Margaret's Murky Marriage: Examining Historical Myth

By: Sarah Lindecke

Margaret Schuyler, Unknown Artist

Popular lore, as told by writers like Mary Gay Humphreys in her book Catherine Schuyler, asserts that Margaret “Peggy” Schuyler (1758-1801), [1] the third child of Philip and Catharine Schuyler, eloped. While four children in the family certainly did elope, Peggy was not one of them. This is not to presume that Peggy’s marriage was banal or unimportant. Her groom, Stephen van Rensselaer III (1764-1839), was the 19-year-old patroon of Rensselaerwyck. There are no known primary sources that establish the circumstances of their marriage, a confounding problem for historical researchers. Three questions spring to mind when considering how one of the wealthiest men of the era’s marriage went unrecorded:  What is the origin of the elopement story? Who was her bridegroom? What kind of wedding did she have?

Before Peggy likely even considered marriage, her brother-in-law, Alexander Hamilton, wrote to her discussing the merits and conditions in which marriage should be undertaken. Shortly after he’d married her sister, Eliza. He wrote:

“But I pray you do not let her advice have so much influence as to make you matrimony-mad. ’Tis a very good thing when their stars unite two people who are fit for each other, who have souls capable of relishing the sweets of friendship, and sensibilities. The conclusion of the sentence I trust to your fancy. But its a dog of life when two dissonant tempers meet, and ’tis ten to one but this is the case. When therefore I join her in advising you to marry, I add be cautious in the choice. Get a man of sense, not ugly enough to be pointed at—with some good-nature—a few grains of feeling—a little taste—a little imagination—and above all a good deal of decision to keep you in order; for that I foresee will be no easy task. If you can find one with all these qualities, willing to marry you, marry him as soon as you please.” -Alexander Hamilton to Peggy Schuyler, January 21^st, 1781, Founders Online

              Hamilton requested his sister-in-law consider her marriage and not make any haste. He expressed his happiness with his choice of wife and hoped that Peggy would also be able to find a suitable companion with whom she shared a similar temperament and sensibilities. Peggy seemingly took her brother-in-law’s advice, because she waited several years more before she married. Her husband, Stephen van Rensselaer III (1764-1839), had inherited the lucrative Patroonship the Van Rensselaer family had established in the 1630s. Stephen was six years younger than Peggy and a third cousin. Their match, though no sources currently known romantically link Margaret and Stephen prior to their marriage, had the potential to reinvigorate family ties between Van Rensselaer’s and Schuyler’s. In early aristocratic New York, these ties were important to keep wealth and land tightly controlled and later protect from the dangers of “new money” merchants and politicians that began to take political and social power from the 18^th century elite landholders.

The Van Rensselaer Patroonship was the most successful of the hereditary land patents created by the Dutch West India Company and later granted by the English Crown. While vastly prosperous throughout the 17^th century, by the last quarter of the 18^th century the viability of this land system was on the decline as wealth became more linked to banking and merchant business. Politically and economically advantageous marriages were important to protecting this system’s prominence. Near the end of its lifetime in 1846, the Van Rensselaer Patroonship still held approximately 1,000,000 acres of lands with 3,000+ tenants in both Albany and Rensselaer counties.^[1] By modern standards, Stephen van Rensselaer III is considered one of the top ten wealthiest Americans to have ever lived.^[2] Stephen van Rensselaer III was the second-to-last Patroon of Rensselaerswyck and he had already partially inherited his birthright prior to his marriage father’s will, Stephen could not take full control of the van Rensselaer Patroonship until he reached the age of 21. At their marriage in 1783, Stephen was 19 years old, compared to Peggy’s 24 years. Freshly graduated from Harvard, it would be two years before he reached his majority.^[3] Though he may have shared in the work of the Patroonship he remained under the guardianship of his uncle, Abraham Ten Broeck, and was mentored by Philip Livingston. Furthermore, in the 18^th century, it was typical for a man to wait until his mid-twenties when he had a career before marrying.

              A friend of Stephen’s—likely from Harvard—Harrison Gray Otis (1765-1848) wrote:

“Stephen’s precipitate marriage has been to me a source of surprise and indeed of regret. He certainly is too young to enter into a connection of this kind; the period of his life is an important crisis; it is the time to acquire Fame, or at least to prepare for its acquisition. It is the time to engage in a busy life, to arouse the Facultys into action, to awake from a lethargic Inattention, which is generally the consequence of youthful pleasures, and make a figure upon the active Theatre. Instead of this our friend has indulged the momentary impulse of youthful Passions, and has yielded to the dictates of Remorseful Fancy.”

   

A map of the Manor Renselaerwick:
surveyed and laid down by a scale of 100 chains to an inch
by Jno. R. Bleeker, surveyor, 1767.
New York Public Library.

           This quote is repeated in many secondary sources, but it is unclear where the primary source is located, or if the quoted section is taken out of context. Many historians have taken Otis’ thoughts as fact and presented their presumptions about the subtext of this quote as fact. The actions of these writers are likely the cause of the elopement rumor. Otis certainly questioned Stephen’s choice to marry but did not recount other circumstances of the wedding. His concern was that Stephen had made a choice to indulge in passion when they were meant to “engage in a busy life”—namely politics or business—before marrying. Otis thought Stephen’s choice to marry broke with the expectations for a man of the 18^th century. Stephen’s background removed many 18^th century prerequisites for marriage because upon reaching age 21, he would inherit [2] one of the largest fortunes in United States history. Stephen did not need to establish himself in a career before marrying because he already had extraordinary wealth, status, and name. A possible objection to the match could have been Stephen’s age but there remains little primary source evidence that the marriage blindsided or frustrated the Schuylers.

              Later writers, like the distant relative Maunsell van Rensselaer (1819-1900) and Catharine van Rensselaer Schuyler biographer, Mary Gay Humphreys (1843-1915) spun the story even further. In his book, Maunsell van Rensselaer writes about Killian van Rensselaer, a relation working for Philip Schuyler at the time of the marriage. He suggested that Killian van Rensselaer unwittingly became involved in the elopement plot and assisted the couple. Without citation, Maunsell van Rensselaer suggested: “[Stephen] was in love with Margaret Schuyler, daughter of the General, and although only nineteen was anxious to be married. To this the father objected, and the young couple settled the matter by getting married without delay.”^[4] He then repeats Harrison Gray Otis’s remark about the marriage. Mary Gay Humphreys repeats the story of Killian van Rensselaer’s involvement as well as Harrison Gray Otis’s sentiments in her own writing. Neither author cites primary source documents to certify their stories.

              More recent books include further unsubstantiated claims. William Kennedy, in his 1983 book, O, Albany! wrote “Angelica and Margarita, eloped out windows with their suitors.”^[5] More accurately, their younger sister, Cornelia, was reported to have done this upon her elopement in 1797, as expressed in a letter written by her husband shortly after the event. On the following page, Kennedy states, “Hamilton had dalliances with both Angelica and Margarita during his marriage…” Both of these references are without citation or validation, and it seems that Kennedy’s story was picked up by subsequent authors. In his A Place in History: Albany in the Age of Revolution, 1775-1825 (2010), Warren Roberts wrote: “Margarita climbed out her second-floor room in her father’s mansion to elope with her 19-year-old husband.” This also lacks citation.

              What do we know, then, about this marriage? Peggy and Stephen were married on June 6^th, 1783. The New York Gazetteer or, The Northern Intelligencer, a weekly Albany newspaper, announced in their June 9^th edition that the pair had married.^[6] The Albany Dutch Reformed Church, of which Stephen’s step-father was domine, or reverend, did not record their marriage, but did report the baptisms of two of their children: Catharine (August 9^th, 1784) and Stephen IV (March 29^th, 1789).

Philip Schuyler’s

Philip Schuyler by John Trumbull. 1
792. Yale University Art Gallery

[3] [4] letters to Stephen in the following months are short but express joy and family blessings. On July 7^th, 1783, Schuyler expresses concerns about Stephen’s health. He wrote “I hope you have not had a return of [illegible] fever and that you are gaining strength.” and subsequently asked that he “make my love to Betsy Peggy and the children.”^[7] Schuyler’s next letter, several days later on July 13^th, 1783, informed Stephen on political matters in Philadelphia with the profession that he was “so incessantly engaged that I fear I shall not have the pleasure of seeing you until about the 23rd.”^[8] On July 17^th, 1783, Schuyler requested that Stephen not neglect an opportunity to dine together.[9] If the Schuylers harbored hurt feelings about their daughter’s untimely marriage, it is unlikely that just a month later the letters between a disappointed father to his new son-in-law would be so affable.

In the case of elopements of his other children, such affability is not present in Philip Schuyler’s letters. After eldest daughter Angelica’s elopement, Schuyler expressed his displeasure with the circumstances to friend William Duer. He complained, “Carter & my oldest daughter ran off and married on the 23^rd inst., unacquainted with his family, his connections and situation in life, the match was exceedingly disagreeable to me and I had signified it to him.”[10] This letter shows that prior to Angelica’s elopement, Schuyler made clear his displeasure with the coupling, and his ire remained for some time after their marriage. Later, the elopement of his daughter Cornelia was similarly followed by Schuyler’s clear expression of frustration. A month after Cornelia’s elopement in 1797, he wrote: “I have…written a letter to my unhappy Cornelia…I hope it will restore peace to her mind, if she can possibly enjoy it, with a man of such an untoward disposition as her husband. I apprehend very much that he will render her miserable…”[11] Schuyler didn’t want Cornelia to feel as though her family harbored any grief towards her, in respect to her elopement, and so Philip Schuyler wrote specifically to her to “restore her peace of mind.” However, he asserts, just a line later that feelings about his daughter’s new husband, George Washington Morton, hadn’t and were not likely to improve.

Schuyler had concerns about Angelica and Cornelia’s husbands stemming from the reputations of these men. John Barker Church, alias John Carter, and George Washington Morton came from outside of Albany’s insular set of high society and were not upstanding men in several respects. Stephen, by comparison, was family and incredibly wealthy. Any negative feelings surrounding Stephen and Peggy’s marriage do not survive in known correspondence, so it is impossible to determine if there were blatant or concealed objections to their marriage. From extant letters dated July 7^th and 13^th of 1783, there are no discernable negative feelings directed towards the newlyweds.

Reconstructed Van Rensselaer Hall
in the Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York City. 

Though the details of the wedding remain unknown, it is possible that Peggy and Stephen were married in a family home.  Peggy’s older sister, Eliza married Alexnader Hamilton in the Blue Parlor in December 1780. As the future Patroon, Stephen and his bride would have also had access to the lavish Van Rensselaer Manor [6] north of Albany. However, the location of their wedding is unknown. It is possible that Eilardus Westerlo, Stephen’s stepfather and the domine of the Dutch Reformed Church, presided over their wedding.

Though not a lot is known about the actual circumstances of Peggy and Stephen’s wedding, it is unlikely their story was a dramatic elopement like those of some of Margaret’s other siblings. Her marriage may have been unexpected, but it was a union that recommitted family connections between those in the highest echelons of Albany society.

---

[1] https://archive.org/details/vanrensselaerfam21spoo/page/132/mode/1up (132-133)

[2] https://ceoworld.biz/2023/09/22/study-wealthiest-americans-of-all-time/

[3] https://exhibitions.nysm.nysed.gov/albany/bios/vr/svr3.html

[4]https://books.google.com/books?id=MZ1YAAAAMAAJ&pg=PA54&lpg=PA54&dq=Stephen%27s+precipitate+marriage+has+been+to+me+a+source+of+surprise+and+indeed+of+regret.&source=bl&ots=UDsLJESJBA&sig=H02Yj4JooyMBJXpTmUnpB5Nt0tQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjkorLoipjRAhXJq1QKHWEhASoQ6AEIHzAB#v=onepage&q&f=false page 54

[5] O! Albany by William Kennedy pg 84

[6] To read the newspaper—the NYSL has microfilms of editions of the newspaper OCLC 09672915

[7] July 7^th, 1783, Philip Schuyler to Stephen van Rensselaer III—likely NYPL

[8] July 13^th, 1783, Philip Schuyler to Stephen van Rensselaer III—possibly in the Campus Marius Museum’s Slack Collection

[9] July 17^th, 1783, Philip Schuyler to Stephen van Rensselaer III, Albany Institute of History and Art, Van Rensselaer Family Papers.

[10] Philip Schuyler to William Duer, July 3-5. 1777, New York Public Library, Philip Schuyler Papers.

[11] Philip Schuyler to Elizabeth Schuyler Hamilton, November 26^th, 1797, Library of Congress, Alexander Hamilton Papers.

Bankrupt and Desperate: The Failed Delegation to Canada

By: Maria Karasavidis

What was meant to be a triumphant march through Canada as the liberators of its inhabitants, turned into a failed diplomatic mission in the spring of 1776. Following the catastrophic defeat of the Continental Army in Quebec on December 31st, 1775, commander of the Northern Department, Major General Philip Schuyler, pressed Congress to send a delegation into Canada. This delegation aimed to convince the inhabitants that supporting the American cause was beneficial to them. The military failures were significant enough that relations between the American colonies and Canada were strained and made political action on the part of Congress necessary. The major defeat at Quebec and Schuyler’s incessant urging, convinced Congress the need for intervention was greater than they had originally considered. 

On January 24, 1776, Congress drafted an address to the inhabitants of Canada along with an order that it be translated into French. 500 copies were printed for distribution. The goal of this address was to convince the Canadians that they had the same stakes in the war as the Americans, and that it was a logical conclusion to join forces against their shared oppressor. An excerpt of the address read:  

“We have also shewn you that your liberty, your honor and your happiness are essentially and necessarily connected with the unhappy contest, which we have been forced into for the defence [sic] of our dearest privileges.”1 

Benjamin Franklin.
Mezzotint after C.N. Cochin Jr., 1777.
Wellcome Collection.

Included in the address was also a request for the inhabitants to form a delegation that would represent Canadian interests in Congress. This address did not have the intended effect. Preudhome La Jeunesse, of Montreal, carried a report that the Canadian populace had at one point largely supported the American cause of independence, but the landed gentry and the Catholic leaders were supporters of the British, so much so that their influence had persuaded the once patriot-friendly Canadians back onto the side of the British.2 In response, the Americans claimed that the Catholic religious leaders in Canada were taking advantage of their congregations’ inability to read, and slanted messages about the colonies’ push for independence in a way that implied the Americans wanted to take away the religious liberties of Catholic Canadians. Congress concluded that the best way to ensure Canadians understood the Patriots’ true goals, was to send a committee in person to convince the gentry they had nothing to fear from American independence, and that it would be, in fact, mutually beneficial. Spurred into action by La Jeunesse’s report, a committee was formed with the intent of meeting with the Canadians face-to-face. The men chosen for this
delegation were Benjamin Franklin, Samuel Chase, and Charles Carroll. Congress also instructed
Carroll to bring his cousin Reverend John Carroll, a Catholic priest, to aid in convincing the French-Canadian Catholics the American cause was one rooted in religious liberty for all. On February 26th, 1776, Congress also assigned printer Fleury Mesplet to the delegation to “set up his press and carry on the printing business.”3 There were no Patriot-aligned printing presses operational in Canada at the time, and it was thought essential that the inhabitants of Canada were exposed to the same ideas that were being presented in the colonies. This would protect their words from being misrepresented by those in Canada who supported the British. 

Samuel Chase. John Wesley Jarvis, 1811.
 National Portrait Gallery Collection.

One British officer from Massachusetts, Moses Hazen, living in semi-retirement in Canada, had much of his property confiscated in late 1775, due to suspicion that he harbored sympathy for the Patriot cause. In response to this seizure, he joined General Montgomery against the British at Montreal and Quebec. In April, he wrote to General Schuyler echoing a similar sentiment to that of La Jeunesse: that after the loss of Quebec, the Canadians were suffering from, “such a change in their Disposition, that we are no more to look upon them as friends; but on the contrary waiting on an opportunity to join our Enemies.”4 

The delegation was assembled on February 15th but waited until March 20th when the orders came to set out.5 This delay could have been due to the inclement weather posing a threat to the members’ safety, especially that of the 70-year-old Franklin. The instructions given by Congress laid out a lengthy list of responsibilities for the group but also gave them a large amount of power over American interests in Canada. They were given permission to vote in war councils, temporarily decommission officers, and oversee the building or razing of fortifications.  

On March 11th, Franklin wrote to Philip Schuyler, informing him that he was part of a committee tasked with going to Canada, giving him advance notice of their arrival in Albany so that Schuyler might “more easily… make any Preparation you shall judge necessary to facilitate and expedite our Journey, which I am sure you will be kindly dispos’d to do for us.”6 In this letter Franklin also informed Schuyler of the committee’s plans to travel by water to Albany if the Hudson was passable at that point in the season. The committee, comprised of Franklin, Chase, Charles Carroll, and John Carroll, as well as an indeterminate number of enslaved people (referred to in passing in a letter from Franklin as “Servants”) departed from New York City on April 2nd. 7 

Charles Carroll.
Michael Laty, 1846.

Charles Carroll kept a diary of the expedition, and in it he included several mentions of the assistance extended to them by Major General Philip Schuyler. They arrived at Schuyler’s home in Albany on April 7th, and Caroll recorded being invited to dine there with the General and his daughters Elizabeth and Margaret, who Carroll described as “lively and amiable.”8 While with the Schuylers, Benjamin Franklin also provided Peruvian Bark, a common fever remedy, to Philip Schuyler to help with one of his ailments. They left Albany on the 9th and “travelled in a wagon in company with Mrs. Schuyler, her two daughters, and Generals Schuyler and Thomas.” They arrived at Schuyler’s home in Saratoga that evening. Philip Schuyler journeyed ahead of the delegation to Fort George to monitor the condition of ice on the lake to ensure they would have optimal travel conditions to reach their destination. After waiting out the weather in Saratoga, the delegation received word that the ice had cleared enough for travel, and they set out again on April 16th. 

Portrait of Bishop John Carroll,
Gilbert Stuart c.1804

When the delegation arrived in Canada on April 29th, they ran into several issues. By bringing the Carrolls, who were Catholics, Congress hoped to show that Americans respected the Canadians’ right to practice Catholicism. This right, however, was already granted to the Canadians through the Quebec Act passed by the British Parliament in 1774. The Quebec Act removed references to Protestantism in the oath of allegiance made by public officials and reinstated the ability of the Catholic Church to collect tithes in Canada. American colonists labeled the Quebec Act as one of the Intolerable Acts that eventually led to the breakout of fighting in 1775. Reverend Carroll was only able to meet with one clergyman while in Montreal. The rest refused to meet with him on the orders of the archbishop of the province, Jean-Olivier Briand. Briand, against the American
Revolution, instructed religious officials in Montreal not to meet with the delegates. Briand was displeased that Carroll, as a religious leader, would participate in a political operation. This stonewalling caused a swift end to hope of using a religious angle to win over the French Canadians. 

Another concern was Canadian unwillingness to accept American currency. This had been a persistent issue since the Continental Army began their Canadian campaign in the late summer of 1775. General Montgomery wrote to Philip Schuyler about the Canadians’ distrust of the highly unstable colonial paper money, and that Canadian merchants would only accept the money at less than its value, leading to its further depreciation. In his final letter before his death, Montgomery suggested they, “send down to the Army such Articles as Soldiers have to lay out their money upon, employing sutlers or that purpose who will receive our pay the troops may then be paid in Continental Currency, which will not be depreciated, the Soldier will not grumble as he may be regularly paid, and by degrees the Inhabitants may acquire confidence in it seeing our merchants take it freely.”9  

The financial situation continued to spiral downward following the defeat at Quebec. The Committee, in a letter to John Hancock, wrote, “It is impossible to give you a just idea of the lowness of the Continental credit here from the want of hard money, and the prejudice it is to our affairs.”10 The letter goes on to say they had to find a merchant sympathetic to the American cause who was willing to exchange their paper money for specie so they could pay for their carriages. They suggested sending 20,000 pounds so that a bank could be established for the purpose of exchanging Continental currency. This constant lack of funds led many of the inhabitants of Canada to conclude that the Continental Congress was “bankrupt and their cause as desperate.”11 

Franklin quickly became disillusioned with the delegation’s prospects of encouraging the Canadians to support the American cause, or even to maintain neutrality. He considered the attitude of the Canadians to be hostile towards the colonies. Franklin also worried about the state on the Continental Army in Canada; the lack of supplies, due to the currency issue, and how that affected the troops. A report to the delegation from Major General John Thomas wrote, 

“I examined into the state of the Army, and found, by the returns, there were one thousand nine hundred men, only one thousand of whom were fit for duty, including officers; the rest were invalids, chiefly with the small-pox. Three hundred of those effective were soldiers whose inlistments expired the 15th ultimo, many of whom refused duty, and all were very importunate to return home… In all our magazines there were but about one hundred and fifty pounds of powder, and six days provisions. The French inhabitants were much disaffected, so that supplies of any kind were obtained with great difficulty from them.”12 

Thomas, who would die from smallpox himself only a month later, painted a bleak picture of the future of the army in that part of the continent. 

The apparent futility of the delegation’s mission was clear by early May. In addition, Franklin’s ill health, which was exacerbated by the journey, caused him to leave Canada in the company of Reverend Carroll, leaving Chase and Charles Carroll behind to continue their work. On May 11th, Charles Carroll wrote in his diary that Franklin would be leaving Canada early and returning to Congress, holding “the doctor’s declining health, and the bad prospect of our affairs in Canada,” responsible for this decision.13  

On the return trip from Canada, Franklin once again relied on the hospitality of Major General Schuyler. He wrote a letter mentioning his gratitude that Schuyler had lent him a post chaise driven by a man named Lewis, who may have been enslaved by Schuyler, as he crossed over treacherous terrain, and feared that with a less talented driver, such as himself, he would have sustained injury. 

The remaining members of the delegation departed Canada on June 2nd when it was apparent that Montreal would soon be back under British auspices. After two months, they were unable to make any progress towards cementing an alliance with the French in Canada. For the remainder of the war, the Americans would pursue no further attempts at diplomatic or military campaigns in Canada. The French would only be to back the American cause following the success at the Battles of Saratoga in 1777. 

Sources:

[1] Journals of the continental congress v.4 January 24 1776

[2] “The Committee of Secret Correspondence: a Report to Congress, [on or before 14 February 1776],” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-22-02-0211. [Original source: The Papers of Benjamin Franklin, vol. 22, March 23, 1775, through October 27, 1776, ed. William B. Willcox. New Haven and London:: Yale University Press, 1982, pp. 350–353.]

[3] Minutes of the Continental Congress, Vol. 4., February 26, 1776

[4] Manuscripts and Archives Division, The New York Public Library. "1776 April 1" The New York Public Library Digital Collections. 1776. https://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/5d028bd0-3733-0134-614c-00505686d14e

[5] “Instructions and Commission from Congress to Franklin, Charles Carroll, and Samuel Chase for the Canadian Mission, 20 March 1776,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-22-02-0228. [Original source: The Papers of Benjamin Franklin, vol. 22, March 23, 1775, through October 27, 1776, ed. William B. Willcox. New Haven and London:: Yale University Press, 1982, pp. 380–386.]

[6] “Benjamin Franklin to Philip Schuyler, 11 March 1776,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-22-02-0227. [Original source: The Papers of Benjamin Franklin, vol. 22, March 23, 1775, through October 27, 1776, ed. William B. Willcox. New Haven and London:: Yale University Press, 1982, pp. 379–380.]

[7] “Benjamin Franklin to Philip Schuyler, 11 March 1776,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-22-02-0227. [Original source: The Papers of Benjamin Franklin, vol. 22, March 23, 1775, through October 27, 1776, ed. William B. Willcox. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1982, pp. 379–380.]

[8] Charles Carroll’s Diary April 7, 1776.

[9] Richard Montgomery to Philip Schuyler, 26 December 1775, New York Public Library, George Washington Papers.

[10] “The Commissioners to Canada to John Hancock, 1 May 1776,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-22-02-0244. [Original source: The Papers of Benjamin Franklin, vol. 22, March 23, 1775, through October 27, 1776, ed. William B. Willcox. New Haven and London:: Yale University Press, 1982, pp. 413–415.]

[11] “The Commissioners to Canada to John Hancock, 1 May 1776,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-22-02-0244. [Original source: The Papers of Benjamin Franklin, vol. 22, March 23, 1775, through October 27, 1776, ed. William B. Willcox. New Haven and London:: Yale University Press, 1982, pp. 413–415.]

[12] John Thomas to the Commissioners to Canada. Reprinted from Peter Force, ed., American Archives: Consisting of a Collection of Authentick Records, State Papers, Debates, and Letters and Other Notices of Publick Affairs... (4th series; 6 vols., [Washington, D.C.,] 1837-46),VI, 451-2.

[13] Charles Carroll’s Diary, May 11, 1776