The Articles of Association and the Smuggling Elite

"The King Drinks a Twelfth Night Feast," about 1645,
 by Jacob Jordaens.

by Sarah Lindecke

Twelfth Night of January 1775 likely looked different from past Twelfth Nights for the Schuylers. The political tension was unavoidable as American colonists faced numerous acts, foisted upon them by the English Parliament, restricting their purchasing of imported consumer goods, like sugar and tea. Combined with many colonists feeling over-taxed and over-burdened, many were pushed toward the idea of separating from England, though the sentiment was not universal. On top of these already tenuous conditions, goods and food normally used at the Schuylers’ lavish holiday celebrations had recently come under direct attack, too, but not by the British—by the colonists boycotting British import and export trade. Suddenly, the sugar, rum, Maderia, fancy silks for clothes, and even exotic fruits such as oranges, lemons, and pineapples, were off-limits… Unless the Schuylers crossed the boycott lines

Page 1 of the Articles of Association

The boycott came into effect through the Articles of Association, or the Continental Association, which was passed by the Continental Congress on October 20^th, 1774, and went into effect on December 1^st, 1774—just over a month before Twelfth Night. This set of Articles bound the colonies in unity under a non-importation/exportation agreement that banished all goods from or traded by England until the colonists’ demands for fairer treatment were met. The colonies wanted to significantly damage the financial strength England wielded over them through their import/export trade. The Association was also meant to promote the home-grown industry of the colonies to produce goods for local use. Local committees, known as Committees of Correspondence, were charged with enforcing the non-importation/exportation elements of the Articles while ensuring people were able to access necessities.

             Despite the unification felt by many colonists under the Articles, some of the wealthiest members of colonial society chose to forgo compliance with the Articles for their own comfort. Philip Schuyler [and his family were among those able to pick and choose how they wanted to comply or not comply with the new law. Though the family eventually became deeply involved with the rebels once the American Revolution began later in 1775, they were more interested in their own comfort and lavish lifestyle before joining the rebels. Many of the items they purchased for decoration, as well as for consumption, were imported. It was a status symbol to purchase a majority of goods from far flung lands, and the Schuylers were always concerned with status. They were personally and socially pressured to show off their wealth through the imports in their home and on their table.

             Unfortunately, access to imported merchant goods became complicated after the Articles of Association went into effect. The Schuylers were at a crossroads—adhere to the Articles and risk appearing common or find other ways to continue purchasing imported goods. A letter addressed to Philip Schuyler on January 1^st, 1775, from Ludlow Shaw & Ludlow, a trading company in New York City, hints at what lengths the Schuylers were willing to go to acquired now-blockaded goods. Ludlow wrote:

We hope the different parcells [sic] of goods we have Sent you up are got to hand _ and that they are aggregable to order _ the 10 hails we have a promise of which must remain here till the Spring, from the appearance of things we have no Expectation of any importation from great Brittain for a long timeIn a lengthy postscript, the Ludlow Shaw & Ludlow company further elucidates the relationship the Schuylers were building with them:

It is Customary with us from to time to time to give our Country Friends every Information we can respecting the price of prospect of Markets. For Grain for the Insuing [sic] Spring; our only fear s are that Government may put a stop to our Exports. Should that be cas [sic] great must be our distress_ but should not that take place … we think wheat will… be in good demand next Spring from the different advicses [sic] we have received _ But… we think in some measure to repay the Risk the purchases of Wheat Run they should take its in low _ Pott ash perhaps may be thought an object worthy your attention

"Vue de la Nouvelle Yorck" by Balthasar Friedrich Leizelt

This letter was sent to Philip Schuyler just a month after the Articles of Association went into effect, and it shows just how quickly plans were already being carried out to provide Schuyler with “parcells [sic] of goods.” To give the Schuylers and Ludlow benefit of the doubt, it’s possible these items were surplus goods that had been ordered by the company before the Articles went into effect, but were received shortly after the goods became banned. Over the months after the Articles went into effect, colonists seized trade goods and newspapers ran advertisements for auctions being held for the goods taken from British merchant ships. .While that is one way to explain the letter, it is just as likely that the Schuylers were making connections with Ludlow to continue receiving banned goods no matter how they were obtained. Unfortunately, because this letter also does not explicate what goods are being sent, it is difficult to know their provenance or how they were obtained. 

The postscript calls the Schuylers “Country Friends” of the company, or people who lived far from the centers of importing and exporting, but who wanted to continue receiving trade goods. In exchange, these “Country Friends” provided farm exports that were desired by people living in cities. The postscript suggests that the Schuylers have contracted to provide grains to the company as part of their payment. This would have been a desired crop because New York City, while connected to many farms up north of the city itself, required more food crops from much further north to ensure all were furnished with regular goods. The writer is desirous of receiving those goods, but wants to keep Schuyler informed that both the company and the Schuylers were placing themselves in danger should the illegal exports be found out. The government, the Continental Congress, had the power to put a stop to all of their activities. While appearing cognizant of the dangers, the company used the postscript to assure Schuyler that all cautions were being taken for the financial benefit of all involved.  

"The Bostonian Paying the Excise-Man," 1774.

These excerpts from the letter can hint at the other frustrations felt by the writer about the importation ban, as the ban most likely cut off access to a reliable income from selling highly sought after imported goods. The first section, in the main text of the letter, reads “great Obstinacy on our part & some thing very Similar to it in England, will we fear preclude any Negotiation till our mutual necessity Oblige us to addapt [sic] some pacific System.” The writer seemed to feel as though both England and the colonies were stubborn about addressing each other or working to solve their mutual concerns. Which, more importantly for him, was impeding his ability to conduct business. He was willing to “adapt” to whatever was best to continue business, but was frustrated at the increased risk involved. In the postscript, the writer expressed other worries as well. He was singularly concerned that “the Government will put a stop to our Exports.” This would not only put the business in financial trouble, but there could also be legal concerns for the “smugglers” and their buyers.  

The legal trouble for both the company and the Schuylers as they conducted these black-market deals came from the Committees of Correspondence that were established locally and sanctioned by the Continental Congress in the Articles of Association. These committees’ primary role was in disseminating information and rulings made by the Continental Congress in support of the “Patriot” movement. Due to loose regulations, many of these committees expanded their role into the realm of enforcing Congressional decisions and rooting out Loyalists agents. Philip Schuyler, later on in the Revolution, worked with these Committees when he created lists of Albany Loyalists, but, prior to the Revolution—and even during it—he was breaking the laws enforced by the Committees.

While Schuyler’s wealth likely protected him from a majority of the possible censure, the social risk of having his loyalties questioned was present.  If Schuyler was caught breaking any Continental Congress rulings, he could have been censured or steeply punished by the Committees and their agents. In New York, the Committees mainly resorted to social and political censure, but other colonies where more radical groups, like the Sons of Liberty, were in charge of the retaliation, often responded with more unrestrained violence. Images of extreme violence done towards citizens stem from more radical or violent responses to non-compliance to the Continental Congress’ propositions, but were somewhat rare on the whole throughout most colonies. These concerns were not enough, however, to force the Schuylers to go without their desired goods. 

This letter is one clear example of Philip Schuyler’s actions with the black market during the pre-Revolution years, but there are more. Another example is in a letter written to Philip Schuyler by friend and business partner, John Taylor, who purchased goods for Schuyler during the Quebec Campaign during March of 1776 (If you are interested in learning more about this, please check out our blog post Taken Up North Sold For A Carpet). The items purchased in 1776 were similarly precarious for Philip Schuyler due to the trade embargos in place at the time.

"Still Life With Fruit and a Cockatoo" 
by Joeef Schuster, 1851.

Despite the war, the Schuylers were determined to enjoy all of the luxuries they were accustomed to not only for Twelfth Night, but year-round. While the holiday may have looked different for many in 1775, the Schuylers didn’t suffer from the bans as many others did. Smuggling came with significant risk for all involved—from the suppliers of goods who courted danger obtaining items, to the consumers who directly skirted the carefully assembled Articles of Association and non-importation bans. But, to the Schuylers, it was a risk worth taking. 

Bibliography

Breen, T.H. The marketplace of revolution: How consumer politics shaped American independence (Oxford University Press, 2004)

Ketchum, Richard M. (2002). Divided Loyalties, How the American Revolution came to New York. Henry Holt and Co.

Levy, Barry. (2011). tar and feathers and English identity.

Norton, Mary Beth. 1774: The Long Year of Revolution (Vintage, 2021).

Oliver, Peter. Origin & progress of the American Rebellion; a Tory view (1961).

Schlesinger, Arthur Meier. The Colonial Merchants and the American Revolution, 1763–1776 (1917).

Warford-Johnston, Benjamin. “American Colonial Committees of Correspondence: Encountering Oppression, Exploring Unity, and Exchanging Visions of the Future.” The History Teacher 50, no. 1 (2016): 83–128. http://www.jstor.org/stable/44504455.

“The Liberty to Request:” Angelica Schuyler Church and Slavery

 by Jessie Serfilippi

Letter from Angelica Schuyler Church to John Tayler,
 requesting to purchased an enslaved girl from Mrs. Van Dyck.
Schuyler Mansion State Historic Site Collections. 

Angelica Schuyler Church (1756-1814), the Schuylers’ eldest daughter, traveled a lot throughout the 1780s and 1790s. A few years after her marriage to Englishman John Barker Church (1748-1818) in 1777, she and her husband moved abroad to Paris and London with brief visits home throughout the nearly fifteen years they were away. She traveled between Newport, Boston, Albany, and New York, as well as Paris and London. Before, during, and after her visits home, she consistently looked for and attempted to purchase enslaved people. Recently, Schuyler Mansion acquired a new letter that adds to our knowledge of Angelica as an enslaver, as well as slavery within the wider Schuyler family. 

In 1780, Angelica was living away from Albany with her husband, John Barker Church, who was then using the alias John Carter as he was evading debt in his native England. Under the alias of Angelica Carter, the eldest Schuyler child penned a letter to John Tayler requesting his help in purchasing an enslaved child. Tayler, a man of many hats, often served as a middleman for the Schuylers in various transactions. In this case, Angelica, still living in Boston, asked for his help in purchasing Mrs. Van Dyck’s enslaved child. Referring to herself in the third person, Angelica wrote “Mrs. Carter takes the Liberty to request of Mr. Taylor to purchase for her, the little negro Girl that commonly attends Mrs. Vandyck.” The reason she requested this child in particular was because she heard “Mrs. Vandyck has gone to New York and if that is true tis probable her servants will be sold.”

This letter provides a valuable insight into how the Schuylers, and people of the time period in general, referred to the enslaved. Angelica referred to the people enslaved by Mrs. Van Dyck as “servants,” but they were clearly enslaved because she asked to purchase them. Historians of the 18^th century often see similar references, but in this one, it is made clear that the “servants” have a monetary value prescribed to them and can be purchased. This shows that “servant” was interchangeable with “slave” to families like the Schuylers. These were the common semantics of the 18^th century, even if these words do not hold the same meaning today.

Just two years later, Angelica made a similar request of her parents. In 1782, Philip Schuyler wrote to Angelica that “Your mama will strive all in her power to procure you a good wench they are rare to be met with.”[1] Any follow-up to the letter is unknown, but this assurance from Philip Schuyler that Angelica’s mother was searching for an enslaved girl or woman for Angelica shows that the Churches regularly enslaved people when in the United States. It also shows that Angelica was active in choosing who she wanted to enslave. In the first letter, she sought a young girl enslaved by Mrs. Van Dyck, and, in this letter, she requested her parents find her an enslaved woman. The Schuylers seemingly thought it was natural for them to enslave people, which meant it was likely Angelica did, too.

In 1784, Margaret “Peggy” Schuyler van Rensselaer, Angelica’s younger sister, asked their brother-in-law, Alexander Hamilton, to do a favor for Angelica, who was abroad at the time. Peggy requested that Hamilton contact the man Angelica had sold one of her enslaved people to and ask if she could re-enslave him during her upcoming visit to the United States. Hamilton wrote to John Chaloner, a man with whom the Churches often conducted business, on Angelica’s behalf. This letter to Chaloner shows again how enslaving people was engrained in and natural to the entire Schuyler family. Hamilton wrote:

Mrs. Renselaaer [Peggy Schuyler] has requested me to write to you concerning a negro, Ben, formerly belonging to Mrs. Carter [Angelica] who was sold for a term of years to Major Jackson. Mrs. Church has written to her sister that she is very desirous of having him back again; and you are requested if Major Jackson will part with him to purchase his remaining time for Mrs. Church and to send him on to me.[2]

Angelica had sold Ben for a “term of years” to Major Jackson and was now requesting him back for her brief visit home. In a follow-up letter, Major Jackson wrote he “declines parting with Ben, but says when Mrs Church returns he will let her have him should she request it but will not part with him to any body else.”[3] It’s unclear if this actually happened when Angelica returned, but the request on Angelica’s behalf shows her desire to re-enslave Ben.

In 1797, Angelica and her family returned to New York City from England, where they lived until Angelica’s death in 1814. Shortly before their return, Hamilton once again was engaged as their middleman. His cashbook shows he purchased three people for the Churches: two women and a child.[4] One of the women may have been Sarah, who appeared before the New York Manumission Society in 1799, stating she had been illegally brought to New York from Maryland in 1793, and was sold to the Churches since then.[5] Based on Hamilton’s recorded transactions and when the Churches returned to New York, it’s possible she was one of the women purchased for the Churches before their 1797 return to New York City. She was freed by the New York Manumission Society in 1799.

These letters and sources not only tell us the story of enslavement within the Church household, but more specifically show Angelica’s involvement in the institution of slavery. Far too often, only men are mentioned in sources surrounding enslavement because it is typically their records and their letters that have survived to the present day. While both the letter penned by Philip Schuyler and the one written by Alexander Hamilton show Angelica’s involvement in slavery, the one written in her own hand is an even more direct link. It’s a somewhat rare opportunity to show women were just as directly and fully involved in slavery as men. They not only directed enslaved people on tasks, but actively sought out who they wanted to enslave and engaged in the financial transactions of purchasing people. Angelica Schuyler Church was no exception.

---

[1] “Philip Schuyler to Angelica Schuyler Church, 20 September 1782,” Church Papers, Yale Library.

[2] “From Alexander Hamilton to John Chaloner, [11 November 1784],” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-03-02-0390. [Original source: The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, vol. 3, 1782–1786, ed. Harold C. Syrett. New York: Columbia University Press, 1962, pp. 584–585.]

[3] “To Alexander Hamilton from John Chaloner, 25 November 1784,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-03-02-0392. [Original source: The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, vol. 3, 1782–1786, ed. Harold C. Syrett. New York: Columbia University Press, 1962, pp. 587–588.]

[4] “Account with John Barker Church, [15 June 1797],” Founders Online, National Archives, version of January 18,

2019, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Hamilton/01-21-02-0067. [Original source: The Papers of Alexander

Hamilton, vol. 21, April 1797 – July 1798, ed. Harold C. Syrett. New York: Columbia University Press, 1974, pp.

109–112.]

[5] Minutes, May 18, 1791-February 19, 1807, New York Manumission Society Records 1785-1849, Manuscript Collections Relating to Slavery, New York Historical Society, Manhattan, 113.