Knollenberg Bernhard. Growth of the American Revolution: 1766-1775
Подождите немного. Документ загружается.
Vardill, formerly of New York, wrote Duane from London on Septem-
ber , , while Duane was attending the Congress, “Might I venture to sol-
licit Mr. Duane’s sentiments, digested in his regular, convincing and elegant
method, as communication of them to Persons in power here might [give me] an
Opportunity of being happy by promoting his interest.”⁴ But I have found no evi-
dence that Duane replied to Vardill or in any other way divulged proceedings
of the Congress.
Somewhat earlier, Vardill had also written to Jay along somewhat the same
lines in a letter delivered to Jay by William Laight, a common friend of his and
Vardill. The letter is missing, but the general nature of its contents appears
from Jay’s reply of September , , stating,
“I am obliged to be very reserved on this Subject by the Injunction of
Secrecy laid on all the Members of the Congress tho I am aware of the Confi-
dence I might repose in your Prudence. I must nevertheless submit to the Con-
troul of Honor, perhaps on this occasion too delicate. By the next opportunity
I hope I shall be able to be more explicit. You may then expect my sentiments
at large.”⁵
It seems evident that Jay’s hope of later being able to be more explicit was
based on the expectation that the Congress might lift the ban on secrecy. But,
whatever he may have meant, I have found no evidence that he wrote any fur-
ther letter or letters to Vardill.
In his letter to Vardill of September , Jay enclosed a letter to his brother,
Sir James Jay, who was in England, with the request that Vardill forward the
letter to him.⁶ In this letter, which also is missing, Jay, trusting to his brother’s
discretion, may conceivably have given information concerning proceedings
in the Congress, which was passed on to the Ministry by Vardill, Sir James, or
someone else. But unless this letter turns up and is found to contain incrimi-
nating evidence, it would be unfair to condemn Jay on the strength of William
Lee’s unsubstantiated charge against him.
Who then, if not Jay, was the person whose “private correspondence” fur-
nished the Ministry with word of “every step” taken by the Congress? Pownall
did not say that this person was a member of the Congress,⁷ and may have re-
ferred to someone outside the Congress who gathered or pretended to gather
information as to the proceedings of the Congress and sent it to England.
PEACE NEGOTIATIONS OF
BENJAMIN FRANKLIN
O D , , David Barclay, merchant and banker and a lead-
ing English Quaker, called on Benjamin Franklin to discuss a forthcoming
meeting of London merchants trading to North America to petition the House
of Commons for conciliatory measures.¹* Franklin had remained in London
after the hearing before the Privy Council Committee described in Chapter ,
as Agent for the Pennsylvania Assembly, the Massachusetts House of Repre-
sentatives, and the colonies of New Jersey and Georgia.²
In the course of their conversation, Barclay told Franklin he was convinced
that most members of the North Ministry wished to avoid a “Civil War” and
would be happy “to get out of their present Embarassment on any Terms, only
saving the Honour and Dignity of Government.” He suggested that Franklin
think of some plan of accommodation and then have another meeting with him
to discuss the matter.³ Soon afterward, Franklin received letters from Barclay
and another leading English Quaker, the distinguished London physician, Dr.
John Fothergill, inviting him to meet them at Fothergill’s home on December .⁴
At this meeting Fothergill assured Franklin that however violent some of
the Ministry might be, others, “he had good reason to believe,...were differ-
ently dispos’d.” He asked Franklin to draw up a plan which, if judged reason-
able by Barclay and himself, could be “communicated to some of the most
moderate among the Ministers, who would consider it with attention.”⁵
At a meeting two days later, Franklin presented them with a paper which
he called “Hints for Conversation upon the Subject of Terms that might prob-
* Jonathan R. Dull, The Diplomatic History of the American Revolution (New Haven, Conn.: Yale Uni-
versity Press, ). [B.W.S.]
ably produce a durable Union between Britain and the Colonies,” the cardi-
nal points of which follow.
. The destroyed tea was to be paid for; the duty on tea was to be repealed.
. No money was to be raised in the colonies in time of peace except by the
colonies’ own Legislatures for the support of their own governments; the
colonies to contribute to war expenses according to a suggested formula
based on the additional British land tax levied by Parliament for war
purposes.
. The Boston Port Act and Massachusetts Regulating Act were to be
repealed.
. Extension of the Treason Act of Henry VIII to the colonies was to be
disclaimed.
. Admiralty courts in the colonies were to have no wider powers than those
exercised by such courts in England,⁶ where they had no jurisdiction over
alleged violation of acts of Parliament regulating trade.
The would-be peacemakers asked for copies of Franklin’s “Hints”; Fothergill
said he intended to show his to Lord Dartmouth, whom he had “an Opportu-
nity of seeing daily” and of “whose good Disposition he had a high Opinion,”
and Barclay asked if he might show his copy to Lord Hyde. Barclay said that,
though Hyde was “not in the Ministry properly speaking,” he was “a good deal
attended to by them,” and Franklin, who “knew Lord Hyde a little, and had
an Esteem for him,” approved Barclay’s proposed use of the “Hints.”⁷
A few days later, Franklin sent Barclay a revised copy of the “Hints,” in-
corporating changes suggested by Barclay and Fothergill.⁸
On December , Barclay informed Franklin that Hyde thought his propo-
sitions “too hard,”⁹ and Fothergill told Frankin that Dartmouth found “some of
them appear’d reasonable, but others were inadmissable or impracticable.”¹⁰
There the matter rested until February , , when Barclay and Fothergill
resumed negotiations by presenting Franklin with a paper of “Observations”
which, they intimated, was approved by the administration. The “Observa-
tions” itemized the points in Franklin’s “Hints” that were approved outright or
conditionally and those disapproved or found inadmissible. Since one of those
disapproved was the proposed repeal of the Massachusetts Regulating Act,
Franklin told them there could be no agreement, because this act rendered the
colonists “unsafe in every Privilege we had a Right to....”¹¹
Despite this seeming impasse, Barclay, after talking with Hyde, asked
for another conference, at which (February ) he and Fothergill presented
Franklin with a counterplan. This, too, contained no proposal for repeal of the
Massachusetts Regulating Act. However, they assured Franklin that the Min-
istry still “only wanted some...Ground on which to found the commence-
ment of conciliatory Measures,” and that a petition from the colonial Agents
in London engaging the destroyed tea would be paid for if the Boston Port
Act were suspended, would furnish the required ground. Franklin replied that
it would be impractical to have the Agents jointly make such an engagement,
but that he himself would do so “if there were, as they suppos’d, a clear Proba-
bility of Good to be done by it....”¹²
Barclay and Fothergill, apparently hopeful that Franklin’s offer might lead
to something useful, asked to meet him again the following day. But the meet-
ing proved to be fruitless, since there still was no assent to repeal of the Mas-
sachusetts Regulating Act.¹³
So far as is known, Franklin heard nothing further from either Barclay or
Fothergill until the evening before he left London for America late in March,
. He then received a letter from Fothergill asking him to assemble some of
the latter’s friends and others in Philadelphia and “inform them that, whatever
specious Pretences are offered [by the administration] they are all hollow; and
that to get a larger Field on which to fatten a Herd of worthless Parasites, is all
that is regarded....”¹⁴
A month earlier, Franklin had written in similar vein to Joseph Galloway con-
cerning the latter’s Plan of Union with Great Britain (described in Chapter ).
“I cannot but apprehend,” wrote Franklin, “more Mischief than Benefit
from a closer Union;...their [the British ruling class’] wide-wasting Prodig-
ity and Profusion is a Gulph that will swallow up every Aid we may distress our-
selves to afford them.
“Here Numberless and needless Places, enormous Salaries, Pensions,
Perquisites, Bribes...false Accounts or no Accounts, and Jobbs, devour all
Revenue and produce continual Necessity in the Midst of natural Plenty. I ap-
prehend, therefore, that to unite us intimately will only be to corrupt and poi-
son us also. It seems like Mezentius’s coupling and binding together the dead
and the living.
‘Tormenti genus, et sanie taboque fluentes,
Complexu in misero, longâ sic morte necabat.’
However, I would try any thing, and bear any thing that can be borne with
Safety to our just Liberties, rather than engage in a War with such near rela-
tions....”¹⁵
During the progress of the negotiations with Barclay and Fothergill, an-
other negotiation was opened with Franklin through the good offices of the
Honorable Mrs. Caroline Howe, widow of John Howe, with whom Franklin
had recently been playing chess.¹⁶
Mrs. Howe (a Howe by birth as well as by marriage) had three brothers no-
table in American history. The eldest, Colonel George Augustus Howe, third
Viscount Howe in the Irish peerage, a popular officer in the French and Indian
War, was killed near Fort Ticonderoga during that war. His successor in the
peerage was Admiral Richard Howe, a distinguished member of the House of
Commons and Treasurer of the Navy during part of Rockingham’s adminis-
tration and the whole of Chatham’s. He and his younger brother, General
William Howe, are, of course, well-known figures in the War of the American
Revolution.¹⁷
Mrs. Howe arranged for a meeting between Franklin and Admiral Howe
on Christmas night, at which Howe made an approach similar to Barclay’s. He
assured Franklin that “some of the Ministry were extremely well dispos’d to
any reasonable Accomodation, preserving only the Dignity of Government,”
and asked for a paper “containing the Terms on which I [Franklin] conceived
a good Understanding might be obtained....”¹⁸
Howe arranged for another meeting three days later, at which he said that
“there was a Communication between him and the Ministry,” and he could
now assure Franklin “of a Certainty that there was a sincere Disposition
in Lord North and Lord Dartmouth to accommodate the Differences with
America, and to listen favourably to any Proposition that might have a prob-
able tendency to answer that salutary Purpose.” He added however, that, hav-
ing seen a copy of the “Hints” submitted by Franklin to Barclay and Fothergill,
he had “reason to think there was no likelyhood of the Admission of those
Propositions.”
Howe, therefore, asked Franklin, who had not yet drawn up the requested
paper, to “form some Plan that might be acceptable here.” He also threw in the
suggestion that it might be well for the administration to send “a Person of Rank
and Dignity, who had a Character of recognized Candour, Integrity and Wis-
dom” to America to try to find “some Means of composing our Differences.”¹⁹
A day or two later, Franklin delivered a paper to Mrs. Howe differing little
in substance from his revised “Hints,” but adding the suggestion that the forth-
coming Second Continental Congress “be authoriz’d by Government (as was
that held at Albany in ) and a Person of Weight and Dignity of Character
be appointed to preside at it on Behalf of the Crown.”²⁰
On January , , Howe reported to Franklin through Mrs. Howe that,
having read this paper, he feared “the desired accommodation threatens to be
attended with much greater difficulty” than he had apprehended, but would,
nevertheless, “forward the propositions as intended.”²¹
There the negotiation with Howe rested until February , the day after
Franklin had the talk with Barclay and Fothergill at which he made the condi-
tional offer to pay for the destroyed tea, as described earlier. Howe now pro-
posed that Franklin see Hyde, with whom Franklin had not yet talked.²²
At the ensuing conference on March , Franklin found that Hyde had noth-
ing more to offer concerning colonial taxation than had been offered in Lord
North’s motion of February , , described in Chapter , which was ut-
terly unacceptable.
Franklin also pointed out to Hyde, as he had to Barclay and Fothergill, that
the administration had not made any offer at all to settle the “new Dispute...
rais’d by the Parliament’s pretending in the Massachusetts Regulating Act to
a power of altering our Charters and establish’d Laws; which was of still more
importance to us than their Claim of Taxation, as it set us all adrift, and left us
without a privilege we could depend on, but at their Pleasure....”
Hyde replied that, while the administration had “a sincere desire of restor-
ing Harmony with America,” they would “never obtain better terms than were
now offer’d by Lord North,”²³ thus ending the negotiations.
NEW YORK AND THE
CONTINENTAL CONGRESS
:
1775
I J, , Abraham Ten Broeck, member for Rensselaerwyck
Manor in the New York Assembly,¹ moved that the Assembly “take into con-
sideration the Proceedings of the Continental Congress.” This motion was de-
feated,² as were two subsequent motions relating to the Congress: a motion to
thank the New York delegates to the Congress for “their faithful and judicious
discharge of the trust reposed in them by the good people of this colony”; and
a motion to thank the merchants and other inhabitants of the colony for their
firm adherence to the Association for non-importation, non-exportation, and
non-consumption recommended by the Congress.
A fourth motion relating to the Congress, a motion on February by John
Thomas, a member for Westchester County, to consider “the necessity of ap-
pointing Delegates for the Colony to meet with Delegates for other colonies on
this Continent in general Congress,” also was defeated. The vote on this mo-
tion was as follows:
()
Philip Schuyler Albany County
George Clinton Ulster County
Charles De Witt Ulster County
Abraham Ten Broeck Rensselaerwyck Manor
Peter R. Livingston Livingston Manor
Zebulon Seaman Queens County
John Thomas Westchester County
Nathaniel Woodhull Suffolk County
Simon Boerum Kings County
()
James De Lancey New York City and County
(Manhattan Island)
Jacob Walton New York City and County
James Jauncey New York City and County
Benjamin Seaman Richmond County
(Staten Island)
Christopher Billop Richmond County
Daniel Kissam Queens County
(Long Island)
John Rapalje Kings County
(Long Island)
William Nicoll Suffolk County
(Long Island)
Crean Brush Cumberland County
(upper New York)
Samuel Wells Cumberland County
Frederick Philipse (Philips) Westchester County
(lower Hudson Valley)
Isaac Wilkins Westchester Borough
(lower Hudson Valley)
Jacob H. Ten Eyck Albany County
(upper Hudson Valley)
Leonard Van Kleeck Dutchess County
(upper Hudson Valley)
Dirk Brinckerhoff Dutchess County
Samuel Gale Orange County
(lower Hudson Valley)
John Coe Orange County³
As shown in the second appendix to Chapter , describing the election of
the New York delegation to the First Continental Congress in , members
of the New York Assembly had long been divided into two rather well-defined
parties.
The division along party lines now apparently affected the Assembly’s vote
on Thomas’ motion to consider the election of delegates from New York to the
Second Continental Congress.
Seventeen of the members who in had voted on the motion to grant
supplies for British troops, as required by the British Quartering Act, now voted
on Thomas’ motion. Of these, James De Lancey, Walton, Jauncey, Benjamin
Seaman, Billop, Rapalje, Nicoll, Philipse, and Van Kleeck had voted for the
supplies. Clinton, De Witt, Ten Broeck, Zebulon Seaman, Thomas, Wood-
hull, and Boerum had voted against furnishing them. Only three now switched
from the group with which they had voted on the motion for the supplies.
Thomas and Boerum, who had voted for the supplies, now voted in favor of
Thomas’ motion; Ten Eyck, who voted against the supplies, now voted against
Thomas’ motion.⁴
Apart from party solidarity or Tory leaning, however, there were weighty
reasons for members to vote against approving in their entirety the proceed-
ings of the First Continental Congress and against electing delegates to the
Second.
Many moderate Whigs, as well as Tories, in New York thought that the
New York delegation to the Congress had gone too far in acquiescing in two
measures adopted by the Congress.
The first was the Congress’ adoption of the provision in the Association
calling for non-exportation as well as non-importation. So far as is known, the
New York delegates other than those from New York City and County had
made no commitment as to what their stand would be on putting commercial
pressure on Great Britain; but four of the five delegates from New York City
had clearly implied that they would at most support a ban on importation.⁵
The second was the Congress’ resolution virtually approving the fiery Suffolk
Resolves,⁶ quoted in Chapter , which went far toward committing the colo-
nies to support the people of Massachusetts if they resisted British troops try-
ing to enforce the British Acts denounced in these Resolves.
In case of war, New York was likely to be particularly hard hit because so
much of the thickly settled part of the colony—Manhattan Island (New York
City and County), Staten Island (Richmond County), Long Island (Kings,
Queens, and Suffolk Counties),⁷ and the Hudson River Valley south of the
Highlands—was vulnerable to attack by British warships and British troops
operating from, and covered by, them.
By voting not to approve the proceedings of the First Congress and not to
send delegates to the Second, New York might possibly escape this danger.
:
These considerations had just been forcefully brought home to the people
of New York in a series of pamphlets⁸ published in New York City by the Rev-
erend Samuel Seabury.⁹
In view of the circumstances just described, a member of the New York As-
sembly who voted against approving the proceedings of the First Congress and
electing delegates to the Second did not necessarily identify himself as a Tory.
But subsequent proceedings in the New York Assembly brought to light a con-
siderable number of members clearly identifiable as Tories.
On March , a committee appointed some weeks earlier “to prepare a
statement of the Grievances of this Colony” against Great Britain presented its
report.¹⁰ This included a resolution that “it is the opinion of the Committee
that his Majesty, and the Parliament have a right to regulate the Trade of
the Colonies, and to levy Duties on articles that are imported directly into this
Colony from any foreign country or plantation, which may interfere with the
Products or Manufactures of Great Britain, or any other parts of his Majesty’s
Dominions.”
As thus phrased, the resolution might be construed to recognize the right
of Parliament to levy certain duties for the purpose of raising a revenue, as well
as for the regulation of trade. Schuyler therefore moved to amend the resolu-
tion by adding, “Excluding every idea of Taxation, internal or external, for the
purpose of raising a Revenue on the subjects in America, without their con-
sent.” This motion was carried by a vote of to .¹¹
The vote against it was, in effect, a vote in favor of recognizing the right of
Parliament to levy certain import duties for revenue on the colonies and clearly
stamped the eleven so voting—Jauncey, Brush, Wilkins, Rapalje, Kissam,
Cruger, De Lancey, Billop, Philipse, Wells, and Nicoll—as Tories.
In the end, New York colony sent a delegation to the Second Continental
Congress. Soon after the defeat of Thomas’ motion, the New York City Com-
mittee of Fifty-One (described in Chapter ) tooks steps to convene a colony-
wide convention,¹² and on April , this convention elected a strong delegation
to the Second Congress.¹³