Danver Steven L. (Edited). Revolts, Protests, Demonstrations, and Rebellions in American History: An Encyclopedia (ENG)

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

appointed by the Catholic king, James II. The following description of the start of the insurrection

comes from an account of t he rebellion entitled “A Modest and Impartial Narrative,” which is

attributed to Nicholas Bayard, one of Leisler’s most vocal opponents. As such, the account is nei-

ther “modest” nor “impartial,” but a virulent attack on Leisler and his supporters, who governed

the colony between 1689 and 1691. Opposed by the landed and merchant interests, who lost

control of the colonial economy during his administration, Leisler was subsequently arrested

and executed for treason.

A Modest and Impartial Narrative Of several Grievan ces and Great Oppressions That the

Peaceable and most Considerable Inhabitants of Their Majesties Province of New-York in America

Lye Under, By the Extravagant and Arbitrary Proceedings of Jacob Leysler and his Accomplices.

Printed at New-York, and Re-printed at London 1690.

The Reader is hereby advertised, That the Matters contained in the foll owing De clara-

tionandNarration,wereintendedtohavebeenpresentedtotheMayor’sCourtin

New York, the 25th of January last past, but t hat the F ury and Ra ge of th is Insolent

Man Leysler, was grown to that height, that the day before, by his order, several Persons

of Note were violently seized and divers Houses broken open, so as it was not thought

safe to proceed in such Method. For which reason it’s thought well to publish the same,

for information of all into whose hands it may come, but more especially for the beneﬁt

of our fellow Inhabitants, who are abused by the Pretentious of this common Violator of

our Laws and Liberties, as by the following Narrative will plainly appear: Wherein the

Courteous Peruser is desired to take notice, it hath been our great Care to relate noth-

ing but Matters of Fact, of which we have substantial Credible Evidences.

The Narrative, etc.

Out of the deep sense we have of the good providence of Almighty God, in their Maj-

esties happy accession to the Imperial Crown of England, etc., In the ﬁrst place we, in

a most Christian manner, with hearts and hands lifted up to Heaven, give Glory to

Almighty God, for this so happy a Revolution, whereof it hath pleased the most High

to appear the Principal Author. In the next place, we cannot but declare and publish

to the world our hearty and t hankful resentments of t he Noble, though hazardous

Enterprise of the late Prince of Orange, our most dread Sovereign King of England,

Scotland, France and Ireland, Defender of the Faith etc., the Noble Hero of this Age,

for the Protestant Religion, and the preservation of the Laws and Liberties of the En-

glish Nation inviolated, manifesting hereby that as in duty bound, so in point of Grati-

tude, we can do no less than dedicate our Lives and fortunes to their Majesties

services, with our most serious and continued prayers for their Majesties long and

happy Reign over us, being well satisﬁed in our own selves, that what our native Land

so plentifully enjoys under their Reign, to wit, the Laws and Liberties of the English

Nation, we (though inhabiting a remote part of their Dominions) shall share with them

in the common Propriety.

64 Leisler’s Rebellion (1689–1691)

In consideration whereof, in all humble and obedient manner as Dutiful subjects to

their Majesties, and well wishers to this their Province of New York, we can do no

less than in th e pr esence of God, and to the world, declare our abhorrence and dislike

of t he unreasonable, Illegal and Arbitrary proceedings of some Men inhabiting with us

in this their Majestys Province who have usurped Authority over us.

Against all such proceedings of theirs hereafter faithfully and impartially set down and

against them, as the Actors thereof, we do hereby publickly declare and protest.

Now to the end that the Reasonableness of this our Protestation may appear unto all

to whose hands it may come, we count ourselves obliged to give a brief recital of the case

of our Late Lieutenant Governour Francis Nicholson, for the more peaceable quiet and

satisfactory governing this their Majestys Province.

To obviate all suspi cion of Jealousies that might arise in ill affected turbulent spi rits,

our said Lieutenant Governour by and with the consent of so many of the Council as

here resided (upon the whispering of the late happy change) did convene together, 1 with

the Mayor, Aldermen and Common Council men of the City of New York, with all the

Commission Ofﬁcers of the Militia of this City and Country; at which convention our

said Lieutenant Governour proposed to admit of part of the Train-bands of this City

and County to take their turns of watching and warding within their Majesties Fort under

their own Ofﬁcers; And further offered, with the advice and consent of his Council, Civil

and Military Ofﬁcers, the re met and assemble d, that the Customs formerly paid by the

Inhabitants of this Province should still continue, only with this alteration, that whereas

formerly it was expended and laid out in defraying of the charges of the Government,

and Soldiers in pay in the Garrison, it should thence forward be imployed in the fortifying

and putting this City in a posture of defence against a foreign Enemy, on which the wel-

fare and safety of this Province so much depends.

In pursuance of the same an order issued forth from the said conve ntion, signed by

the Lieutenant Governour, his Council, the Mayor and Aldermen of this City, and most

of the Commission Ofﬁcers of the Militia, none shewing so great a dislike to it as Jacob

Leysler, one of the Captains of the Train bands of this City, who at that time had a Ship

loaden with wines, the customs whereof amounted to upwards of one hundred pounds;

the payment of this he utterly refused, alledgin g, T he Collector , being a Papist, was not

qualiﬁed to receive it, denying the then powe r to be legal; but whether for t hat or his

own private interest let the impartial judge.

The turbulent mind of this person not being satisﬁed i n denying the payment of the

usual Customs, though appointed f or the use aforesaid, he sets himself upon inventing

ways h ow he might overturn th e Gov’t which was then peaceable and quiet. The ﬁrst

thing he falls upon was to stir up and animate the people of the East end of Long Island

to advance with sufﬁcient force to take possession of the Fort, lest it should be in danger

of being delivered up to a Foreign Power; this readily took with them whose minds were

already heated by the example of Boston in clapping up of o ur Governour Sir Edmund

Andros, and after some consultations amongst themselves, they put forward in a Hostile

manner increasing as they came along the Island, until they were so far advanced as the

Town of Jamaica, being then about eighty in number, whence they hal ted, and sent up

Leisler’s Rebellion (1689–1691) 65

three1 of their principal leaders to discourse the Lieutenant Governour, who upon their

coming convened his council, the Mayor and Aldermen of this City, and the Commission

Ofﬁcers of the Militia of City and County, into which Convention the Persons sent were

admitted, where after some long debates they seemingly went away satisﬁed, at least so

far as that they and the men accompanying them returned home to their own Townes

and habitations, without doing the least hurt or damage to any.

This stratagem failing ...Leysler, in a short time after a Rumour was spread amongst the

quiet Inhabitants of this City, of a horrible design there was of murdering them, their wives

and children, as they were worshipping of God in the Dutch Church within the Fort, and

the Sunday preﬁxed, when this cruel act was to be accomplished; Captain Leysler in the

mean time instigating and stirring up the Inhabitants to self preservation against this imagi-

nary design, which so far prevailed with part of the Inhabitants as that the Friday before

the Sunday markt out by this report for the pretended massacre, they rose in a hostile

manner; the ﬁrst who appeared in arms were some under Leyslers Command who (as a

plot was laid) went to the House of their Captain, and threatened to shoot him if he did

not head them. This no ways surprised the courageous Captain; a substantial reason why,

himself being the sole contriver of it: Yet whether prevailed most, the want of valour, or

the apprehensions, if he should miscarry in this bold attempt, the Country would be desti-

tute of one so ﬁt as himself to command, we leave the judicious to determine.

However it was it seemed not good unto this Champion to venture himself, but com-

mits the conduct of his Men unto one Stoll, famous for nothing, unless his not being

worth a groat; up marches Stoll with his brisk followers, and to the Fort gates they draw

near, where they met with a very civil Gentleman, one Hendrick Cuyler, left under Cap-

tain Abraham Depeyster, who commanded that part of the Train bands, who by turn had

the Guard in the Fort that day; this Persons civility was such that it’s hard to determine

whether Stoll and his party without were more desirous to enter, than he within was

ready to open the Gates to them. In ﬁne, entrance they had with great acclamations

and joy on both sides, that so meritorious a design was not prevented.

How far this valiant Lieutenant Cuyler, in this base act of his, hath answered the Law

of Arms or the trust reposed in him, we will not now determine; but sure we are, the

season they took for accomplis hing this their unmanlike contrivance, doth not a little

add to their crime, i t being of that j uncture of tim e when our Lieutenant G overnour

and conventment (whereof we have before made mention) were consulting for the more

orderly and peaceable Governing this their Majesties Province, who at this sudden

change were startled, and acted what was left in their power, publickly protesting against

this rude Action, and the Actors thereof. By this time their great Champion Leysler being

well assured all danger and hazard was over, he most couragiously Girds on his Sword,

Marches stoutly up to the Fort, in order to his carrying the Game he had so fairly begun,

where he is joyfully received, and a consultation immediately held, how they should

obtain the Keys of the Fort, which the Lieut enant Governour had in Cu stody, being in

the City Hall, where he was in consultation as is already hinted.

The evening approaching, Captain Lodwick and his Company advances to the Fort to

mount the Guard, as his turn was; some time after his being in the Fort, nothing would

66 Leisler’s Rebellion (1689–1691)

satisfy the Tumultuous Multitude, but that three or four ﬁles of men must be sent under

the Command of William Churchill, Sergeant to Captain Lodwick, to fetch the keys from

the Lieutenant Governour (a ﬁtter person for such a Message could not be sent than this

Churchill, infamous for v/his mutinous and turbulent spirit). With much Insolence this

impertinent impudent fellow rushed into t he room where the Lieutenant Governour

was, and demanded the keys; the Lieutenant Governour commanded him to call his Cap-

tain, who was prevailed with to come, hoping thereby to appease the people, unto whom

the Lieutenant Governour delivered the keys, and Captai n Lodwick returning to the

Fort, the expectations of the multitude being answered, after publishing Ja. Leysler

Colonel, all leave the Fort to Captain Lodwick and his Company, who stayed their usual

time and it was then agreed upon amongst the Captains, that each should take his turn to

reside in the Fort as Chief, till their Majestys pleasure should be further known.

The Lieutenant Governour, his Council and Convention aforesaid, taking into their

serious considerations, what danger the Moneys was in, paid by the Inhabitants of this

their M ajestys Province as well for Customs as Publick Taxes, which at that time was

secured in the Fort, The said convention agreed upon and ordered the Moneys should

be removed to the House of Frederick Phillips1 one of the Council, a man of known

credit and the most considerable for Estate in their Majesties Province.

This was concluded on the day our Usurper Leysler, b y his Instrument s, seized

the Fort, being the 31st day of May last past. But to no purpose was this agre ement of

the convent ion; for those who had ma de them selves masters of their majesties Fort

were resolved to command the Money too, being the sum of seven hundred seventy

three pounds, which they peremptorily denied the removal of, when demanded by the

Lieutenant Governour, in pursuance of the order aforesaid. How they have disposed of

this Money, is not our present business to enquire; we leave that until the happy arrival

of a Governour Legally commissionated from the King.

The Fort being thus in possession of the Captains of this City, by turns, all the violence

used for severall days was that upon the arrival of any Vessel, great or small, a ﬁle of Mus-

queteers were sent on board, the Masters and Passengers carried to the Fort, and the

Letters taken from them, some whereof were open’d, and pub lickly read amongst th e

People. Never the like known in this place, under any former English Governor.

Source: Charles M. Andrews, ed., Narratives of the Insurrections 1675–1690, Original Nar-

ratives of Early American History (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1915), 320–326.

Leisler’s Rebellion (1689–1691) 67

Stono Rebellion (1739)

In 1739, approximately 20 slaves in South Carolina developed a plan for escaping

to freedom in Spanish-held Florida. This event, known as the Stono Rebellion, is

the largest and bloodiest slave rebellion of colonial British North America.

South Carolina emerged in the early 18th century as an agricultural colony

based on a plantation economy that centered on rice and later ind igo. Both crops

were labor intensive and grown on large plantations along the coast. Demands

for labor were met b y the initial enslaveme nt of Native Ameri cans and then the

importation of individuals from Africa. In particul ar, S outh Carolinians favored

slaves from the west coast of Africa. Slaves exceeded the number of free individ-

uals in South Carolin a as early as 1708. By 1740, there were approximately

39,000 slaves in South Carolina representing 66.1 perc ent of the total population

in the colony (Edgar 1998, 78).

The resistance of sl aves to their condition assumed many forms. At times, a

slave would strike a white overseer or other individual mistreating him. However,

such acti ons led to severe punishments, including death. Slaves learned to hold

their anger and frustration or to resist through other means. Slaves practiced many

alternative forms of resistance to their plight, with sabotage or work slowdowns

the most common choices. Barns mysteriously burned and animals disappeared

from their pens. Many slaves yearned to escape and head south toward Spanish

Florida, where freedom awaited them.

In 1726, South Carolina dispatched an ofﬁcial delegation to St. Augustine,

Florida, to secure Spanish acknowledgement to abide by a 1713 agreement to

return fugitive slaves from the English colonies. The delegation returned without

receiving a ﬁrm assurance from the Spanish. Slaves continued to escape and make

their way t o Florida, where some were armed a nd returned to raid f arms in

English-held territory. Despite the hope of freedom, many fugitive slaves or those

on captured English vessels were sold rather than freed by the Spanish. In 1733,

the king o f Spain issued a decre e that ofﬁcially granted freedom to all fugitive

slaves from English territory. Although the Spanish in Florida did not immediately

abide by the decree, by 1738 they began freeing many fugitives who had escaped

from English colonies to the north.

The Spanish Decree of 1733 and increasing rumors of slave unrest were issues

addressed by the South Carolina Assembly when it met in early 1739. The

members also discussed the problem of increasing numbers of slaves escaping and

heading south toward Spanish Florida, where apparent freedom awaited. In

July 1 739, a Spanish vessel arrived in Charleston (spelled Charlestown at that

time) reportedly carrying a message from James Oglethorpe of Georgia. Rumors

later emerged that the ves sel carried a man of African origin who spoke English

and stopped at several small inlets along the coast as it approached Charleston.

Whether these rumors are true and the Spanish helped instigate the Stono Reb el-

lion have never been proven.

On September 9, 1739, approximately 20 slaves met near the Stono River in St.

Paul’s Parish. Many of these slaves were recent arrivals from Angola and were led

by a man whose name has been deﬁnitively lost to history but reported as

“Jemmy” or “Jonny.” The group crossed the Stono Bridge, approximately 20 miles

south of Charleston, and entered Hutchinson’s Store where they stole weapons and

gunpowder and murdered Robert Bathurst and Mr. Gibbes, who operated the

establishment. The fugitives left the heads of both men on the fron t steps. They

then entered the home of Mr. Godfrey and murdered him, his son, and daughter.

Continuing southward, the fugitives arrived at Wallace’s Tavern. The innkeeper,

known to be benevolent to slaves, survived the encounter. However, the group

murdered Mr. Lemy along with his wife and child before moving on and burning

the home of Colonel Hext, whose overseer and his wife did not survive the inci-

dent. The fugitives burned the homes of three more families and killed the inhab-

itants as they continued south toward the Georgia border at the Savannah River.

They approached the home of Thomas Rose, another man well known for this

benevolence toward slaves. Rose’s slaves hid him and his family to ensure their

safety.

As the fugitives marched, they gathered those who willingly joined them and

forced many others to accompany the group to prevent any from warning the white

population. Reportedly, the fugitives raised a standard and acquired two drums to

mark their advance. Many other white individuals who encountered the band were

murdered. Lieutenant Governor William Bull and four other men were riding

north toward Charleston when they encountered the fu gitive group, which num-

bered approximately 50 individuals at this point. Bull and his companions man-

aged to escape and rode to the south, warning the countryside. The fugitives

continued their progres s toward the G eorgia border while increasing their num-

bers. By the afternoon, they halted near the Jacksonboro (Jacksonborough) ferry

at the Edisto River.

Armed white citizens organized and rode to intercept the fugitives marching

toward them. They found the group resting where they had stopped along the Edi-

sto River. At least two of the fugitives ﬁred upon their opposition, while others

loaded weapons or turned to run. The armed white planters ﬁ red a volley killing

70 Stono Rebellion (1739)

or wounding approximately 14 individuals. Others s urrendered, only to be shot

after brief questioning. Some who persuaded the planters that they had been forced

to join the fugitives were spared. Escaping fugitives were hunted and killed before

the planters placed their heads on the mileposts along the road a s a warning to

other slaves.

The Stono Rebellion resulted in the deaths of approximately 75 black and white

individuals. Fear and shock resulted in rumors of other supposed plots over the next

few months. Many white planters moved their f amili es to Charleston for saf ety

while militia members increased patrols. Six months later, a slave tipped white set-

tlers to another plot that resulted in trials for 67 slaves and the execution of 10. In the

spring of 1740, the South Carolina Assembly passed a piece of legislation known as

the Slave Codes. The document modiﬁed earlier codes that set rules of behavior for

slaves and slave owners. Viewing Spanish Florida as an instigator of slave agitation

in the colony, South Carolina authorized public funds, vessels, and men to accom-

pany James Oglethorpe of Georgia for a punitive expedition against the Spanish.

The operation failed and proved to be a waste of money. The legislature also placed

a new importation tax on slaves, doubling their cost. Recent slaves arriving from

Angola were seen as organizers of the Stono Rebellion and South Carolina wanted

to reduce the numbers of these individuals who were seen as troublemakers. This

plan succeeded and reduced the number of imported slaves during the 1740s to

1,562 from 12,589 brought into the colony between 1735 and 1740 (Ed gar 1998,

76). In tur n, the colo ny encouraged increased immigration from white settlers to

ease the high percentage of slaves in South Carolina. This action failed to make a

signiﬁcant reduction in the percentage of slaves in the colony.

Historical questions about the Stono Rebellion still linger. First, the Stono

Rebellion is sometimes known as “Cato’s Rebellion”; however, it is not accurately

known whether the slave named “Cato” was associated with the Stono Rebellion

or the suppressed insurrection of 1740. Second, despite the existence of Spain’s

1773 decree and the arrival of the Spanish vessel in Charleston, there is little his-

torical evidence for direct Spanish involvement in the Stono Rebellion. However,

the knowledge that possible freedom awaited in Florida did prompt th ose in the

Stono Rebellion, as well as many other individuals before 1739, to escape south

toward the Spanish colony.

—Terry M. Mays

See also all entries under New York Slave Insurrection (1741); Antebellum Suppressed

Slave Revolts (1800s–1850s); N a t Turner’s Re bel l ion (1831); New Orleans R io t (1866);

New Orleans Race Riot (1900); Atlanta Race Riot (1906); Springﬁeld Race Riot (1908);

Houston Riot (1 917); Red Summer (1919); Tulsa Race Riot ( 1 921 ); Civil Rights Move-

ment (1953–1968); Watts Riot (1965); Detroit Riots (1967); Los Angeles Uprising (1992).

Stono Rebellion (1739) 71