Chapter IV: , VII (197)

"In September 1720, William Burnet, the son of Bishop Burnet
and godson of William III., entered upon the government of New
York, burdened by instructions from England to keep alive the
assembly which had been chosen several years before. This he
did, to the great discontent of the people, until it had
lasted more than eleven years. … But he was intelligent, and
free from avarice. It was he who took possession of Oswego,
and he 'left no stone unturned to defeat the French designs at
Niagara.' Nevertheless, for all his merit, in 1728, he was
transferred to Massachusetts to make way for the groom of the
chamber of George II. while he was prince of Wales. At the
time when the ministry was warned that 'the American
assemblies aimed at nothing less than being independent of
Great Britain as fast as they could,' Newcastle sent as
governor to New York and New Jersey the dull and ignorant John
Montgomerie. Sluggish, yet humane, the pauper chief magistrate
had no object in America but to get money; and he escaped
contests with the legislatures by giving way to them in all
things. … He died in office in 1731. His successor, in 1732,
was William Cosby, a brother-in-law of the earl of Halifax,
and connected with Newcastle. A boisterous and irritable man,
broken in his fortunes, having little understanding and no
sense of decorum or of virtue, he had been sent over to clutch
at gain. Few men did more to hasten colonial emancipation. …
To gain very great perquisites, he followed the precedent of
Andros in Massachusetts in the days of the Stuarts, and
insisted on new surveys of lands and new grants, in lieu of
the old. To the objection of acting against law, he answered:
'Do you think I mind that? I have a great interest in
England.' The courts of law were not pliable; and Cosby
displaced and appointed judges, without soliciting the consent
of the council or waiting for the approbation of the
sovereign. Complaint could be heard only through the press. A
newspaper was established to defend the popular cause; and, in
November 1734, about a year after its establishment, its
printer, John Peter Zenger, a German by birth, who had been an
apprentice to the famous printer, William Bradford, and
afterward his partner, was imprisoned, by an order of the
council, on the charge of publishing false and seditious
libels. The grand jury would find no bill against him, and the
attorney-general filed an information. The counsel of Zenger
took exceptions to the commissions of the judges, because they
ran during pleasure, and because they had been granted without
the consent of council. The angry judge met the objection by
disbarring James Alexander who offered it, though he stood at
the head of his profession in New York for sagacity,
penetration, and application to business. All the central
colonies regarded the controversy as their own. At the trial
the publishing was confessed; but the aged and venerable
Andrew Hamilton, who came from Philadelphia to plead for
Zenger, justified the publication by asserting its truth. 'You
cannot be admitted,' interrupted the chief justice, 'to give
the truth of a libel in evidence.' 'Then,' said Hamilton to
the jury, 'we appeal to you for witnesses of the facts. The
jury have a right to determine both the law and the fact, and
they ought to do so.' 'The question before you,' he added, 'is
not the cause of a poor printer, nor of New York alone; it is
the cause of liberty.' … The jury gave their verdict, 'Not
guilty.' Hamilton received of the common council of New York
the franchises of the city for 'his learned and generous
defence of the rights of mankind and the liberty of the
press.'"

_G. Bancroft,
History of the United States (Author's last Revision)
part 3, chapter 15 (volume 2)._

ALSO IN:
_J. Grahame,
History of the United States (Colonial),
book 10, chapter 1 (volume 2)._

_W. L. Stone,
History of New York City,
2d period, chapter 2._

_E. Lawrence,
William Cosby and the Freedom of the Press
(Memorial History of the City of New York,
volume 2, chapter 7)._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1725.
The first Newspaper.

See PRINTING AND THE PRESS: A. D. 1704-1729.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1726.
How the Iroquois placed themselves
under the protection of England.

"Governour Burnet … assembled the chiefs of the Iroquois at
Albany [1726]; he reminded them of all the benefits they had
received from England, and all the injuries that had been
inflicted by France. He pointed out the evils that would flow
to them from a French fort at Niagara, on their territory. The
Indians declared their unwillingness to suffer this intrusion
of the French, but said they now had not power to prevent it.
They called upon the Governour of New York to write to the
King of England for help to regain their country from the
French of Canada. Burnet seized this opportunity to gain a
surrender of their country to England, to be protected for
their use. Such a surrender would be used by Europeans for
their own purposes; but (in the sense they viewed and
represented it), was altogether incomprehensible by the Indian
chiefs; and the deputies had no power from the Iroquois
confederacy to make any such surrender. … By the treaty of
Utrecht … France had acknowledged the Iroquois and their
territory to be subject to Great Britain."

_W. Dunlap,
History of New York,
volume 1, page 289._

{2336}

NEW YORK: A. D. 1741.
The pretended Negro Plot.
Panic and merciless frenzy of the people.

In 1741, "the city of New York became the scene of a cruel and
bloody delusion, less notorious, but not less lamentable than
the Salem witchcraft. That city now contained some 7,000 or
8,000 inhabitants, of whom 1,200 or 1,500 were slaves. Nine
fires in rapid succession, most of them, however, merely the
burning of chimneys, produced a perfect insanity of terror. An
indented servant woman purchased her liberty and secured a
reward, of £100 by pretending to give information of a plot
formed by a low tavern-keeper, her master, and three negroes,
to burn the city and murder the whites. This story was
confirmed and amplified by an Irish prostitute, convicted of a
robbery, who, to recommend herself to mercy, reluctantly
turned informer. Numerous arrests had been already made among
the slaves and free blacks. Many others followed. The eight
lawyers who then composed the bar of New York all assisted by
turns on behalf of the prosecution. The prisoners, who had no
counsel, were tried and convicted upon most insufficient
evidence. The lawyers vied with each other in heaping all
sorts of abuse on their heads, and Chief-justice Delancey, in
passing sentence, vied with the lawyers. Many confessed to
save their lives, and then accused others. Thirteen unhappy
convicts were burned at the stake, eighteen were hanged, and
seventy-one transported. The war and the religious excitement
then prevailing tended to inflame the yet hot prejudices
against Catholics. A non-juring schoolmaster, accused of being
a Catholic priest in disguise, and of stimulating the negroes
to burn the city by promises of absolution, was condemned and
executed."

_R. Hildreth,
History of the United States,
chapter 25 (volume 2)._

ALSO IN:
_Mrs. Lamb,
History of the City of New York,
volume 1, chapter 26._

_G. W. Williams,
History of the Negro Race in America,
volume 1, chapter 13._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1744.
Treaty with the Six Nations at Albany.

See VIRGINIA: A. D. 1744.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1744-1748.
King George's War.

See NEW ENGLAND: A. D. 1744; 1745; and 1745-1748.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1746-1754.
The founding of King's College.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1746-1787.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1749-1774.
The struggle for Vermont.
The disputed New Hampshire Grants,
and the Green Mountain Boys who defended them.

See VERMONT: A. D. 1749-1774.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1754.
The Colonial Congress at Albany and Franklin's Plan of Union.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1754.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1755.
The French and Indian War: Battle of Lake George.
Abortive expedition against Niagara.
Braddock's defeat.

See CANADA: A. D. 1755;
and OHIO (VALLEY): A. D. 1755.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1756-1757.
The French and Indian War:
English loss of Oswego and of Fort William Henry.

See CANADA: A. D. 1756-1757.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1758.
The French and Indian War:
Bloody defeat of the English at Ticonderoga.
Final capture of Louisburg and recovery of Fort Duquesne.

See CANADA: A. D. 1758;
and CAPE BRETON ISLAND: A. D. 1758-1760.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1759.
The French and Indian War:
Niagara, Ticonderoga, Crown Point and Quebec taken.

See CANADA: A. D. 1759.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1760.
The French and Indian War:
Completed English conquest of Canada.

See CANADA: A. D. 1760.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1763-1764.
Pontiac's War.
Sir William Johnson's Treaty with the Indians at Fort Niagara.

See PONTIAC'S WAR.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1763-1766.
The question of taxation by Parliament.
The Sugar Act.
The Stamp Act and its repeal.
The Declaratory Act.
The Stamp Act Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1760-1775; 1763-1764; 1765; and 1766.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1765.
Patriotic self-denials.
Non-importation agreements.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1764-1767.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1765-1768.
The Indian treaties of German Flats and Fort Stanwix.
Adjustment of boundaries with the Six Nations.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1765-1768.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1766-1773.
Opening events of the Revolution.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1766-1767, to 1772-1773,
and BOSTON: A. D. 1768, to 1773.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1773-1774.
The Revolutionary spirit abroad.
The conflict of parties.
The Vigilance Committee, the Committee of Fifty-One,
and the Committee of Sixty.

"In 1773 the tax on tea was imposed. On October 25th the
Mohawks of New York, a band of the Sons of Liberty, were
ordered by their old leaders to be on the watch for the tea
ships; and it was merely the chances of time and tide that
gave the opportunity of fame first to the Mohawks of Boston.
… An 'association' was now circulated for signatures,
engaging to boycott, 'not deal with, or employ, or have any
connection with' any persons who should aid in landing, or
'selling, or buying tea, so long as it is subject to a duty by
Parliament'; and December 17th a meeting of the subscribers
was held and a committee of fifteen chosen as a Committee of
Correspondence that was soon known as the Vigilance Committee.
Letters also were exchanged between the speakers of many of
the houses of assembly in the different provinces; and January
20, 1774, the New York Assembly, which had been out of touch
with the people ever since the Stamp Act was passed in the
year after its election, appointed their Speaker, with twelve
others, a standing Committee of Correspondence and Enquiry, a
proof that the interest of all classes was now excited. April
15th, the 'Nancy' with a cargo of tea arrived off Sandy Hook,
followed shortly by the 'London.' The Committee of Vigilance
assembled, and, as soon as Captain Lockyier, of the' Nancy'
landed in spite of their warning, escorted him to a pilot boat
and set him on board again. … April 23d, the 'Nancy' stood
out to sea without landing her cargo, and with her carried
Captain Chambers of the 'London,' from which the evening
before eighteen chests of tea had been emptied into the sea by
the Liberty Boys. The bill closing the port of Boston was
enacted March 31st, and a copy of the act reached New York by
the ship Samson on the 12th.
{2337}
Two days later the Committee of Vigilance wrote to the Boston
Committee recommending vigorous measures as the most
effectual, and assuring them that their course would be
heartily supported by their brethren in New York. So rapid had
been the march of events that not till now did the merchants
and responsible citizens of New York take alarm. Without their
concurrence or even knowledge they were being rapidly
compromised by the unauthorized action of an irresponsible
committee, composed of men who for the most part were noted
more for enthusiasm than for judgment, and many of whom had
been not unconcerned in petty riots and demonstrations
condemned by the better part of the community. … 'The men
who at that time called themselves the Committee,' wrote
Lieutenant Governor Colden the next month, 'who dictated and
acted in the name of the people, were many of them of the
lower ranks, and all the warmest zealots of those called the
Sons of Liberty. The more considerable merchants and citizens
seldom or never appeared among them. … The principal
inhabitants, being now afraid that these hot-headed men might
run the city into dangerous measures, appeared in a
considerable body at the first meeting of the people after the
Boston Port Act was published here.' This meeting, convoked by
advertisement, was held May 16th, at the house of Samuel
Francis, 'to consult on the measures proper to be pursued.'
… A committee of fifty, Jay among them, instead of one of
twenty-five, as at first suggested, was nominated 'for the
approbation of the public,' 'to correspond with our sister
colonies on all matters of moment.' Three days later these
nominations were confirmed by a public meeting held at the
Coffee House, but not until a fifty-first member was added,
Francis Lewis, as a representative of the radical party which
had been as much as possible ignored. … At the Coffee House
again, on May 23d, the Committee of Fifty-one met and
organized; they repudiated the letter to Boston from the
Committee of Vigilance as unofficial," and prepared a response
to another communication just received from Boston, by the
famous messenger, Paul Revere. In this reply it was "urged
that 'a Congress of Deputies from the Colonies in General is
of the utmost moment,' to form 'some unanimous resolutions …
not only respecting your [Boston's] deplorable circumstances,
but for the security of our common rights;' and that the
advisability of a non-importation agreement should be left to
the Congress. … The importance of this letter can hardly be
exaggerated, for it was the first serious authoritative
suggestion of a General Congress to consider 'the common
rights' of the colonies in general. … The advice of New York
was followed gradually by the other colonies, but even before
a Continental Congress was a certainty, the Committee of
Fifty-one, with singular confidence, resolved that delegates
to it should be chosen, and called a meeting for that purpose
for July 19th. … Philip Livingston, John Alsop, James Duane,
and John Jay were nominated as delegates to be submitted to
the public meeting, July 19th. The people met accordingly at
the Coffee House, and after a stormy debate elected the
committee's candidates in spite of a strong effort to
substitute for Jay, McDougall, the hero of the Liberty Boys."
This election, however, was not thought to be an adequate
expression of the popular will, and polls were subsequently
opened in each ward, on the 28th of July. The result was a
unanimous vote for Jay and his colleagues. "Thus, fortunately,
at the very inception of the Revolution, before the faintest
clatter of arms, the popular movement was placed in charge of
the 'Patricians' as they were called, rather than of the
'Tribunes,' as respectively represented by Jay and McDougall."

_G. Pellew,
John Jay,
chapter 2._

"The New York Committee of Fifty-One, having accomplished its
object, appointed a day for the choice, by the freeholders of
the city, of a 'Committee of Observation,' numbering sixty, to
enforce in New York the Non-Importation Act of the late
Congress; and when this new committee was duly elected and
organized, with Isaac Low as chairman, the Fifty-One was
dissolved."

_Mrs. M. J. Lamb,
History of the City of New York,
volume 1, page 768._

ALSO IN:
_I. Q. Leake,
Life and Times of General John Lamb,
chapter 6._

_J. A. Stevens,
The Second Non-importation Agreement
(Memorial History of the City of New York,
volume 2, chapter 11)._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1774.
The Boston Port Bill, the Massachusetts Act,
and the Quebec Act.
The First Continental Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1774.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1775 (April).
Disadvantages experienced by the patriots.
The first provincial Convention held.

"The republicans of the province of New York, composing by far
the greater portion of the inhabitants, labored under severe
disabilities. Acting Governor Colden was a Loyalist, and his
council held office by the King's will. The assembly, though
chosen by the people, continued in existence only by the
King's prerogative. They might be dissolved by the
representative of the crown (the acting governor) at any
moment. There was no legally constituted body to form a
rallying point for the patriots, as in Massachusetts, where
there was an elective council and an annually elected
assembly. In all the other colonies there was some nucleus of
power around which the people might assemble and claim to be
heard with respect. But in New York they were thrown back upon
their own resources, and nobly did they preserve their
integrity and maintain their cause, in spite of every
obstacle. The whole continent was now moving in the direction
of rebellion. … The excitement in New York was equally
intense. Toward the close of the preceding December, the
Liberty Boys were called to action by the seizure of arms and
ammunition, which some of them had imported, and had consigned
to Walter Franklin, a well known merchant. These were seized
by order of the collector, because, as he alleged, of the want
of cockets, or custom-house warrants, they having been in
store several days without them. While they were on their way
to the custom-house, some of the Sons of Liberty rallied and
seized them, but before they could be concealed they were
retaken by government officials and sent on board a man-of-war
in the harbor. … The republicans failed in their efforts, in
the New York Assembly, to procure the appointment of delegates
to the second Continental Congress, to be convened at
Philadelphia in May. Nothing was left for them to do but to
appeal to the people.
{2338}
The General Committee of sixty members, many of them of the
loyal majority in the assembly, yielding to the pressure of
popular sentiment, called a meeting of the freeholders and
freemen of the city at the Exchange, to take into
consideration the election of delegates to a convention of
representatives from such of the counties of the province as
should adopt the measure, the sole object of such convention
being the choice of proper persons to represent the colony in
the Continental Congress. This movement was opposed by the
loyalists. … At first there was confusion. This soon
subsided, and the meeting proceeded with calmness and dignity
to nominate eleven persons to represent the city in a
provincial convention to be held in New York on the 20th
[April], who were to be instructed to choose delegates to the
Continental Congress. On the following day the chairman of the
Committee of Sixty gave notice of the proposed convention on
the 20th to the chairmen of the committees of correspondence
in the different counties, advising them to choose delegates
to the same. There was a prompt response. … The convention
assembled at the Exchange, in New York, on the 20th, and
consisted of 42 members [representing seven counties outside
of New York city]. Colonel Schuyler was at the head of the
delegation from Albany, and took a leading part in the
convention. Philip Livingston was chosen president of the
convention, and John M'Kesson, secretary. This was the first
provincial convention in New York—the first positive
expression of the doctrine of popular sovereignty in that
province. They remained in session three days, and chose for
delegates to the Continental Congress Philip Livingston, James
Duane, John Alsop, John Jay, Simon Boerum, William Floyd,
Henry Wisner, Philip Schuyler, George Clinton, Lewis Morris,
Francis Lewis, and Robert R. Livingston, to whom were given
full power, 'or any five of them, to meet the delegates from
other colonies, and to concert and determine upon such
measures as shall be judged most effectual for the
preservation and reestablishment of American rights and
privileges, and for the restoration of harmony between Great
Britain and her colonies.' While this convention was in
session intelligence of the bloodshed at Lexington was on its
way, but it did not reach New York until the day after the
adjournment."

_B. J. Lossing,
Life and Times of Philip Schuyler,
volume 1, chapters 17-18._

ALSO IN:
_W. Dunlap,
History of New York,
volume 1, chapter 29_.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1775 (April-May).
The Beginning of the War of the American Revolution.
Lexington.
Concord.
Action upon the news.
Ethan Allen at Ticonderoga.
Siege of Boston.
Bunker Hill.
The Second Continental Congress.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1775.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1775 (April-September).
The Sons of Liberty take control of the city.
The end of royal government.
Flight of Governor Tryon.

"On Sunday, the 24th of April, 1775, the news of the battle of
Lexington reached the city. This was the signal for open
hostilities. Business was at once suspended; the Sons of
Liberty assembled in large numbers, and, taking possession of
the City Hall, distributed the arms that were stored in it,
together with a quantity which had been deposited in the
arsenal for safe keeping, among the citizens, a party of whom
formed themselves into a voluntary corps under the command of
Samuel Broome, and assumed the temporary government of the
city. This done, they demanded and obtained the keys of the
custom house, closed the building and laid an embargo upon the
vessels in port destined for the eastern colonies. … It now
became necessary to organize some provisional government for
the city, and for this purpose, on the 5th of May, a meeting
of the citizens was called at the Coffee-House, at which a
Committee of One Hundred was chosen and invested with the
charge of municipal affairs, the people pledging themselves to
obey its orders until different arrangements should be made by
the Continental Congress. This committee was composed in part
of men inclined to the royalist cause, yet, such was the
popular excitement at the time, that they were carried away by
the current and forced to acquiesce in the measures of their
more zealous colleagues. … The committee at once assumed the
command of the city, and, retaining the corps of Broome as
their executive power, prohibited the sale of weapons to any
persons suspected of being hostile to the patriotic party. …
The moderate men of the committee succeeded in prevailing on
their colleagues to present a placable address to
Lieutenant-Governor Colden, explanatory of their appointment,
and assuring him that they should use every effort to preserve
the public peace; yet ominous precautions were taken to put
the arms of the city in a serviceable condition, and to survey
the neighboring grounds with a view to erecting
fortifications. … On the 25th of June, Washington entered
New York on his way from Mount Vernon to Cambridge to take
command of the army assembled there. The Provincial Congress
received him with a cautious address. Despite their
patriotism, they still clung to the shadow of loyalty; fearing
to go too far, they acted constantly under protest that they
desired nothing more than to secure to themselves the rights
of true-born British subjects. The next morning Washington
quitted the city, escorted on his way by the provincial
militia. Tryon [Governor Tryon, who had been absent, in England
since the spring of 1774, leaving the government in the hands
of Lieutenant-Governor Colden, and who now returned to resume
it] had entered it the night before, and thus had been brought
almost face to face with the rebel who was destined to work
such a transformation in his majesty's colonies of America.
The mayor and corporation received the returning governor with
expressions of joy, and even the patriot party were glad of
the change which relieved them from the government of Colden.
… Meanwhile, the colony of New York had been ordered by the
Continental Congress to contribute her quota of 3,000 men to
the general defence, and four regiments were accordingly
raised. … The city now presented a curious spectacle, as the
seat of two governments, each issuing its own edicts, and
denouncing those of the other as illegal authority. It was not
long before the two powers came into collision." This was
brought about by an order from the Provincial Congress,
directing the removal of guns from the Battery. Shots were
exchanged between the party executing this order and a boat
from the ship of war "Asia"; whereupon the "Asia" cannonaded
the town, riddling houses and wounding three citizens.
"Hitherto, the governor had remained firm at his post; but
finding his position daily growing more perilous, despite the
pledges of the corporation for his personal safety, he
determined to abandon the city, and took refuge on board the
'Asia.'"

_Mary L. Booth,
History of the City of New York,
chapter 16._

ALSO IN:
_I. Q. Leake,
Life and Times of General John Lamb,
chapter 7._

{2339}

NEW YORK: A. D. 1776 (January-August).
Flight of Governor Tryon.
New York City occupied by Washington.
Battle of Long Island.
Defeat of the American army.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1776 (AUGUST).

NEW YORK: A. D. 1776 (September-November).
The struggle for the city.
Washington's retreat.
The British in possession.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1776 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER).

NEW YORK: A. D. 1776-1777.
The Jersey Prison-ship and the Sugar-house Prisons.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1776-1777 PRISONERS AND EXCHANGES.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1776-1777.
The campaigns in New Jersey and Pennsylvania.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1776-1777. WASHINGTON'S RETREAT;
and 1777 (JANUARY-DECEMBER).

NEW YORK: A. D. 1777.
Adoption of a Constitution and
organization of a State government.
Religious freedom established.

"After the Declaration of Independence, the several colonies
proceeded to form State governments, by adopting
constitutions. In that business New York moved early. On the
1st of August, 1776, a committee of the 'Convention of the
Representatives of New York,' as the provisional government
was called, sitting at White Plains, in Westchester County,
were appointed to draw up and report a constitution. The
committee consisted of the following named gentlemen: John
Jay, John Sloss Hobart, William Smith, William Duer,
Gouverneur Morris, Robert R. Livingston, John Broome, John
Morin Scott, Abraham Yates, Jr., Henry Wisner, Sen., Samuel
Townsend, Charles De Witt and Robert Yates. John Jay was the
chairman, and to him was assigned the duty of drafting the
Constitution. The Convention was made migratory by the
stirring events of the war during the ensuing autumn and
winter. First they held their sessions at Harlem Heights; then
at White Plains; afterward at Fishkill, in Dutchess County,
and finally at Kingston, in Ulster County, where they
continued from February till May, 1777. There undisturbed the
committee on the Constitution pursued their labors, and on the
12th of March, 1777, reported a draft of that instrument. It
was under consideration in the Convention for more than a
month after that, and was finally adopted on the 20th of
April. Under it a State government was established by an
ordinance of the Convention, passed in May, and the first
session of the Legislature was appointed to meet at Kingston
in July." The election of State officers was held in June. Jay
and others issued a circular recommending General Schuyler for
Governor and General George Clinton for Lieutenant Governor.
But Schuyler "declined the honor, because he considered the
situation of affairs in his Department too critical to be
neglected by dividing his duties. The elections were held in
all the Counties excepting New York, Kings, Queens, and
Suffolk, then occupied by the British, and Brigadier General
George Clinton was elected Governor, which office he held, by
successive elections, for eighteen years, and afterward for
three years. Pierre Van Courtlandt, the President of the
Senate, became Lieutenant Governor. Robert R. Livingston was
appointed Chancellor; John Jay Chief Justice; Robert Yates and
John Sloss Hobart judges of the Supreme Court, and Egbert
Benson attorney-general. So it was that the great State of New
York was organized and put into operation at a time when it
was disturbed by formidable invasions on its northern,
southern, and western frontiers."

_B. J. Lossing,
Life and Times of Philip Schuyler,
volume 2, chapter 9._

The framers of this first constitution of the State of New
York "proceeded at the outset to do away with the established
church, repealing all such parts of the common law and all
such statutes of the province 'as may be construed to
establish or maintain any particular denomination of
Christians or their ministers.' Then followed a section …
which, it is believed, entitles New York to the honor of being
the first organized government of the world to assert by
constitutional provision the principle of perfect religious
freedom. It reads as follows: 'And whereas, we are required by
the benevolent principles of rational liberty, not only to
expel civil tyranny, but also to guard against that spiritual
oppression and intolerance wherewith the bigotry and ambition
of weak and wicked priests and princes have scourged mankind,
this convention doth further, in the name and by the authority
of the good people of this state, ordain, determine, and
declare that the free exercise and enjoyment of religious
profession and worship, without discrimination or preference,
shall forever hereafter be allowed within this state to all
mankind.' Thomas Jefferson, to whom Virginia is chiefly
indebted for her religious liberty [embodied in her
Declaration of Rights, in 1776] derived his religious as well
as his political ideas from the philosophers of France. But
the men who framed this constitutional provision for New York,
which has since spread over most of the United States, and
lies at the base of American religious liberty, were not
freethinkers, although they believed in freedom of thought.
Their Dutch ancestors had practised religious toleration, they
expanded toleration into liberty, and in this form transmitted
to posterity the heritage which Holland had sent across the
sea a century and a half before."

_D. Campbell,
The Puritan in Holland, England and America,
volume 2, pages 251-252._

ALSO IN:
_W. Jay,
Life of John Jay,
chapter 3 (volume 1)._

_T. Roosevelt,
Gouverneur Morris,
chapter 3._

_B. F. Butler,
Outline of Constitutional History of New York
(New York Historical Society Collections,
series 2, volume 2)._

See, also, UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1776-1779.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1777.
Opposition to the recognition of
the State independence of Vermont.

See VERMONT: A. D. 1777-1778.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1777-1778.
Burgoyne's invasion from Canada and his surrender.
The Articles of Confederation.
The alliance with France.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1777(JULY-OCTOBER), to 1778 (FEBRUARY).

NEW YORK: A. D. 1778.
Fortifying West Point.

See WEST POINT.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1778.
The war on the Indian Border.
Activity of Tories and Savages.
The Massacre at Cherry Valley.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1778 (JUNE-NOVEMBER), and (JULY).

{2340}

NEW YORK: A. D. 1778-1779.
Washington's ceaseless guard upon the Hudson.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D.1778-1779 WASHINGTON GUARDING THE HUDSON.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1779.
Sullivan's expedition against the Senecas.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1779 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

NEW YORK: A. D. 1780.
Arnold's attempted betrayal of West Point.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1780 (AUGUST-SEPTEMBER).

NEW YORK: A. D. 1780-1783.
The war in the South.
The surrender of Cornwallis.
Peace with Great Britain.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1780, to 1783.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1781.
Western territorial claims and
their cession to the United States.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1781-1786.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1783.
Flight of the Tories, or Loyalists.

See TORIES OF THE AMERICAN REVOLUTION.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1783.
Evacuation of New York City by the British.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1783 (NOVEMBER-DECEMBER).

NEW YORK: A. D. 1784.
Founding of the Bank of New York.

See MONEY AND BANKING: A. D. 1780-1784.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1786.
Rejection of proposed amendments
to the Articles of Confederation.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1783-1787.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1786-1799.
Land-fee of Western New York ceded to Massachusetts.
The Phelps and Gorham Purchase.
The Holland Purchase.
The founding of Buffalo.

The conflicting territorial claims of New York and
Massachusetts, caused by the overlapping grants of the English
crown, were not all settled by the cession of western claims
to the United States which New York made in 1781 and
Massachusetts in 1785 (see UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D.
1781-1786). "Although the nominal amount in controversy, by
these acts, was much diminished, it still left some 19,000
square miles of territory in dispute, but this controversy was
finally settled by a convention of Commissioners appointed by
the parties, held at Hartford, Connecticut, on the 16th day of
December, 1786. According to the stipulations entered into by
the convention, Massachusetts ceded to the state of New York
all her claim to the government, sovereignty, and jurisdiction
of all the territory lying west of the present east line of
the state of New York; and New York ceded to Massachusetts the
pre-emption right or fee of the land subject to the title of
the natives, of all that part of the state of New York lying
west of a line beginning at a point in the north line of
Pennsylvania, 82 miles west of the north-east corner of said
state, and running from thence due north through Seneca lake
to lake Ontario; excepting and reserving to the state of New
York a strip of land east of and adjoining the eastern bank of
Niagara river, one mile wide and extending its whole length.
The land, the pre-emption right of which was thus ceded,
amounted to about 6,000,000 of acres. In April, 1788,
Massachusetts contracted to sell to Nathaniel Gorham of
Charlestown, Middlesex county, and Oliver Phelps of Granville,
Hampshire county, of said state, their pre-emption right to
all the lands in Western New York, amounting to about
6,000,000 acres, for the sum of $1,000,000, to be paid in
three annual instalments, for which a kind of scrip
Massachusetts had issued, called consolidated securities, was
to be received, which was then in market much below par. In
July, 1788, Messrs. Gorham and Phelps purchased of the Indians
by treaty, at a convention held at Buffalo, the Indian title
to about 2,600,000 acres of the eastern part of their purchase
from Massachusetts. This purchase of the Indians being bounded
west by a line beginning at a point in the north line of the
state of Pennsylvania, due south of the corner or point of
land made by the confluence of the Kanahasgwaicon
(Cannnseraga) creek with the waters of Genesee river; thence
north on said meridian line to the corner or point at the
confluence aforesaid; thence northwardly along the waters of
said Genesee river to a point two miles north of Kanawageras
(Cannewagus) village; thence running due west 12 miles; thence
running northwardly, so as to be 12 miles distant from the
westward bounds of said river, to the shore of lake Ontario.
On the 21st day of November, 1788, the state of Massachusetts
conveyed and forever quitclaimed to N. Gorham and O. Phelps,
their heirs and assigns forever, all the right and title of
said state to all that tract of country of which Messrs.
Phelps and Gorham had extinguished the Indian title. This
tract, and this only, has since been designated as the Phelps
and Gorham Purchase. … So rapid were the sales of the
proprietors that before the 18th day of November, 1790, they
had disposed of about 50 townships [each six miles square],
which were mostly sold by whole townships or large portions of
townships, to sundry individuals and companies of farmers and
others, formed for that purpose. On the 18th day of November,
1790, they sold the residue of their tract (reserving two
townships only), amounting to upwards of a million and a
quarter acres of land, to Robert Morris of Philadelphia, who
soon sold the same to Sir William Pultney, an English
gentleman. … This property, or such part of it as was unsold
at the time of the decease of Sir William, together with other
property which he purchased in his lifetime in its vicinity,
is now [1849] called the Pultney Estate. … Messrs. Phelps
and Gorham, who had paid about one third of the purchase money
of the whole tract purchased of Massachusetts, in consequence
of the rise of the value of Massachusetts consolidated stock
(in which the payments for the land were to be received) from
20 per cent. to par, were unable further to comply with their
engagements." After long negotiations they were permitted to
relinquish to the state of Massachusetts all that western
section of their purchase of which they had not acquired the
Indian title, and this was resold in March, 1791, by
Massachusetts, to Samuel Ogden, acting for Robert Morris.
Morris made several sales from the eastern portion of his
purchase, to the state of Connecticut (investing its school
fund) and to others, in large blocks known subsequently as the
Ogden Tract, the Cragie Tract, the Connecticut Tract, etc. The
remainder or most of it, covering the greater part of western
New York, was disposed of to certain gentlemen in Holland, and
came to be generally known as the Holland Purchase.

_O. Turner,
Pioneer History of the Holland Purchase,
pages 325 and 396-424._

{2341}

"Much has been written and more has been said about the
'Holland Company.' When people wished to be especially
precise, they called it the 'Holland Land Company.' … Yet
there never was any such thing as the Holland Company or the
Holland Land Company. Certain merchants and others of the city
of Amsterdam placed funds in the hands of friends who were
citizens of America to purchase several tracts of land in the
United States, which, being aliens, the Hollanders could not
hold in their own name at that time. One of these tracts,
comprising what was afterwards known as the Holland Purchase,
was bought from Robert Morris. … In the forepart of 1798 the
legislature of New York authorized those aliens to hold land
within the State, and in the latter part of that year the
American trustees conveyed the Holland Purchase to the real
owners." The great territory covered by the Purchase
surrounded several Indian "Reservations"—large blocks of
land, that is, which the aboriginal Seneca proprietors
reserved for their own occupancy when they parted with their
title to the rest, which they did at a council held in 1797.
One of these Reservations embraced the site now occupied by
the city of Buffalo. Joseph Ellicott, the agent of the Holland
proprietors, quickly discerned its prospective importance, and
made an arrangement with his Indian neighbors by which he
secured possession of the ground at the foot of Lake Erie and
the head of Niagara River, in exchange for another piece of
land six miles away. Here, in 1799, Ellicott began the
founding of a town which he called New Amsterdam, but which
subsequently took the name of the small stream, Buffalo Creek,
on which it grew up, and which, by deepening and enlargement,
became its harbor.

_C. Johnson,
Centennial History of Erie Company, New York,
chapter 13._

ALSO IN:
_O. Turner,
History of the Pioneer Settlement
of Phelps' and Gorham's Purchase,
part 2._

_O. Turner,
Pioneer History of the Holland Purchase,
pages 401-424._

_H. L. Osgood,
The Title of the Phelps and Gorham Purchase
(Rochester Historical Society Publications, volume 1)._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1787-1788.
The formation and adoption of the Federal Constitution.
The chief battle ground of the contest.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1787; and 1787-1789.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1789.
Inauguration of President Washington in New York City.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1789-1792.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1789.
The beginnings of Tammany.

See TAMMANY SOCIETY.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1790.
Renunciation of claims to Vermont.

See VERMONT: A. D. 1790-1791.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1799.
Gradual emancipation of Slaves enacted.

During the session of the legislature in April, 1799,
"emancipation was at last enacted. It was provided that all
children born of slave parents after the ensuing 4th of July
should be free, subject to apprenticeship, in the case of
males till the age of 28, in the case of females till the age
of 25, and the exportation of slaves was forbidden. By this
process of gradual emancipation there was avoided that
question of compensation which had been the secret of the
failure of earlier bills. At that time the number of slaves
was only 22,000, small in proportion to the total population
of nearly a million. So the change was effected peacefully and
without excitement."

_G. Pellew,
John Jay,
page 328._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1805.
The Free School Society in New York City.

See EDUCATION, MODERN: AMERICA: A. D. 1776-1880.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1807.
Fulton's first steamboat on the Hudson.

See STEAM NAVIGATION: THE BEGINNINGS.

NEW YORK: A. D. 1812-1815.
The war on the Canadian frontier.

See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA:
A. D. 1812 (SEPTEMBER-NOVEMBER);
1813 (OCTOBER-NOVEMBER);
1813 (DECEMBER);
1814 (JULY-SEPTEMBER);
1814 (SEPTEMBER).

NEW YORK: A. D. 1817-1819.
The Clintonians and Bucktails.

During the first term of De Witt Clinton as governor of the
State, the feud in the Democratic Republican party, between
his supporters and his opponents, which began in 1812 when he
audaciously sought to attain the Presidency, against Madison,
assumed a fixed and definite form. "Clinton's Republican
adversaries were dubbed 'Bucktails,' from the ornaments worn
on ceremonial occasions by the Tammany men, who had long been
Clinton's enemies. The Bucktails and their successors were the
'regular' Republicans, or the Democrats as they were later
called; and they kept their regularity until, long afterwards,
the younger and greater Bucktail leader [Martin Van Buren],
when venerable and laden with honors, became the titular head
of the Barn-burner defection. The merits of the feud between
Bucktails and Clintonians it is now difficult to find. Each
accused the other of coquetting with the Federalists; and the
accusation of one of them was nearly always true."

_E. M. Shepard,
Martin Van Buren,
page 56._

ALSO IN:
_J. Schouler,
History of the United States,
volume 3, page 227._

_J. D. Hammond,
History of Political Parties in the State of New York,
volume 1, page 450._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1817-1825.
Construction of the Erie Canal.

"History will assign to Gouverneur Morris the merit of first
suggesting a direct and continuous communication from Lake
Erie to the Hudson. In 1800, he announced this idea from the
shore of the Niagara river to a friend in Europe. … The
praise awarded to Gouverneur Morris must be qualified by the
fact, that the scheme he conceived was that of a canal with a
uniform declination, and without locks, from Lake Erie to the
Hudson. Morris communicated his project to Simeon De Witt in
1803, by whom it was made known to James Geddes in 1804. It
afterward became the subject of conversation between Mr.
Geddes and Jesse Hawley, and this communication is supposed to
have given rise to the series of essays written by Mr. Hawley,
under the signature of 'Hercules,' in the 'Genesee Messenger,'
continued from October, 1807, until March, 1808, which first
brought the public mind into familiarity with the subject.
These essays, written in a jail, were the grateful return, by
a patriot, to a country which punished him with imprisonment
for being unable to pay debts owed to another citizen, and
displayed deep research, with singular vigor and
comprehensiveness of thought, and traced with prophetic
accuracy a large portion of the outline of the Erie canal. In
1807, Albert Gallatin, then secretary of the treasury, in
pursuance of a recommendation made by Thomas Jefferson,
president of the United States, reported a plan for
appropriating all the surplus revenues of the general
government to the construction of canals and turnpike roads;
and it embraced in one grand and comprehensive view, nearly
without exception, all the works which have since been
executed or attempted by the several states in the Union. …
{2342}
In 1808, Joshua Forman, a representative in the assembly from
Onondaga county, submitted his memorable resolution,"
referring to the recommendation made by President Jefferson to
the federal congress, and directing that "'a joint committee
be appointed to take into consideration the propriety of
exploring and causing an accurate survey to be made of the
most eligible and direct route for a canal, to open a
communication between the tide waters of the Hudson river and
Lake Erie, to the end that Congress may be enabled to
appropriate such sums as may be necessary to the
accomplishment of that great national object.'" The committee
was appointed, its report was favorable, and the survey was
directed to be made. "There was then no civil engineer in the
state. James Geddes, a land surveyor, who afterward became one
of our most distinguished engineers, by the force of native
genius and application in mature years, levelled and surveyed,
under instructions from the surveyor-general," several routes
to Lake Ontario and to Lake Erie. "Mr. Geddes' report showed
that a canal from Lake Erie to the Hudson was practicable, and
could be made without serious difficulty. In 1810, on motion
of Jonas Platt, of the senate, who was distinguished
throughout a pure and well-spent life by his zealous efforts
to promote this great undertaking, Gouverneur Morris, De Witt
Clinton, Stephen Van Rensselaer, Simeon De Witt, William
North, Thomas Eddy, and Peter B. Porter, were appointed
commissioners 'to explore the whole route for inland
navigation from the Hudson river to Lake Ontario and to Lake
Erie.' Cadwallader D. Colden, a contemporary historian,
himself one of the earliest and ablest advocates of the
canals, awards to Thomas Eddy the merit of having suggested
this motion to Mr. Platt, and to both these gentlemen that of
engaging De Witt Clinton's support, he being at that time a
member of the senate. … The commissioners in March, 1811,
submitted their report written by Gouverneur Morris, in which
they showed the practicability and advantages of a continuous
canal from Lake Erie to the Hudson, and stated their estimate
of the cost at $5,000,000. … On the presentation of this
report, De Witt Clinton introduced a bill, which became a law
on the 8th of April, 1811, under the title of 'An act to
provide for the improvement of the internal navigation of this
state.' … The act added Robert R. Livingston and Robert
Fulton to the board of commissioners, and authorized them to
consider all matters relating to such inland navigation, with
powers to make application in behalf of the state to Congress,
or to any state or territory, to cooperate and aid in the
undertaking. … Two of the commissioners, Mr. Morris and Mr.
Clinton, repaired to the federal capital, and submitted the
subject to the consideration of the President (Mr. Madison)
and of Congress. In 1812, the commissioners reported that,
although it was uncertain whether the national government
would do anything, it certainly would do nothing which would
afford immediate aid to the enterprise. … The commissioners
then submitted that, having offered the canal to the national
government, and that offer having virtually been declined,
the state was now at liberty to consult and pursue the maxims
of policy, and these seemed to demand imperatively that the
canal should be made by herself, and for her own account, as
soon as the circumstances would permit. … On the 19th of
June, 1812, a law was enacted, reappointing the commissioners
and authorizing them to borrow money and deposite it in the
treasury, and to take cessions of land, but prohibiting any
measures to construct the canals. … From 1812 to 1815, the
country suffered the calamities of war, and projects of
internal improvement necessarily gave place to the patriotic
efforts required to maintain the national security and honor."
But after peace had returned, the advocates of the enterprise
prevailed with considerable difficulty over its opponents, and
"ground was broken for the construction of the Erie canal on
the 4th day of July, 1817, at Rome, with ceremonies marking
the public estimation of that great event. De Witt Clinton,
having just before been elected to the chief magistracy of the
state, and being president of the board of canal
commissioners, enjoyed the high satisfaction of attending,
with his associates, on the auspicious occasion. … On the
26th of October, 1825, the Erie canal was in a navigable
condition throughout its entire length, affording an
uninterrupted passage from Lake Erie to tidewater in the
Hudson. … This auspicious consummation was celebrated by a
telegraphic discharge of cannon, commencing at Lake Erie [at
Buffalo], and continued along the banks of the canal and of
the Hudson, announcing to the city of New York the entrance on
the bosom of the canal of the first barge [bearing Governor
Clinton and his coadjutors] that was to arrive at the
commercial emporium from the American Mediterraneans."

_W. H. Seward,
Notes on New York
(Works, volume 2), pages 88-117._

ALSO IN:
_D. Hosack,
Memoir of De Witt Clinton,
pages 82-119 and 245-504._

_J. Renwick,
Life of De Witt Clinton,
chapters 10-19._

_C. D. Colden,
Memoir: Celebration of the
Completion of the New York Canals._

_M. S. Hawley,
Origin of the Erie Canal._

NEW YORK: A. D. 1821.
Revision of the Constitution.