Pension Petitioners: Eliza and Caty’s Final Fights

 By Jessie Serfilippi and Sarah Lindecke 

Following the American Revolutionary War, veterans and their spouses faced an uphill battle to fight for their pensions. It took several decades for the federal government to create the funds and a process to consider pension applications. It wasn’t until 1818 that the first of four acts related to pension petitions was passed. And, while it was limited to soldiers and officers who had fought directly under George Washington and not those who fought in militias, it was a start. The acts became more inclusive as time went on, with three more passed in 1820, 1832, and 1836. It wasn’t until the final act was passed that widows could fight for the pensions their husbands had rightfully earned.

Many women tried to get pensions, but the two stories highlighted here are unique. Two Schuyler daughters—Elizabeth “Eliza” Schuyler Hamilton and Catharine “Caty” Schuyler Malcolm Cochran—petitioned the federal government for pensions, but they didn’t use laws to do so. Their arguments were based off claims that Eliza’s husband, Alexander Hamilton, and Caty’s father, Major General Philip Schuyler, had not been awarded their rightful pensions within their lifetimes. Now, the sisters argued, they should be granted to their survivors. Eliza sought the pension that her husband had once turned down.  Caty sought reparations for what she perceived had been denied to her father. Both hoped to improve their situations and provide for their children upon their deaths.

Would they be successful?

Elizabeth “Eliza” Schuyler Hamilton: The Fight to Support Her Children

Henry Inman's 1825 portrait of
Eliza Schuyler Hamilton.

When Alexander Hamilton ended his service in the Continental Army in 1781, he refused to take any form of payment. Hamilton was not a wealthy man, and, while he was excellent at managing the United States’ treasury, his personal finances suffered. When he was unexpectedly killed in a duel in 1804, he left behind a shocked widow and seven children—one of whom was only two when his father died.

Eliza Schuyler Hamilton had no choice but to forge ahead with the crippling debt her husband left behind. She achieved many things with the fifty years by which she outlived Hamilton, including co-founding the first private orphanage in New York City, preserving Hamilton’s edited papers through the Library of Congress, and securing an author—one of her sons—to pen the first Hamilton biography.

Eliza, who had grown up with incredible wealth as a child, did not spend the last fifty years of her life in money or luxury. She did, however, retain a major privilege her father had enshrined in his will: she owned land throughout New York, which she leased to farmers. The money the farmers paid in rent helped sustain her and her family. But, as she grew older, it became evident she needed more money than their rents or even selling off the land could provide.

Eliza had been left with seven children to raise and educate, which proved to be a big struggle. Her decision to obtain Alexander Hamilton’s pension was fueled by the need to provide for her family. It’s important to note that Eliza’s fight for Hamilton’s pension was different from that of the average widow. She was not looking for a traditional pension, but for backpay on the money he had turned down in the 1780s, due to what he had perceived as a conflict of interest. Unfortunately, it took almost thirty years for Congress to allow widows to petition for traditional pensions.

Why had Hamilton refused a military pension? In 1782, near the close of the American Revolutionary War, Hamilton penned a letter to George Washington denouncing his right to claim money for his service:

As I have many reasons to consider my being employed hereafter in a precarious light, the bare possibility of rendering an equivalent will not justify to my scruples the receiving any future emoluments from my commission. I therefore renounce from this time all claim to the compensations attached to my military station during the war or after it.

Hamilton refused his payment so he would not be accused of acting in his own best interest while serving in any governmental position. Some of his major achievements included helping soldiers obtain timely pay during the war, and securing a retirement pension, also known as half pay, for former officers. If he’d kept his right to his pension, he would have directly benefited from these achievements, as well.   

In his 1804 “Explanation of His Financial Situation” he wrote:

Being a member of Congress, while the question of the commutation of the half pay of the army in a sum in gross was in debate, delicacy and a desire to be useful to the army, by removing the idea of my having an interest in the question, induced me to write to the Secretary of War and relinquish my claim to half pay; which, or the equivalent, I have accordingly never received.

With the knowledge that her husband hadn’t received a penny of his payment while alive, Eliza took action. She began by writing to James Madison in 1809, when he was the newly elected president. She told him Hamilton had turned down his half-pay while alive, and that, had he lived and continued working, they would be in no need of it. She described the circumstances under which she was forced to seek his pension. She wrote:

the Situation in which this irreparable Loss has placed me, and the young and numerous Family he has left, oblige me to apply for that Compensation for his Services; which my limited Income Renders necessary for the Support and Education of my dear Children.

This letter may have yielded some response, for that same year her plea was placed before Congress and was decided upon in 1810. While the committee agreed with the essence of Eliza’s claim, they wrote it was “barred by the statute of limitation,” and was therefore denied.

Eliza persisted. She went before Congress again in 1816 with the same request. While reviewing her request, Congress referenced a supposed document signed by Hamilton and addressed to the Secretary of War, in which he relinquished his rights to pay. But as the document wasn’t in their possession, they seemingly ignored it and stated:

The committee would further remark, that should a probability exist that Colonel Hamilton may have relinquished his said claim, and notwithstanding it is barred by the statute of limitations, nevertheless, as the services have been rendered to the country, by which its happiness and prosperity have been promoted, they are of opinion, that to reject the claim under the peculiar circumstances by which it is characterized, would not comport with that honorable sense of justice and magnanimous policy, which ought ever to distinguish the legislative proceedings of a virtuous  and enlightened nation.

They have therefore prepared a bill, granting the relief solicited in the premise.

With that, Eliza received the money Hamilton himself had given up three decades earlier—a lumpsum of five years’ worth of half-pay. Eliza continued her battle in the coming years, fighting both for Hamilton’s land grant, which would have been part of his payment, and for Congress to purchase his edited papers from her.

Eliza’s perseverance ensured that all but one of her children grew up, married and, in the case of her sons, entered profitable professions. At the same time, Eliza worriedly gathered funds to care for her eldest daughter, Angelica, who was ill and, based on later letters, was unable to support herself or marry.

John Church Hamilton by 
Alfred Thomas Agate; 1840.

Eliza took multiple avenues to earn enough money to leave behind for her daughter, as a letter from her son, John, reveals. Aside from aggressively seeking her husband’s pension, she used the biggest asset Hamilton left her: their house in Harlem, The Grange. In 1828, Eliza considered selling The Grange. The house was in danger of foreclosure—making evident just how dangerous Eliza’s financial situation had become. Rather than lose everything, Eliza was ready to sell her home. Her son, John, wrote that if she sold The Grange, she would live on a fixed income. This would ensure financial stability during her lifetime, and a stable future for Angelica. In 1828, John wrote Eliza would be able to “make a provision for Angelica afterwards [Eliza’s death] which must be the subject of first importance in your thoughts.” In the same letter, he told Eliza that she and Angelica could live with him in Rhinebeck, making it clear Angelica was living with and dependent on her mother. Eliza did eventually sell the Grange, but not until 1833.

While there are multiple versions of Eliza’s will, the version she wrote during the early 1840s seems to imply that she had gathered enough money to leave some behind for Angelica. Her will read:

I do hereby give and bequeath to my said daughter Elizabeth the free and sole use for her own benefit of all the interest money which she may not find necessary or proper for the maintenance and support of my daughter Angelica, arising out of the fund here in after specified as set apart for the maintenance and support of said daughter Angelica

She went on to add:

My said daughter Elizabeth having expressed to me her desire after my decease she might have the care and control of my dear but unfortunate daughter, Angelica, which is most agreeable to my own feelings and best judgement […] and I do hereby direct the interest of the principal sum of Eight thousand dollars which I have deposited with my son James and set apart for the support and maintenance of my said daughter Angelica

It was Eliza’s combined efforts in securing Hamilton’s pension, selling his papers to Congress, and selling the home he built for them that earned her the money to care for their daughter following her death.

Over the course of about four decades, Eliza fought and won multiple battles. She won Hamilton’s pension in 1816, securing five years’ worth of his half pay. In the 1830s, she sold The Grange, moving into a smaller home with her two daughters and her son-in-law. In 1840, she sold Hamilton’s papers, which were added to the Library of Congress in 1904. While the selling of The Grange and Hamilton’s papers brought Eliza more money than obtaining the pension, the latter allowed her to immediately support her family and continue her fight. Hamilton’s pension was a gift he unknowingly left Eliza, and the fruits of her efforts to win it back were one of the final gifts she could give their children upon her own death, at the age of 97, in 1854.

Catharine Schuyler Malcom Cochran: The Fight for Her Father’s Pension

On December 11^th, 1855, Catharine “Caty” van Rensselaer Schuyler Malcolm Cochran (1781-1857) had a petition presented to the Senate by committee, seeking compensation for her father’s, Major General Philip Schuyler, service during the Revolutionary War. This petition, made more than 70 years after the war had ended, was one of Caty’s final actions. She died less than 2 years later, on August 26^th, 1857.

Catharine "Caty" Schuyler Malcom Cochran
with her daughter, Catharine, by 
Gilbert Stuart circa 1810.

Caty was Philip and Catharine Schuylers’ youngest child, born on February 20^th, 1781, during the last years of the Revolutionary War. Through colonial stories she was told as a child, Caty grew up very aware of the great changes brought by the Revolutionary War, but she lacked firsthand knowledge of the actual war. By 1855, Caty was the last living Schuyler child, having lost her last two siblings, Rensselaer Schuyler (1773-1848) and Elizabeth Schuyler Hamilton (1757-1854). Many of her nieces and nephews were still alive, but Caty was the last direct link to her father’s legacy. Thus, she was the only person entitled to obtain a payment from the United States for losses sustained and wages forfeited by her father, Philip Schuyler.

Much of Caty’s petition detailed her father’s story. The text describes at length the Battles of Saratoga in 1777, and the personal losses Philip Schuyler sustained when his Saratoga estate was burned by the British forces led by General Burgoyne following the battles. She asserted it was unlikely the losses at the Saratoga estate were compensated because “the books of the department make no mention of such payment or allowance.”

Later in the text, Caty placed pressure on Congress to comply with “the Committee” she’d employed for a payment by stating that “But for the embarrassment of his private affairs, […] the committee have no doubt that General Schuyler would have remained in the service till the close of the war. In that event he would, of course, have been entitled to five years’ full pay, or to his commutation.” The Committee representing Caty’s wishes perceived that her father, if not for the personal and professional embarrassments—his removal from military command in 1777 and subsequent court martial—would have remained in service during the following years of the Revolutionary War. 

To protect her access to the money, should it be rewarded, the petition carefully states that “as the petitioner is the only surviving child—as she is aged and poor, the committee are of opinion that the payment should be made to her alone, instead of being divided among the heirs generally of General Schuyler.” Caty knew that, should this repayment be optioned to all Schuyler descendants and heirs, she would have had to fight off her large extended family. Her position as the last living child of Philip Schuyler gave her implied precedence to any repayments.

Caty’s attempts to receive repayment for her father’s losses during the Revolutionary War were successful, as her petition was resolved January 16^th, 1857. She was to receive $9,960 “in full payment and discharge of all claims on account of services rendered or losses sustained by General Philip Schuyler in the war of the Revolution.” Shortly after receiving this money, Caty added a codicil to her will to account for the money acquired from Congress. She split the money between her two sons, William Schuyler Malcolm and Alexander Hamilton Malcolm. Similar to his cousin, Angelica Hamilton, Alexander Hamilton Malcom had his inheritance placed in trust because of his fragile health. Caty likely felt compelled to pursue her father’s pension due to her own poor financial position, as well as to support a son unable to independently care for himself.

Ultimately, Caty was successful in petitioning and obtaining payments regarding her father’s efforts as Major General of the Army’s Northern Department during the American Revolution but, upon closer inspection, this appears not to be the first time the youngest Schuyler child sought money form her father’s service. In the New York Public Library’s Schuyler-Malcom Family Papers, there are various letters Caty wrote to family members on seeking advice or assistance to obtain funds. In a letter written to Caty in 1851 by her nephew, Robert Schuyler, son of Philip Jeremiah Schuyler, he said:

I have your letter of the 7^th inst and regret to learn that your hope of pecuniary relief have been disappointed. _ If you will make a mortgage as you preface to R & G. S. Schuylerm on such of your property as you decern judicious, they will accept and pay your draft for Three hundred dollar at Ten days sight-   

This letter reveals Caty’s financial woes and her attempts to mortgage her property to protect her future. The result of this business with Robert Schuyler is unknown, likely because after he committed large-scale stock fraud in 1854, he fled legal consequences and died in France in 1855.

It might appear deliberate that Caty waited until December of 1855 to push her petition before Congress, as her sister Eliza had died November 9^th, 1854. If Caty expressed her interest in receiving repayment to her siblings, they may have petitioned for their own cut.

The final of the four pension acts, passed in 1836, allowed for petitions to Congress by survivors and widows of the Revolutionary War. It is interesting to note that none of her siblings, even those living after 1836, made any known efforts to petition for their father’s owed pension. Eliza had focused solely on her husband’s pension, and Rensselaer Schuyler, the only other living sibling after the act’s passage, hadn’t submitted any petitions himself. Thus Caty, more than 70 years after the American Revolution and over 50 years after her fathers’ death, was able to receive the money she believed he was owed in life.

Caty’s case was rather unique, because unlike most women, she as petitioning for survivor’s benefits as a daughter rather than a wife. In Caty’s privileged position, however, she had more resources available to her to successfully petition Congress, unlike many other survivors. Also, despite her father’s early departure from the war, the name Schuyler had a lasting positive legacy. Undoubtedly, the Schuyler name held weight with Congress for her petition. She was able to benefit from that legacy to gain her father’s pension and reparations to his property to  provide for her children.

The Schuyler Family Bible

 by Sarah Lindecke

The Schuyler Family Bible 

The Schuyler Family Bible is a fascinating item that gives us a peak into the Schuyler family’s history. In this post, we will look at the history of family Bibles and bookmaking before diving into the Schuylers’ Bible.

In many European nations, religious devotion was popularly expressed in a variety of forms. Perhaps most common were churches and their elaborate decorations, as well as more personal items like rosaries and jewelry. With the expansion of scriptoriums and other dedicated facilities for book creation during the Medieval period, there was an expansion of bookbinding as an act of piety. Most of this work was done by religious adherents, Christian monks, and other skilled craftsperson’s who dedicated many hours of labor towards the creation of beautiful and expensive manuscripts. Examples of these early illuminated manuscripts would usually have been specific books of the Bible or devotionals called Books of Hours. Many of these books had elaborate cover and internal art, sometimes made from expensive materials like gemstones, pigments for illumination, and vellum (the more expensive version of parchment made from animal skins).

Book of Hours, c. 1530
Held by the MET

With the advent of the printing press and other revolutions in the production of written materials, the artform of decorative books became more accessible, but books were still mainly commissioned by the gentry and merchant classes. Those who could afford the elaborately painted book covers and insets began purchasing customized books and manuscripts in vernacular languages. With this increase in literacy for the gentry, families began to expand their book collections, and often used those books to track their familial records as the books themselves functioned as family heirlooms. They typically recorded birthdates, marriages, deaths, and other significant life events on blank pages. These items provided families with the opportunity to leave information for descendants about ancestors and seminal events in their world.

The Schuyler Family Bible

For the Schuyler family, their family Bible provided all these functions while still being a work of art indicative of their status. The Schuyler family Bible was printed in 1719, most likely by Pieter Keur, under the company of Pieter Rotterdam in Dordrecht (Dordt in English), one of the five largest cities in the Netherlands today. The outside binding of the book is made from leather decorated with ornate corner covers and clasps. Even with its elaborate decoration, the spine of the Bible is unfortunately in poor condition. In previous years the Bible was displayed all open causing much of the damage seen today.

The Bible is printed in the Statenvertaling, or “Staten General,” version of the Bible. This version of the Bible was specifically translated after the Synod of Dordrecht (1618/19) declared it necessary for a new edition of the Bible to be rendered in Dutch from the original Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek languages to preserve the integrity of the translation into Dutch. The translation was meant to ensure that the original wording and manner of the text were uncorrupted, and often included brief explanatory and summary passages to assist with understanding. Generally, this translation is the Dutch equivalent of the King James Bible, which was commissioned by the Church of England in 1611 under the patronage of King James VI and I of England and Scotland for the same reason.

The Schuyler Family Bible

With this new translation into Dutch, the design layout was updated to reflect a style attractive to the people commissioning the Bibles. Like many illuminated manuscripts from the earlier Medieval period, the designs in these newer Bibles were intricate and often symbolic. For example, within the Schuylers’ family Bible, the title page is designed to look like a neoclassical temple with a banner hanging down from the entablature explaining the version and contents of the Bible, alongside its maker at the bottom. The columns are a close match for Roman Etruscan columns because of their signature rounded edges. There is also a large seal placed in front of the banner. This seal shows a raging lion—a common symbol for the seven provinces of the Netherlands—holding a sword raised in one paw with a sheaf of seven arrows in his other. These items and the choice of a lion are generally meant to symbolize strength and courage but, in this case, the lion and accoutrements most likely represent how the 7 Dutch provinces were taken back from the Holy Roman Empire at the beginning of the 17^th century, creating unity within Dutch lands.

Around this symbolic lion is the phrase “eendracht maeckt macht,” which roughly translates to “unity creates power.” This form of the Bible itself is a work of unity as it was commissioned by a collective within the Protestant Church of the Netherlands to present more harmony within Biblical texts and teachings, while also unifying those in the Dutch world under the same version of the Bible. Many other symbolic items can be found throughout the design program of the “Staten General” Bible the Schuylers owned, but, beyond the interesting aspects of the Bible as a work of art, the Schuylers also used their it to record their family genealogy.

Genealogy in the Schuyler Family Bible 

The first entry into the genealogy pages records the marriage of Philip Schuyler’s (1733-1804) father Johannes Schuyler (1697-1741) and Cornelia van Cortlandt (1698-1762) on October 18^th, 1723. The next entry announces the birth of Philip Schuyler’s older sister, Gertrude (1724-1813), who was born August 18^th, 1724. Further down, it lists on November 20^th, 1733, the birth of Philip Schuyler. Other family events such as the marriage of Philip Schuyler and Catharine van Rensselaer Schuyler (1734-1803) on September 7^th of 1755, and the births of their many children, are listed in the Bible.

Within the bounds of the Schuyler family Bible, there are five children whose history exists only on those pages. These five children are the twins and triplets Catherine had in 1761 and 1770, respectively. We learned from the Bible record that one twin died at birth and was left unnamed, but the other was a girl who survived for about a month before passing away. Her name was Cornelia—a name that was later reused for another Schuyler daughter. The triplets were born in 1770, and were either stillborn or died shortly after birth. None were named and their sexes are not listed. The Schuylers do not write a lot about these twins and triplets, suggesting that the family may have wanted to recuse themselves from extended conversation about their losses. These children were not the first or last children the Schuylers would lose during childhood, but the loss may have felt much larger in these cases.    

The Schuylers’ family Bible provides us with a window not only into their religious world, but their familial one as well. While its present condition makes it to impossible to display open, the Bible is safely on display in the Yellow Parlor of Schuyler Mansion. We’re fortunate to have  research scans of the genealogy in particular, without which so much of the Schuylers’ history would be lost. 

The Schuyler Family Bible

The Schuyler Family Bible

Bibliography and Further Sources 

18th and 19th Century European and American Paper Binding Structures (culturalheritage.org)

De Hamel, Christopher. A History of Illuminated Manuscript (Phaidon, 1986)

History Between the Pages: The Family Bible in Genealogical Research (montgomeryhistory.org)

Israel, Jonathan (1995), The Dutch Republic: Its Rise, Greatness, and Fall 1477–1806, Clarendon Press, Oxford, ISBN 0-19-873072-1.

Israel, Jonathan. "The Statenvertaling Bible." Calvin University. Last modified 1995. Accessed September 18, 2024. https://calvin.edu/centers-institutes/meeter-center/about-the-synod-of-dordt/the-statenvertaling-bible.

Rudy, Kathryn M. (2016), Piety in Pieces: How Medieval Readers Customized their Manuscripts, Open Book Publishers, doi:10.11647/OBP.0094

Simms, P. Marion, PhD. The Bible in America: Versions That Have Played Their Part in the Making of the Republic. New York: Wilson-Crickson, 1936. https://hdl.handle.net/2027/mdp.39015026292543

One Fish, Two Fish, Red White and Blue Fish

 by Kayla Whitehouse

This weekend marks the 250^th anniversary of the passage of the New England Trade and Fisheries Act, given royal assent on March 30, 1775. As the first of the two Restraining Acts, the Fisheries Act was passed by Great Britain in response to the growing unrest and civil disobedience in the colonies. Specifically, this act restricted trade and limited exportation and importation of goods to and from Great Britain, Ireland, and “British Dominions in Europe.” It also set regulations aimed at protecting British fishing interests in Newfoundland. Under this act, only vessels with a special certificate given by the British government were allowed to fish off the coast of Newfoundland “and the seas adjacent,” meaning the Atlantic coast of the American colonies.

The act effectively made it illegal for American colonists to fish in the Atlantic. Failure to abide by the restrictions in the act were punished with fines of up to £500, or the equivalent of over $130,000 today, depending on the offense, and any fishing equipment and boats were liable to be confiscated by the British.

In the North American colonies, people in all coastal cities fished in the Atlantic, meaning this prohibition had significant effects on the local economies. According to the New England Historical Society, from 1768 to 1772, 35% of New England exports were fish – most of which were traded in the West Indies for sugar, molasses, and rum. And although the Fisheries Act only specifically pertained to the four New England colonies (Connecticut, Massachusetts, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island), it affected all the colonies. Codfish from Newfoundland was sold in cities all along the Atlantic coast, and all of the colonies benefited from the codfish shipped to the Caribbean, receiving in exchange the cheap sugar, molasses, and enslaved people that were traded for salted cod. In fact, Atlantic fishing off the coast of Newfoundland was so important to the American colonies, that when the Treaty of Paris was written in 1783 to negotiate the end of the Revolutionary War, an explicit “Right to take Fish … on the Banks of Newfoundland” was included as the third article of the treaty – right after the confirmation of the United States’ independence, and the demarcation of our borders.

"A Parcel of Fine Dry Codfish", New-York Gazette, or Weekly Post-Boy, November 19, 1750.
This advertisement announces the sale of Codfish from Newfoundland in New York City in 1750.

By making it illegal to fish in the Atlantic, and only allowing trade with Britain (and therefore outlawing trade to the West Indies), the British government severely curtailed both a major source of income and a major source of food for the colonies.

Allotments to American troops showed just how important fish was to the colonists’ diet. During the Revolutionary War, American soldiers were allotted one pound of fish each week in their provisions. To get an idea of how much fish that would require, consider that the Revolutionary War was an eight-year campaign and an average of 40,000 men served in the Continental Army at any given time. This meant that each week over 40,000 pounds of fish needed to be caught and transported to army settlements. A ban on ocean fishing had the potential to leave many soldiers without sustenance. The troops were usually spread throughout the Colonies, but large numbers of men were gathered for significant battles, requiring large amounts of food. For example, there were 9,000 American men at the first Battle of Saratoga, but, with reinforcements, there were over 15,000 men there by the time of the British surrender.

If they couldn’t fish in the Atlantic Ocean, how did they feed all of those soldiers?

Luckily for the men at Saratoga, they were fighting along the Hudson River! (In fact, the site of the 1777 surrender is just about a mile away from the river.) Although the NYS DEC does not recommend eating any fish from the Hudson River these days due to pollutants in the water, in the 18^th century, the Hudson was a great source of fish for soldiers and civilians alike.

A publication written in 1794 described the fishing:

“In Hudson’s River, which runs from above Albany to New York, sturgeon is caught in large quantities. … I have been informed that as much sturgeon may be purchased for sixpence as would serve a moderate sized family for a day : their neighbours in derision call it Albany Beef. The oysters here are of an enormous size, indeed so much so as rather to excite disgust.”

                                                                                                        Letters on Emigration, p. 35-36

The Atlantic Sturgeon are still sometimes seen in the Hudson River. Although, due to regulations from overfishing, we can no longer catch and enjoy the “Albany Beef” that many 18^th century Albanians would have eaten. But if you were interested in knowing how the sturgeon were eaten, here is a recipe for Pickled Sturgeon, from Maria Van Rensselaer, who lived at the nearby Cherry Hill property in Albany.

Black History Month in Review: The Little Details

When we tell the history of the enslaved, the focus is sometimes on large, sweeping stories as opposed to smaller, more individualized ones. While there are smaller details in the archives to draw from, they often aren’t enough on their own. They require research and contextualization that can be daunting to the untrained historian, but, with practice and patience, the stories that unfold are rich and vital. The most important thing is to talk about the possibilities these details offer us.

Below we’ve highlighted a handful of individuals and told their stories through what little details we know. We took those details and tried to expand them into a more complete image that gives us a glance into a specific moment in their lives. While there is so much we don’t know, it’s important to highlight and discuss what we do know.

This is Black History Month of 2025 in review.

Britt

Botanical illustration of ginger plant from 
'The beauties of creation, or, a new moral
system of natural history; in five volumes: 
consisting of quadrupeds, birds, fishes, and 
reptiles, trees and flowers, vol. 5, trees' 
Printed by George Riley.

In April of 1787, Britt was prescribed multiple medications by the Schuylers’ doctor. She was given liniment sapo, camphor gum, and ginger. On their own, the first two medications were used to treat pain, and could suggest treatment of injuries caused by repetitive motion, such as hauling water or sewing. But ginger was commonly prescribed to induce labor—a speculation further confirmed when, two months later, a stomach soothing medication was prescribed to “Britt’s child.” This receipt allows us to say more that “Britt had a baby.” We know she took ginger to induce her labor and took medication for the pain it caused. We know her child may have suffered from stomach aches as an infant. A singular receipt has shed light on this important moment in Britt’s life and allowed us a more personal glimpse into her world.

Stephen and Peter

This story comes to us via a 1775 letter written by Dr. Samuel Stringer, doctor to and friend of the Schuylers. The letter discusses the present state of affairs with the Six Nations, who had recently visited Albany as part of a peace negotiation.

Engraving of Six Nations people trading with 
Europeans (1722) by French artist Bacqueville 
de La Potherie.

In Dr. Stringer’s letter, he mentioned that “by some of [illegible] Schuyler Family, of whom we got long Stephen and Peter [illegible], and sent by them to antient belts of Aliance as tokens of the Old Covenants…” The two men mentioned in the letter, Stephen and Peter, were enslaved by the Schuylers. They had been sent to German Flatts carrying what was most likely wampum belts, which were essential in establishing continuing relations between the colonists and the Six Nations. The bringing of the “antient belts of Aliance” to the Six Nations would have been a major signifier from the colonial settlement of Albany that peace and communication were desired. This letter gives us a glimpse into an important trip Stephen and Peter took, and the knowledge that they played a role in an important diplomatic mission.

Will, Britt, Susannah, and Herry

View of Dutch Reformed Church in Albany prior to being
torn down in 1806.

Now we turn our focus to Will—a father separated from his family.

One of the very few mentions of Will is from the Albany Dutch Reformed Church, where he was recorded as “Serv. of P. Schuyler”* for a special occasion—the baptism of his daughter. On March 4^th, 1772, Will and Britt, who was enslaved by the Ten Broeck family, baptized their daughter Susannah. Normally separated by two miles, the church was the midway point where they could reunite as a family.

Two years after the birth of their daughter Susannah, Will and Britt welcomed a second child, Herry, into their family. Herry was baptized on June 26^th, 1774. While there are no known records about Herry, Will, or Britt after the baptisms, Susannah was eventually manumitted by the Ten Broeck family. Susannah’s children, Dinah, Susan, and Mary were manumitted alongside their mother in 1811, under steep conditions on their freedom. When their enslaver, Elizabeth Ten Broeck, died in 1813, the family was freed without condition.

*”servant” was used interchangeably with “slave” in the 18^th century

Protecting the Saratoga House

Drawing of Schuyler House, Schuylerville, New York
from 1887 by artist Ernest C. Peixotto.

Finally, we focus on the contents of a letter Philip Schuyler wrote to Governor George Clinton on April 17^th, 1778.

During the fall of 1777, the Battles of Saratoga tore through Philip Schuyler’s Saratoga estate. His home was burnt alongside much of his farmland, but, within weeks, Schuyler rebuilt his house. In a letter to Governor George Clinton, Schuyler wrote: “I do not however mean to bring away my Servants as I shall erect a picket Fort round my House and let them, if possible, keep it ….” Schuyler didn’t mention any enslaved people by name, but referred to a collective group of them as “Servants,” a common 18^th century phrase for enslaved people. Schuyler planned to erect a “Fort” around his house, which likely meant he wished to build a protective structure to guard it from an attack. Schuyler told Clinton that he would leave the enslaved people there in an attempt to protect the house.

It's unknown if the enslaved people were provided weapons while they were protecting the house. Perhaps they felt fear, but perhaps they also felt some freedom in not being watched by Schuyler. Regardless, these men and women were on the front lines of an attack, should one come—a huge weight for anyone to bear, let alone someone potentially fighting on behalf of property and freedom they didn’t own.

Schuyler's Stressful Summer of 1777

 by Kayla Whitehouse

The summer of 1777 had the potential to be a time of great success and distinction for Philip Schuyler. He had been newly re-appointed as Commander of the Northern Department of the Continental Army and was a candidate for Governor of New York. But in June, his life veered into a downward spiral as he was overwhelmed with military concerns – particularly at Fort Ticonderoga – as well as personal difficulties at his home in Albany. As a result, the early summer of 1777 was likely one of the most stressful times of Schuyler’s life.

Schuyler had recently overcome great difficulty. He and General Horatio Gates had been vying for control of the Northern Department, and General Gates, in charge of the troops in Canada, had just been given command of Fort Ticonderoga in March. However, the Continental Congress passed a resolution to reinstate Schuyler as Commander of the Northern Department on May 22, 1777, putting him back in charge of the garrison.

Gates was then given leave to decide his own future in the Continental Army – he could either remain in the Northern Department and report to Schuyler, or work directly under General George Washington. Philip Schuyler wrote to General Gates on June 4^th to inform him that he had been made Commander and asked to meet. They needed to discuss the state of the garrison, and any intelligence Gates possessed. Schuyler and Gates seemingly corresponded right away, as Schuyler wrote a letter to the Congress detailing his plans the next day. He wrote: “General Gates having signified to me his Disinclination to remain in this Department, I have found It necessary to send General St.Clair to take the Command at Tyonderoga [sic], he left this toDay together with Brig^r Fermois and I propose to follow him as soon as I have got matters in such Train as that the Service will not suffer by my Absence from hence.”[i]

Over the next few days, Schuyler prepared for his command of the garrison before he left Albany. He reviewed reports that were sent to him, including the count of the troops and provisions. Based on the reports, Fort Ticonderoga was in disarray – poorly staffed and inadequately supplied. The few men they had garrisoned there lacked clothing – some of them were even barefoot – and had no blankets or tents to sleep in. There were not enough provisions, and a lack of salt meant that the fresh meat they had in store was spoiled.[ii]

Schuyler wrote repeatedly to Congress and General Washington during the month of June, trying to get more meat, clothing, blankets, tools, artillery, and reinforcements. His predecessor, General Gates, had also written to Washington about the lack of adequate supplies and shelter at Ticonderoga, but his pleas were similarly unanswered. In a letter written to Washington on May 24^th, 1777, Gates had noted that the barracks at Ticonderoga and Mount Independence, just across a narrow section of Lake Champlain, could only hold 1000 men between them – a paltry sum compared to what was needed for an adequate defense force. They had no tents, and the “hutts” that had been built at the fort, which were only intended to be temporary shelters, were in ruins.[iii] The count of troops at the end of June listed about 4183 men,[iv][v] which meant that many of their men were forced to sleep outside on the ground, uncovered, and without proper provisions.

Map of Fort Ticonderoga (below) and Mount Independence
 (above) showing the pontoon bridge connecting the two Garrisons.

Schuyler left Albany on June 12^th to travel north and see Ticonderoga for himself. He stopped along the way at his house in Saratoga and spent several days there. During this time, Schuyler received reports that the British forces, led by General Burgoyne, were approaching Ticonderoga. Schuyler shared this information with the Continental Congress and General Washington and requested field cannons and reinforcements. He later relayed to Washington that he had become increasingly concerned General Burgoyne’s troops would attack Ticonderoga, and though there were enough men to hold the post, they would not be able to split their defense and prevent communications from being cut off. Without a clear path for communications, they would have no way to call for reinforcements, or even to alert Washington to an attack.

While at Saratoga, Schuyler was also kept busy with numerous other letters and duties. His men sent constant letters asking for his help: soldiers wanting their pay and rations, men who felt they were are being mistreated by the army, prisoners of war who wanted his help getting released, and commanders of other forts asking for help getting supplies. These small matters would have kept Schuyler occupied even while he waited for reinforcements or news.

The first gubernatorial election for New York also distracted Schuyler from his military duties. Schuyler had been nominated for governor, and was up against Brigadier General George Clinton, Brigadier General John Morin Scott, and John Jay. The election began on June 1^st and continued through the end of the month. As Schuyler waited for what was potentially life and career changing news, issues continued to arise with the army.

On June 15^th, General St. Clair sent a captured spy, William Amsbury, to Saratoga. Amsbury had been caught by a scouting party with a letter from Peter Livius, the Chief Justice of Quebec, addressed to Major General John Sullivan (who Livius thought was in charge of Ticonderoga). The letter attempted to convince Sullivan to join the British and give up Fort Ticonderoga. Amsbury had also been caught with a pass from the British Army allowing him to go behind British lines “on Secret Service.”[vi] Schuyler interrogated him for several hours at Saratoga before he was sent to Albany to be executed as a spy. He relayed the intelligence he’d gotten from Amsbury to General Washington with the note: “If the Information which Amsbury gives is to be relied upon, as I think it is, we shall soon be attacked at [Ticonderoga].”[vii]

Washington did not receive this letter until June 20^th, when he responded hesitantly: “Supposing the plan mentioned in Amsbury’s Evidence to be true; I cannot concieve that it will be in the power of the Enemy to carry it into Execution. But to provide against all Events, I have ordered General Putnam to hold four Massachusetts Regiments in Readiness at Peek’s Kill, to go up the River at a Moments Warning, and to order Sloops from Albany, which are to be kept for that purpose.”[viii] Peekskill is located about 200 miles south of Fort Ticonderoga, along the Hudson River, however, too far for troops to quickly arrive at Ticonderoga. On the same day, Washington wrote to Major General Israel Putnam that “as the alarm may very likely prove false, until we have fuller evidence that such an event is about to take place, I do not think it adviseable to lessen our force on this quarter, by sending them to where they may perhaps not be wanted.” He did, however, ask Putnam to have four regiments stand ready to move as reinforcements.[ix]

When Schuyler arrived at Ticonderoga on June 17^th, he ordered a meeting with the officers in his charge to discuss the state of the fort. Among other things, they noted that the 2500 men stationed there and at Mount Independence were “greatly inadequate to the defence of both posts,” and that if they had to choose to retreat from one of the forts, they should retreat from Fort Ticonderoga first. They decided to move any unnecessary supplies to Mount Independence and work on reinforcing the post there. They also requested more provisions as they only had 39 days’ worth of meat.[x] Schuyler left Ticonderoga on June 23^rd, to go to Fort George, located on Lake George, and had a number of supplies and provisions sent back, most notably sixty days’ worth of meat.[xi]

In his letters from June 25^th and 26^th, Schuyler told General Washington and the Continental Congress that he was more concerned now that General Burgoyne’s troops would either make a serious attack on Fort Ticonderoga, or that they were acting as a diversion, and a serious attack would be made on New Hampshire or the Mohawk River. There was concern General Burgoyne’s army would also focus on cutting off communications from Fort George and Fort Edward. Schuyler requested more supplies and reinforcements. He also shared a report he’d received from General St. Clair of an attack on Fort George by 1000 Canadians.[xii] In a personal note to John Hancock, the President of the Continental Congress, Schuyler wrote he’d caught someone at Saratoga attempting to burn down his house. Luckily, the house was not badly damaged.[xiii]

On June 27^th, Schuyler left Saratoga to return to his home in Albany. On the way, he was met with a letter from his father-in-law, Johannes Van Rensselaer. He informed Schuyler that his eldest daughter, Angelica (1756-1814), had eloped with John Carter, the man who was at Schuyler’s home auditing his military accounts.

The next day, Schuyler received word that British forces had arrived at Crown Point, about ten miles north of Ticonderoga, on Lake Champlain. He wrote to General St. Clair that a real attack on Ticonderoga appeared most likely, and that he intended to return north with militia. He also received word of an attack by the British at Fort Stanwix and Fort Oswego. He spent his day sending letters, sharing the reports, and asking for reinforcements.[xiv]

Two days later, on June 29^th, the Van Rensselaers sent a letter to Philip and their daughter, Catharine, inviting them to dinner. John Carter, whose real name was John Barker Church, wrote a letter to Walter Livingston detailing his marriage and the resulting events. He wrote that the Schuylers responded that they had other company for dinner, but might be able to visit after.[xv] Before the Schuylers could make it to the Van Rensselaers’ for the meeting, they accidentally met the Churches at the docks. Church described the dramatic moment when he and Angelica were returning to Crailo, the Van Rensselaer homestead in Green Bush (now Rensselaer, N.Y.), from Albany. They had arrived at the ferry stop at the same time as the Schuylers and, after a small, silent face-off, Philip and Catharine returned home without having spoken to the Van Rensselaers or the Churches.[xvi]

Map of NY counties in 1775 showing the location of Tryon County

Schuyler could not dwell only on his daughter’s elopement, though, because the following day, he received a messenger with news that enemy troops had gotten through Oswego and were headed west toward Tryon County. Although he did not have a full account of how many men were killed or taken prisoner, he wrote several letters to spread the news, including one to General Washington requesting reinforcements and military supplies.[xvii]

That same afternoon, Philip and Catharine traveled across the Hudson River to her girlhood home, Crailo, to visit the family, including his brand-new son-in-law, John Church. Church, in his letter to Walter Livingston on July 2^nd, wrote that Schuyler was quiet during their visit, but while he “scarcely spoke a dozen Words all the Time, Mrs. S[chuyler] was in a most violent Passion and said all that Rage of Resentment could inspire.”[xviii] However, since, as Schuyler wrote to General Heath the next day, “the Enemy have opened the Campaign in every Quarter in this Department,”[xix] it is easy to imagine that his mind may have been elsewhere.

Schuyler’s father-in-law wrote him a letter on June 30^th, chastising him for ignoring the newlyweds. So when Schuyler received another letter from John Church the next day, he responded, and invited him and Angelica to visit at the mansion. Church wrote about their “cool” reception at the Schuylers’ home, describing how he spoke with Catharine about the “great deal of pain” they had caused, and he “then went to the General who was in the Hall and begged him to forget what was past.” Schuyler expressed his disappointment in how the elopement had happened, but agreed to move past it.[xx]

In our previous blog post, "'exceedingly disagreeable to me:' Angelica Schuyler's Elopement," we wrote that Church perceived the Schuylers’ “coolness” as reluctance to accept him and his marriage to Angelica. Schuyler himself wrote about the event differently in a letter to his friend, William Duer, on July 3^rd. He wrote “I frowned, I made them humble themselves and forgave and called them home.”[xxi] John Church’s letter was very detailed, and clearly showed how distressed he was about the situation, but Schuyler was much more reserved in his description, making it harder to sense his true intentions. Perhaps Schuyler wrote this way to give himself the upper hand in the situation, or perhaps he was afraid of upsetting Johannes van Rensselaer (as Church thought). It’s also possible he had finally been won over by their apologies. However, Church’s description of meeting Schuyler “in the Hall” makes it easy to imagine Church leaving the parlor where he had been talking with Catharine (room 102 or 106 on the diagram below) and finding Schuyler just outside the library (room 103) attached to his office (an exterior structure no longer extant), his mind occupied by troops a hundred miles away. Even though Schuyler did tell Duer “anxiety … and fatigue seem to make me thrive,”[xxii] perhaps accepting his new son-in-law was a way to remove at least one source of stress from his life.

In the same letter to Duer, Schuyler wrote that “happily for me” General Clinton had won the gubernatorial election,[xxiii] so although the final results were not officially announced until July 9^th, he at least had one less burden on his shoulders at that point.

 

Schuyler spent the next few days anxiously waiting for the reinforcements at Albany. While other tasks did require his notice, such as arranging a meeting of the Six Nations to happen on July 15^th, and writing to the Governor of Tryon County regarding his concerns about the Indigenous people there, most of Schuyler’s letters from the first few days of July revolved around his hopes for the soldiers to arrive. Even John Church’s letter to Walter Livingston on July 3^rd about his elopement closed with a mention of General Schuyler going “to Fort Edward as soon as the troops he sent for arrive.”[xxiv] Troops were seemingly at the front of everyone’s mind. By July 6^th, Schuyler decided he could wait no longer for word of troops and traveled north to Fort Edward. He left a letter at Albany for the soldiers to follow.[xxv]^{, [xxvi]}

 

Ultimately, the reinforcements did not arrive in time. Schuyler received word at Fort Edward on July 7^th that General St. Clair had ordered the retreat from Fort Ticonderoga. Schuyler was left in confusion and frustration as St. Clair and his men disappeared during their retreat, not reappearing until they arrived at Fort Edward on July 12^th. Colonel Long, in charge of a regiment under General St. Clair, was headed to Skenesborough with his men from Fort Ticonderoga, but their boats were overtaken, and they lost all their supplies. He then retreated from Fort Ann against Schuyler’s direct orders, leading to its loss to the British on July 8^th. Schuyler eventually found himself at Fort Edward with even less supplies and provisions than he’d had before, and the ones that he had begged for all through June were now in the hands of the British. As another source of stress to him, there were rumors circulating that Schuyler himself had ordered the evacuation of Ticonderoga. He wrote to General Washington daily, keeping the Commander-in-Chief in the loop. Schuyler was not only sharing news, but once again begging him for reinforcements and supplies. When Washington finally got the news on July 12^th (in a letter from Schuyler dated July 7^th), he replied “I will suspend my Opinion upon the propriety of this very extraordinary and sudden Evacuation until I hear something from General St Clair, for, in Truth it is altogether unaccountable—I most sincerely wish it was in my power to supply all your Demands but it shall be done as far as lays in my power.”[xxvii] There were not any more supplies to send and General Washington, it seemed, was cautious of sending supplies which would be better used elsewhere.

 

Although Schuyler did not complain in his letters about the delay in sending troops, Washington addressed it regardless. In the same letter from July 12^th, he said:

 

Your Demand of a further Reinforcement of Troops was fully taken into Consideration by a Board of all the General Officers of this Army. Had our Numbers been as respectable as could have been wished it would not have taken a Moment to deliberate upon the propriety of detaching a further and more considerable Force from this Army or peek’s Kill: but when we considered that weakening ourselves in a material Manner would make us an easy prey for General Howe, who, tho’ he has embarked the greatest part of his Army still lays under Staten Island, and might suddenly reland, it was the unanimous Opinion of the Board that no more than the Remainder of Nixon’s Brigade who are on their Way to peek’s Kill, could be spared at present.[xxviii]

 

Map showing the campaign of 1777. 
Courtesy of the United States Military Academy Department of History.

Perhaps the result would have been different if the post were not so delayed – letters took anywhere from 3 to 7 days to reach Washington from Schuyler, and the orders for men to march north simply came too late. When Washington finally ordered troops to head to Ticonderoga on July 6^th, he had just received Schuyler’s report from June 30^th. It took more time still until General Nixon, in charge of the troops at Peekskill, received the orders, and the men did not set sail up the Hudson River until July 8^th, after the fort had already been evacuated. They did not arrive at Albany until July 12^th, a full week after the loss of the fort.[xxix]

The loss of Fort Ticonderoga greatly affected Schuyler’s military career, and was used by his political opponents as an excuse to oust him and reinstate General Gates. On Friday, August 1, 1777, the Continental Congress resolved that “Major General Schuyler be directed to repair to head quarters,” and “That General Washington be directed to order such general officer as he shall think proper, immediately to repair to the northern department, to relieve Major General Schuyler in his command there.”[xxx] Washington requested that he not have to make the appointment himself, so the Continental Congress voted on Schuyler’s replacement. General Horatio Gates was chosen to resume the position of Commander of the Northern Department once again.[xxxi]

 

Both General St. Clair and General Schuyler were court martialed in 1778 for their actions that led up to the loss of Fort Ticonderoga. St. Clair was charged with neglect of duty, cowardice, treachery, inattention to the progress of the enemy, and “shamefully” abandoning his posts. After several weeks of trial, where he sought to prove his actions were sound, he was eventually cleared of all charges.

 

Schuyler was charged with “Neglect of Duty, in not being present at Ticonderoga to discharge the functions of his command.” Interestingly, they noted that the charges are not because General St. Clair retreated, but because Philip Schuyler should have retreated sooner, so that they did not lose their supplies. Schuyler was acquitted of all charges, since as Commander of the Northern Department, he had the right to establish his Headquarters wherever he liked, including in Albany, and did not have to be present at Ticonderoga at all times. [xxxii]

 

Washington tried to get Schuyler to resume a position with the army, even offering him the command of the Northern Department again, but Schuyler refused. He had mentioned the idea of resigning before and used this opportunity to do so. As Schuyler wrote in a letter to John Jay on November 6, 1777, “My hobby horse has long been a country life; I dismounted once with reluctance, and now saddle him again...and hope to canter him on to the end of the journey of life.” He resigned in December 1778, as soon as Congress had confirmed his acquittal.[xxxiii] Although Schuyler did not resume command of the Northern Department again, he continued to serve the American cause, most notably by serving as a member of the Continental Congress, and later as a New York State Senator.

---

[i] Manuscripts and Archives Division, The New York Public Library. "Letterbook 3" The New York Public Library Digital Collections. 1776 - 1778. https://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/12237260-9322-0134-4ea4-00505686a51c, pp. 158.

[ii] The proceedings of Schuyler’s Court Martial in 1778 include, as a part of his defense, a number of letters that Schuyler wrote starting in the fall of 1776, trying to arrange provisions for 5000 men, clothing, blankets, tools, wagons or carts, wood, nails, pitch and tar, cannon, and ammunition, etc. to fully stock and supply the Northern Department. He also ordered new defenses and work buildings to be built on Mount Independence. Supply shortages and delays in transport prevented the forts from being properly outfitted.

[iii] “To George Washington from Major General Horatio Gates, 24 May 1777,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-09-02-0510. [Original source: The Papers of George Washington, Revolutionary War Series, vol. 9, 28 March 1777 – 10 June 1777, ed. Philander D. Chase. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1999, pp. 514–516.]

[iv] "Proceedings of a general court martial, held at White Plains, in the state of New-York, by order of His Excellency General Washington, commander in chief of the army of the United States of America, for the trial of Major General St. Clair, August 25, 1778. Major General Lincoln, president." In the digital collection Evans Early American Imprint Collection. https://name.umdl.umich.edu/N12772.0001.001. University of Michigan Library Digital Collections. Accessed January 16, 2025.

[v] In the same letter to Congress on July 8, 1777, when Schuyler informed them of his decision to send St. Clair to Ticonderoga, he also noted the lack of provisions. He had determined that “only 337 Barrels of Provision of the Meat Kind have been forwarded to Tyonderoga [sic] since the 26^th. of March and no Fresh Beef; so that the Stock of Salted Provisions since that time is considerably diminished nor is there any considerable Quantity provided in the Country.” A barrel of meat is about 400 pounds, which would work out to approximately 134,800 pounds of meat that were shipped to Ticonderoga in that time. Soldiers received either 1 pound of beef or fish or ¾ pound of pork per day for their rations (beef given three days a week, pork three days a week, and fish once each week). That would provide about 1300 provisions of meat a day in that time period, not enough to sustain the men garrisoned there appropriately. (see Joseph Trumbull’s Estimate of a Daily Ration from November 1775, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-02-02-0375-0002).

[vi] Nagy, John A. “British Spy Plot to Capture Fort Ticonderoga in 1777,” Journal of the American Revolution, 2014, https://allthingsliberty.com/2014/02/british-spy-plot-to-capture-fort-ticonderoga-in-1777/

[vii] Manuscripts and Archives Division, The New York Public Library. "Letterbook 3" The New York Public Library Digital Collections. 1776 - 1778. https://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/12237260-9322-0134-4ea4-00505686a51c, pp. 179.

[viii] “From George Washington to Major General Philip Schuyler, 20 June 1777,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-10-02-0089. [Original source: The Papers of George Washington, Revolutionary War Series, vol. 10, 11 June 1777 – 18 August 1777, ed. Frank E. Grizzard, Jr. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 2000, pp. 90–92.]

[ix] “From George Washington to Major General Israel Putnam, 20 June 1777,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-10-02-0088. [Original source: The Papers of George Washington, Revolutionary War Series, vol. 10, 11 June 1777 – 18 August 1777, ed. Frank E. Grizzard, Jr. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 2000, pp. 88–89.]

[x] "Proceedings of a general court martial, held at Major General Lincoln's quarters, near Quaker-Hill, in the state of New-York, by order of His Excellency General Washington, commander in chief of the army of the United States of America, for the trial of Major General Schuyler, October 1, 1778, Major General Lincoln, president." In the digital collection Evans Early American Imprint Collection. https://name.umdl.umich.edu/N12773.0001.001. University of Michigan Library Digital Collections. Accessed January 16, 2025.

[xi] Manuscripts and Archives Division, The New York Public Library. "Letterbook 3" The New York Public Library Digital Collections. 1776 - 1778. https://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/12237260-9322-0134-4ea4-00505686a51c, pp. 183.

[xii] “To George Washington from Major General Philip Schuyler, 25 June 1777,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-10-02-0127. [Original source: The Papers of George Washington, Revolutionary War Series, vol. 10, 11 June 1777 – 18 August 1777, ed. Frank E. Grizzard, Jr. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 2000, pp. 127–128.]

[xiii] The house was later successfully burnt down on October 10, 1777, by General Burgoyne’s forces after their defeat at the Battle of Saratoga. It would be rebuilt in 29 days.

[xiv] Letter from Major General Arthur St. Clair, to Major General Philip Schuyler, July 1, 1777, copied in "Proceedings of a general court martial, held at Major General Lincoln's quarters, near Quaker-Hill, in the state of New-York, by order of His Excellency General Washington, commander in chief of the army of the United States of America, for the trial of Major General Schuyler, October 1, 1778, Major General Lincoln, president." In the digital collection Evans Early American Imprint Collection. https://name.umdl.umich.edu/N12773.0001.001. University of Michigan Library Digital Collections. Accessed January 16, 2025.

[xv] Letter from John Barker Church to Walter Livingston from July 2, 1777.

[xvi] Ibid.

[xvii] Manuscripts and Archives Division, The New York Public Library. "Letterbook 3" The New York Public Library Digital Collections. 1776 - 1778. https://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/12237260-9322-0134-4ea4-00505686a51c.

[xviii] Letter from John Barker Church to Walter Livingston from July 2, 1777.

[xix] Manuscripts and Archives Division, The New York Public Library. "Letterbook 3" The New York Public Library Digital Collections. 1776 - 1778. https://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/12237260-9322-0134-4ea4-00505686a51c, pp. 215.

[xx] Letter from John Barker Church to Walter Livingston from July 2, 1777.

[xxi] Manuscripts and Archives Division, The New York Public Library. "1777-1780" The New York Public Library Digital Collections. 1777 - 1780. https://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/645dd2b0-9d59-0134-5478-00505686a51c, pp. 59.

[xxii] Ibid.

[xxiii] Ibid.

[xxiv] Letter from John Barker Church to Walter Livingston from July 2, 1777.

[xxv] Manuscripts and Archives Division, The New York Public Library. "Letterbook 3" The New York Public Library Digital Collections. 1776 - 1778. https://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/12237260-9322-0134-4ea4-00505686a51c, pp. 233.

[xxvi] “the whole force in Ticonderoga, on the 5th of July, 1777, was 5639 men and officers, of which a number, not exceeding 639, could be considered as sick,” "Proceedings of a general court martial, held at White Plains, in the state of New-York, by order of His Excellency General Washington, commander in chief of the army of the United States of America, for the trial of Major General St. Clair, August 25, 1778. Major General Lincoln, president." In the digital collection Evans Early American Imprint Collection. https://name.umdl.umich.edu/N12772.0001.001. University of Michigan Library Digital Collections. Accessed January 16, 2025.

[xxvii] “From George Washington to Major General Philip Schuyler, 12 July 1777,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-10-02-0257. [Original source: The Papers of George Washington, Revolutionary War Series, vol. 10, 11 June 1777 – 18 August 1777, ed. Frank E. Grizzard, Jr. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 2000, pp. 261–262.]

[xxviii] Ibid.

[xxix] Forgotten Warrior Brigadier General John Nixon, Harry Schenawolf, https://revolutionarywarjournal.com/brigadier-general-john-nixon/.

[xxx] United States Continental Congress, et al. Journals of the Continental Congress, -1789. Washington, U.S. Govt. print off., -37, 1904. Pdf. Retrieved from the Library of Congress, www.loc.gov/item/05000059/, pp. 595-596.

[xxxi] Ibid., pp. 601-603.

[xxxii] "Proceedings of a general court martial, held at Major General Lincoln's quarters, near Quaker-Hill, in the state of New-York, by order of His Excellency General Washington, commander in chief of the army of the United States of America, for the trial of Major General Schuyler, October 1, 1778, Major General Lincoln, president." In the digital collection Evans Early American Imprint Collection. https://name.umdl.umich.edu/N12773.0001.001. University of Michigan Library Digital Collections. Accessed January 16, 2025.

[xxxiii] Schuyler resigned his position in December 1778, but that resignation was not accepted by Congress until April 1779. He then rejoined the Continental Congress as a delegate.