General Richard Montgomery and the American Revolution. Hal T. Shelton
Читать онлайн книгу.
1769, most members of the Livingston family grew dispirited and withdrew from New York politics. William Livingston, the cousin of Judge Robert R. Livingston, actually left New York in 1772 and settled at his country retreat, Liberty Hall, near Morristown, New Jersey. He quickly adapted to politics in that colony and became its first revolutionary governor. Judge Livingston remained as the only member of the former dynasty with an important political office after 1769. Never since the first Livingston entered public life in the seventeenth century had the family political fortunes sunk so low.28
The continuing revolutionary crisis brought a remarkable turnaround in the Livingston-De Lancey rivalry. By 1773, the De Lanceys joined the movement in support of the British and became the senior loyalist faction in America. This unfortunate decision wrecked their provincial interests and political influence. Their property in the colony suffered sacking and confiscation as members of the De Lancey family eventually emigrated to England. The Livingstons, on the other hand, managed to shed their previous stigma and became imbued with intensified patriot commitment. Their revived association with the revolutionary element propelled the family once more into a political leadership position in New York.
Shortly after Montgomery became a member of the Livingston clan, the family engaged in a political discussion. Janet, in her memoirs, described how her grandfather turned to her father and said, “You and I will never live to see this country independent. Montgomery, you may, but (speaking to his grandson) Robert, you will!” Janet continued her remembrance of her grandfather’s passion for American independence: “On the breaking out of war he was in raptures. In beginning with the Bostonians he said ‘They have taken the bull by the horns.’ His sanguine temper made him expect with confidence our independence.” Janet, however, surmised that the turbulent atmosphere of 1775 hastened the end for this aged patriot, who was then in his eighty-seventh year: “I verily believe the Battle of Bunker Hill (of which such a false and disastrous report was made) was his death. He took to his bed immediately, lay a week without pain, and died. The last words he muttered were ‘What news from Boston?’ “ His son, Judge Robert R. Livingston, followed him in death six months later.29
The Livingston family’s stature as ardent supporters of the patriot cause may be gauged by the level of criticism they received from the royalist opposition faction. Thomas Jones, a fervent New York loyalist who vigorously denounced the Revolution as nothing more than widespread lawlessness, singled out the Livingstons for particularly venomous treatment in his history of the Revolution. Jones alleged that a Livingston instigated an atrocity against a British officer in December 1776. The related incident involved the assassination of Capt. Erasmus Phillips as he passed through Princeton to join his regiment: “One of the party who committed the murder, his name shall be mentioned, was a John Livingston, one of the sons of Robert R. Livingston, late one of the Judges of the Supreme Court of the province of New York. This barbarian, in a public company at Middletown, in Connecticut, boasted of this horrid murder as an act of heroism, a noble achievement; and so little remorse had he for this cruel act in which he had taken a principal part, that he declared, ‘That Captain Phillips made one of the handsomest corpses he had ever beheld.’ “Jones continued quoting remarks that he attributed to John Livingston: “ ‘We stripped him,’ says he, ‘of all his clothes and left him naked in the street.’ ‘I thought,’ added he, ‘that I should be obliged to have cut his head off, to get at his diamond stock buckle, but I effected my purpose by breaking his neck and turning his head topsy turvy.’ “ Jones concluded this lurid account with a provocative condemnation: “Let the public judge whether a more barbarous, cruel, unchristianlike act was ever committed among civilized nations. But it was done by rebels. It was an act of rebellion, and done by people who bragged of their humanity.”30
After 1773, the Livingston family embraced the patriot movement en masse. All of Judge Livingston’s sons who were old enough became involved in the Revolution in some capacity. Even all his sons-in-law actively participated in the conflict against Britain. So, the persuasion of the Livingstons must have fallen heavily on Montgomery. Yet, the former British officer was a strong-willed person, quite capable of independent thinking. He reached his individual decision after considering all the realities as he perceived them at the time. Like many other provincial inhabitants, of which he was now one, Montgomery grew to regard himself less as an Englishman and more as a self-determining American. Increasingly, he viewed England in antagonistic terms as an unneeded, oppressive, and even tyrannical parent-state. Montgomery perceived little benefit to be derived from the British government and resented its dictatorial interference in his life. Montgomery’s lingering bitterness over his rejected commission in the British army certainly conditioned his attitude. In time, he became estranged from his former allegiance to England. Thus, the influence of the Livingston family ties and his own intellectual convictions combined to draw Montgomery inexorably into the patriot cause.
CHAPTER FIVE
Service in the Provincial Congress
Having a heart distended with benevolence, and panting to do good, he soon acquired, without courting it from his neighbors, that authority which an opinion of superior talents and inflexible integrity never fail to create. . . .1
Having swayed him to the patriot cause, prevalent events coaxed Montgomery’s entrance into politics to serve in the New York Provincial Congress. This extralegal body had evolved from several precedent assemblies that New Yorkers called to consider the mounting crisis with England. Long before the Revolution, New Yorkers became accustomed to creating unauthorized political pressure groups to protest against and win concessions from the constituted government. Through the years, the process evolved as a means of redress against any autocratic governor. As the conflict between the colonists and the British government became more acute, New Yorkers formed committees, corresponding with those of other colonies, to devise ways of opposing perceived oppressive measures by the British government. The Navigation Laws revived in the 1760s, the Sugar Act of 1764, and the Stamp Act of 1765 engendered such reactions. Although these organizations initially included members who were moderate in their views toward King and Parliament, their voices were progressively drowned out by more extreme rhetoric. Thus, the patriot faction increasingly dominated the ad hoc governmental entities.
Following the royal colony pattern, New York’s official government before 1775 consisted of a Crown-appointed governor and council and a locally elected general assembly. By 1774, a power play began in the colonies to wrest political authority from royalist control and place it in the hands of patriot bodies. The First Continental Congress recommended that the various colonies establish a network of committees in order to mount a unified opposition to unwanted British policies. On January 20, 1774, even before the First Continental Congress met, this movement started in New York with the creation of a Committee of Correspondence, also known as the Committee of Thirteen, to keep watch on the ministerial government and to coordinate with like committees in other colonies.
Since the duly constituted General Assembly authorized its establishment, the Committee of Correspondence was an officially sanctioned organization. However, on May 16, 1774, the Committee of Thirteen spawned the Committee of Fifty, which had no legitimate basis for its existence. Three days later, the group admitted an additional representative, becoming the Committee of Fifty-One. The New York committee system flourished with the apparent inability of royal officials to counter it effectively and reaped increased popular support.2
The colony was without its chief royal official during this critical period. In April 1774, Gov. William Tryon had sailed for England to discuss deteriorating conditions within his province with the British government. Lt. Gov. Cadwallader Colden, the acting governor, displayed an attitude of forbearance in dealing with the licentious situation. In a July 1774 report to the colonial secretary in Parliament, Colden described the current committee’s political transgressions as “dangerous and illegal transactions,” but questioned “by what means shall Government prevent them?” He then agonized, “An Attempt by the Power of the Civil Magistrate, would only shew their weakness. . . . It is thought much more prudent to avoid; and to shun all Extreams. . . . Things may take a favourable turn.”3
The heady atmosphere caused by the success of these extralegal activities encouraged more