may not have been present the day the Declaration passed, and therefore did not sign his name on that day. Of this I am uncertain: however, Mr. Trumbull has given portraits of the signers of that paper who were not present.” [12]

Little has been written of Lee’s service in the Continental Congress, save for the fact that he signed the Declaration of Independence. Historian Caroline Robbins wrote, “Industry usually characterized the Signers, though [Richard] Rush noticed laziness in [John] Hancock, [William] Paca, and [Henry] Middleton. Yet all three had at times exerted themselves, thereby gaining the reputation necessary for office. Among speakers, [Richard Henry] Lee has been mentioned. In striking contrast, his brother, Francis Lightfoot Lee . . . was seldom heard in the Hall, but his judgments when given were highly esteemed.” [8] This attitude—that Lee did not participate in debates—is shared by other biographies of him. The Reverend Charles Goodrich wrote in 1842, “During his attendance upon this body, he seldom took part in the public discussions, but few surpassed him in his warmth of patriotism, and in his zeal to urge forward those measures which contributed to the success of the American arms, and the independence of the country. To his brother, Richard Henry Lee, the high honour [sic] was allotted of bringing forward the momentous question of independence, and to him, and his associates in that distinguished assembly, the not inferior honour [sic] was granted of aiding and supporting and finishing this important work.” [9] To this, Robert T. Conrad added four years later, “Although not gifted with the powers of oratory, his good sense, extensive reading, and sound and discriminating judgment, made him a useful member of the house.” [10]

As a member of the Continental Congress, Lee voted in favor of a resolution to bring 20,000 bibles from Europe into the United States. Historian William Gaines explained that a committee tasked on the issue “recommended also that the Committee of Commerce be ordered to import the 20,000 Bibles from Holland, Scotland ‘or elsewhere.’ A motion to this effect was approved with all four New England states, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and Georgia supporting the measure, while New York, Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, and both Carolinas opposed it. The resolution being read a second time, final action was put off until the nineteenth.” Gaines added that “[i]t is recorded here that Francis Lightfoot Lee was the only member of the Virginia delegation who voted in favor of the bill, while Joseph Jones and Benjamin Harrison opposed it. John Harvie, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Nelson, Jr., and George Wythe were absent.” [13] On 20 June 1776, another convention, this time held in Williamsburg, “[r]esolved, that the

Francis Lightfoot Lee (1734-1797)827 delegates be appointed to represent this colony in General Congress consist of five in number. The Convention then, according to the order of the day, proceeded to the appointment of delegates to represent this colony in General Congress; and the members having prepared ticket, and put the same into the ballot box, mr. [sic] Treasurer, mr. [sic] George Mason, mr. [sic] Blair, mr. [sic] Holt, and mr. [sic] Henry Tazewell, were appointed a committee to examine the same, and report upon whom the majority falls, and it appearing, from the report of the committee, that the majority were in favour [sic] of George Wythe, Thomas Nelson, Richard Henry Lee, Thomas Jefferson, and Francis Lightfoot Lee, esquires.” [14] As one of the leading Virginia families, Lee could have remained in the Continental Congress for as long as he wished. That he resigned in 1779 to return home shows his ultimate distaste for those who overstayed their time in office. For a time back in Virginia he served in the state Senate, but then he retired and never entered politics again. He clashed with his brother in 1788 when he supported the ratification of the federal constitution, a document his brother, Richard Henry Lee, opposed. Lee died at his plantation, “Menokin,” on 11 January 1797 at the age of 62. The Minerva of New York City stated, “Died. At his seat in Richmond county, on Wednesday, the 18th ultimo, in the sixty-third year of his age, Francis Lightfoot Lee, Esquire. He was an early, zealous and active friend to the revolution, which established the independence of the United States of America. He was a firm, calm, and enlightened patriot, and a most unequalled social companion.” [15] His remains were interred with those of his wife’s family, the Tayloes, at the Mount Airy plantation near Warsaw, Virginia. Summing up Lee’s life, author Samuel L. Clemens (aka Mark Twain), wrote in 1877, “This man’s life-work was so inconspicuous, that his name would now be wholly forgotten, but for one thing—he signed the Declaration of Independence. Yet his life was a most useful and worthy one. It was a good and profitable voyage, though it left no phosphorescent splendors in its wake.” [16]

See also: Richard Henry Lee

[1] Lee, Edmund Jennings, ed., “Lee of Virginia, 1642-1892: Biographical and Genealogical Sketches of The Descendants of Colonel Richard Lee, With Brief Notices of the Related Families of Allerton, Armistead, Ashton, Aylett, Bedinger, Bevereley, Bland, Bolling, Carroll, Carter, Chambers, Corbin, Custis, Digges, Fairfax, Fitzhugh, Gardner, Grymes, Hanson, Jenings, Jones, Ludwell, Marshall, Mason, Page, Randolph, Shepherd, Shippen, Tabb, Taylor, Turberville, Washington, and Others” (Philadelphia: Privately Published, 1895), 18. For information on Hannah Ludwell Lee’s genealogy, see “Ludwell Family,” The William and Mary Quarterly, XIX:3 (January 1911), 199-214. [2] Alexander, Frederick Warren, “Stratford Hall and the Lees Connected with its History; Biographical, Genealogical and Historical, compiled by Frederick Warren Alexander” (Oak Grove, VA: F. W. Alexander, 1912), 60. See also “Stratford— Colonial Home and Plantation, Westmoreland County, Virginia. Birthplace of Robert E. Lee and of Two Signers of the Declaration of Independence, Richard Henry Lee, Francis Lightfoot Lee” (Stratford, VA: The Robert E. Lee Memorial Foundation, Inc., c.1940). [3] Greene, Jack P., “Foundations of Political Power in the Virginia House of Burgesses, 1720-1776,” The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, Vol. 16, No. 4 (October 1959), 490. [4] “Williamsburg, April 21,” The New-York Journal; or, The General Advertiser, 26 May 1768, 1. [5] Francis Lightfoot Lee’s official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay. pl?index=L000190, uses the latter term. [6] “The Proceedings of the Convention of Delegates for the Counties and Corporations in the Colony of Virginia, held at Richmond Town, in the County of Henrico, on the 20th of March 1775” (Williamsburg, VA: Printed by Alexander Purdie, 1775), 4. [7] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), I:lxv; II:lxx; III:lxii; IV:lxv. [8] Robbins, Caroline, “‘Decision in ‘76’: Reflections on the 56 Signers,” Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Third Series, LXXXIX (1977), 85. [9] Goodrich, The Rev. Charles A., “Lives of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence” (Hartford, CT: R.G.H. Huntington, 1842), 417. [10] Conrad, Robert T., ed., “Sanderson’s Biography of the Signers to the Declaration of Independence” (Philadelphia: Thomas, Cowperthwait & Co., 1846), 641-42. [11] Dunlap’s Pennsylvania Packet, or, The General Advertiser, 8 July 1776, 4. [12] “To the Editors,” Daily National Intelligencer [Washington, DC], 5 January 1821, 2. [13] Gaines, William H., Jr., “The Continental Congress Considers the Publication of a Bible, 1777,” Studies in Bibliography, III (1950/1951), 280. [14] “Proceedings of the Convention of Delegates, held at the Capitol, in the City of Williamsburg, in the Colony of Virginia, on Monday the 6th of May, 1776” (Williamsburg, VA: Printed by Alexander Purdie, Printer to the Commonwealth, 1776), 142. [15] The Minerva, & Mercantile Evening Advertiser [New York], 20 February 1797, 3. [16] Clemens, Samuel L., “Francis Lightfoot Lee,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, I:3 (1877) , 343.

828

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Henry Lee (1756-1818)

Secretary, and [as] one of King’s Privy Council . . . He was a man of good Stature, comely visage, an enterprising genius, a sound head, vigorous spirit and generous nature. When he got to Virginia, which was at that time not much cultivated, he was so pleased with the Country that he made large settlements there with the servants he had carried over . . .” [2] A history of famed Virginia families stated about Henry Lee’s parents, “‘Light House Harry’s’ father, Henry Lee, of Leesylvania, and Lucy Grymes were married at Green Spring, on [the] James River, 1 December 1753. His mother was the daughter of Lucy Ludwell, who married Colonel Grymes, of the Council of Virginia.” [3]

More a military man than a politician, Henry Lee, known as “Lighthorse Harry” in American history, served as the governor of Virginia (179295) and in the US House of Representatives (1799-1801), where he is remembered for his memorial to the deceased President George Washington. He also served in the Continental Congress (1785-88), in which he pushed for the reform of the moribund Articles of Confederation. He was born on 29 January 1756 at his family estate, “Leesylvania,” located about three miles from Dumfries, in Prince William County, Virginia, the son of Henry Giles Lee II and Lucy (née Grymes) Lee. [1] His brother, Charles Lee (1758-1815), later served as attorney general under President George Washington (1795-97). A cousin of the Lee family of “Stratford Hall,” which included the brothers Richard Henry Lee and Francis Lightfoot Lee, Henry Lee was likewise descended from his great-great-great-grandfather, Colonel Richard Lee, known as “The Emigrant.” Edmund Jennings Lee, a genealogist of his family, wrote in 1895, “Richard Lee, of a good family in Shropshire . . . some time in the Reign of Charles the first, went over the Colony of Virginia, as

Henry Lee was apparently tutored at home; he entered the College of New Jersey (now Princeton University) and graduated from that institution in 1773 when just 17 years old. He readied himself to go to England to study law after he was admitted to the Middle Temple, one of the four Inns of Court of the English judicial system, when the onrushing American Revolution changed everything and forced him to remain in the colonies. After military training, he was commissioned as the captain of a company of Virginia Dragoons on 18 June 1776. This group was later merged into the First Continental Dragoons on 31 March 1777. Historian George Scheer wrote, “He had been with the army since he was twenty, first as a Captain in Theodorick Bland’s regiment of Virginia cavalry, then in Washington’s horse. In January, 1778, he was promoted to a majority and put in command of a somewhat irregular force, consisting of three troops of cavalry and three companies of infantry and called ‘Lee’s Legion.’ When, eighteen months later, he performed one of the bright feats of the war by surprising the enemy post at Paulus Hook near New York, capturing 160 men, he was already being dubbed ‘Legion Harry’ and cutting a fancy swath in the army.” [4] The clash at Paulus Hook, New Jersey, which overtook a British Harrison guarding New York harbor, allowed the American force to capture more than 150 prisoners as well as bayonets and other ammunition. For this action, as well as his entire military service in the cavalry, Lee earned the nickname “Light-Horse Harry.” However, Lee was a controversial figure. Historian Bernice-Marie Yates wrote, “This meteoric

Henry Lee (1756-1818)829 fame provided Lee with the unwelcome traits of arrogance and the inability to accept criticism as well as boundless ambition. Frequently, Lee’s erratic military decisions became the center of controversy. Many of his accusers were resentful but others had legitimate complaints. After two separate bouts before the board of court-martial and numerous incriminations, he complained of ‘the indifference with which my efforts to advance the cause of my country is considered by my friends.” [5] In 1780, Lee, with the rank of lieutenant colonel, was attached to the Southern Department, under General Nathanael Greene. Acting as Greene’s rear guard, Lee’s troops kept the British off their guard, unable to defeat the American army. Turning from Virginia to the Carolinas, Lee’s troops destroyed a contingent of pro-British Tories sent to reinforce a British invasion of the southern area. At Guilford Courthouse (15 March 1781), North Carolina, Lee’s troops fought the British to a draw but, when he failed to let Greene know of his plans, the battle collapsed and the Americans were forced to retreat. Marching south, Lee saw action at Eutaw Springs, Georgia (8 September 1781). Exasperated with a system in which he felt abused, Lee nevertheless remained in the military until the American victory at Yorktown, which he witnessed, after which he resigned his commission. He returned to Virginia, where he married his cousin, Matilda Lee, in early 1782; the couple had several children, before her death in 1790. [6] In 1785, Lee entered the political arena in Virginia, elected to a seat in the Virginia House of Delegates. On 15 November of that same year, that body elected Lee to a seat in the Continental Congress. Reelected on 1 December 1786 to fill a vacancy caused by the resignation of delegate Joseph Jones, Lee, elected “until the first Monday in November next,” was reelected on 23 October 1787, attending sessions of the body from 1 February to 28 April 1786, from about 1 June to 3 November 1786, 19 April to about 10 May 1787, 17 July to 29 October 1787, and 29 July to about 13 September 1788. [7] There, Lee found the federal government in shambles: financing from the states was nonexistent, and foreign policy was a disaster. Historian Thomas Templin, in one of the best biographies of Henry Lee written, stated:

Lee was, of course, well aware of the condition of the national government before he went to New York to sit in Congress. Even so, he seems to have been shaken by the impotency which he found there. His arrival came at a somewhat inauspicious time: Congress was virtually crippled by the non-attendance of sufficient members to conduct business, and it was engaged in a frustrating discussion of how to deal with the unwillingness of Georgia and New York to consent to a revised impost measure. On 16 February [1785] Lee wrote Washington and Madison on “the dreadful situation of our federal government,” referring to the inertia of Congress, the dreary outlook for obtaining money needed to meet obligations, and the poor diplomatic position of the United States with respect to Britain, the Barbary States, and the western Indians. Lee’s appraisal of the government was it “its death cannot be very far distant, unless immediate and adequate exertions are made by the several states.” [8] Believing that a new blueprint of government was needed, Lee was one who pushed for the reform of the Articles of Confederation, which eventually became the US Constitution, formulated at the Constitutional Convention held in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787. In 1788, Lee was a delegate to the Virginia convention that ratified the Constitution in 1788, with Lee voting to ratify the document. A close friend of George Washington, Lee was a Federalist in politics. The death of his wife in 1790 drove him to despair; he later remarried in 1793, Anne Hill Carter, of whom the youngest son of this union, Robert Edward Lee (1807-1870), would become the commander of Confederate troops in the American Civil War. In 1792, Lee was elected as the governor of Virginia, holding the seat for three single one-year terms. Despite his political office, in 1794 President Washington turned to Lee to command federal troops to put down the so-called “Whiskey Rebellion” in Pennsylvania, which Lee did without loss of life. In 1798, Lee was elected to a seat in the Sixth Congress (17991801), where, following the death of former President Washington, he was tasked with drawing up an honor to the former president and general, in which Lee called him “first in war, first in peace and first in the hearts of his countrymen,” a description that holds to this day.

830

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

After leaving Congress, Lee retired to his home in Virginia. In July 1812, while visiting Baltimore, he went to the printing offices of his friend William Hanson, editor of the Federal Republican. During this visit, both men were attacked by a mob. Lee was later found in the street beaten up and near death. Although he recovered from this attack, his health was never the same. He went to the West Indies in 1817 and, while traveling back to Virginia the following year, stopped at the home of General Greene, near St. Mary’s, Georgia, to visit his old commander’s daughter. There, on 25 March 1818, Lee died at the age of 62. [9] His body was initially buried in a crypt near the home, in Dungeness, Georgia. In 1862, as Robert E. Lee was looking at military defenses near Cumberland Island, Georgia, he came across the grave of his own father, a man he barely knew in life. The man who would lead the Confederate Army into battle on behalf of his native Virginia later wrote to his wife about the episode, “The spot is marked by a plain marble slab, with his name, age, & date of his death.” Almost as an afterthought, Lee wrote about the place where his father died: “The garden was beautiful, enclosed by the finest hedge I have ever seen . .  . it was of the wild olive.” In May 1913, nearly a half century after Robert E. Lee’s own death, his father’s remains were exhumed and buried next to him in the Lee Chapel Museum in Lexington City, Virginia.

[5] Yates, Bernice-Marie, “The Perfect Gentleman: The Life and Letters of George Washington Custis Lee” (Maitland, FL: Xulon Press; two volumes, 2003), I:24. [6] Nelson, Paul David, “Horatio Gates in the Southern Department, 1780: Serious Errors and a Costly Defeat,” The North Carolina Historical Review, L:3 (July 1973), 256-72. [7] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VIII:xcviii. [8] Templin, Thomas E., “Henry ‘Light Horse Harry’ Lee: A Biography” (Ph.D. dissertation, Univ. of Kentucky, 1975), 223. [9] Jones, Charles Colcock, Jr., “Reminiscences of the Last Days, Death and Burial of General Henry Lee” (Albany, NY: J. Munsell, 1870).

Richard Henry Lee (c. 1732-1794)

See also: Richard Henry Lee; Francis Lightfoot Lee

[1] Lee family tree, online at http://www.geni.com/people/MajGen-Henry-Lee-Light-Horse-Harry/6000000000350950377. [2] Lee, Edmund Jennings, ed., “Lee of Virginia, 1642-1892: Biographical and Genealogical Sketches of The Descendants of Colonel Richard Lee, With Brief Notices of the Related Families of Allerton, Armistead, Ashton, Aylett, Bedinger, Bevereley, Bland, Bolling, Carroll, Carter, Chambers, Corbin, Custis, Digges, Fairfax, Fitzhugh, Gardner, Grymes, Hanson, Jenings, Jones, Ludwell, Marshall, Mason, Page, Randolph, Shepherd, Shippen, Tabb, Taylor, Turberville, Washington, and Others” (Philadelphia: Privately Published, 1895), 49. See also Ludwell Lee Montague, “Richard Lee, the Emigrant: 1613 (?)-1664,” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, LXII:1 (January 1954), 3-49. [3] Pecquet du Beller, Louise, “Some Prominent Virginia Families” (Baltimore: Genealogical Publishing Company; two volumes, 1976), I:255. [4] Scheer, George F., Jr., “Henry Lee on the Southern Campaign,” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, LI:2 (April 1943), 142.

Along with his brother, Francis Lightfoot Lee, Richard Henry Lee was the only man whose brother also signed the Declaration of Independence. The leader of the famed Lee family of Virginia, including Henry “Lighthorse Harry” Lee and William Lee, Richard Henry Lee served as the president of the Continental Congress (1784-85).

Richard Henry Lee (c. 1732-1794)831 The fifth son of Thomas Lee, the president of the Virginia Colonial Council, and a leading planter in the colony, and his wife Hannah (née Ludwell) Lee, Richard Henry Lee was born in Westmoreland County, Virginia, on 26 January 1732, although some sources list the date as being in 1733. The originator of the family, Colonel Richard Lee (1618-1774), also known as “The Emigrant,” was born at Nordley Regis, in Coton, Shropshire, England (some sources give his date of birth as 1613) [1] Historian and family genealogist Edmund Jennings Lee wrote, “The earliest records of England contain references to many families of this name, though spelt in different forms. The various counties of England have been from early times dotted with Lee villages, towns, and rivers.” This Richard Lee, the great-grandfather of Richard Henry Lee, settled in that part of Northumberland County, Virginia, known as “the Northern Neck,” where he settled his family, becoming the secretary to Sir William Berkeley, an early governor of the Virginia colony. [2] Richard Henry Lee grew up at his family’s plantation, “Stratford Hall,” built when he was about eight; there, he was educated by private tutors, including one Alexander White, all of whom had an Anglican background. He was then sent to England, where he received additional education at Wakefield Academy in Yorkshire. The deaths of his parents, both in 1750, did not force Lee to return home; instead, his eldest brother, Philip Lee, tried to urge him to come back to his family, but Lee refused, instead going on a tour of mainland Europe. He returned to the colonies in 1753, and continued his studies until 1755, when he was named as the head of a militia of volunteers who served under General Edward Braddock and the British army against Native American forces in the French and Indian War, although Braddock did not accept the force and they did not see any action. In 1767, Lee was appointed as a justice of the peace for Westmoreland County, the following year elected to a seat in the Virginia House of Burgesses, previously held by his brother Philip, where he served until 1775. Richard Henry Lee served in this body with his brothers Thomas Ludwell Lee and Francis Lightfoot Lee, both of whom represented Stafford and Loudoun counties, respectively. It was here that Lee first demonstrated his love of

freedom—and, ironically, his hatred for slavery— where he proposed “to lay so heavy a tax upon slave importation as to end that iniquitous and disgraceful traffic within the colony.” Lee later stated that African slaves were “equally entitled to liberty and freedom by the great law of nature,” ideas that put him far out of the mainstream of even moderate thought at the time. While he was agitating to end slavery, Richard Henry Lee was also slowly growing angry with the treatment by England of the American colony. In 1764, he was named to a committee by the House of Burgesses to send a memorial to King George III calling for an end to harmful economic measures being enacted against the colonies. Two years later, in February 1766, Lee was one of the leading figures behind the establishment of the Westmoreland Association. Historian J. Kent McGaughy wrote, “[Lee] and a coterie from Westmoreland County took the initiative by forming the Westmoreland Association in February 1766. Members drafted a set of articles of agreement providing the logic behind their efforts. One surviving draft, written in Lee’s hand, stated that ‘the Birthright privilege of every British subject (and of the people of Virginia as being such) founded on Reason, Law, and Compact; that he cannot be legally tried but by his peers; and that he cannot be taxed, but by the consent of a Parliament, in which he is represented by persons chosen by the people. The Stamp Act does absolutely direct the property of the people to be taken from them without their consent.’” [3] Lee married Anne Aylett in December 1757, and he established his political center at his plantation, “Chantilly-on-the Potomac,” which was near his family’s estate as “Stratford Hall.” Lee and his wife had four children—two sons and two daughters. The following year, while hunting, Lee’s gun exploded in his hands, taking all but one finger on his left hand. For the remainder of his life, Lee would be forced to wear a glove on the wound to cover it up. Later that same year, Anne Lee died of pleurisy; in 1769, he remained to Anne Gaskins Packard, a widow, and together the couple would have three daughters and two sons. In the early years of the 1770s, Lee increasingly came to believe that the colonies would have to

832

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

become independent from England. The Virginia House of Burgesses met on 12 March 1773, and resolved:

you shall have it by the first opportunity.” [6] In another letter to William Lee, this time dated 10 May 1775, Lee wrote, “I am exceedingly pressed with business and therefore must be short, and for this time, mix politics with business of a private nature. The Virga. Delegates arrived here yesterday where they find all those from the Southward of this, with the Deputies from N. Hamshire [sic]. In an hour all from the Colonies North of this will be here and then the Congress will be opened. There never appeared more perfect unanimity among any sett [sic] of Men than among the Delegates, and indeed all the old Provinces not one excepted are directed by the same firmness of union and determination to resist by all ways and to every extremity.” [7] To George Washington, the commander-inchief of the Continental Army, Lee explained on 29 June 1775, “Nothing material has occurred since you left this place, except the imperfect accounts we have of the Charlestown battle, which upon the whole seems to have nothing unfavorable to our great cause, but the loss of Dr. Warren. To an infant Country, it is loss indeed, to be deprived of wise, virtuous, and brave Citizens. I hope however, still to hear, that our Enemies, have lost Characters very useful to them. We received the account of this engagement late on Saturday evening last, and a few of us immediately applied to, and prevailed with the Committee of this City, to dispatch 90 odd quarter Casks of powder to the Camp, which I hope will arrive safe and in good time.” [8] During the meeting known as the First Continental Congress, Lee signed the document which established The Continental Association, which would push for a colonywide boycott of British goods to bring pressure on England to let up on its harsh economic measures. [9]

[t]hat a standing committee of correspondence and enquiry be appointed, to consist of eleven persons, to wit, the Honourable Peyton Randolph, Esq; Robert Carter Nicholas, Richard Bland, Richard Henry Lee, Benjamin Harrison, Edmund Pendleton, Patrick Henry, Dudley Digges, Dabney Carr, Archibald Cary, and Thomas Jefferson, Esquires, any six of whom to be a committee, whose business it shall be to obtain the most early and authentic intelligence of all such acts and resolutions of the British Parliament, or proceedings of Administration, as may relate to or affect the British colonies in America; and to keep up and maintain a correspondence and communication with our sister colonies, respecting these important considerations; and the result of such their proceedings, from time to time, to lay before this House. [4] When England refused to relent, and enacted harsher measures to punish Massachusetts for the Boston Tea Party, the colonies called for a “general congress” of delegates to meet in Philadelphia in September 1774. On 5 August 1774, the Virginia House of Burgesses elected Lee to serve as a delegate to this meeting; he was subsequently reelected on 20 March 1775, 11 August 1775, 20 June 1776, 24 June 1777, 23 January 1778, and 29 May 1778, and he attended sessions of 6 September to 26 October 1774, 10 May to 2 August 1775, 24 September to 23 December 1775, 11 March to 13 June 1776, 27 August 1776 to 27 February 1777, from about 7 April to 15 June 1777, 12 August to 6 December 1777, 1 May to 31 October 1778, and 20 February to 24 May 1779. [5] There are volumes of letters, some published for the first time in the 20th century, from Lee during his time in the Continental Congress. To his brother, William Lee, he penned, “We have been here in full Congress of Deputies from 11 Principal Colonies near three weeks proceeding slowly but with great unanimity on the important business that brought us to this Town. The proceedings are yet on honor to be kept secret, but we have great hopes that their vigor and unanimity will prove the ruin of our Ministerial Enemies and the salvation of American Liberty. About a fortnight more will produce a publication of our plan, after which,

The opening shots of the war, fired at Lexington and Concord in early 1775, set off a movement to try to break away from England, although Lee, who believed such a move needed to be made, was still in the minority among the delegates assembled in Philadelphia, who feared what an independence movement might mean for the colonies. In the next several months, however, more and more delegates came to believe as Lee did: that independence was a necessary move. On 7 June 1776, Lee moved in the Continental Congress, “We, therefore, the representatives of

Richard Henry Lee (c. 1732-1794)833 the United States of America, in general Congress assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do in the name and by the authority of the good people of these colonies, solemnly publish and declare, that these United Colonies are, and of right ought to be, Free and Independent States, &c.; and that all political connexion [sic] between them and the state of Great Britain is, and ought to be, totally dissolved.” [10] Even at this late date, opposition to Lee’s resolution was so rancorous that John Hancock, the president of the Continental Congress, had to table it to avoid a fight in the body. Even while this was happening, a committee that included Thomas Jefferson was drafting just such a resolution, which he presented to the delegates on 2 July 1776. By this time, opposition to the declaration was melting away, and Lee, along with his brother Francis, signed the document on behalf of Virginia, the only set of brothers to sign the Declaration. It was at this time, however, that Lee came under attack from various quarters in the Continental Congress, later discovered to be from John Hancock and Robert Morris. These two men spread a rumor that Lee, along with John and Samuel Adams of Massachusetts were trying to get General George Washington removed as commander-in-chief of the Continental Army. At the same time, his brother, Arthur Lee, who was named to serve as an American diplomat in France along with Benjamin Franklin and Silas Deane, told Richard Henry Lee that Deane was using his position to line his own pockets, at the expense of the United States. In the Continental Congress, Richard Henry Lee took the floor to denounce Deane and to move that Deane be recalled from Paris. Deane returned from France and defended himself before the delegates, breaking the body into pro- and antiDeane camps, with Lee leading the latter group. The arguments over the controversy forced Henry Laurens, the president of the Continental Congress, to resign. In December 1778, Deane’s defenders accused the entire Lee family of political corruption. Silas Deane wrote to Lee on 17 January 1779, “I have read a publication in Mr. Towne’s paper of the 14th, taken from Mr. Purdie’s Virginia Gazette, of the first instant, under your signature. Whatever is delivered to the public, by a person of your elevated rank and

character, mist be supposed to carry uncommon weight with it, whether it respects men or things. This consideration obliges me to make a few observations, on what you justly term your basly narrative. In doing which, I shall take no farther notice of the terms, libel . . . inuendo [sic], calumnies, &c. with which your narrative is enriched . . . ” [11] The opposing sense of Lee comes in a letter from John Adams to Samuel Cooper, 28 February 1779, in which he wrote, “The complaint against the family of Lees is a very extraordinary thing indeed. I am no idolater of that family or any other; but I believe their greatest fault is having more men of merit in it than any other family; and if that family fails the American cause, or grows unpopular among their fellow-citizens, I know not what family or what person will stand the test.” [12] Angered at the treatment that he and his family received in the Deane controversy, Lee resigned his seat in the Continental Congress and returned to Virginia, where he served in the state House of Delegates in 1780 and 1785, as well as serving as a colonel in the Westmoreland militia. By 1784, Lee was getting entreaties from allies to once again serve in the Continental Congress, to aid a nation in dire need of his leadership. Colonel Arthur Campbell wrote to Lee, 18 October 1784, “It is with singular pleasure I reflect that you are of the Delegation to Congress the coming year: that you can forego your ease and quiet to serve us, and I wish I could addition, to serve a grateful people. But I trust your mind is above giving way to disgust and resentment, that you can do good for evil, when the interests of America call for your assistance. I have been told by one who professed friendship for you, that your politicks [sic] were too theoretical, too much refined for the multitude, for rude uncivilized Americans. I rather judge that your stubborn virtue stands too much in the way of those, who with gales of popularity or political chicanery, wish to indulge a lust for dominion, for rule, aristocratic rule, and certain despotism.” [13] On 22 June 1784, Lee was elected a second time to the Continental Congress; he was reelected on 7 November 1786, and attended sessions from 1 November to 24 December 1784, 11 January to about 3 August 1785, 29 September to 4 November 1785, 9 July to about 1 August 1786, and from about 24 September to 29 October 1787. [14]

834

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

On 3 June 1784, Thomas Mifflin, the president of the Continental Congress, resigned his post; for the next several months, no candidate could be found to succeed him. It was not until 30 November 1784 that Lee agreed to take over the position, and he was elected as the twelfth president of the body. The Massachusetts Spy reported from Philadelphia, that “[w]e hear from Trenton, that a quorum of Congress met at that place on Monday last, when they adjourned to this city.” On 1 December 1783, a letter from Trenton read, “On Monday last the Congress of the United States assembled here, and on Tuesday they proceeded to a choice of a President, when the honourable Richard Henry Lee, Esq., of Virginia, was elected. This was the gentleman who first made the motion in Congress, for declaring the States of America independent, in the year 1776.” [15]

of a long life so usefully devoted to the public interests; to express the regret felt by this House, on hearing that he is compelled by the infirmities of age to retire from public life, and their sincere wish that he may in the private scene to which he is retiring, yet long experience those enjoyments attendant on the consciousness of a faithful discharge of duty . . . ” [17] A report in a newspaper in December 1792 stated that “[t]he honorable John Taylor[,] appointed by the legislature of the state of Virginia, in the place of the honorable Richard Henry Lee, resigned, produced his credentials and took his seat in the senate.” [18]

Lee would serve as president for nearly a year, until 23 November 1785. According to historian Jennings Sanders, “Cong [sic] left Trenton [in] the latter part of December, assembling in New York in January of the following year, and there remained until the inauguration of the Government under the Constitution. The load of President Lee was not a light one, and on 16 August 1785 he took a leave, probably not returning until the early part of October. His term expired on 4 November, and Congress proceeded to the election of a former President, whose movements in the field of Massachusetts politics not become definitely associate with national affairs.” [16] This successor to Lee was John Hancock, who had once served as the president of the Continental Congress. In Virginia, Lee served as a delegate to the convention that ratified the new US Constitution in 1788. Under the dictates of that document, Virginia was to send two senators to serve in the upper body of the new bicameral legislature: Lee was elected to one of the two places, and he served from 4 March 1789 until his resignation on 8 October 1792. In the Second Congress (179193), he served as the president pro tempore of the Senate. Following his resignation, on 17 October 1792 the Virginia House of Delegates resolved, “[t]hat the Speaker be requested to communicate to Richard Henry Lee, Esq; the high sense entertained by his country, of the services rendered by him, through the course

Lee died on 19 June 1784 at the age of 62. One newspaper said, “Died, at his Seat at Chantilly, in Westmoreland county [sic], Virginia, Richard Henry Lee . . . a Philosopher, a Patriot, and a Sage; these characters he had supported through his life. At his death they supported him: and he died as lived—blessing his country.” [19] Lee was buried at the Lee family estate’s graveyard, “Burnt House Field,” in Coles Point, Virginia. His gravestone reads, “Here was buried Richard Henry Lee, of Virginia, 1732-1794. Author of the Westmoreland Resolutions of 1766. Moves of the Resolution for Independence. Signer of the Declaration of Independence. President of the Continental Congress. United States Senator from Virginia.” One of Lee’s biographers, James Curtis Ballagh, wrote in 1911: Richard Henry Lee, sometime President of the Charles Carroll of Carrollton and mover of the resolutions for a Declaration of Independence, Foreign Alliances, and a Plan of Confederation, exerted a profound influence upon political and constitutional movements in his State and in American from the beginning of the Stamp Act agitation to the close of his public career in 1792. His life was devoted to the service of the public and to preserving and developing political liberty as he and Patrick Henry and Samuel Adams understood it. His constant and arduous labor as an active patriot leader in his county of Westmoreland, as a Virginia Burgess and Assemblyman, and as a member of the Continental Congress, and of the United States Senate throughout an entire generation of unselfish public service finally destroyed his health and led to the ultimate sacrifice of his life in 1794 . . . [20]

Thomas Sim Lee (1745-1819)835 See also: Arthur Lee; Francis Lightfoot Lee

[1] Lee family tree, online at http://www.geni.com/people/ Colonel-Richard-the-Immigrant-Lee-I/6000000002700598061. [2] Lee, Edmund Jennings, ed., “Lee of Virginia, 1642-1892: Biographical and Genealogical Sketches of The Descendants of Colonel Richard Lee, With Brief Notices of the Related Families of Allerton, Armistead, Ashton, Aylett, Bedinger, Bevereley, Bland, Bolling, Carroll, Carter, Chambers, Corbin, Custis, Digges, Fairfax, Fitzhugh, Gardner, Grymes, Hanson, Jenings, Jones, Ludwell, Marshall, Mason, Page, Randolph, Shepherd, Shippen, Tabb, Taylor, Turberville, Washington, and Others” (Philadelphia: Privately Published, 1895), 17. [3] McGaughy, J. Kent, “Richard Henry Lee of Virginia: A Portrait of an American Revolutionary” (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc., 2004), 79. [4] “Extracts from the Journal of the Honourable the House of Burgesses, Friday, March 12, 1773,” The Pennsylvania Gazette, Containing the Freshest Advices, Foreign and Domestic [Philadelphia], 7 April 1773, 2. [5] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), I:lxv; II:lxxi; III:lxii; IV:lxv. [6] Richard Henry Lee to William Lee, 20 September 1774, in ibid., I:37. [7] Richard Henry Lee to William Lee, 10 May 1775, in ibid., I:8990. [8] Richard Henry Lee to George Washington, 29 June 1775, in ibid., I:147. [9] See “Grand American Congress. Association, &c.,” The Massachusetts Spy, Or, Thomas’s Boston Journal, 10 November 1774, 2. [10] Lee, Richard Henry, “Memoir of the Life of Richard Henry Lee, and His Correspondence with the Most Distinguished Men in America and Europe, Illustrative of Their Characters, and of the Events of the American Revolution. By His Grandson, Richard H. Lee” (Philadelphia: H.C. Carey and I. Lea; two volumes, 1825), I:169. [11] The Pennsylvania Packet; Or, The General Advertiser [Philadelphia], 29 January 1779, 1. [12] John Adams to Samuel Cooper, 28 February 1779, in Charles Francis Adams, ed., “The Works of John Adams, Second President of the United States: With a Life of the Author, Notes and Illustrates” (Boston: Little, Brown and Company; 10 volumes, 1850-56), IX:478. [13] Col. Arthur Campbell to R.H. Lee, 18 October 1784, in “Selections and Excerpts from the Lee Papers,” Southern Literary Messenger, XXVIII:2 (January 1859), 34. [14] Burnett, “Letters of Members,” op. cit., VII:lxxvii; VIII:xcviii. [15] Thomas’s Massachusetts Spy: Or, Worcester Gazette, 16 December 1784, 3. [16] Sanders, Jennings B., “The Presidency of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789: A Study in American Institutional History” (Chicago: Privately Published, 1930), 26-27. [17] “Richmond. In the House of Delegates, October 17,” General Advertiser [Philadelphia], 29 November 1792, 2. [18] “From Philadelphia. Congress of the United States. Senate,” The Baltimore Evening Post [Maryland], 20 December 1792, 3. [19] American Mercury [Hartford, Connecticut], 21 July 1794, 3. [20] Ballagh, James Curtis, ed., “The Letters of Richard Henry Lee” (New York: The Macmillan Company; two volumes, 1911-14), I:vii.

Thomas Sim Lee (1745-1819)

A leader in Maryland during the early years of the American Revolution, Thomas Sim Lee served twice as governor (1779-82, 1792-94), and represented his state in the Continental Congress (1783). The son of Thomas Lee and his wife Christiana (née Sim) Lee, Thomas Sim Lee was born near Upper Marlboro, in Prince Georges County, Maryland, on 29 October 1745. One source noted, “Lee [was] descended from Colonel Richard Lee, the progenitor of Virginia, through his grandson, Philip Lee, who came to Maryland.” [1] Thus, Thomas Sim Lee was a distant cousin of fellow Continental Congress members Richard Henry Lee, Henry “Lighthorse Harry” Lee, and Francis Lightfoot Lee. Christiana Lee, his mother, was a daughter of Dr. Patrick Sim, and a descendant of Thomas Brooke of Brookfield. Lee spent his childhood at his grandfather’s estate, “Blenheim,” where he was raised following his father’s death when he was four years of age. After being tutored in preparatory studies, Thomas Sim Lee received additional education in Europe On 24 October 1771, he married Mary Digges of “Melwood Park,” the daughter of a wealthy Maryland landowner; the couple would have eight children, six sons and two daughters. With his marriage, Lee converted

836

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

to Roman Catholicism. Of this conversion, historian Maura Jane Farrelly explained, “The exact date of Lee’s conversion is unknown, and earlier biographers mistakenly put it as late as 1800. Most scholars nowadays, however, believe that Lee’s conversion happened shortly after he was married in October 1771.” [2]

successive years the repeated attacks—now, when strengthened by a mighty alliance, shall we droop and desert the field to which honor, the strongest ties, the dearest interests of humanity unite us?” At the same time, Lee’s wife, Mary, was also working to assist the Continental Army; when she asked General Washington what she could lend to help, he wrote to her, “The money cannot be expended in so eligible and beneficial a manner, as on the purchase of Shirts and socks (black) for the use of the troops in the Southern army.” Through this appeal, Lee and Washington became close friends. Through the General, Lee was given the blueprint of the secret American war plan to trap the British, under Charles, Lord Cornwallis, at Yorktown, and it was through Lee that additional troops and arms sent to the Continental Army aided in this exercise in 1781, effectively ending the war. At the same time, it was through Lee’s machinations that the southern campaign, led by General Nathanael Greene, was also successful. [5]

Thomas Sim Lee began his public service in 1777, when he served as a member of the Maryland Provincial Council; however, according to his official congressional biography, he “held several local offices” prior to this time. [3] Under statehood, Maryland elected Thomas Johnson, another leading revolutionary, as its first governor in 1777. Two years later, Johnson refused a second term, and an election for his successor was needed. Historian Heinrich Ewald Buchholz wrote, “There was at this time an uncertainty in the public mind as to the form of government which would be best adapted for the people of Maryland, and that wavering is reflected in the choice of a successor for Johnson. Two candidates for governor were before the legislature in 1779: Col. Edward Lloyd, of Talbot county, and Thomas Sim Lee. On 8 November, the two houses cast their ballots, and Lee was chosen. As governor, Mr. Lee attained great popularity, due largely to the fact that his views coincided to a remarkable degree with those of the people of his day, especially the leaders.” [4] During his time in office, which lasted until 1783, Johnson was on the front lines of the American Revolution, in the worst years of the conflict. In 1780, when the entire Continental Army was threatened with breakdown due to a lack of funding from the states, Lee responded quickly when General George Washington appealed for Maryland to send troops and arms to assist him. Lee’s call to the state legislature led that body to report that “[w]e propose to exert our utmost efforts to raise 2,000 regulars to serve during the war. It will be necessary to draw from our battalions under Baron de Kalb a number of officers to command, form and discipline these new recruits.” When Washington agreed to this proposal, the legislature responded: “Rise into action with that ardor which led you, destitute of money, of allies, of arms and soldiers, to encounter one of the most powerful nations of Europe, single and unsupported, raw and undisciplined, you baffled for three

On 27 November 1782, shortly before he left the governor’s office, Lee was elected by the state legislature to a seat in the Continental Congress. He only served in the Congress from 3 March to about 22 April 1783; there are no printed pieces of correspondence from Lee’s time in the Continental Congress. [6] The limited amount of time that Lee spent in the Continental Congress, added to the fact that little of what he did in the body is recorded, leads many sources on Lee to note that he served in 1784, which he did not. Elected to the Maryland House of Delegates in 1787, Lee was offered a seat in the Constitutional Convention held in Philadelphia that same year, but he declined; instead, he did serve as a delegate to the state ratifying convention held in Maryland the following year to ratify the US Constitution. In 1792, Lee was again elected governor, this time to fill a vacancy caused by the death of Governor George Plater. One newspaper reported, “On Friday last, his excellency [sic] Thomas Sim Lee, Esquire, was unanimously re-elected governor of this state, for the ensuing year, and the honorable William Pinckney, John Davidson, James Brice, John Kilty, and Henry Ridgely, Esquires, were chosen the Council to the governor.” [7] During his second tenure as governor, Lee had to face the Whiskey Rebellion, an outbreak of pent-up rage by farmers in

William Lee (1739-1795)837 Pennsylvania and western Maryland on a new federal tax on whiskey. Lee, asked by President George Washington to send troops to put down the rebellion, later cited the men who put down any chance of insurrection without any violence for “their patriotism and attachment . . . to public order.” At the end of his second term in 1794, Lee declined any additional time in office, and he retired to his estate, “Needwood,” where he owned over 200 slaves. [8] Lee spent the remainder of his life at “Needwood.” He died there on 9 November 1819, a little more than a week after his 74th birthday. He was buried in Mount Carmel Cemetery in Upper Marlboro, Maryland. [9] His great-great-grandson, John Lee Carroll (1830-1911), also served as the governor of Maryland (1876-80).

[1] “Thomas Sim Lee” in Joshua Dorsey Warfield, “The Founders of Anne Arundel and Howard Counties, Maryland: A Genealogical and Biographical Review from Wills, Deeds and Church Records” (Baltimore: Kohn & Pollock, Publishers, 1905), 226. [2] Farrelly, Maura Jane, “Papist Patriots: The Making of an American Catholic Identity” (Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press, 2012), 294. [3] Thomas Sim Lee official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay. pl?index=L000206. [4] Buchholz, Heinrich Ewald, “Governors of Maryland: From the Revolution to the Year 1908” (Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins Company, 1908), 9. [5] “Thomas Sim Lee” in Warfield, “The Founders of Anne Arundel and Howard Counties,” op. cit., 227. [6] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VII: lxvii. [7] “Baltimore, September 25,” City Gazette [Charleston, South Carolina], 28 December 1793, 2. [8] “Lee, Thomas Sim” in Frank F. White, Jr., “The Governors of Maryland 1777-1970” (Annapolis: The Hall of Records Commission, 1970), 11-14. [9] Lonn, Ella, “Lee, Thomas Sim” in Allen Johnson, et al., “Dictionary of American Biography” (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons; eleven volumes and five supplements, 1958-77), XI:132.

William Lee (1739-1795) A member of the famed Lee family of Virginia, William Lee did not, like his brothers Richard Henry and Francis Lightfoot, serve in the Continental Congress. However, he was named by that body in 1777 as the commercial agent for the United States in France; later that same

year, he was named to represent the United States in Berlin and Vienna, and then as the official representative at The Hague. Through this service, Lee aided in gaining loans and trade that boosted the American economy during the American Revolution. Lee was born at his family’s plantation, “Stratford Hall,” in Westmoreland County, Virginia, on 13 August 1739, the son and one of 11 children of Thomas Lee, a wealthy Virginia landowner, and his wife Hannah (née Ludwell) Lee. The Lee genealogy is covered in the entries on the other members of the family. William Lee was descended through his great-great-great-grandfather, Colonel Richard Lee, known as “The Emigrant,” who came to the American colonies sometime during the reign of King Charles I of England; he was executed in January 1649 after being captured during the English Civil War. [1] Through his mother, Hannah Ludwell Lee, William Lee was descended from the prominent Ludwell family of Virginia. In 1750, when he was 11, William Lee’s parents both died suddenly, and he was left in the care of his older brothers, most notably Phillip Lee, whose firm control over the family wealth and property led to strains within the family structure. William Lee received a portion of his parents’ estate, and he received an education at home through private tutors. Historian J. Kent McGaughy wrote, “Despite the acrimonious feelings that characterized the Lee household at Stratford, they nevertheless worked together as partners. Philip employed William Lee as a clerk at Stratford Hall, where he assisted the family enterprise as a financial manager.” [2] In either late 1766 or early 1767, when his older brother Arthur Lee went to England, he took William with him, “to engage in mercantile pursuits.” Historian Worthington Chauncey Ford wrote, “While Arthur Lee was a politician from his first entrance into London life, and was assiduously cultivating acquaintances and connections that could be useful to him in the future, William was more inclined to a commercial career. It has not been possible to trace the steps he took to establish himself in a commercial line, for the records are wanting. In 1769 he meditated a voyage to India, but abandoned the idea . . . ” Instead, on 7 March 1769, he married Hannah Ludwell, a distant

838

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

cousin of his mother. Ford added, “This marriage may have brought him the capital necessary to enter a mercantile firm, for in 1769 or early in 1770 he is found in partnership with Dennis DeBerdt, whose daughter married Joseph Reed, of Pennsylvania and with Stephen Sayre, an adventurer from America.” [3]

year as sheriff, Lee was elected as an alderman for the city of London, where he called for the independence of the American colonies.

Most of the records surrounding William Lee’s life are fragmentary. Historian Alonzo Dill wrote, “William Lee’s public career was brief and controversial. It was compressed into seven eventful and intrigue-filled years between 1773 and 1779. These years began with his elevation to high municipal office in London—a vantage point from which he opposed the ministry dominated by King George III. They ended with the termination of his dual responsibility, as United States commissioner to the courts of Berlin and Vienna, in the heat of the Silas Deane affair.” [4] Lee was appointed as a sheriff for London, succeeding a man simply referred to as “Sheriff Plomer.” [5] A British newspaper reported on 1 November 1773 that “[b]y the death of Sir Robert Ladbroke, if Mr. Alderman Alsop should accept being father of the City, and become Alderman of Bridge Ward, William Lee, Esq; one of the present Sheriffs, intends to offer himself as a Candidate for Coleman-street Ward, in the room of Alderman Alsop. Mr. Sayre having refused prior to Mr. Lee’s offering himself.” [6] In a follow-up, another report in April 1774 showed that “[y]esterday Henry Lawes Luttrell, Esq; made a complaint to the House of Commons, that the Sheriffs of London and Middlesex had, in pursuance of the Speaker’s letter, issued by order of the House, instead of directing their summons to him, as Knight of the Shire for the county of Middlesex, taken upon themselves to summon another person to amend, in contempt of the legal rights of that House. He then moved, ‘That Stephen Sayre and William Lee, Esqrs. Sheriffs for the country of Middlesex, do attend this House on this day se’nnight.’” [7] At a meeting of freeholders in London in August 1775, we find reference to Lee: “At this meeting it is said there were 1064 freeholders: among whom one was present tells the public, that on the patriotic side there was not a man of the least consequence, except Mr. Wilkes, the two sheriffs, Plomer and Hart, and the two American worthies, Lee and Sayre.” [8] After a

At the same time that America was at war with England, Lee served in London. He wrote to his brother, Richard Henry Lee, 1 January 1774, in part, “Every real patriot in this country admires the spirit that has already appeared among you, and the last resolves of the Virginia Assembly have struck a greater panic into the ministers than anything that has passed since The Stamp Act.” [9] On 9 May 1777, as reported in the Journals of the Continental Congress, “Congress proceeded to the election of a Commissioner for the courts of Berlin and Vienna, and the ballots being taken, William Lee, Esqr., was elected for the court of Berlin and of Vienna.” [10] The Committee of Foreign Affairs of the Continental Congress, composed of Benjamin Harrison, Robert Morris, Thomas Hayward, and James Lovell, wrote to the commissioners in Paris on 2 July 1777, “We enclose to you commissions and instructions for Ralph Izard and William Lee; the first, appointed Commissioner to the Court of Tuscany, and the latter to the Courts of Vienna and Berlin. Their instructions are so intimately connected with your own, that we have thought it proper to send them open, to your confidential care, that you may give information to the gentlemen, and take every due step to forward the execution of the intention of Congress.” [11] Historian Jared Sparks, in the North American Review in 1830, wrote: Mr. William Lee and Mr. Izard were appointed by Congress commissioners, the former to the courts of Vienna and Berlin, and the latter to that of the Grand Duke of Tuscany. They held these appointments about two years, Mr. Izard residing the whole of that time in Paris, not being encouraged to seek the Grand Duke by any prospect of being received in his public capacity. Mr. William Lee resided partly in Paris and partly at Frankfort [sic; should be “Frankfurt”], in Germany, giving notice to the court of Berlin that he was ready to appear there . . . In the spring of 1777, Mr. William Lee, who was then acting as [the] agent of Congress in Holland, was appointed commissioner to the court of Berlin. As our commercial and financial concerns with Holland were of great importance and magnitude, Mr. Lee consulted the commissioners at Paris on the propriety of his remaining in Holland, and proposed that one of them should repair to Berlin in his stead.

William Lee (1739-1795)839 Upon consideration it was determined that the interests of the United States required Mr. William Lee to remain in Holland, while it was equally apparent that they required some immediate correspondence with Prussia. Without waiting to consult Congress (for at this time many months elapsed before they could receive answers to their communications from America), and relying on its acquiescence, it was resolved that Arthur Lee should repair to Berlin in the room of his brother, and carry with him the commission and instructions intended for him. [12] Historian Francis Wharton wrote: A curious episode in William Lee’s history is given in detail in the Lee papers in the University of Virginia. It seems that “Petrie” an American living in Paris in 1778, reported that advance news of the signature of the treaty of alliance was forwarded by “Alderman” Lee to London for the use of his business friends. It so happened, as we will see, that the Lees had denounced [Edward] Bancroft for, as they said, making similar use of the same information. They were therefore peculiarly indignant at the aspersion; and William Lee at once wrote to Petrie for his authority. This Petrie refused to give. On 26 May William Lee repeated the demand. On 28 May Petrie asked for a delay on account of ill health, which precluded him for the time from correspondence. The demand, however, was renewed a few days afterwards, when Petrie finally stated that he would neither retract nor apologize. Thereon William Lee, on 24 July 1779, challenged Petrie to the “field of honor.” Petrie accepted the challenge, seconds were provided, but much discussion arose as to the proper place of action. Finally, after one or two balks, Valenciennes [a city in northern France] was agreed on and an hour fixed for the encounter. William Lee, however, was kept back by an accident to his horses. Another meeting was appointed from which Petrie was kept back by his carriage breaking down. This excuse William Lee thought frivolous; but no third meeting was called for nor was there any retraction by Petrie. The truth is that the charge against William Lee of using the news for stock jobbing, like the similar charge against Bancroft, could not be substantiated, for the reason that [Benjamin] Franklin too the first opportunity, for political purposes, of advising his whig friends in England of the signature. [13] Lee’s missions to the various capitals of Europe lasted for two years, and little seems to have come of his services. Historian Karl Roider, in a history of this period of his life, stated, “American diplomacy in the Revolution has enjoyed considerable attention among scholars in the

recent past and undoubtedly will continue to do so . . . One of the lesser-known events in America’s initial efforts at world affairs was the expedition of William Lee of Virginia to Vienna in May 1778. As one of a number of emissaries sent to European courts during the era of the Continental Congress’ ‘militia diplomacy,’ Lee hoped to gain diplomatic recognition and a commercial arrangement from the Habsburg Empire, then the most prestigious, if not the most powerful, state in Europe. Because Lee failed to secure any formal recognition, political or mercantile, historians have generally dismissed the mission with a few remarks about its ineffectiveness.” [14] In 1780, Lee was back in London. Thomas Hutchinson, who once served as the governor of the Massachusetts Bay Colony before the American Revolution, wrote in his diary, “January 20, 1780. Mauduit called in the evening: conversation upon Lee, one of the aldermen, who has been near two years abroad, employed at different courts, engaged in behalf of revolted America, and yet he has continued [as an] alderman until a few days ago [when] he serve his resignation.” [15] Unable to get any attention in either Frankfurt, Berlin, or Vienna, at the end of the war Lee moved to Brussels, Belgium, to conduct business. It was at this time that his health began to fail, and he left his wife and children in Europe to return to Virginia for the first time in years. His wife died while en route to the United States. In 1790 Lee, whose eyesight was quickly failing, nevertheless took the position of county sheriff of James City County, Virginia, serving until 1792. He then retired to his estate, “Green Spring,” near Jamestown, Virginia. Lee died there on 27 June 1795 at age 58, and he was buried in the Jamestown Church Cemetery in Jamestown, James City County, Virginia. His gravestone notes that he was “the only American ever elected an Alderman of London, where he also served as sheriff. He Sacrificed these Honors and a Large Mercantile Business to Follow the Fortunes of His Native Country.”

[1] Montague, Ludwell Lee, “Richard Lee, the Emigrant: 1613 (?)-1664,” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography,

840

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

LXII:1 (January 1954), 3-49. See also Edmund Jennings Lee, ed., “Lee of Virginia, 1642-1892: Biographical and Genealogical Sketches of The Descendants of Colonel Richard Lee, With Brief Notices of the Related Families of Allerton, Armistead, Ashton, Aylett, Bedinger, Bevereley, Bland, Bolling, Carroll, Carter, Chambers, Corbin, Custis, Digges, Fairfax, Fitzhugh, Gardner, Grymes, Hanson, Jenings, Jones, Ludwell, Marshall, Mason, Page, Randolph, Shepherd, Shippen, Tabb, Taylor, Turberville, Washington, and Others” (Philadelphia: Privately Published, 1895), 49. [2] McGaughy, J. Kent, “Richard Henry Lee of Virginia: A Portrait of an American Revolutionary” (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield Publishers Inc., 2004), 47. [3] Ford, Worthington Chauncey, ed., “Letters of William Lee, Sheriff and Alderman of London; Commercial Agent of the Continental Congress in France; and Minister to the Courts of Vienna and Berlin, 1766-1783” (Brooklyn, NY: Historical Printing Club; two volumes, 1891), I:10. [4] Dill, Alonzo T., “William Lee: Militia Diplomat” (Williamsburg: Virginia Bicentennial Independence Commission, 1976), ii. [5] A search of hundreds of pages of British newspapers from the period failed in an effort to find Plomer’s first name; in one, he is merely identified as “Mr. Plomer of Aldgate.” See St. James’s Chronicle, Or, British Evening Post, 17-20 October 1772, 4. [6] Lloyd’s Evening Post [London], 29 October-1 November 1773, 423. [7] The General Evening Post [London]. 12-14 April 1774, 1. [8] “Affairs in England,” The Scots Magazine for September 1775, XXXVII (September 1775), 520. [9] Campbell, Charles, “History of the Colony and Ancient Dominion of Virginia” (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott and Co., 1860), 570. [10] Ford, Worthington Chauncey, et al., eds., “Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; thirty-four volumes, 1905-37), VII:343. [11] Sparks, Jared, ed., “Diplomatic Correspondence of the American Revolution; Being the Letters of Benjamin Franklin, Silas Deane, John Adams, John Jay, Arthur Lee, William Lee, Ralph Izard, Francis Dana, William Carmichael, Henry Laurens, John Laurens, M. Dumas, and Others, Concerning the Foreign Relations of the United States During the Whole Revolution; Together with the Letters in Reply from the Secret Committee of Congress, and the Secretary of Foreign Affairs: Also, the Entire Correspondence of the French Ministers, Gerard and Luzerne, with Congress: Published under the Direction of the President of the United States, from the Original Manuscripts in the Department of State, Conformably to a Resolution of Congress, of March 27th, 1818” (Boston: N. Hale and Gray & Bowen; twelve volumes, 1829-30), I:227. [12] Sparks, Jared, “Early Diplomatic History of the United States,” North American Review, XXX:67 (April 1830), 486, 492-93. [13] Wharton, Francis, ed., “The Revolutionary Diplomatic Correspondence of the United States” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; six volumes, 1889), I:589. [14] Roider, Karl A., Jr., “William Lee, Our First Envoy in Vienna,” The Virginia Magazine of History and Biography, LXXXVI:2 (April 1978), 163. [15] Hutchinson, Peter Orlando, ed., “The Diary and Letters of His Excellency Thomas Hutchinson, Esq., B.A. (Harvard), LL.D. (Oxon), Captain-General and Governor-in-Chief of His Late Majesty’s Province of Massachusetts Bay, in North America; With an Account of His Administration When he Was a Member and Speaker of the House of Representatives, and his Government of the Colony During the Difficult Period that Preceded the War of Independence. Compiled from the Original Documents Still Remaining in the Possession of His Descendants” (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Co.; two volumes, 1886), II:327.

William Legge, Second Earl of Dartmouth (1731-1801) The British secretary of state for the American Colonies (1772-75), William Legge oversaw the period during which the movement towards American independence shifted from radical idea to mainstream thought. The younger son of George Legge, Viscount Lewisham, and Elizabeth (née Kaye) Legge, William Legge was born in Marylebone, Middlesex, on 21 June 1731. He was descended from George Legge, the first Baron Dartmouth (1648-1691), an English admiral and commander-in-chief of naval forces, who served in the Anglo-Dutch War (1665-67), after which he was the groom of the bedchamber (1668) to the Crown, and master of the horse to the Duke of York (1673), finishing his career as the commander-in-chief of the English fleet (168889). [1] The Viscount Lewisham died of smallpox in 1732, and his widow remarried to Francis, the Seventh Baron North, who later became the Earl of Guildford. Through this second marriage, William Legge became the stepbrother of Frederick North, who would later become the prime minister of England. In 1750, before turning 20, Legge succeeded to his father’s title, becoming the Second Earl of Dartmouth. When Legge’s mother died in 1745, the North family took him in as one of their own. Legge received his education at the Westminster School, then entered Trinity College at Oxford University, and, following his graduation, toured Europe with his stepbrother from 1751 to 1754, studying for a time at the University of Leipzig in Germany. When he returned to England, Legge entered the House of Lords, then, in 1755, married Frances Catherine Nicholl, the daughter of a duke. The couple moved into a luxurious home in London, although Legge through his family owned a mansion in Blackheath, Kent, and another home at Sandwell, near West Bromwich, in the West Midlands. He remained in the House of Lords until 1765, when he was appointed as the president of the Board of Trade and Foreign Plantations, and admitted as a member of the Privy Council. [2] Now acting as Lord Dartmouth, Legge only served briefly during the administration of the

William Legge, Second Earl of Dartmouth (1731-1801)841 Marquess of Rockingham, leaving when the ministry of the Duke of Grafton came into power in 1766. When his stepbrother Lord North became prime minister in 1770, Dartmouth worked closely with him; two years later, in August 1772, North named Dartmouth as the secretary of state for the American Colonies, replacing Wills Hill, the Earl of Hillsborough, and later the 1st Marquess of Downshire. Assisted by two undersecretaries, William Knox and John Pownall, Dartmouth seemed to bring a new voice to the office, which in effect oversaw all operations of the British administration in the colonies. His appointment was seen as a good move; even Benjamin Franklin believed him to be a good choice, writing that Dartmouth was “a truly good man, and wishes sincerely a good understanding with the colonies, but does not seem to have strength equal to his wishes.” [3] Others, however, were not impressed with Dartmouth: Samuel Adams, in a letter to Arthur Lee, 9 April 1773, wrote, “I wish I could hear something more of Lord D to qualify him for his high office, than merely that he is a good man. Goodness I confess is an essential though to rare a qualification of a minister of state. Possibly I may not yet have been informed of the whole of his lordship’s character. Without a greatness of mind adequate to the importance of his station, I fear he may find himself embarrassed with his present connexions.” [4] From the separation of more than two centuries, it is hard to see how Dartmouth could have been successful in his endeavors. He inherited so many difficulties that he spent his entire tenure grappling with them. By the time he came into office, a group known as the Sons of Liberty had sprung up, and had caused the Gaspée incident off the coast of Rhode Island, in which a British warship was lured into shallow waters and then attacked and burned. Anger over The Stamp Act, The Sugar Act, and other harsh economic policies enacted against the colonies was still raw; additional actions, like the “Intolerable Acts,” made Dartmouth’s work even harder. The Boston Tea Party, followed by the Boston Port Bill, which forced the Massachusetts Bay Colony to pay for tea thrown into Boston Harbor, increased tensions. This action by the colonists seems to have changed Dartmouth: Previously, he had been leaning towards a more sympathetic

treatment of the colonies, but with the “tea party” his mood, and temperament, changed. He supported the passage of four additional Coercive, or Intolerable, Acts enacted in 1774, which made the situation worse. [5] In January 1775, after the outbreak of hostilities, he sent a circular letter to the remaining royal governors in the colonies, writing: Certain Persons, styling themselves delegates of several of His Majesty’s Colonies in America, having presumed without His Majesty’s authority or consent, to assemble together at Philadelphia, in the months of September and October last, and having thought fit, amongst other unwarrantable proceedings, to resolve that it will be necessary that another Congress should be held, at the same place, on the 10th of May next, unless redress for certain pretended grievances be obtained before that time, & to recommend that all the Colonies in North America should choose Deputies to attend such Congress, I am commanded by the King to signify to you His Majesty’s pleasure, that you do use your utmost endeavours to prevent any such appointment of Deputies within the Colony under your Government; and that you do exhort all persons to desist from such an unjustifiable Proceeding, which cannot but be highly displeasing to the King. [6] An answer was soon circulated, signed anonymously by “Ignotus.” The response read: The publication of Lord Dartmouth’s Circular Letter to the several Governours [sic] on the Continent of America, excites an alarm amongst the friends of liberty; for in that letter the battery is unmasked, the design openly avowed. Permit me, Sir, to consider the words, the meaning, the design, and the consequence of Lord Dartmouth’s letter. His Lordship begins thus: “Certain persons styling themselves Delegates of His Majesty’s Colonies, having presumed.”—Observe, gentle reader, the official term formerly used in general warrants: “certain,” is a word of great uncertainty when not applied to individuals, and, as it is not descriptive of individuals, Lord Dartmouth will find that these “certain persons, styling themselves Delegates,” are not to be intimidated by his uncertain non-sense. But what mighty crime have these, uncertain persons presumed to commit? Why, they have hot asked His Majesty’s permission to assemble at Philadelphia in order to consult about their own affairs! This is the crime of omission laid to their charge; that of commission consists in their haying thought fit, amongst other unwarrantable things, (no

842

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

other unwarrantable acts, are mentioned) to resolve “to meet again on the 10th of May.” What power is there lodged in any branch of our Legislature which can control and hinder a body of men from assembling in order to consider of the most effectual methods for alleviating their own distresses? If neither of the branches of the Legislature are vested with such a power, the Congress in September was not assembled unlawfully; and if it was not unlawfully assembled, by what authority, besides that of impudence, shall any of the King’s Ministers prevent a meeting, not forbidden by the laws of the land? [7]

from November 1775 until the collapse of the North ministry in March 1782. [9]

Even after the Continental Congress met in Philadelphia in September and October 1774, Dartmouth still believed that he could rescue the situation. He called for a meeting with representatives from the colonies, to meet him in London to try to bring the situation to a peaceful close. He wrote: Mr. Pownall, with my assistance, drew the American clause. I afterwards made some alterations in what they had adopted, with Mr. Cooper, in the Address, which we had also been consulted upon and amended. The very great majority in the House of Commons for the Address raised our spirit, and gave a firmer tone to our measures, but however determined we all were that the Colonies should obey the sovereign authority of Parliament, we all thought taxation ought to be given up in practise, and that the Colonies should be invited to make some proposition as an equivalent. I went further, and thought there were many unjust as well as impolitic restraints on the foreign commerce of the Colonies, which ought to be taken off, and endeavoured to comprehend Ireland in whatever indulgences might be given to the Colonies. [8] The opening of fighting in April 1775 forced Dartmouth’s hand, and he gave the official order to use military force to put down the insurrection. His belief that the colonies should remain a part of England, however, clashed with his desire not to have a war fought over the matter, and in his final months in office he consistently was absent, spending time at his home at Sandwell. The resignation of the Duke of Grafton, the former prime minister then sitting as Lord Privy Seal, in November 1775, necessitated a reorganization of the cabinet, and Dartmouth resigned from his post to fill the vacancy left by Grafton’s exit; he was replaced by Lord George Germain and he held this position

Although he continued to argue that conciliation with the colonies was possible, Dartmouth felt that the war was unwise, draining needed resources from England to fight a conflict that the country ultimately could not win. When the North government collapsed, Dartmouth took the position of lord steward of the household, which he held from April to December 1783 during the short-lived coalition between North and Charles James Fox. In July 1786, Lord North, then the chancellor of Oxford University, appointed Dartmouth as the high steward of that institution. Dartmouth died at his home at Blackheath, Kent, on 15 July 1801 at the age of 80, and was buried in the graveyard of the Church of the Holy Trinity of the Minories in Middlesex, near London. The Times of London said of him, “The Right Hon. the Earl of Dartmouth departed this life on Saturday morning, at his house at Blackheath. His Lordship was High Steward of the University of Oxford, Governor of the Charter-House, President of the Lock Hospital and London Dispensary, VicePresident of the Foundling and Lying-in Hospitals, Recorder of Litchfield, and Fellow of the Royal Society. His Lordship died at the advanced age of 80, universally beloved and respected; and is succeeded in his title and estate by his son, Lord Lewisham, President of the Board of Controul.” [10] British historian Sir George Otto Trevelyan wrote, “Two out of three Secretaries of State were, in the King’s judgement, unequal to the requirements of the situation. Lord Dartmouth was too weak, as certainly he was too good, for the post which he held . . . Dartmouth was unwilling to be shifted. He made difficulties—not greater indeed than are ordinarily made on such occasions by the members of a Cabinet which is not very much afraid of its prime minister—but sufficient to distress his sovereign, who lead not bear to hurt him . . . During the last five years of the war (as far as the Parliamentary History records), he never opened his lips on the subject of America. His popularity in that country revived. Even those colonists, who hated the rest of the Cabinet, trusted and liked him; and he, in return, felt a pained and placid concern

Francis Lewis (1713-1802) for their welfare, regretting only that they could not view their own interests in the same light as himself and his royal master.” King George III wrote to Dartmouth when he left the Cabinet, “I have ever esteemed Lord Dartmouth, since I have thoroughly known him, in another light than any of his companions in [the] Ministry. How very dear he will always be to my heart . . . What days has it pleased the Almighty to place me in when Lord Dartmouth can be a man to be removed but at his own request.” [11]

[1] “Legge, George, first Baron Dartmouth” in Sidney Lee, ed., “Dictionary of National Biography: Index and Epitome” (New York: The Macmillan Company, 1903), 762. [2] Barker, G.F. Russell, “Legge, William, Second Earl of Dartmouth” in Sir Sidney Lee and Leslie Stephen, eds., “Dictionary of National Biography” (London, Smith, Elder, & Co.; 63 volumes and three supplements, 1885-1901), XXXII:417-18. [3] Bigelow, John, ed., “Life of Benjamin Franklin, Written by Himself” (Philadelphia: J.B. Lippincott & Co.; three volumes, 1874-79), II:154. [4] Samuel Adams to Arthur Lee, 9 April 1773, in Richard Henry Lee, “Life of Arthur Lee, LL.D. Joint Commissioner of the United States to the Court of France, and Sole Commissioner to the Courts of Spain and Prussia, During the Revolutionary War. With the Political and Literary Correspondence and His Papers on Diplomatic and Political Subjects, and the Affairs of the United States During the Same Period” (Boston: Published by Wells and Lilly, Court Street; two volumes, 1829), II:199. [5] Barker, G.F. Russell, “Legge, William, Second Earl of Dartmouth,” in “Dictionary of National Biography,” op. cit., XXXII:418. [6] “Circular letter from William Legge, Earl of Dartmouth to the American governors,” in K.G. Davies, ed., “Documents of the American Revolution, 1770-1783” (Colonial Office Series” (Shannon, Ireland: Irish University Press; ten volumes, 1972- ), IX:24. See also “The earl [sic] of Dartmouth, secretary of state [sic] for the American colonies,” in David F. Burg, ed., “Eyewitness History: The American Revolution” (New York: Facts on File, Inc., 2007), 96. [7] “Remarks on Lord Dartmouth’s Circular Letter Dated January 4, 1775” in Force, Peter, ed., “American Archives: Consisting of a Collection of Authentick Records, State Papers, Debates, and Letters and Other Notices of Publick Affairs, the Whole Forming a Documentary History of the Origin and Progress of the North America Colonies; of the Causes and Accomplishment of the American Revolution; and of the Constitution of Government for the United States, to the Final Ratification Thereof. In Six Series” (Washington, DC: Published by M. St. Clair Clarke and Peter Force; ten volumes, 1837-53), IV:2:236-37. [8] Great Britain, Royal Commission on Historical Manuscripts, “The Manuscripts of Captain Howard Vincenté Knox” (London: His Majesty’s Stationery Office, 1909), 258. [9] See “Memoirs of the late Duke of Grafton,” The Scots Magazine, and Edinburgh Literary Miscellany, for April 1811, LXXIII (April 1811), 275. [10] The Times [London], 27 July 1801, 2. [11] Trevelyan, Sir George Otto, Bart, “The American Revolution” (London: Longmans, Green, and Co.; fourteen volumes, 18801914), II:25-26.

843

Daniel Leonard (1740-1829) See: Massachusettensis vs. Novanglus

Francis Lewis (1713-1802)

A Welsh-born merchant, Francis Lewis came to America as a young man, rising to become a financial success in his adoptive homeland before serving in the Continental Congress (1775-79) where he signed the Declaration of Independence. He was born in the village of Llandaff, Glamorganshire, Wales, slightly northwest of the capital, Cardiff, sometime in March 1713, the son of the Reverend William Lewis, a rector, and his wife Amy (née Pettingal) Lewis, whose father was also a minister in the Anglican Church. [1] Francis Lewis’ grandfather, Morgan Lewis, was from nearby Newport, Wales. In 1717, when Francis Lewis was a small child, his father died, although biographies of Lewis state that he was orphaned. Other family members, including a maternal aunt, stepped in and raised Lewis, and he grew up in both Wales and Scotland. He was schooled in the Welsh and Gaelic languages. As a young man Lewis was sent to London, and he completed his

844

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

education at the influential Westminster School in that city after a maternal uncle, the dean at St. Paul’s Cathedral, took him under his wing. [2]

body to pass the resolution that the colonies ought to be united and act in common. Among the members of the New York committee we find the names of Francis Lewis and of Robert R. Livingston. This Congress had not in its ranks a more consistent and energetic opponent of the tyranny of the mother-country than Lewis.” [4] Lewis moved his business after the crisis from New York City to Whitestone, now part of Flushing, in Queens County, New York. However, in 1771, he moved back to New York, where he reestablished his business with his son, Francis Lewis, Jr., and once again became one of that city’s leading merchants.

Remaining in London, Lewis took a position in a countinghouse in that city. When he turned 21, he received his inheritance left by his parents, and went into business with friend Richard Annesley. On 15 June 1745, Lewis married Annesley’s sister, Elizabeth; the couple had seven children, of which three survived to adulthood. One of their sons, Morgan Lewis (1754-1844), rose to serve as governor of New York (1804-07). Through the business, Lewis began to ship merchandise to the American colonies, where he traveled in 1738 for the first time. He settled in Philadelphia, but in 1740 moved to New York City. Due to the distance of their business, the company he formed with Annesley broke up in 1743, although he married his sister two years later. Despite the break-up of his initial business, Lewis remained in the mercantile trade, a position that took him to several ports over the next decade to import and export items, including England, Europe, and even Africa. Twice, he was shipwrecked but was saved. Because of his ties to England, during the French and Indian War he was contracted to supply clothing for British troops stationed at Fort Oswego (now known as Fort Ontario) in the central part of New York State. In 1756, when French troops under General Louis-Joseph de Montcalm-Gozon, the Marquis de Saint-Veran, attacked the outpost, Lewis, in the fort serving as an aide to Colonel James Mercer, was on site during the assault, which left Mercer dead, and Lewis captive. Tortured by the Native American allies of the French, Lewis managed to survive through the use of language, especially Welsh, which some of the natives understood. The French took Lewis to Montreal, where he was sent to France, but later exchanged. He returned to New York, where the British bestowed an estate of 5,000 acres to him for his service. [3] The passage by the British Parliament of The Stamp Act in 1765 seems to have changed Lewis in his attitude towards his native land. With the establishment of The Stamp Act Congress, held in New York, to protest the enactment, his granddaughter, Julia Delafield, wrote in 1877, “[o]n the 25th of October [1765] they met for the last time, and had the honor of being the first

In early 1774 groups like the Sons of Liberty began to call for meetings to address the growing anger towards England. Historian Carl Becker explained, “A second meeting would be held at the coffee house on Thursday, 19 May at one o’clock. Not the merchants merely, but ‘the inhabitants of the city and county,’ were requested to attend for the purpose of approving ‘of the committee nominated,’ or of appointing ‘such other persons as in their discretion and wisdom may seem meet.’” Becker added that “[t]hey may very likely have appeared, as Bancroft says, ‘in array; on the one side men of property, on the other tradesmen and mechanics’; but it is questionable whether the mass of the people were ready to ‘found a new social order.’ The men of property seem rather to have been in the majority; in any case they again named Isaac Low chairman, who presently made a speech in which there was little hint of a new social order. Men were urged to act according to the ‘dictates of calm reason only,’ and to set aside ‘all little party distinctions, feuds and animosities.’ The names of the fifty were then proposed, and confirmed by the meeting, ‘and Mr. Francis Lewis was added to the latter by unanimous consent.’” [5] The First Continental Congress met in Philadelphia in September 1774; the following year, it resolved to meet again to address additional concerns among the colonies. A newspaper noted that on 16 March 1775: In our last, we gave a short account of the proceedings of this city and county, on Monday the 6th Instant, when by a very great majority, the following mode of proceedings was assented to, viz. That a general committee should nominate eleven persons, to be on Wednesday the 25th

Francis Lewis (1713-1802)845 proposed to the choice of the freemen and freeholders as deputies, to meet, on the 20th of April, such deputies as the other counties might elect, and join with them, for the sole purpose of appointing, out of their body, delegates for the next general Congress, agreeable to the recommen­ dation of the last. Accordingly, the committee nominated the following persons, viz. Philip Livingston, John Jay, James Duane, John Alsop, Isaac Low, Francis Lewis, Abraham Walton, Abraham Brasher, Alexander McDougall, Leonard Lispenard, [and] Isaac Roosevelt. [6] Historian Carl Becker, writing separately of this election to the Continental Congress, penned, “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.” [7] Excerpts of the journal of the Proceedings of the General Committee, meeting on 16 March 1775, with Isaac Low listed as chairman, records Francis Lewis as one of those present in attendance; the paper reported that “Mr. Lewis, from the SubCommittee appointed to state the case of Messrs. Robert Murray and John Murray, respecting their having landed goods from on board the ship Beulah . . . ” The same paper also has an advertisement, for Francis Lewis and Son, “at their store near the Fly Market,” with the various goods the concern had for sale. [8] In another announcement, we find that “[a]t a Provincial Convention held at the city of New York, in the colony of New-York, on the 20th, 21st, and 23d days of April, 1775, the Deputies herein named assembled at the Exchange, in the said city, viz. For the city and county of New York[,] Philip Livingston, Esq; John Alsop, Esq; James Duane, Esq; John Jay, Esq;, Col. Leonard Lispenard, Francis Lewis, Esq; Mr. Abraham Walton, Mr. Isaac Roosevelt, Mr. Alexander M’Dougall, and Mr. Abraham Brasher.” [9] As stated, Lewis was elected to the Second Continental Congress on 22 April 1775, and reelected on 3 October 1777 and 16 October 1778, attending from about 10 May to 2 August 1775, from about 12 September to about 6 October 1775, 2 November to about 15 December 1775, 2 February to about 1 March 1776, about 3 June to 4 July 1776, 5 July to about 2 September 1776, about 20 September 1776 to 17 April 1777, 5 to 31 December 1777, 1 to about 20 January

1779, 14 February to about 4 April 1779, about 11 June to about 27 June 1779, about 31 July to about 16 October 1777, about 16 November to 31 December 1778, 1 January to about 28 April 1779, and 3 June to 19 November 1779. [10] There are numerous pieces of printed correspondence from Lewis, especially during his first years in the Continental Congress. To Jabez Huntington he wrote on 27 October 1775, “As a Member of the Continental Congress, it was by them thought expedient, that I should proceed to this City in order to purchase necessarys [sic] for the Troops at Cambridge, agreeable thereto. I have sent by the bearer Twenty Packages to your address as specified in the inclosed [sic] receipt, reffering [sic] him to you for payment of the freight, as Mr. Vandervoort informs me that you transact the public business at Norwich. I must intreat [sic] you to forward these goods as soon as possible by land, to the address of Major Mifflin Quar. Masr. General at the Camp at Cambridge. I shall also advise Major Mifflin thereof by Post.” [11] To the Governor of Maryland, Thomas Johnson, Jr., he wrote on 27 January 1778, “Being indulged by Congress with a few day’s absence in order to Visit my family at this place, as a member of the Marine Committee, I have been charged by that Board, to inspect the fitting out some Continental Vessells [sic] now in this Harbour [sic]; of which one is a new Vessell [sic] built for a Packet Boat, destined to carry the Congress’s dispatches to their Commissioners in Europe; This Vessell [sic] is ordered to be fitted for the Sea with the utmost expedition, and Commanded by Thomas Read Esqr. of the Effingham Frigate now laid up at Borden Town.” [12] To the Governor of New York, George Clinton, Lewis wrote on 20 February 1779, “You will undoubtedly ere this reaches you hear the current bruit of the present time, i.e. that Congress are possessed of great news received from Europe but for reasons of State, think it improper at this time to be devulged; this has raised the curiosity of the public to know what the mighty Secret is. As a member of Congress I am enjoined to Secrecy, but think myself at liberty to communicate to your Excellency (in confidence) that Mons’r Gerard has given Congress such intelligence as will put our affairs upon a more respectable footing than ever, but then it will be necessary that we exert ourselves in our military appearances, but above all in our unanimity, for

846

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

the only hope Britain has now left, is to divide us.” [13]

of the Declaration of Independence, Vestryman of Trinity Church.”

Lewis was in Congress in July and August 1776 when he signed the Declaration of Independence, becoming one of the 56 men who put their names to that document. Lewis was one of eight signers who came from the British Isles, and the only one born in Wales. [14]

Francis Lewis was widely respected during his lifetime. His fellow Declaration signer Benjamin Rush wrote of him that he was “a moderate Whig, but a very honest man, and very useful in executive business.” [18]

After he left the Continental Congress, Lewis spent the remainder of his life in business. He penned a letter that appeared in New York newspapers in January 1787. He wrote, “Notice is hereby given, according to the form of act of the Legislature of the late colony of New-York, entitled, ‘An act for the more effectual registry of mortgages, and for the securing the purchasers of mortgaged estates;’ passed on the 19th day of March, in the year of our Lord, 1777, that on Friday the 1st day of June next, ensuing the date hereof, at ten o’clock in the forenoon of the same day, will be sold in public auction, at the merchant[’]s Coffee-House, in the city of New-York, the fee simple of all that certain messuage [sic], and Lot of Ground, in a certain indenture of mortgage, made between James Abeel, of this city, county and State of NewYork, merchant, and Gertrude, his wife, of the one part, and Francis Lewis, of the same place, merchant, of the other part . . . ” [15] Lewis served as a vestryman for Trinity Church in lower New York City from 1784 to 1786. He suffered a fall, which probably caused his death. Lewis died in New York on 31 December 1802 at the age of 89. The Morning Chronicle of New York, 4 January 1803 stated: “Died, [o] n the last day of the year 1802, in the 90th year of his age, Francis Lewis, Esq. On NewYear’s Day his remains were interred in [the] Trinity Church Burial Ground. Mr. Lewis was a native of Wales, and before the revolution was a respectable merchant of this city.” [16] The New York Evening Post noted his passing on 3 January 1803. [17] He was buried in the churchyard of the Trinity Church, which was damaged by the attack on the World Trade Center on 11 September 2001. His grave has no stone, but The Society of the Descendants of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence put up a plaque in 1947 that reads, “Near this spot are interred the remains of Francis Lewis, Signer

[1] Lewis family tree, online at http://www.geni.com/people/ Francis-Lewis-signer-of-the-U-S-Declaration-of-Independence/6000000008672902170. [2] Lewis official congressional biography, online at http://bioguide.congress.gov/scripts/biodisplay.pl?index=L000282. [3] Burlingham, Charles Culp, “Francis Lewis, One of the New York Signers of the Declaration of Independence: Historical Sketch” (Privately Published, 1926), 8-10. [4] Delafield, Julia, “Biographies of Francis Lewis and Morgan Lewis” (New York: Anson D.F. Randolph & Company, 1877), 25. [5] Becker, Carl, “The Nomination and Election of Delegates From New York to the First Continental Congress, 1774,” Political Science Quarterly, XVIII:1 (March 1903), 22-23. [6] The Massachusetts Gazette; and The Boston Post-Boy and General Advertiser, 20 March 1775, 3. [7] Becker, Carl, “Election of Delegates From New York to the Second Continental Congress,” The American Historical Review, IX:1 (October 1903), 79. [8] The New-York Journal; or, The General Advertiser, 23 March 1775, 1. [9] The Connecticut Journal [New Haven], 3 May 1775, 52. [10] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), I:liv; II:lviii; III:lvii; IV:lviii. [11] Francis Lewis to Jabez Huntington, 27 October 1775, in ibid., I:242. [12] Francis Lewis to Thomas Johnson, Jr., 27 January 1778, in ibid., III:55. [13] Francis Lewis to George Clinton, 20 February 1779, in ibid., IV:78-79. [14] Robbins, Caroline, “Decision in ‘76: Reflections on the 56 Signers,” Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Third Series, LXXXIX (1977), 78. [15] The New-York Packet, 2 January 1787, 1. [16] “Died,” Morning Chronicle, 4 January 1803, 3. [17] New-York Evening Post, 3 January 1803, 3. [18] Biddle, Louis Alexander, “A Memorial Containing Travels Through Life or Sundry Incidents in the Life of Dr. Benjamin Rush. Written by Himself. Also Extracts from His Commonplace Book, as Well as a Short History of the Rush Family in Pennsylvania” (Privately Printed, 1905), 109.

Lexington and Concord The clash that occurred on 19 April 1775 was the opening salvo in a fight that would last for several years, involve some of the world’s great powers, and ultimately lead to American independence.

Lexington and Concord847 The conflict had been simmering for many years, since the passage of The Stamp Act and The Sugar Act, and then the Boston Massacre, and the Boston Tea Party. The collection of 13 colonies called the First Continental Congress, in Philadelphia in September 1774, called for the boycott of English goods, designed to bring the British Parliament to rescind its latest series of economic and other punitive measures. Historian John Fiske wrote in 1891, “Great events had meanwhile happened in Massachusetts. All through the winter the resistance to General [Thomas] Gage had been passive, for the lesson had been thoroughly impressed upon the mind of every man, woman, and child in the province that, in order to make sure of the entire sympathy of the other colonies, Great Britain must be allowed to fire the first shot. The Regulating Act had none the less been silently defied, and neither councillors nor judges, neither sheriffs nor jurymen, could be found to serve under the royal commission.” [1] Until 19 April 1775, Lexington and Concord were two sleepy towns, parts of the metropolis that would become the major city of Boston. Historian Charles Hudson wrote in 1876: Lexington is a post town in the County of Middlesex, State of Massachusetts, situated in latitude 42o 26’ 50” North, and longitude 700 13’ 55” West. It is about eleven miles West-northwest from Boston, and about fifteen miles Southeast-by-south from Lowell. It has Winchester, Woburn, and Burlington, on the Northeast; Burlington and Bedford on the North, Lincoln, on the West; Waltham on the Southwest, and Belmont and Arlington on the Southeast. The township, like most of those in the neighborhood, is somewhat irregular in shape, and contains about twenty square miles, or about 13,000 acres. It is generally more elevated than any of the adjoining towns, unless it be Lincoln; and hence the water from Lexington runs in every direction, and finds its way to the ocean through the Shawshine, Mystic, and Charles rivers. [2] Concord is located just six miles southeast of Lexington. The situation had been lighted the previous September. As the Continental Congress was meeting in Philadelphia, in the Massachusetts Bay Colony General Thomas Gage, the commander of British troops, realized that opposition to the Coercive Acts was undermining his ability to keep

order in the colony. Gage, recently appointed the governor of the colony, put himself in control of all aspects of life—from business, to the courts, to everything that touched the lives of ordinary citizens. Realizing that this might backfire, on 1 September 1774 he sent more than 250 troops to seize some 250 barrels of gunpowder held in an arsenal in Charlestown. Instead, citizens of that area believed that a British invasion was underway, and they assembled a militia to fight the British. Instead of marching to Charlestown, Gage fortified the garrison of his own forces in case of attack, and ordered all Bostonians to relinquish their weapons. On 21 September, a convention of citizens was held in Worcester to form groups of “Minute Men” who could respond—in minutes—to a British attack. The following month, in defiance of Gage, the Massachusetts General Assembly convened and renamed itself the First Provisional Congress, forming a Committee of Safety and a Committee of Supplies to aid the people in defending themselves. Gage gave orders to his men to travel across the countryside and take notes on what the people were doing; in February 1775 these men received the following orders from Gage: To Captain Brown and Ensign D’Bernicre, (of the army under his command) whom he ordered to take a sketch of the roads, passes, heights, &c. from Boston to Worcester, and to make other observations: Narrative of Occurrences during their mission, Wrote by the Ensign, Together with an ACCOUNT of their doings, in consequence of further Orders and Instructions from General Gage, of the 20th March following, to proceed to Concord, to reconnoitre [sic] and find out the state of the provincial magazines; what number of cannon, &c. they have, and in what condition. Also, An Account of the Transactions of the British troops, from the time they marched out of Boston, on the evening of the 18th, ‘till their confused retreat back, on the ever memorable Nineteenth of April 1775; and a Return of their killed, wounded and missing on that auspicious day, as made to Gen. Gage. [3] The men went out and realized that the people were taking arms and ammunition and other materiél from arsenals and hiding them. One of the places where weapons were being stored, Gage discovered, is the village of Concord. In February, Gage sent a letter to the Secretary of State for the American Colonies, Lord Dartmouth,

848

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

asking for permission to strike at Concord, seize the weapons being stored, and to arrest leaders pushing for action against the British. The permission would come two months later.

This Morning being wednesday [sic] about the suns Rising the Town was Alarmd with the News that the Regulars was on their march to Concord upon which the town musterd [sic] and a bout [sic] 10 oclock [sic] marched on ward for Concord in Tewksbury news came that the Regulars had fired on our men in Lexington and had kild [sic] 8: in Bilrike News came that the Enemy were killing and slaying our men in Concord: Bedford we had News that the Enemy had killed 2 of our men and had Retreated Back we Shifted our Course and persued [sic] after them as fast as possible but all in vain the Enemy had the start 3 or 4 miles it is said that there number were a bought 1500 men they were persued [sic] as far as Charlestown that night; the next Day they past Charls [sic] River the loss number they Sustaind as we here were 500: our men about 40. [6]

By early April 1775, the situation was rife for violence. Samuel Adams, who had attended the First Continental Congress, had said in 1768, “We will not submit to any tax, nor become slaves. We will take up arms, and spend our last drop of blood before the King and Parliament shall impose on us, and settle crown offers in this country to dragoon us. The times were never better in Rome than when they had no king and were a free state; and as this is a great empire, we shall have it in our power to give laws to England.” [4] In the early days of April 1775, General Gage ordered additional troops into the city, to put an end to the calls for a boycott of English goods and arrest several men, including Samuel Adams and John Hancock, for sedition. By the night of 18 April, he had assembled 800 Grenadiers to march to Concord to arrest several of the men. They sailed from Boston to move into place. Patriots in the area received word that the movement was taking place: One of them, silversmith Paul Revere, launched an alarm on horse by travelling to various towns warning that the British were on their way. Historian Arthur Bernon Tourtellot wrote, “In the clear chill of an early April morning in 1775, twenty-one companies of picked British soldiers—grenadiers, the tallest, most heavily armed of infantrymen, traditionally the first to attack, and light infantry, the agile flanking troops of the regiments—marched out from Boston across the softly rolling countryside of Middlesex.” [5] The warnings from Revere and his fellow riders worked: When the British arrived at Lexington to move to arrest some of the leaders of the opposition, the Minute Men were waiting for them. Only those there know who fired first: the British claimed that the Americans did, while the Americans claimed that the British did. The salvo that was fired, by whatever side, opened up to become a conflict that would last for eight years and involve several world powers. Thomas Boynton, one of those warned of the movement of the British troops, wrote in his journal:

The British were prepared at Lexington, then moved on to Concord, but, at the North Bridge, the American militia had a much larger force, repelling the British with losses on both sides. A broadside, published quickly on the action by the Americans in Salem, called the British move “a Bloody Butchery.” Showing two rows of coffins with the names of the dead Americans, the broadside proclaimed: The army then proceeded to Concord, drew up on the parade, near the meeting-house, during which time the inhabitants from the neighboring towns collected and took possession of the adjacent hills; about eleven o’clock the firing began on both sides, which lasted near an hour, when the regular troops began to retreat, the provincials closely pursuing them to a bridge at a small distance, which the regulars took up as they passed; then they renewed the fire, and some were slain on both sides; but the regulars still retreated, and the provincials pursued them down to Lexington, where the regulars, about three o’clock in the afternoon, met with a reinforcement of about twelve hundred men commanded by Earl Percy, with two brass field pieces; they again renewed the attack on the provincials, but soon thought proper further to retreat towards their head-quarters, the provincials pursued them into Charlestown, where they arrived at 6 o’clock; taking immediately, an advantageous post on Bunker’s-Hill, about a mile from the ferry . . . [7] Unlike today’s instant coverage of any leading world event, the shootings at Lexington and Concord did not go reported across the colonies for weeks. Historian Frank Luther Mott surveyed the reaction to the incident when he wrote, “The first printed newspaper account of the initial violence of

Lexington and Concord849 the American Revolution appeared in the Boston News-letter, the oldest colonial newspaper. However, the April 20, 1775 Newsletter account of the Battles at Lexington and Concord could not be more different than that which later appeared in Thomas’s Massachusetts Spy [on] 3 May 1775 . . . The Newsletter’s loyalist sympathies permitted only one paragraph, which briefly surmises the events of the day. It does pay passing mention to Thomas and the others who spread the alarm, stating that ‘Upon the People’s having Notice of this Movement on Tuesday Night, alarm Guns were fired throughout the Country, and Expresses sent off to the different towns . . . ’” This account concludes with a clear statement of the confusion that swept across the Bay Colony in the days following the conflict: “The Reports concerning this unhappy Affair, and the causes that concurred to bring on an Engagement, are so various that we are not able to collect any Thing confident or regular, and cannot therefore with certainty give our Readers any further Account of this shocking Introduction to all the Miseries of a Civil War.’ Over the next six weeks of 1775, 27 colonial newspapers would break the news of the Battles of Lexington and Concord. The most substantial reports appeared in the Salem Gazette on April 21 and later reprinted in the Essex Gazette on 25 April, the Essex Journal on 27 April 26 and the [Massachusetts] Spy on 3 May.” [8] The reporting on the incidents is rarely discussed among historians. One of the earliest reports in The Essex Gazette of Salem, Massachusetts, on 25 April 1775 states: Last Wednesday, the 19th of April, the Troops of His Britannick [sic] Majesty commenced Hostilities upon the People of this Province, attended with Circumstances of Cruelty, not less brutal than what our venerable Ancestors received from the vilest Savages of the Wilderness. The Particulars relative to this interesting Event, by which we are involved in all the horrours [sic] of a civil war, we have endeavoured [sic] to collect as well as the present confused state of affairs will admit. On Tuesday evening a detachment from the Army, consisting, it is said, of eight or nine hundred men, commanded by Lieutenant Colonel Smith, embarked at the bottom of the Common in Boston, on board a number of boats, and landed at Phipps’s [sic] farm, a little way up Charles River, from whence they

proceeded with silence and expedition on their way to Concord, about eighteen miles from Boston. The people were soon alarmed, and began to assemble in several Towns, before daylight, in order to watch the motion of the Troops. At Lexington, six miles below Concord, a company of Militia, of about one hundred men, mustered near the Meeting-House; the Troops came in sight of them just before sunrise; and running within a few rods of them, the Commanding Officer accosted the Militia in words to this effect: “Disperse, you rebels— damn you, throw down your arms and disperse;” upon which the Troops huzzaed, and immediately one or two officers discharged their pistols, which were instantaneously followed by the firing of four or five of the soldiers, and then there seemed to be a general discharge from the whole body: eight of our men were killed, and nine wounded. In a few minutes after this action the enemy renewed their march for Concord; at which place they destroyed several Carriages, Carnage Wheels, and about twenty barrels of Flour, all belonging to the Province. Here about one hundred and fifty men going towards a bridge, of which the enemy were in possession, the latter fired and killed two of our men, who then returned the fire, and obliged the enemy to retreat back to Lexington, where they met Lord Percy, with a large reinforcement, with two pieces of cannon. The enemy now having a body of about eighteen hundred men, made a halt, picked up many of their dead, and took care of their wounded. At Menotomy, a few of our men attacked a party of twelve of the enemy, (carrying stores and provisions to the Troops) killed one of them, wounded several, made the rest prisoners, and took possession of all their arms, stores, provisions, &c., without any loss on our side. The enemy having halted one or two hours at Lexington, found it necessary to make a second retreat, carrying with them many of their dead and wounded, who they put into chaises and on horses that they found standing in the road. They continued their retreat from Lexington to Charlestown with great precipitation; and notwithstanding their field-pieces, our people continued the pursuit, firing at them till they got to Charlestown Neck, (which they reached a little after sunset) over which the enemy passed, proceeded up Bunker’s Hill, and soon afterwards went into the Town, under the protection of the Somerset Man-of-War of sixty-four guns. In Lexington the enemy set fire to Deacon Joseph Loring’s house and barn, Mrs. Mullikin’s house and shop, and Mr. Joshua Bond’ s house and shop, which were all consumed. They also set fire to several other houses, but our people extinguished the flames. They

850

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

pillaged almost every house they passed by, breaking and destroying doors, windows, glasses, &c., and carrying off clothing and other valuable effects. It appeared to be their design to burn and destroy all before them; and nothing but our vigorous pursuit prevented their infernal purposes from being put in execution. But the savage barbarity exercised upon the bodies of our unfortunate brethren who fell, is almost incredible: not contented with shooting down the unarmed, aged, and infirm, they disregarded the cries of the wounded, killing them without mercy, and mangling their bodies in the most shocking manner.

WOBURN.—Killed: Asa Parker, Daniel Thomson.

We have the pleasure to say, that, notwithstanding the highest provocations given by the enemy, not one instance of cruelty, that we have heard of, was committed by our victorious Militia; but, listening to the merciful dictates of the Christian religion, they “breathed higher sentiments of humanity.”

CHELMSFORD.—Wounded: Deacon Chamberlain, Captain Oliver Barron.

The consternation of the people of Charlestown, when our enemies were entering the Town, is inexpressible; the Troops however behaved tolerably civil, and the people have since nearly all left the Town.

STOW.—Wounded: Daniel Conant.

List of the Provincials who were Killed and Wounded by the British Troops[:] The following is a List of the Provincials who were killed and wounded: CAMBRIDGE.—Killed: William Marcy, Moses Richardson, John Hicks, Jason Russell, Jabish Wyman, Jason Winship. Wounded: Captain Samuel Whittemore. Missing: Samuel Frost, Seth Russell. CHARLESTOWN.—Killed: James Miller, and a son of Captain William Barber. WATERTOWN.—Killed: Joseph Cooledge. SUDBURY.—Killed: Deacon Josiah Haynes, Asahel Reed. Wounded: Joshua Haynes, Jun. ACTON.—Killed: Captain Isaac Davis, Abner Hosmer, James Hayward. BEDFORD.—Killed: Wounded: Job Lane.

Captain

Jonathan

Wilson.

NEEDHAM.—Killed: Lieutenant John Bacon, Serjeant Elisha Mills, Amos Mills, Nathaniel Chamberlain, Jonathan Parker. Wounded: Captain Eleazer Kingsbury, and a son of Doctor Tolman. MEDFORD.—Killed: Henry Putnam, William Polly. NEWTOWN.—Wounded: Noah Wiswall.

Wounded: George Read, Jacob Bacon. LEXINGTON.—Killed: Jonas Parker, Robert Munroe, Jedidiah Munroe, John Raymond, Samuel Hadley, Jonathan Harrington, Jun., Isaac Muzzy, Caleb Harrington, Nathaniel Wyman, John Brown. Wounded: Francis Brown, John Robbins, Solomon Peirce, John Tidd, Joseph Comie, Ebcnezer Munroe, Jun., Thomas Winship, Nathaniel Farmer, Prince, a negro. BILLERICA.—Wounded: John Nichols, Timothy Blanchard. Aaron

CONCORD.—Wounded: Abel Prescott, Jun., Captain Charles Miles, Captain Nathan Barrett. FRAMINGHAM.—Wounded: Daniel Hemenway. DEDHAM.—Killed: Elias Haven. Wounded: Israel Everett. ROXBURY.—Missing: Elijah Seaver. BROOKLINE.—Killed: Isaac Gardner, Esq. SALEM.—Killed: Benjamin Peirce. DANVERS.—Killed: Henry Jacobs, Samuel Cook, Ebenezer Goldthwait, George Southwick, Benjamin Deland, Jun., Jotham Webb, Perly Putnam. Wounded: Nathan Putnam, Dennis Wallis. Missing: Joseph Bell. BEVERLY.—Killed: Mr. Kinnym. Wounded: Nathaniel Cleaves, Samuel Woodbury, William Dodge. LYNN.—Killed: Abednego Ramsdell, Daniel Townsend, William Flynt, Thomas Hadley. Wounded: Joshua Felt, Timothy Munroe. Missing: Josiah Breed. We have seen an account of the loss of the enemy, said to have come from an Officer of one of the Menof-War; by which it appears that sixty-three of the Regulars, and forty-nine Marines were killed, and one hundred and three of both wounded: in all, two hundred and fifteen. Lieutenant Gould of the Fourth Regiment, who is wounded, and Lieutenant Potter of the Marines, and about twelve soldiers, are prisoners. Mr. James Howard and one of the Regulars discharged their pieces at the same instant, and each killed the other. Our brethren of Danvers who fell fighting for their Country, were interred, with great solemnity and respect, on Friday last.

Lexington and Concord851 The publick most sincerely sympathize with the friends and relations of our deceased brethren, who gloriously sacrificed their lives in fighting for the liberties of their Country. By their noble and intrepid conduct, in helping to defeat the forces of an ungrateful tyrant, they have endeared their memories to the present generation, who will transmit their names to posterity with the highest honour. [9] The British story on what happened at Lexington and Concord was published in 1776: It were to be wished, for the Honour of the Insurgents, that their Barbarous Cruelty to the wounded Soldiers, were more problematical than their firing FIRST on the King’s Troops. The Soldiers who fell by the first Fire of the Rebels, were found scalped, when the Detachment returned from Concord to Lexington Bridge. Two Soldiers who lay wounded on the Field, and had been scalped by the savage Provincials, were still breathing. They appeared, by the Traces of Blood, to have rolled in the Agonies of this horrid Species of Death, several Yards from the Place where they had been scalped. Near these unfortunate men, another dreadful object presented itself. A soldier who had been slightly wounded, appeared with his eyes torn out of their sockets, by the barbarous mode of GOOGING, a word and practice peculiar to the Americans. Humanity forbids us to dwell longer on this scene of horror. The rebels, to break the force of accusation, began to recriminate. They laid several instances of wanton cruelty to the charge of the troops; yet nothing is better ascertained, than that not one of the soldiers ever quitted the road, either upon their march or return from Concord. The Congress stigmatize the expedition to Lexington and Concord, with the epithets “of an unprovoked and wanton assault.” Was the collecting warlike implements at Concord, raising men throughout the Province, disciplining troops in every district, forming magazines, purchasing ammunition, and preparing arms, no provocation? Were not the whole Country assembled before they knew of this expedition? And was not their being so completely provided with the means of repelling hostilities, a sufficient proof, that they had previously resolved to commence them? Could TEN THOUSAND men, the number that attacked (though at a PRUDENT distance) the troops on their retreat, have been collected by accident, or called together by a sudden alarm? Are not the Congress conscious to themselves, and was not General Gage sufficiently apprized, that the people of Massachusets-Bay [sic] had determined to begin hostilities, had the expedition to Concord never happened? The truth is, the march of

the troops had only hastened the execution of the plan of rebellion settled before in the secret Councils of the Provincial Congress. [10] An additional account is found in The London Gazette in the edition for 6-10 June 1775: Lieutenant Nunn, of the Navy, arrived this morning at Lord Dartmouth’s and brought letters from General Gage, Lord Percy and Lieutenant-Colonel Smith, containing the following particulars of what passes on the nineteenth of April between a detachment of the Kings troops in the Province of Massachusetts Bay and several parties of rebel provincials . . . Lieutenant-Colonel Smith finding, after he had advanced some miles on his march, that the country had been alarmed by firing of guns and ringing of bells, dispatched six companies of light infantry, in order to secure two bridges on different roads beyond Concord, who, upon their arrival at Lexington, found a body of the county people under arms, on a green close to the road; and upon the King’s troops marching upon them, in order to inquire the reason of their being so assembled, they went off in great confusion, and several guns were fired upon the King’s troops from behind a stone wall, and also from the meeting house and other houses, by which one man was wounded, and Major Pitcairn’s horse was shot in two places. In consequence of this attack by the rebels, the troops returned the fire and killed several of them. After which, the detachment marched on to Concord without any further happening. [11] Here, for example, is the official word from the British on 30 May 1775: “A REPORT having been spread, and an Account having been printed and published, of a Skirmish between some of the People in the Province of Massachuset’s Bay [sic] and a Detachment of His Majesty’s Troops; it is proper to inform the Publick [sic], that no Advices have as yet been received in the American Department of any such Event. There is Reason to believe, that there are dispatches from General [Thomas] Gage on board The Sukey, Captain Brown, which, though she sailed Four Days before the Vessel that brought the printed Account, is not yet Arrived.” [12] Historian Julie Flavell discovered that the British, in response to the opening of fighting, ordered that all correspondence from America be opened and searched. She wrote, “Just days after the news of Lexington and Concord reached London, early in June 1775, the British

852

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

government ordered the opening and screening of all letters carried by the packets from the colonies to the metropolis. The resulting extracts . . . form a set of post office intercepts that is probably unique of its kind. These letters represent what may be the only instance of the use of post office surveillance by eighteenthcentury British ministers for opinion-gathering purposes. The undertaking sheds new light on the attitudes of the ministers as they steered the empire into a civil war.” [13]

of the outbreak of hostilities, historian George Bailey Loring gave an oration, in which he said, “Ninety-six years ago to-day the town of Lexington became immortal in history. The story is a familiar one. It has been recorded by the careful and patient annalist; illumined by the poet; exalted by the orator; repeated with holy zeal at the fireside; passed from tongue to tongue along all the admiring lands; and received as an inspiration by all the sons of men toiling and hoping to be free. And what a wonderful story it is!” [16]

The colonies responded to this action by calling another meeting of the First Continental Congress, this time styled as the Second Continental Congress. The delegates to that parley said little on the opening of fighting, merely to print affidavits from various citizens and soldiers in Massachusetts who were affected in one way or another by the fighting. [14] We look to the oration delivered by Ebenezer Baldwin, Pastor of the First Church of Christ in Danbury, Connecticut, who said, “It is an unusually cruel Enemy with whom we are engaged in War. Not that the British Nation are cruel and savage among other Nations; but considering us as Rebels (as they affect to do) they think themselves warranted to treat us in that cruel Manner, which would be deemed inhuman and savage in one Nation at War with another: The very Thoughts of which towards the French or Spaniards, or any other national Enemies of Great-Britain, those very Officers and Soldiers who have been guilty of perpetrating these Cruelties, would probably reject with Abhorrence.” [15] The reaction to the fighting was instantaneous— the enormous pent-up rage that had been held back against the British laws and enactments now broke into open warfare. Men who had served, or would serve, in colonial offices, or in the Continental Congresses, now raised militias and funds for the Continental Army that sprang up. Within months, the war would spread to all thirteen colonies, and, within a little more than a year, the Continental Congress would declare independence. Over time, the words “Lexington and Concord” have become synonymous with both the opening fight for American freedom and with independence. In 1871, on the 96th anniversary

[1] Fiske, John, “The American Revolution” (Boston: Houghton, Mifflin and Company, 1891), 117-18. [2] Hudson, Charles, “Abstract of the History of Lexington, Mass.: From its First Settlement to the Centennial Anniversary of the Declaration of our National Independence, July 4, 1876” (Boston: Press of T.R. Marvin & Son, 1876), 3. [3] “Orders of Gen. Gage, 22 February 1775, in Peter Force, ed., “American Archives: Consisting of a Collection of Authentick Records, State Papers, Debates, and Letters and Other Notices of Publick Affairs, the Whole Forming a Documentary History of the Origin and Progress of the North America Colonies; of the Causes and Accomplishment of the American Revolution; and of the Constitution of Government for the United States, to the Final Ratification Thereof. In Six Series” (Washington, DC: Published by M. St. Clair Clarke and Peter Force; ten volumes, 1837-53), IV:I:1263. [4] Wells, William V., “The Life and Public Services of Samuel Adams: Being a Narrative of His Acts and Opinions, and of His Agency in Producing and Forwarding the American Revolution. With Extracts from His Correspondence, State Papers, and Political Essays” (Boston: Little, Brown, and Company; two volumes, 1866), I:210. [5] Tourtellot, Arthur Bernon, “Lexington and Concord: The Beginning of the War of the American Revolution” (New York: W.W. Norton, 1959), 19. [6] “Thomas Boynton, Journal, April 19, 1775,” Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, XV (1877), 254-55. [7] “A Bloody Butchery, by the British Troops; or the Runaway Fight of the Regulars” (Salem, MA: E. Russell, 1775). [8] Mott, Frank Luther, “The Newspaper Coverage of Lexington and Concord,” The New England Quarterly, XVII:4 (December 1944), 489-505. [9] The Essex Gazette [Salem, Massachusetts], 25 April 1775, in “Account of the March of the British Troops” in Peter Force, ed., “American Archives,” op. cit., IV:II:391. [10] “An Address to the People of Great-Britain in General, the Members of Parliament, and the Leading Gentlemen of Opposition in Particular, on the Present Crisis of American Politics” (Bristol: Printed by Thomas Cocking, in Small-Street; and Sold by T. Cadell, E. Palmer, and J. B. Becket, Booksellers, in Bristol; and L. Bull, Bookseller, in Bath, 1776), 62-64. [11] The London Gazette, 6-10 June 1775, 1. [12] Labaree, Benjamin W., “The Idea of American Independence: The British View, 1774-1776,” Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, Third Series, LXXXII (1970), 3-20. [13] Flavell, Julie M., “Government Interception of Letters from America and the Quest for Colonial Opinion in 1775,” The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, LVIII:2 (April 2001), 403.

Ezra L’Hommedieu (1734-1811)853 [14] United States, Continental Congress, “Journal of the Proceedings of the Congress, Held at Philadelphia, May 10, 1775. Published by Order of the Congress” (London: Re-printed for J. Almon, 1776), 20-21. See also United States, Continental Congress, “Journals of Congress. Containing the Proceedings From Sept. 5. 1774 to Jan. 1. 1776. Published by Order of Congress. Volume I” (Philadelphia: Printed and Sold by R. Aitken, Bookseller, Front-Street, 1777), 84-95. [15] Baldwin, Ebenezer, “The Duty of Rejoicing under Calamities and Afflictions, Considered and Improved in a Sermon, Preached at Danbury, November 16, 1775. A Day Set Apart for Thanksgiving in the Colony of Connecticut. By Ebenezer Baldwin, A.M. Pastor of the First Church of Christ in Danbury” (New-York: Printed by Hugh Gaine, Bookseller and Stationer, at the Bible and Crown, in Hanover-Square, 1776), 23-24. [16] Loring, George Bailey, “An Oration Delivered at Lexington on the Dedication of the Town and Memorial Hall: April 19, 1871, Being the 96th Anniversary of the Battle of Lexington” (Boston: Press of T.R. Marvin & Son, 1871), 5.

Ezra L’Hommedieu (1734-1811)

Twice a delegate from New York (1778-83, 1788) to the Continental Congress, Ezra L’Hommedieu was a leading agriculturist and an attorney who served in several New York state offices, including in the state senate, and as a member of the state constitutional convention in 1801. The son of Benjamin L’Hommedieu and his wife Martha, Ezra L’Hommedieu was born in Southold, New York, on 30 August 1734. His

father, Benjamin, was a merchant, the scion of a family of Huguenots who fled from France and settled in what is now New York’s Long Island, where they became prosperous in trade and sales. Historian Epher Whitaker wrote in 1931, “The founder of the family, Benjamin L’Hommedieu, settled in Southold soon after the formation of the county. It is believed that he came from Rochelle, France, immediately after the renewal of the persecution of the French Protestants under Louis XIV in 1685. He was a merchant who became prominent in the place of his American home. He doubtless came to Southold through [an] acquaintance with Captain Sylvester, the owner and occupant of Shelter Island, which was then called Sylvester Island. Here, Benjamin L’Hommedieu met, wooed, won and married Captain Sylvester’s daughter Patience. They had a large family and he lived to be ninety-two years of age.” [1] Benjamin L’Hommedieu then had a son, Benjamin, Jr.; of him, family member Patia Havens L’Hommedieu wrote, “In 1717, two years before he lost his mother he married Mary, [the] daughter of John Conkling and Sarah (Horton) his wife, and thus became connected with two families—perhaps the strongest in numbers and in wealth of any then in town. She died in 1730 . . . He next in 1731 married Martha Brown, described as originally from Sandwich, Massachusetts. He had a son, Benjamin, and perhaps another named Grover . . . the only other child we have traced is his noted son Ezra from his second wife, born 30 August 1734.” [2] Ezra L’Hommedieu was a member of Yale’s graduating class of 1754. [3] He then studied the law under Judge Robert Hempstead, of Southold, and, after being admitted to the colonial bar, he opened a practice in Southold. In 1765, he married Charity Floyd, the sister of William Floyd, who later signed the Declaration of Independence. Until the outbreak of the American Revolution, in about 1775, he stood with the patriotic forces and, in May of that year he was elected as a delegate to the First Provincial Congress of New York. He was also selected to serve in the Second (December 1775), Third (May 1776), and Fourth (July 1776) Provincial Congresses. In 1777, he was one of the framers of the state constitution, then served as a member

854

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

of the state’s Assembly until 1783, and from then until 1809, except for the period 1792-93, as a member of the state Senate. During this period, twice he served (1784, 1799) as a member of the Council of Appointment, and then, finally, as a member of the state constitutional convention on 1801. [4]

1780, 31 to about 8 October 1781, 28 August to 27 November 1782, and 7 August to either 31 October or 1 November 1783. [6] There are many pieces of correspondence from L’Hommedieu during his Continental Congress service—many are to New York Governor George Clinton, with regards to financial matters that the Congress dealt with on a daily basis. In the first letter from early in his congressional service, dated 22 February 1780, L’Hommedieu wrote:

In a work on the life of Gouverneur Morris, historian James Kirschke explained: Writing to Governor [George] Clinton on 17 August 1779, John Jay praised the conduct of the New York delegates, Gouverneur Morris, James Duane, and William Floyd; however, he hinted that there were attempts by other congressmen to damage their reputations. This was correct, especially as regards [to] Morris. When the New York legislative body drew up its slate of delegates, elected 1 October 1779, Morris’ name was not on it. In a 5 October letter to Jay, Clinton offered the opaque answer that “the Impudence of some of Morris’ friends in voting, occasioned the loss of his Election.” Yet, in October, John Jay wrote Clinton that “Morris is again with us, and I am glad of it. His Constituents must be either infatuated or wretchedly misinformed if they omit continuing him in the Delegation.” Morris had in fact returned to Congress [on] 6 October, and was promptly appointed to a committee that was working on the issue of how much money each state should pay into the Continental Congress treasury. Morris’ presence in Congress probably depended on the slowness of the mails, but the election of 1 October really was a complicated matter. The New York constitution of 1777 provided that delegates be elected yearly. The state House of Assembly had given Morris the same number of votes as Ezra L’Hommedieu, a rich farmer from Southold. Morris then lost by two votes in the run-off, which was decided by the assembly and the senate. [5]

On 1 October 1779, L’Hommedieu was elected by the New York legislature to a seat in the Continental Congress. The resolution read: “Resolved, That the Honorable James Duane, William Floyd, John Jay, John Morin Scott, and Ezra L’Hommedieu, Esquires, be, and are hereby declared duly nominated and appointed Delegates to represent this State in the General Congress of the United States of America.” Reelected on 12 September 1780, 26 October 1781, 22 July 1782, he attended sessions of 2-31 December 1779, 1 January to about 4 April

Congress have for some time past been busily employed in forming estimates of supplies to be furnished by the different States for the ensuing campaign, and fixing prices to the particular articles; which has been attended with much difficulty, as always I believe is the case, when quotas are to be fixed; I expect it will pass in a few days, as the greatest part of the report has been agreed to though ‘tis likely some alterations may be made. I enclose you a copy of the supplies required, and the prices as they now stand in which is included the necessary supplies for the Navy twelve months, and the supplies requested by our Allies. I hope this measure if pursued will be attended with the good effects expected from it, at the same time I fear more difficulties will be experienced in carrying it into execution than is at present imagined. If the money should continue to depreciate, as it has lately done here, it will be difficult for the States to furnish their quota of supplies, and pay one third of their tax into the Treasury, as is expected. [7] In the second missive, dated 15 March 1780, L’Hommedieu penned: The attention of Congress being almost entirely taken up, in endeavoring to establish their finances and prevent a further depreciation, which in these parts is at the rate of 60 for 1, with respect to specie; and much higher when compared with the necessaries of life. The plan before the house is generally, to call in all the money in about one year by taxes and destroy it, to be received in taxes at the rate of forty for one in specie. As fast as the old money comes in, new issues in the proportion of 20 for I, for the purpose of purchasing supplies or other expenditures of the war; each State to appropriate funds for the redemption of the new money, and for the payment of the interest in specie. I expect the plan will be finished this week, and will be immediately sent to the different Legislatures. [8]

The Library of the Continental Congress855 As noted, L’Hommedieu was a member of the state Senate from 1784 to 1792, and then from 1794 to 1809. He also served as the clerk of Suffolk County from January 1784 to March 1810, and then from March 1811 until his death. We find an announcement in newspapers in January and/or February 1784, in which it was announced that “[t]he honorable Ezra L’Hommedieu, Jacobus Swartout, Abraham Yates, jun. and Alexander Webster, Esquires, are elected by the General Assembly to compose the Council of Appointment.” [9] On 22 January 1788, he was once again elected to serve in the Continental Congress; he served from 16 June to about 13 August of that same year. [10] He served as the regent of the State University of New York (SUNY) from 1787 to 1811. In 1797, we also find an announcement that “[a]t a meeting of the federal republicans, convened ate Gautier’s assembly room, in William street [sic], agreeably to public notice, it was unanimously resolved to support, at the ensuing election, Ezra L’Hommedieu, Esq. as [a] Senator of the Southern district.” [11] L’Hommedieu died at his home in Southold, New York, on 27 September 1811. The Columbian said, “He was a patriot of the revolution, and has been in public office, for upwards of forty years (with the exception of the last year, when he was removed from the clerkship of Suffolk county, but reinstated this spring), as [a] member of congress, under the confederation, a longtime member of the senate and council of appointment in this state, magistrate, &c. He was an excellent practical agriculturalist, and a very useful member and officer of the agricultural society of the state.” [12] L’Hommedieu was laid to rest in the Old Burying Ground of the First Presbyterian Church in Southold.

[1] Whitaker, Epher, “Whitaker’s Southold: Being a Substantial Reproduction of the History of Southold, L.I., its First Century” (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 1931), 11. [2] L’Hommedieu, Patia Havens, “L’Hommedieu: Index” (Privately Published, 1951), 69-70. For a further biography of Ezra L’Hommedieu, see C.B. Moore, contributor, “Biography of Ezra L’Hommedieu,” The New York Genealogical and Biographical Record, II:1 (January 1871), 1-5. [3] Dexter, Franklin Bowditch, “Biographical Sketches of the Graduates of Yale College: with Annals of the College History” (New York: H. Holt and Co.; six volumes, 1885-1912), II:323, II:343-44.

[4] Burnett, Edmund Cody, “L’Hommedieu, Ezra” in Allen Johnson, et al., “Dictionary of American Biography” (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons; eleven volumes and five supplements, 1958-77), XI:232-33. [5] Kirschke, James J., “Gouverneur Morris: Author, Statesman, and Man of the World” (New York: Thomas Dunne Books, 2005), 109. [6] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), IV:lviii; V:lx; VI:xlviii; VIII:lxxi. [7] Ezra L’Hommedieu to George Clinton, 22 February 1780, in ibid., V:45. [8] Ezra L’Hommedieu to George Clinton, 15 March 1780, in ibid., V:75. [9] “January 26,” The Vermont Gazette or Freemans Depository [Bennington], 7 February 1784, 3. [10] Ibid., VIII:xci. [11] The Minerva, & Mercantile Evening Advertiser [New York], 19 April 1797, 3. [12] “Died,” The Columbian [New York], 30 September 1811, 3. See also New-York Evening Post, 30 September 1811, 3.

The Library of the Continental Congress Many of the delegates to the Continental Congress, from its start in 1774 until its close in 1789, were learned men. The majority spoke and wrote of the books that they collected and read. Jefferson and Madison had massive libraries, but these were the exception. In 1783, realizing that a governmental central repository for knowledge was a necessity, the first stirrings of a potential congressional library came to life, and became a reality in 1800. Historian Carl Ostrowski wrote, “James Madison and Elbridge Gerry realized in the 1780s and 1790s that a legislative body, to function well, required a library. In 1783, Madison proposed that the Second Continental Congress acquire a relatively ambitious list of books on subjects ranging from American history and geography to world history, political theory, economics, common law, and international law.” [1] However, the 1783 date is far later than the initial movement to establish a congressional library. The earliest mention of such a move came on 31 August 1774, days before the First Continental Congress even convened in Philadelphia, when the Library Company of Philadelphia delivered to the Continental Congress a number of books they felt would be needed by the delegates. The Library Company of Philadelphia had a long and distinguished past even by 1774: Established

856

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

by Benjamin Franklin and several friends in November 1731, it allowed access to rare books from England for a fee of forty shillings. The following year it hired its first librarian. So, it is not hard to see why, 43 years after its founding, Benjamin Franklin, a delegate to that First Continental Congress, would use the company he helped to found to bring works on economics and history to the delegates. [2]

not Elbridge Gerry. The name of the delegate who seconded this historic motion has not been recorded and the Journal of Congress for that year contains no mention of Bland’s motion. But such a deficiency in the official record, while an inconvenience to the historian, has no real significance.” [5] Unfortunately, because the Journals of the Continental Congress are so spotty—sometimes most of the debates were not taken down; there is no official record of when Bland introduced this motion. [6] However, we do know that the Continental Congress established a three-man committee, composed of James Madison, Hugh Williamson, and Thomas Mifflin, “to report a list of books proper for the use of Congress.” The committee reported back on 24 January 1783 that “the Superintendt of Finance and the Secy of Congress be empowered to take order for procuring the books enumerated below: the same when procured to be under the care of the said Secy.” The committee recommended such works as “Encyclopedie Méthodique,” and the “Dictionaire de l’homme d’État.” [7]

Historian Edwin Wolf II, writing in the introduction of the reprint of the Journals of the First Continental Congress, explained: On Wednesday, 31 August 1774, the directors of the Library Company of Philadelphia came together in their rooms on the second-floor of Carpenters’ Hall for their regular monthly meeting. There was a good deal of routine business to be attended to on behalf of the flourishing subscription library which Benjamin Franklin and his friends had founded in 1731 . . . Interwove with the usual affairs of the Library Company was an unusual and exciting item: “Upon Motion, Ordered; That the Librarian furnish the Gentlemen who are to meet in Congress in this City, with the use of such Books as they may have occasion for during their sitting, taking a Receipt from them. The Secy is desired to deliver a Copy of this Minute to their Chairman.” No records have survived to indicate how much use was made of the library by the delegates in the autumn of 1774, but it is difficult to believe that, with committee meetings taking place in the museum on the ground floor, recourse was not made to the books in their adjoining room. [3] According to historian William Dawson Johnston, who is perhaps one the finest historians on the Library of Congress, “Before the establishment of the Library of Congress, 24 April 1800, the Houses of Congress had used the libraries of New York and Philadelphia.” [4] In 1783, Madison and Gerry pushed for the Continental Congress to have a library of its own. A third delegate, Theodorick Bland, was one of those who also believed in this establishment. Historian Fulmer Mood wrote, “So thought Theodorick Bland, delegate in Congress from Virginia. On or before 12 November 1782, he offered a motion that Congress should import a list of books from Europe for the use of the United States in Congress. With this motion, Theodorick Bland becomes the prime mover,

There was some resistance from some of the delegates: After all, the Continental Congress was in the middle of a war, and some believed that in a time of fiscal crisis the body should not spending untold thousands of badly needed dollars on books. In his own diaries, James Madison wrote: In favr of the Rept it was urged as indispensable that Congress shd have at all times at comand [sic] such authors on the law of Nations, treaties, Negotiations &c as wd render their proceedings in such cases conformable to propriety; and it was observed that the want of this information was manifest in several important acts of Congress. It was further observed that no time ought to be lost in collecting every book & tract which related to American antiquities & the affairs of the US, since many of the most valuable of these were every day becoming extinct, & they were necessary not only as materials for a Hist: of the US, but might be rendered still more so by future pretensions agst their rights from Spain or other powers which had shared in the discoveries & possessions of the New World. Agst the report were urged 1st the inconvenience of advancing even a few hundred pounds at this crisis; 2dly, the difference of expence [sic] between procuring the books during the war & after a peace. These

Samuel Livermore (1732-1803)857 objections prevailed, by a considerable majority. A motion was then made by Mr. [James] Wilson, 2ded by Mr. Madison, to confine the purchase for the present to the most essential part of the books. This also was negatived. [8]

Samuel Livermore (1732-1803)

Thus, the dream for a “library of the Continental Congress” was shelved, not to become a reality until 1800. Had the delegates begun the library at that time, it is impossible to know what kind of volumes would have, or could have, been purchased. Although the main building of the Library of Congress today is named after Thomas Jefferson, one of its largest, which contains the Manuscript Division, among others, is named the James Madison Building in honor of the man whose idea of a congressional home for books came to fruition and today is the largest collection of books and other materials in the world. The attitude of Madison can be seen from a quote that is emblazoned outside the Madison Building at the Library of Congress: “Knowledge will forever govern ignorance, and that a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives.”

[1] Ostrowski, Carl, “Books, Maps, and Politics: A History of the Library of Congress, 1783-1861” (Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press, 2004), 37. [2] See “Catalogue of the Books, Belonging to The Library Company of Philadelphia, To Which is Prefixed, a Short Account of the Institution, with the Charter Laws and Regulations” (Philadelphia: Printed by Bartram & Reynolds, No. 58, North Second Street, 1807), ix-x. [3] Wolf, Edwin, II, “Journal of the Proceedings of the Congress Held at Philadelphia, September 5, 1774: A Facsimile of the Official Edition Printed in 1774, With an Intro by Edwin Wolf 2nd” (Philadelphia: Printed for the Library Company of Philadelphia, 1974), ii. [4] Johnston, William Dawson, “History of the Library of Congress: Volume I, 1800-1864” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; two volumes, 1904), I:17. [5] Mood, Fulmer, “The Continental Congress and the Plan for a Library of Congress in 1782-1783. An Episode in American Cultural History,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, LXXII:1 (January 1948), 10-11. [6] Ford, Worthington Chauncey, et al., eds., “Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789” (Washington, DC: Government Printing Office; thirty-four volumes, 1905-37), XXII:VIII. [7] Ibid., XXIV:83. [8] Hunt, Gaillard, ed., “The Writings of James Madison. Comprising His Public Papers and His Private Corruption, Including Numerous Letters and Document Now for the First Time Printed” (New York: G.P. Putnam’s Sons; nine volumes, 1900-10),I:319.

His service in various offices in New Hampshire made Livermore a respected jurist before and during the American Revolution. A founder of the town of Holderness in that state, Samuel Livermore was noted for his service in the Continental Congress (1785-86) and in the US Senate (1793-1801), as a member of the proadministration bloc and the Federalist Party. Livermore was born in Waltham, in Middlesex County, Massachusetts, on 14 May 1732, the son of Samuel Livermore and Hannah (née Brown) Livermore. [1] His great-grandfather, John Livermore, Sr., was born in 1604 in Little Thurlow, Suffolk, England; known as “Captain John,” his father, Daniel, was born sometime after 1541. According to family genealogist Mary Louise Benjamin, “Among the earliest settlers of Watertown, Massachusetts, was John Livermore. He embarked from Ipswich, England, for New England in 1634 in the ship ‘Francis,’ bringing with him his wife Grace and infant daughter Hannah. Neither his home in England nor his parentage are positively known, but this is reason to suppose that he came from Little Thurloe, County of Suffolk, where many of the name are recorded in the parish registers.” [2]

858

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

The elder Livermore and his wife were farmers. Samuel Livermore was refused admission at Harvard, but at the age of 18 he moved north and taught for a time at a school in Chelsea, Massachusetts. In 1751 he entered the College of New Jersey (now Princeton University), receiving a degree the following year. He returned to Massachusetts, where he studied the law under a local attorney, Edward Trowbridge, and in 1756 he was admitted to the Massachusetts colonial bar. Livermore opened a law practice in Waltham, but he soon moved north, to Portsmouth, New Hampshire, where he earned a reputation as a leading local attorney. At the same time, he became a close friend and confidante of Sir John Wentworth, the nephew of Benning Wentworth, the royal governor of New Hampshire. [3] In 1759, Livermore married Jane Browne, the daughter of an influential Anglican Church minister in New Hampshire; the couple would have five children.

loyal to the state when it declared statehood, and that he wished to see a central state government separated by different branches. Meshech Weare wrote to Josiah Bartlett on 8 August 1778, “I Am very sensible of the necessity of an Executive branch in the legislature, but Am greatly afraid we shall never Obtain it. The convention in General, seem to have a Strange prepossession Against it, every thing must be done by the two branches, And no superiority of One more than Another. And I am greatly Surprised to find Mr. Livermore Strenuous for this Measure, the consequence will be that the business never will be done.” [5] Despite Weare’s opposition to this belief, Livermore was rewarded by being named in 1779 by the General Court, the New Hampshire legislature, as a commissioner to the Continental Congress to settle land controversies regarding towns along the Connecticut River; Livermore responded to the Continental Congress by stating that he was “perfectly disposed to serve the state whenever they will condescend to accept of his services, but it must be in a way consistent with reputation and the power of doing some good.” He added that he saw the appointment as “the highest sense of the importance of the business, as the tranquillity [sic] of the state depends much upon it.”

In 1767, John Wentworth succeeded his uncle as governor, and in 1769 he appointed Livermore as the judge-advocate of the colony’s admiralty court, advancing him to colonial attorney general upon the resignation of Wyseman Claggett. He settled into a comfortable life, holding office in the royal government. The onset of the American Revolution changed Livermore’s life. He had not been bothered by royal rule, and while he was not identified with the independence movement in any way, by 1774 he realized that being tied to England would ultimately be detrimental. That year he moved from Portsmouth to Londonderry, and began to purchase land in the town of Holderness, moving there in late 1775. For the next two years, he shielded himself from siding with any political faction in the colony. In an address delivered in 1888, historian Charles R. Corning said, “While [Meshach] Weare and his compatriots were hard at work for the great cause, Livermore, a stronger man than any of them, planted his crops and tended his mill with a serenity and a disinterestedness that an ancient philosopher might envy. His records indicate that he rarely went away, although still held the office of attorney-general, to which he had been elected after the departure of Governor Wentworth.” [4] Livermore made his fellow New Hampshirites know that despite his ties to Wentworth, he was

When Weare, with whom Livermore remained a close friend, resigned as chief justice of the state’s superior court to serve full time as the president of New Hampshire, he wished that Samuel Livermore succeed him, and the legislature acceded to this request. Livermore wrote to Weare, “I am favored with the vote of the General Court of the 21st inst., appointing me Chief Justice, which I receive as the highest mark of their confidence and esteem, and consider myself highly honored by this appointment.” Livermore held this position from 1782 and even past his election to the Continental Congress two years later. However, a report in The NewHampshire Gazette, 29 April 1785, reported from Portsmouth that on “Tuesday last, the Superior Courts sit [sic] in this town, when the commissions under the new Constitution were opened, appointing the Hon. Samuel Livermore, Esq. Chief Justice, and the Hon. Josiah Bartlet [sic], William Whipple, and John Dudley, Esquires, puisne Justices of said Court.” [6]

Samuel Livermore (1732-1803)859 Following the declination of New Hampshire delegate to the Continental Congress Jonathan Blanchard to serve, on 3 November 1784 the New Hampshire General Court elected Livermore in Blanchard’s stead. Although he did not serve at all during 1784, Livermore was reelected on 4 November 1785, attending sessions from 7 December 1785 to 9 March 1786, and 26 June to 1 September 1786. [7] Upon his second election to the body, Livermore wrote to John Langdon, President of New Hampshire, “Sir, I received last Evening a letter from the Secretary informing me of my being elected a delegate to Congress. I consider myself highly honoured by this repeated appointment, and shall do all in my power to serve the interest of the State as well as the United States therein. I shall make my own domestick [sic] affairs so far subservient to the publick [sic] service as to set out for New York as soon as I shall be possest [sic] of the Commission and necessary subsistence.” [8] From New York, Livermore updated Langdon on his arrival in New York: “I left home the 22 Nov. and arrived at this place the 6 Decr. by way of Providence and Newport. Am now at lodgings in the same house with Col. [Pierse] Long. I had a little touch of the gout since my arrival: but am better. I mourn sincerely for Genl. [William] Whipple, tho’ the news of his death was not unexpected.’ I shall enclose you a paper, and whenever anything interesting shall occur shall do myself the honour to write. President [John] Hancock is expected from Boston soon.” [9] In January 1786, he wrote Langdon of the activities in the Continental Congress: “Dear Sir, I am honoured with yours of the 3d instant and am very clear in sentiment with you that Congress should be invested with power to regulate trade. It is also the sentiment of many others here. But we are embarrassed for want of a fuller representation there having been no more than seven States here since my arrival: consequently the most important business cannot be done. The whole business of finance goes on heavily as you will see by pursuing the enclosed, which was printed for the members of Congress.” [10] Even while serving in the Continental Congress, in March 1787, in an election for president of New Hampshire, Livermore came in second, with 48 votes, behind the ultimate victor, John Langdon,

who had 112 votes. [11] The following year, Livermore was elected to serve as a delegate in the state Constitutional Convention, to ratify the US Constitution signed in Philadelphia the previous year. A report in The New-Hampshire Gazette, 27 February 1788, printed a “[l]ist of the members of the honorable Convention of this state, and of the towns they represent.” John Sullivan was listed as the president of the convention, while Livermore was listed as representing Holderness. [12] Under the Constitution, each state was entitled to send candidates to serve in the US House of Representatives, the lower body of the new bicameral legislature. The newspaper The Independent Gazetteer reported from Portsmouth, New Hampshire, “[y]esterday, agreeably to notification, the inhabitants of this town assembled for the purpose of balloting for three persons out of the six in nomination, as Representatives from this state to the Congress of the United States. At the close of the poll, the votes were declared to stand as follows: “Hon. Samuel Livermore, Esq. 100. Nicholas Gilman, Esq. 96. Benjamin West, Esq. 94. Abiel Foster, Esq. 17. The gentlemen first mentioned, will, in all probability, be appointed to fill that high and important office.” [13] Livermore ultimately served in the First (1789-91) and Second Congresses (1791-93), during which he served as the chairman of the Committee on Elections during the Second Congress. In a letter to a New Hampshire newspaper, an anonymous writer penned, “Mr. Printer: I am exceeding happy in finding after all the bustle about electioneering, from the best information I can collect (and I think my situation is such that I have had as good, if not a better opportunity of knowing the minds of my fellow citizens than any person whatever) that a very large majority in this town seem to be pretty well united in their determination to give their suffrages for the Hon. Samuel Livermore, Nicholas Gilman and John S. Sherburne, Esquires, as the most suitable persons to represent this State in Congress.” [14] Historian Peter E. Randall wrote, “In the first Congress in 1789 he was active in the passage of the First Amendment’s religious clauses. Probably influenced by New Hampshire’s mild religious establishment, Livermore introduced the initial form of the language ultimately adopted. His

860

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

proposed version read: ‘Congress shall make no laws touching religion, or infringing the rights of conscience.’ Ultimately, this language was rejected in favor of the broader ‘establishment’ language of the First Amendment, while ‘make no law’ was included in the final version, applicable to both the religious and speech and press clauses, and making Livermore at a minimum a rhetorical father of the First Amendment.” [15] In 1791, Livermore served as the president of the New Hampshire state constitutional convention, which drafted a new state constitution.

this jurist, congressman and senator was New Hampshire’s first attorney general and second chief justice. In 1788 he spurred the State’s approval of the proposed Federal Constitution, thus insuring its ratification and the formation of the present Government of the United States.”

In 1792, in an election in the New Hampshire state legislature to fill a vacancy in the US Senate, the upper body of the national legislature, Livermore was elected. The New-Hampshire Spy of Portsmouth reported on 23 June 1792 that “[t]he Hon. legislature have made choice of the Hon. Samuel Livermore, as [a] Senator from this State to the Congress of the United States, in the place of the Hon. Paine Wingate, whose time expires the fourth of March next.” The vote for the election showed that Livermore was elected in the legislature over Wingate, 52 votes to 28, with a scattering of votes going to several other candidates. [16] During his time in the Senate, which lasted from 4 March 1793 until his resignation on 12 June 1801, he served as one of the leaders of the body. In 1796, during his first term, Livermore was elected as the president of the Senate, pro hac vice, [17] a position he held during the Fourth Congress (1795-97) and the Fifth Congress (1797-99). By mid-1801, Livermore was in declining health, and in June of that year he resigned his US Senate seat. The Newhampshire Sentinel reported that “[t]he Hon. Simeon Olcott, Esq., of Charlestown, is chosen a Senator in Congress, for four years from the 4th of March next, in place of the Hon. Samuel Livermore, resigned.” [18] Olcott at the time of his appointment was the chief justice of the New Hampshire Superior Court. Samuel Livermore retired to his home in Holderness, where he died on 18 May 1803. [19] He was buried in the Trinity Churchyard burial ground in Holderness, next to his wife. An historical marker, erected in 1966 near Holderness, New Hampshire, reads, “Proprietor of more than half the Town of Holderness,

[1] Livermore family tree, online at http://www.geni.com/ people/Samuel-Livermore-U-S-Senator/6000000015090117688. [2] Benjamin, Mary Louise, comp., “A Genealogy of the Family of Lieut. Samuel Benjamin and Tabitha Livermore, His Wife, Early Settlers of Livermore, Maine: With a Record of Their Descent from John Benjamin and John Livermore, the Emigrants, Including Biographical Sketches, Notes and Diary” (Winthrop, Maine?: Privately Published, 1900), 39. [3] Moffett, E.V., “Livermore, Samuel,” in Allen Johnson, et al., “Dictionary of American Biography” (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons; eleven volumes and five supplements, 1958-77), XI:307. [4] Corning, Charles R., “Samuel Livermore. Address Before the Grafton and Coös Bar Association, by Charles R. Corning, at the Annual Meeting at Plymouth, N.H., January 6, 1888” (Concord, NH: Republican Press Association, 1888), 13. [5] Meshech Weare to Josiah Bartlett, 8 August 1778, in Frank C. Meyers, ed., “The Papers of Josiah Bartlett” (Hanover, NH: Published for the New Hampshire Historical Society by the University Press of New England, 1979), 206. [6] The New-Hampshire Gazette, and The General Advertiser [Portsmouth], 29 April 1785, 3. A “puisne Justice,” usually from courts of British origin, is defined as being a judge or justice “of a superior court inferior in rank to the Chief Justice.” For another view, see The Plymouth Journal, and The Massachusetts Advertiser, 31 May 1785, 1. [7] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), VII:lxix; VIII:lxfxxiv. [8] Samuel Livermore to John Langdon, 5 November 1785, in ibid., VIII:248. [9] Samuel Livermore to John Langdon, 17 December 1785, in ibid., VIII:275. [10] Samuel Livermore to John Langdon, 20 January 1786, in ibid., VIII:286-87. [11] “Portsmouth, March 9,” The New-Hampshire Spy [Portsmouth], 9 March 1787, 159. [12] The New-Hampshire Gazette, and The General Advertiser [Portsmouth], 27 February 1788, 3. [13] The Independent Gazetteer; Or, The Chronicle of Freedom [Philadelphia], 23 February 1789, 2. [14] The New-Hampshire Gazette, and The General Advertiser [Portsmouth], 26 August 1790, 3. [15] Randall, Peter E., “Livermore, Samuel” in Roger E. Newman, ed., “The Yale Biographical Dictionary of American Law” (New Haven, CT: Yale University Press, 2009), 343. [16] The New-Hampshire Spy [Portsmouth], 23 June 1792, 71. [17] The Oracle of the Day [Portsmouth, New Hampshire], 26 May 1796, 3. [18] Newhampshire Sentinel [Keene], 20 June 1801, 3. [19] See “Died,” Newhamphire Sentinel [Keene], 4 June 1803, 3. See also “Died,” The Farmers’ Cabinet [Amherst, New Hampshire], 2 June 1803, 3.

Philip Livingston (1716-1778)861

Philip Livingston (1716-1778)

A signer of the Declaration of Independence who was a member of the famed Livingston family of New York—which included his brother, William Livingston (who would sign the US Constitution while representing New York State), his cousins, Edward Livingston and Robert R. Livingston, and his nephew Walter Livingston—Philip Livingston, at 60 years old, was one of the oldest signers of that document. Philip Livingston was born at his family’s estate, “Livingston Manor” in Albany, New York, on 15 January 1716, the son of Philip Livingston, a prosperous New York merchant, and his wife Catrina (some sources note her name as Catherine) (née Van Brugh) Livingston. [1] His family can be traced back through several kings of Scotland, as well as Mary Livingston, who was one of four ladies in waiting to Mary, Queen of Scots. Charles Havens Hunt wrote in 1864, “The Livingstons of the State of New York have a long and genuine pedigree—one that is so easily verified and embraces so many important individual names, besides showing a certain continuity of strong character outlasting many generations, as perhaps to render pertinent

in this place a sketch of it more extended than commonly befits the biographical notice of a prominent man belonging to one of our republican families.” [2] Philip Livingston’s grandfather, John Livingston, who was a divine in the Church of Scotland, moved from that country to Rotterdam, The Netherlands, in 1663, where he died nine years later. His son, Robert Livingston, born in Ancram, Roxburgshire, Scotland, in December 1654, emigrated to the American colonies about 1674. He married Alida Van Rensseleer, the widow of the Reverend Nicholas Van Rensseleer, and the daughter of Philip Pieterse Van Schuyler, thereby merging the Livingston and Van Schuyler families into one. [3] Catrina, or Catherine, Van Brugh Livingston was the daughter of Captain Peter Van Brugh, who served as the mayor of Albany. Owing to his family’s extreme wealth— Livingston Manor alone took up some 160,000 acres in the Hudson Valley of the New York colony—Philip Livingston was sent to Yale College (now Yale University) in Connecticut, from which he graduated in 1737. He wanted to become a merchant, and soon became one of the leading traders in New York. In 1740, he married Christina Ten Broek, the daughter of Colonel Dirck Ten Broek, who, like his maternal grandfather, served as the mayor of Albany. Together, the couple had nine children, of whom eight survived to adulthood. In September 1754 Livingston was elected as an alderman of the east ward of New York City’s Common Council. In the minutes of this body, published in eight volumes in 1905, there are hundreds of actions regarding Livingston. At a meeting on 11 July 1755, a committee was appointed to pave the streets of one of the city wards, with the order signed by “your Humble Servants[,] Stephen Van Cortlandt, Every Bivanck, Philip Livingston, William Depeyster, Leonard Lespinard, [and] Peter Clopper.” On 15 August 1764, “[t]he Clerk of this Board produced to the Common Councill [sic] the Engrossed Deed from this City to Philip Livingston Esqr for a Water Lott [sic] fronting his house and Ground on Nassau Island in Kings County Which was read and Approved of.” [4] He was held in such high regard that in 1755, royal Governor Charles Hardy wrote of him in 1755 that “[a]mong the considerable merchants in this city, no one is

862

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

more esteemed for energy, promptness and public spirit than Philip Livingston.” [5]

of this conference, “John Rutledge, Edward Tilghman, and Philip Livingston, esquires, be a committee to prepare a memorial and petition to the lords in parliament, and lay the same before the congress on Monday next.” [8]

Unfortunately, one aspect of Livingston’s life that must be addressed is his use of slave ships to carry his goods to and from America. Historian James Lydon wrote: Normally, merchants who invested in overseas trade spread the risks by dividing the ownership of larger vessels into several shares, and the slave trade was no exception. Sloops and schooners, representing smaller investments, usually had fewer owners. Naval Office records identify twenty-nine African slavers which were fully (twenty-six) or partly (three) owned by New Yorkers. Sixty-five individual investors owned shares in these vessels. Only two men, Nathaniel Marston and Philip Livingston, invested in as many as four slave ships . . . Philip Livingston was a large importer from West Indian sources in the 1730s and 1740s, and after King George’s War joined with his sons to invest in four African slavers. . . . Livingston, third ranking importer in the NORNY [Naval Office Records for New York] records, brought in 219 West Indian blacks. With his sons he owned shares in the slavers Wolf, Rhode Island, Stork, and Sarah and Elizabeth during the early 1750s. [6] Livingston remained a leading merchant in New York City, founding the New York Chamber of Commerce in 1768. He was an integral member of the community, forming the New York Hospital in 1771, as well as serving as a deacon in the city’s Dutch Reformed Church. More importantly, however, from the early 1750s until his death Philip Livingston was a leading political force in New York, both in city as well as colonial and state politics. In addition to serving as an alderman, in 1758 he was elected to the colony’s provincial assembly. From all outward appearances, he was a loyal member of that body, until 1764, when he personally wrote a letter of disagreement with the British Parliament’s decision to pass revenue raises on the colonies. Following the enactment of The Stamp Act in 1765, Livingston appears to have decided to oppose the British Crown on the matter of taxing the colonies. He served as a delegate to The Stamp Act Congress, held in New York City from 7 to 25 October of that same year, along with his cousin Robert R. Livingston, John Cruger, William Byard, and Leonard Lispenard. [7] According to the official papers

In 1768, Sir Charles Hardy, the royal governor of New York, resigned, having been appointed as a rear admiral in the British Navy, and he was replaced in that post by Lieutenant Governor James De Lancey, who dissolved the colony’s General Assembly. This necessitated an election for a new assembly. According to historian Roger Champagne, “The city and county of New York was entitled to four seats in the General Assembly, and in 1768, six men sought the honored positions. The most prominent candidate was Philip Livingston. A brother of the third lord of the family manor, and a wealthy merchant related to the Ten Broecks of Albany, he had been an unofficial delegate to the Stamp Act Congress and was still popular in New York City despite his opposition to the radicalism of the Sons of Liberty.” [9] In the new Assembly, working with his allies George Clinton and Philip Schuyler, he was elected Speaker. However, the De Lancey faction soon worked their supporters, and were able to get both Philip Livingston and his cousin Robert R. Livingston tossed out of the Assembly. Historian Bernard Friedman wrote, “The final episode of the electoral struggles of 1768 and 1769 did not occur with the expulsion of Philip Livingston and Robert R. Livingston from the Assembly by the now triumphant De Lanceys . . . but some months later in 1769 when the passage of a provisions bill precipitated a violent attack against the De Lanceys by their erstwhile allies among the Sons of Liberty. From the rupture emerged an alignment of political forces in New York that more nearly resembled the division of sentiment that would occur with the onset of the War for Independence.” [10] In the history of New York colonial politics, the Livingstons became full political opponents of the De Lancey family for positions of power. History Lawrence Leder wrote, “In the contests which preceded the meeting of the new assembly in April, 1769, the De Lanceys extended their victories. John Cruger defeated Philip Livingston in New York City and then replaced him as Speaker. Philip, however, sought election from the family manor and was easily victorious, and

Philip Livingston (1716-1778)863 Lewis Morris regained his seat for the Borough of Westchester, defeating James De Lancey.” [11] A report in a Boston newspaper in February 1769 stated that “[o]n Monday last began the Election for this City and County, which is not yet ended, last Night the State of the Poll was as follows: John Cruger, 587. James De Lancey, 612. Jacob Walton, 606. James Jaunbey, 577. Philip Livingston, 448. Peter V.B. Livingston, 394. John Morin Scot[t], 452. T.V. Wyck, 380. Number that have voted[,] 2036.” [12] Despite the defeat, Livingston’s allies remained in control of the important committees in the Assembly that denied the De Lancey faction the power that they needed to support British policies in the colony. At this time, Livingston took pen in hand to defend the moves that were pushing the American colonies towards revolution. Historian Benjamin H. Irvin wrote: A handful of Whig essayists took up their pens in support of Congress and the Association. The future congressmen James Wilson of Pennsylvania and William Henry Drayton of South Carolina, as well as the future continental general Charles Lee, wrote in favor of steadfast economic resistance and military preparations. A few of these patriot pamphleteers strove to vindicate members of Congress from loyalist assaults. Alexander Hamilton, still just a nineteen-year-old student at King’s College, authored a rejoinder to Samuel Seabury entitled “A Full Vindication of the Measures of the Congress.” Hamilton celebrated Congress as “an August body of men, famed for their patriotism and abilities,” “an assembly truly respectable on every account!” The New York Congressman Philip Livingston likewise defended Congress in an essay entitled “The Other Side of the Question.” Embarrassed by his fellow Anglicans, Livingston apologized for the “rude and opprobrious terms” with which Thomas Bradbury Chandler had libeled the dissenting churchmen in Congress. [13] In the work ascribed to him, Livingston wrote, “A Certain Friendly Address to all Reasonable Americans,” was put now into my hands. Some people perhaps have read it, for I ‘am told it was published six days ago; wherefore after perusing, it seems proper to make a short answer to this performance: not because it is well written, or because there is the least danger any man will become a proselyte to the doctrines contained in it, but for the following reasons, which candor obliges me to mention.”

Livingston then listed four reasons, one of which was that he was “prompted to this undertaking out of regard to the fair-sex. For many weak women may be exceedingly frighted [sic] by that awful compound of threats, and texts, and homilies.” [14] In May 1774, Livingston, as a merchant in New York City, was named to serve on the “Committee of Fifty-One,” which met to nominate candidates to a “general meeting” of the colonies to be held that September in Philadelphia. The election for delegates to the First Continental Congress was held in July 1774. Historian Carl Becker wrote in 1903, “The ticket proposed consisted of Isaac Low, James Duane, Philip Livingston, John Morris Scott and Alexander MacDougall. The first two were preeminently of the conservative party; the last two were in an equal sense radicals. But Philip Livingston was neither the one nor the other; and certainly no one could have been named more likely to win the support of the conservatives for the ticket, and at the same time to secure a virtual representation for radical views in the congress.” [15] At the same time, we also find the announcement of further service by Livingston: a newspaper report, which noted that “Wednesday night last our Committee of Correspondence met, and drew up a set of resolved on the present alarming occasion, which were printed in hand bills, and sent about the town the next morning, for the approbation of the inhabitants thereof; who are to assemble at the Coffee-House to-morrow are 12 o’clock, either to approve or disapprove of the same. At the same time the people are to testify their approbation of the five gentlemen nominated by the Committee to attend as Delegates at the general congress, viz. Mr. Duane, Mr. Philip Livingston, Mr. John Alsop, Mr. Isaac Low, and Mr. John Jay.” [16] The five men elected to the First Continental Congress then sent a letter to the Committee, which read, “Should we become your Delegates, we beg leave to assure you, that we will use our utmost endeavours to carry every measure into execution, at the proposed Congress, that may then be though conducive to the general interest of the Colonies; and at present use of opinion, that a general Nonimportation Agreement, faithfully observed, would prove the most efficacious means to procure a redress of our grievances. Permit us to

864

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

addition, that we are led to make this dedication of our sentiments because we might think it right, and not as an indorsement [sic] to be favoured [sic] with your votes . . . ” [17] The final confirmation of the election of this men comes in the journals of the First Continental Congress the notation that “[b]y duly certified polls, taken by proper persons in seven wards, it appears, that James Duane, John Jay, Philip Livingston, Isaac Low, and John Alsop, Esqrs. were elected as delegates for the city and county of New-York, to attend the Congress at Philadelphia, the first day of September next.” [18]

The chaotic condition of the city, reminiscent of Stamp Act days and as terrifying to Livingston aristocrats as it was to those now called Tories, forced the Whig party to take steps to restore order and to organize better the revolutionary movement. At first [radical leader Isaac] Sears tried by means of a mass meeting to give new powers to the city’s sixty-man committee of inspection, but most members, like merchant Philip Livingston, opposed this irregular method. The Committee of Sixty recommended instead the formation of a committee of one hundred persons, to be selected by a city election. More significant was the decision to convene a provincial congress to obtain the “united aid and counsel” of the counties on measures for the common safety. [21]

Officially elected to the Continental Congress on 28 July 1774, Livingston was reelected on 22 April 1775, 13 May 1777, and 3 October 1777. According to historian Edmund Cody Burnett, he did not serve at all during the First Continental Congress, instead participating in the Second Continental Congress, from 10 May to 2 August 1775, about 12 September to about 9 October 1775, an unknown in December 1775 to 8 January 1776, about 20 February to about 1 March 1776, 2 to 4 July 1776, 5 July to 12 December 1776, 16 April to about 8 July 1777, 24 July to about 8 August 1777, and from 5 May to his death in 1778. [19] In December 1774 we find the notice for “[t]he Election of a Committee of Sixty Persons for the Purposes mentioned in the Association entered into by the Congress, having this Day come on pursuant to advisements in the public News Papers; a respectable Number of the Freeholders and Freemen, of this City assembled at the City Hall, where the Election was conducted under the Inspection of several of the Vestry men: when Isaac Low, Philip Livingston, James Duane, and 57 other Gentlemen were chosen without a dissenting Voice.” [20] It is at this time that Livingston served on the “Committee of Sixty” formed to enforce the Continental Association, formed by the First Continental Congress to start a boycott against British goods in the colonies. In 1775, prior to leaving for the Second Continental Congress, Livingston participated in the formation of the “Committee of One Hundred,” designed to take control of New York’s colonial government structure in the vacuum of royal rule. Historian Roger Champagne explained:

When British troops threatened a naval bombardment of New York City, Livingston fled first to Kingston, in Ulster County, New York. Despite not serving in the First Continental Congress, Livingston, as a leader in New York politics, served when that body reformulated in 1775 as the Second Continental Congress. The election for seats in the Second Continental Congress was initiated by the “Committee of Sixty.” Historian Carl Becker wrote: 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. [22] The newspaper The New-York Journal reported on 11 May 1775 that “[o]n Monday morning . . . Philip Livingston, James Duane, John Alsop, and Francis Lewis, Esqrs. Delegates for this city; Col. William Floyd, for Suffolk, and Simon Boarum [sic], Esq; for King’s county, in this province, set out for Philadelphia, attended by a great train, to the North River Ferry, where two or three sloops and a number of other vessels, were provided, and it is said about 500 Gentlemen crossed

Philip Livingston (1716-1778)865 the ferry with them, among whom were 200 of the militia, under arms.” [23] The New-York Journal also reported on 8 February 1776 that “Thursday last Philip Livingston, John Alsop, John Jay, and Alexander McDougall, Esquires, were unanimously elected Members for the City and County of New York, to serve in the next General Assembly.” [24]

and his son Henry, an aide-de-camp to General George Washington, was called to his father’s side. He was suffering from what was then called dropsy, now known as edema. Historian George Prowell explained, “The ravages of disease had borne hard on the system of his father, and after a lingering sickness of a little more than one month.”

During his time in the Second Continental Congress, Livingston took a leading role in calling for full separation from England. Historian Charles Goodrich wrote in 1842, “Among these individuals, none possessed a more patriotic spirit, or was more ready to rise in opposition to British aggressions, than Philip Livingston. The sentiments which he had avowed, and the distinguished part which he had all along taken, in favour of the rights of the colonies, marked him . . . he had the honour of giving his vote in favour of that declaration, which, while it was destined to perpetuate the memory of the illustrious men who adopted it, was to prove the charter of our national existence.” [25] In either early July or August 1776, Livingston signed the Declaration of Independence on behalf of the state of New York. According to historian Robert Conrad, “On the fifteenth of July, 1776, he was chosen by congress [as] a member of the board of treasury, and on the twenty-ninth of April following, a member of the marine committee; two important trusts, in which the safety and well-being of America were essentially involved.” [26] In addition, in September 1775, he was named to the “Secret Committee,” later styled as the Committee on Commerce, which imported arms, ammunition, and other materiél into the colonies for the Continental Army.

Gouverneur Morris, three days after Livingston’s death, dispatched Governor Clinton, of New York, a letter in which he said in part: ‘‘I am sorry to inform your Excellency and the State of New York of the death of my worthy colleague, Philip Livingston. Almost immediately after his arrival here at York, he was confined to his room with a dangerous malady from which time there seemed to be no chance of recovery. He grew steadily worse and on Friday last, at 4 o’clock in the morning, paid the last debt to nature.” [28] Historian John C. Jordan wrote, “While Congress sat at York, it lost by death, on June 11th, 1778, Philip Livingston, a delegate from the State of New York, and one of the signers of the Declaration of Independence. He was interred on the evening of the 12th, in the graveyard of the German Reformed Church. Mr. Duffield, the Presbyterian Chaplain of Congress, delivered an address at the grave. When the British army evacuated Philadelphia, Congress adjourned to that city on June 27th.” [29] The Reverend George Neisser, a Moravian minister, wrote in his diary, “June 12. I was invited to attend the funeral of Philip Livingston, a delegate to Congress from New York, with other clergymen stationed here. Mr. Duffield, the Presbyterian Chaplain of Congress, delivered an address at the grave. I became acquainted with Mr. Rogers, the Chaplain of the Continental Army, who had a letter for me.” [30]

In 1777, when the state of New York formulated a new state constitution, Livingston was elected as a state senator. According to the official proceedings of the state Senate of New York State, on 13 September 1777 “[t]he Senate having accordingly proceeded to the dividing itself by Lot[,] the Classes are as follows.” In the Fourth Class is listed Philip Livingston. [27] When in late 1777 the British invaded Pennsylvania, the Congress was forced to move its deliberations to nearby York, Pennsylvania, from 30 September 1777 to 27 June 1778. By early June, Livingston was too ill to be moved,

On 15 October 1778 the New York State Assembly met, and, according to its journal, “The Order of the Day being read, the House proceeded to fill up the two Seats in [the] Senate, vacant, the one by the Death of the Honorable Philip Livingston, Esq; and the other by the Election of the Honorable Pierre Van Cortlandt, Esq; to the Office of Lieutenant Governor . . . ” [31] Despite being born, and living his entire life in New York, Livingston was buried in Prospect Hill Cemetery in York. His gravestone reads, in part, “Eminently distinguished for his talents & rectitude, he deservedly enjoyed the confidence

866

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

of his Country & the love & veneration of his friends and children.”

The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, XX:1 (January 1963), 63. [10] Friedman, Bernard, “The New York Assembly Elections of 1768 and 1769: The Disruption of Family Politics,” New York History, XLVI:1 (January 1965), 15. [11] Leder, Lawrence H., “The New York Elections of 1769: An Assault on Privilege,” The Mississippi Valley Historical Review, XLIX:4 (March 1963), 678. [12] “New-York, January 26,” The Massachusetts Gazette. Published by Authority [Boston], 2 February 1769, 2. [13] Irvin, Benjamin H., “Clothed in Robes of Sovereignty: The Continental Congress and the People Out of Doors” (New York: Oxford University Press, 2011), 70. [14] “The Other Side of the Question: Or, a Defence of the Liberties of North-America. In Answer to a Late Friendly Address to All Reasonable Americans, on the Subject of Our Political Confusions. By a Citizen” (New York: Printed by James Rivington, Fronting Hanover-Square, 1774), 3. [15] Becker, Carl, “The Nomination and Election of Delegates From New York to the First Continental Congress, 1774,” Political Science Quarterly, XVIII:1 (March 1903), 29. [16] The Norwich Packet, and the Connecticut, Massachusetts, New-Hampshire & Rhode-Island Weekly Advertiser [Connecticut], 14-21 July 1774, 2. [17] The Pennsylvania Gazette, Containing the Freshest Advices, Foreign and Domestic [Philadelphia], 3 August 1774, 2. [18] Continental Congress, “Journal of the Proceedings of the Congress, Held at Philadelphia, September 5, 1774” (Philadelphia: Printed by William and Thomas Bradford, at the London Coffee House, 1774), 14. [19] Edmund Cody Burnett, ed., “Letters of Members of the Continental Congress” (Washington, DC: Published by the Carnegie Institution of Washington; eight volumes, 1921-36), I:lv; II:lix, III:lvii. [20] The Connecticut Journal [New Haven], 2 December 1774, 2. [21] Champagne, Roger J., “New York’s Radicals and the Coming of Independence,” The Journal of American History, LI:1 (June 1964), 23. [22] Becker, Carl, “Election of Delegates From New York to the Second Continental Congress,” The American Historical Review, IX:1 (October 1903), 79. [23] The New-York Journal; or, The General Advertiser, 11 May 1775, 3. [24] The New-York Journal; or, The General Advertiser, 8 February 1776, 3. [25] Goodrich, The Rev. Charles A., “Lives of the Signers of the Declaration of Independence” (Hartford, CT: R.G.H. Huntington, 1842), 191. [26] Conrad, Robert T., ed., “Sanderson’s Biography of the Signers to the Declaration of Independence” (Philadelphia: Thomas, Cowperthwait & Co., 1846), 202. [27] New York State, Legislature, Senate, “Votes and Proceedings of the Senate of the State of New-York, at their First Session, Held at Kingston, in Ulster County, Commencing September 9th, 1777” (Kingston, NY: Printed by John Holt, Printer to the State of NewYork, 1777-79), 9. [28] Prowell, George R., “Continental Congress at York, Pennsylvania: York County in the Revolution” (York, PA: The York Printing Co., 1914), 322-23. [29] Jordan, John C., “York, Penna., in the Revolution,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, XXXII:4 (1908), 492. [30] Peters, Richard, “Incidents in the History of York, Pennsylvania, 1778,” The Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, XVI:4 (January 1893), 436-37. [31] New York State, Legislature, Assembly, “The Votes and Proceedings of the Assembly of the State of New-York, at their Second Session, Begun and Holden in the Assembly Chamber, at Poughkeepsie, in Dutchess County, on Thursday, the First Day of

Philip Livingston played an integral role in the formation of local and state government in preand post-revolutionary New York. Historian Theodore Sedgwick, Jr., wrote, “By some he was considered the ablest member of his family . . . My limits allow me to make no more than this hurried mention of Philip Livingston, and this meager collection of dates afford me but a faint idea of that vigour [sic] of conduct, and steadfastness of purpose which gave him in his day, an influence and ascendency to which contemporary history bears full witness.” [32] See also: Robert R. Livingston; Walter Livingston; William Livingston

[1] Livingston family tree, online at http://www.geni.com/ people/Philip-Livingston-signer-of-the-Declaration-of-Independence/318539364040006971. [2] Hunt, Charles Havens, “Life of Edward Livingston” (New York: D. Appleton and Company, 1864), 1. [3] Bulloch, Joseph Gaston Baillie, “A History and Genealogy of the Families of Bayard, Houstoun of Georgia, and the Descent of the Bolton Family from Assheton, Byron and Hulton of Hulton Park” (Washington, DC: James H. Dony, Printer, 1919), 16. [4] “Minutes of the Common Council of the City of New York, 1675-1776” (New York: Dodd, Mead and Company; eight volumes, 1905), VI:16, 384. [5] Reynolds, Cuyler, comp., “Genealogical and Family History of Southern New York and the Hudson River Valley. A Record of the Achievements of Her People in the Making of a Commonwealth and the Building of a Nation” (New York: Lewis Historical Publishing Company; three volumes, 1914), III:1327. [6] Lydon, James G., “New York and the Slave Trade, 1700 to 1774,” The William and Mary Quarterly, Third Series, XXXV:2 (April 1978), 388-89. [7] “Authentic Account of the Proceedings of the Congress held at New-York, in MDCCLXV, On the Subject of the American Stamp Act” in “A Third Volume of Interesting Tracts, on The Subject of Taxing the British Colonies in America, Containing 1. The Conduct of the Late Administration Examined. With an Appendix, Consisting of Original and Authentic Documents. II. Authentic Account of the Proceedings of the Congress held at New-York. III. The Examination of Dr. Benjamin Franklin. IV. Two Curious Papers Written in 1739, by Mr. Joshua Gee, and Others” (London: Printed for J. Almon, Opposite Burlington-House, in Piccadilly, 1767), 3. For additional documents from this Congress, see “A Collection of Interesting, Authentic Papers, Relative to the Dispute Between Great Britain and America; Shewing the Causes and Progress of That Misunderstanding, from 1764 to 1775” (London: Printed for J. Almon, Opposite Burlington-House, in Piccadilly, 1777). [8] “A Collection of Tracts, on the Subjects of Taxing the British Colonies in America, and Regulating their Trade. In Four Volumes” (London: Printed for J. Almon, Opposite BurlingtonHouse, Piccadilly, 1773), I:12. [9] Champagne, Roger, “Family Politics versus Constitutional Principles: The New York Assembly Elections of 1768 and 1769,”

Robert R. Livingston (1746-1813)867 October, 1778” (Poughkeepsie, NY: Printed by John Holt, Printer to the State of New-York, 1779), 11. [32] Sedgwick, Theodore, Jr., “A Memoir of the Life of William Livingston: Member of Congress in 1774, 1775, and 1776; Delegate to the Federal Convention in 1787, and Governor of the State of New-Jersey from 1776 to 1790. With Extracts from His Correspondence, and Notices of Various Members of His Family” (New York: Printed and Published by J. & J. Harper, 82 Cliff-Street, 1833), 292.

Robert R. Livingston (1746-1813)

A member of the prestigious Livingston family of New York, Robert R. Livingston served with his cousin, Philip Livingston, in the Continental Congress, from 1775-76, 1779-80, and in 1784. While Philip signed the Declaration of Independence, Robert was the first secretary of foreign affairs (1776-83) during the earliest years of America foreign policy. He resigned in protest, later serving as the chancellor of New York State (1777-1801) and as the US minister to France (1801-04). Livingston was born at his family’s winter residence in New York City on 27 November

1746, the son of Judge Robert R. Livingston and his wife Margaret (née Beekman) Livingston. Robert R. Livingston was a scion of a famed American clan. Historian and genealogist James Padgett wrote in 1936: The Livingstons of New York were descended from a family of ‘historical celebrity’ in the annals of Scotland. Kings, regents, and nobles appear in the line of their ancestors, and probably no family in the new world could boast of more numerous or more distinguished evidences of rank and title. Perhaps no family in America can trace its ancestors further into the remote past than can the Livingstons. Certainly no one can antedate Adams, and John O’Hart says that the Livingstons of Scotland from which the American Livingstons were descended could trace their ancestors to Milesius of Spain who was the thirtysixth in descent from Adams. They were descended from Princess Ulidia of the race Dunschleibne, whose surname in later years became Anglicised as Dunlevy and even as Dunlap and Livingston when a branch of this illustrious family migrated into Scotland soon after the English invasion. [1] The first of the family to come to America was Robert Livingston, who emigrated from Holland, from which his family wing had moved from Scotland; he arrived in the colonies in 1675. Eleven years later, he was able to purchase from local Native American tribes a large tract of land, which comprises, today, nearly the entirety of what is Dutchess and Columbia counties in New York State. While Robert’s son, Philip, became the “Lord of the Manor”—the family estate, “Livingston Manor”—his other son, Robert, was given a plot of land some 13,000 acres in size near the town of Clermont, New York. This would become the ancestral home of the family of Robert R. Livingston. Historian Frederic De Peyster wrote, “Robert Livingston, first Lord and Patentee of the Manor of Livingston, gave to his youngest son Robert 13,000 acres of land, the same being the town of Clermont. This grant was in reward for discovering and frustrating a plot formed among the Indians to massacre the white population of the Province. His only son and child, Robert R. Livingston, became at his father’s death the owner of this large estate, and a person of much distinction in the State, receiving the appointment of Judge from the English Crown.” [2]

868

Encyclopedia of the Continental Congresses

Of Robert R. Livingston’s father, Thomas S. Clarkson wrote, “The father of this large family, Judge Livingston, was a man of solid judgment, extensive knowledge, and high christian [sic] character. His wife has left a pen and ink sketch of him: ‘At the age of eighteen,’ she writes, ‘I was made the happy wife of Robert R. Livingston; to say that my best friend was an agreeable man, would but ill express a character that shone among the brightest; his finely cultivated understanding, his just and wise decisions as a judge, a patriot ever attentive to the interests of his country, and a discerning politician.” [3]

accordingly.” [5] In 1770, Livingston married Mary Stevens of New Jersey.

Robert R. Livingston graduated from King’s College (now Columbia University) in New York City, then studied the law with the historian William Smith. In 1773, he was admitted to the New York colonial bar, and for a short time practiced the law and worked in private business with John Jay. Livingston would spend most of his life in John Jay’s shadow: from this point until his death, he would be associated with Jay in one way or another. The start of their relationship led to Jay being introduced to Robert’s brother William’s daughter, Sarah, and the two married. Although few sources take note of it, Robert R. Livingston seems to have begun his travails against the British as early as 1766. That year, Livingston is listed, along with his cousin, Philip, as a delegate to the Stamp Act Congress. [4] In 1767, a conference was held between representatives from the Massachusetts Bay Colony and New York, relating to the establishment of a partition line of jurisdiction between the two provinces, although it does not appear that Livingston served as a delegate to this meeting, nevertheless he is included in its text, perhaps as an overseer or some other person with authority over the proceedings. On 2 October 1767, the commissaries wrote to Livingston, William Nicoll, and William Smith, Jr., “We were under some apprehensions that this diffidence of the Commissaries of NewYork would prevent any further progress in the conference, and, as we thought it must tend to remove their doubts, we gave them an extract from our instructions, corresponding with our declaration of the true intent and design of our powers; but a further doubt arose from our communication a part only and not the whole of our instructions, which caused us to desire that this part might be returned to us, which was done

In 1773, Livingston was named by New York’s royal government, William Tryon, as the city recorder for New York City, where he served until Tryon dismissed him in 1775 for voicing sympathies with the patriotic cause. Finished with this post, he moved his family from New York City to Clermont, New York, on the Hudson River in Columbia County. Historian Joseph Livingston Delafield wrote in 1911, “In the spring of 1775 Judge Livingston moved his family to Clermont, where they had been accustomed to spend the summer months, and the future Chancellor likewise made Clermont his home, establishing himself in the modest house which he had built not long before his marriage.” [6] In April 1775, Livingston was elected to a seat in the General Assembly. In the journals of that body for 1775, there is a notice that “[a]t a Provincial Convention held at the city of New-York, in the colony of New-York, on the 20th, 21st, and 23d days of April, 1775, the Deputies herein after named assembled at the Exchange, in the sais city, viz.” Shown to be representing Dutchess County are Colonel Morris Graham, Robert R. Livingston, and Egbert Benson, who also later served in the Continental Congress as well. [7] Livingston is mentioned in an agreement signed between the Massachusetts Bay Colony and New York. “This Agreement indented, made the eighteenth day of May, in the thirteenth Year of the Reign of his most gracious Majesty George the Third, King of Great-Britain, France, and Ireland, Defender of the Faith, &c., and in the Year of our Lord One Thousand Seven Hundred and Seventy-three, between John Watts, William Smith, Robert R. Livingston, and William Nicoll, Esquires, duly authorized to make such Agreement by Virtue of a Law of the Province of New-York one Part; and William Brattle, Joseph Hawley, and John Hancock, Esquires, thereunto also duly authorized by Virtue of a Law of the Province of Massachusetts-Bay . . . ” [8] Although Livingston’s official congressional biography does mention that he did serve in the Provincial Assembly [9], nevertheless it does omit that he served as one of chief justices of the colonial Supreme Court. For this office, we again turn to contemporary sources, including one newspaper account, which clearly states that

Robert R. Livingston (1746-1813)869 “Robert R. Livingston, Esq; one of the judges of the supreme court [sic], for the province of NewYork, does hereby order notice to be given in all the public news papers [sic], within this colony of New-York, that on application made to him by James Dole, of the city of Albany, merchant; a creditor of John M’Lean, of the county of Charlotte, in pursuance of four several acts of the legislature of the colony of New-York . . . ” [10] On 22 April 1775, the General Assembly elected Livingston to a seat in the Second Continental Congress; he served from 15 May to about 8 July 1775, 13 September to 12 November 1775, from about 13 May to 4 July 1776, and from that date to some unknown date in 1776. Although most sources on his life claim that he was still in the Continental Congress and resigned from it when he was named as the chancellor of New York in 1777, his last service in the Congress came in 1776, and his New York post had no effect on his congressional service. While in the Congress in this first tenure, he signed the petition to King George III on 8 July 1775, and served on the committee which drafted the Declaration of Independence, although he did not play a major role and he returned home when it was signed, which is why his signature is not on that document. [11] Delegate Richard Smith of New Jersey wrote in his diary, “Wednesday 13th. Mr. President (Hancock) in the Chair. The Credentials of the Georgia, Virginia, and Maryland Delegates were read and accepted without any Objection. [T]he Marylanders were the same as at the last Session. An Order was made that the Pennsa. Delegates shall send off to Gen. Washington under a proper Guard, the remainder of his Money amounting in the whole to 700,000 Dollars, and they were at the same Time to send the Cloathing for Two Regiments lately seized at Philada. [James] Duane and Rob. R. Livingston came today from the Indian Treaty at Albany.” [12] As noted, in 1777, Livingston was appointed as the chancellor of New York State; according to the New York Constitution, promulgated that same year, a lawyer was to be appointed as the head of the Court of Chancery, originally a colonial office (established in 1701), which gave one man the exclusive ability to overrule or uphold decisions of first the colonial, and then the state, Supreme Court. Livingston held this post until 1801, even

while he served in the Continental Congress, and even while he conducted the foreign affairs of the United States. In short, it is hard to believe that one man could hold all of the positions at one time—but Robert R. Livingston did. An example of Livingston’s work as chancellor in contemporary documents and other sources, for instance, a decision by Livingston in one case can be found in The New-York Packet, a newspaper, on 4 July 1785. [13] On 18 October 1779, due to a New York State law that prohibited any members of the state Supreme Court to hold any other offices, John Jay, sitting as chief justice as well as holding a seat in the Continental Congress, was forced to resign his seat in the congress, and Livingston was again elected to the body, with the official journal of his election calling it “the present special Occasion.” [14] According to the Journals of the Continental Congress, “Whereas our senate and assembly having, at their late meeting, held at Kingston in our county of Ulster, by concurrent resolutions, declared, that a special occasion did not exist in which the chancellor and judges of the supreme court might be elected delegates to the general Congress of the United States of North-America, and that of the said chancellor and judges one should be elected a delegate on such special occasion, did thereafter at the said meeting, by concurrent proceedings, nominate and appoint Robert R. Livingston, esquire, our chancellor of our said state, a delegate to represent the same in the said general Congress of the United States of North-America, on such special occasion, to continue in office until the first day of April next . . . ” [15] Livingston was reelected on 24 February 1780, and 12 September 1780, and served, at least as an official delegate, from 20 November to 31 December 1779, 1 January to 17 April 1780, 17 May to about 13 July 1780, and from about 16 August to either 28 or 29 September 1780. [16] During his tenure, he served as a member of the influential Committee on Foreign Affairs. The enactment by the Continental Congress of the Articles of Confederation, the first constitution that ruled as a blueprint of the central government for the United States, gave that body the po