Philip Schuyler’s Continued Dealings with the Johnsons

By Kayla Whitehouse 

In January 1776, rumors began swirling that Sir John Johnson was building an alliance of Loyalists and Haudenosaunee, particularly the Mohawk people, and making plans to oppose the Continental Army. Major General Philip Schuyler was ordered to put a stop to it. Schuyler marched into Tryon County at the head of a militia, lining up his men and putting on an extravagant show of power and military force. Despite the show of force, once he reached Johnson Hall, Schuyler effectively let Sir Johnson off with little more than a warning. Sir Johnson was never arrested, he was allowed to travel freely on parole, and he was even permitted to keep some of his weapons. Unthreatened by General Schuyler’s ability to gather an army at a moment’s notice, it was not long before Sir Johnson put the lenient terms of their January agreement to the test. By March of 1776, Schuyler was once again receiving reports that Sir Johnson was riling up tensions in Tryon County.

On March 11, 1776, Asa Chadwick gave an affidavit to the Albany Committee of Correspondence that, “[Johnson] had invited the Indians to act hostilely against the friends of [Albany] County.”[i] This broke the conditions of Sir Johnson’s parole, inciting Schuyler to order him to Albany to face these accusations.

The Committee of Correspondence met at the house of the Widow Vernor. Officially the Albany Committee of Safety, Protection, and Correspondence, it was formed of several smaller sub-committees of men, each one representing a different district of Albany. The Committee collected funds and supplies for the army, regulated soldiers, and rooted out Loyalists. The committee acted almost as a court. Schuyler reported that “Sir John Johnson was this Day in Town agreeable to my Request, but his Accusers did not appear,”[ii] implying that they would have accused him directly. Since they did not, Schuyler decided to investigate the original affidavit from Asa Chadwick further, to determine the truth of the matter.

Schuyler wrote to Sir Johnson requesting he attend another meeting the following week, this time with the Committee of Tryon County in Caughnawaga, and that he bring with him any witnesses he felt necessary to exonerate himself. He also wrote to the Committee of Tryon County asking them to please make sure Asa Chadwick attended.[iii]

Sir Johnson wrote back on March 27, 1776:

Sir,

I have just received your letter, & am much surprised at the Style of it, as well as the change of place at which you promised me the enquiry should be made – if my Answers do not Attend, & that too at the place you promised me when I saw you at Albany. I shall not think it worth my while to meet the Committee of Tryon anywhere else, Notwithstanding any inference that may be drawn from my noncompliance by evil disposed persons.”[iv]

By this point, Sir Johnson had been called to Albany several times to be questioned over whether he was giving gifts and bribes to Indigenous people. Sir Johnson was tired of leaving behind his pregnant wife and young children while being repeatedly forced to defend his actions. The Continental Congress was worried that Sir John Johnson was attempting to assert his influence as British Superintendent of Indian Affairs in New York over the Mohawk.[v] And, since the Haudenosaunee had a long-standing allegiance deal with the British, it would have been an easy task for Sir Johnson.

It is unclear whether Sir Johnson actually attended any meeting at this point. Schuyler does not mention any further actions in any of his subsequent letters. However, he did continue to receive more affidavits regarding Sir Johnson’s activities in Tryon County in April. The news was worrying enough that Schuyler decided to take Sir Johnson into custody. There was just one problem: he was still on parole from the January raid on Johnson Hall, and a person on parole can only be arrested if they violate the terms of that parole.

Schuyler decided to be more subtle. He would not march into town with an army of militia. Instead, Schuyler devised a sneaky plan to arrest Sir Johnson. He sent Sir Johnson a letter, informing him that Mr. McDonald, one of the Scottish Highlanders in Tryon County, had asked to be moved with his family out of the area. Schuyler said he was therefore sending troops into the county to help the McDonalds, and other Highlander families, relocate. In reality, the 300 soldiers from the New Jersey regiment, under the command of Col. Elias Dayton, were being sent to capture Sir Johnson.

Brigadier General Elias Dayton. c. 1809.
Attributed to Ellen Sharples. Williams College Museum of Art

On May 14, 1776, Schuyler wrote a letter to Sir Johnson, which he gave to Col. Dayton to deliver:

“After Candidly scanning, cooly Considering & Comparing the Variety of Informations which imputes to You the most hostile Intentions against the Country, I could have wished for the Sake of human Nature to have found them Groundless, unhappily they are too well supported by the Testimony Even of those who were intrusted with the Secret of Your intended Operations, & whose Remorse has induced them to a full Discovery, as not to leave a Doubt on my Mind, that You have acted Contrary to the sacred Engagements You lay under to me & thro’ me to the Public, It is therefore Necessary for the Public Safety of the Inhabitants & the Weal of the Country that I should put It out of Your Power to Embroil It in domestic Confusion, & have therefore ordered You to be made Close Prisoner (hereby discharging You from Your parole) & sent down to Albany, to be thence Conveyed to His Excellency General Washington…”[vi]

Johnson Hall, 2026.

Ideally, Sir Johnson would have agreed to meet Dayton, believing the Continental troops were in Tryon county to help relocate the Highlander families. He would then have been informed of the truth via Schuyler’s letter – that he was being released from parole, and at the same time being arrested. Unfortunately for Schuyler, Sir Johnson heard of his plot and fled before Dayton could meet with him.

Col. Dayton reported that when he arrived in Johnstown on May 19, he was informed by Lady Mary Watts Johnson that Sir Johnson had received Schuyler’s first letter, consulted with the Highlanders, and they had decided to flee together.[vii] He also wrote that Lady Johnson implied that, if followed, the Highlanders were ready to defend themselves.[viii] Not long after that, he saw a number of Mohawk warriors “painted and armed agreeable to their manner when they go to war.”[ix] Concerned, Dayton decided to wait for two of the Indian Commissioners, Volkert Douw and Robert Yates, who informed him that the Mohawks were very upset with the Continental Army marching into Johnstown. He delayed even further, taking the time to hold a conference with the Mohawks to prevent any further escalation of tensions between them. In the meantime, Dayton confirmed, “Sir John with upwards of three hundred persons, several of which are said to be armed attempted on Tuesday morning to make his attempt through the woods to Canada.”[x]

This would mark a new chapter in the interactions between Philip Schuyler and Sir John Johnson. Previously, Schuyler had offered Sir Johnson the leniency and freedom that was expected for someone of his social and financial status. In January, when Schuyler had marched to Johnstown to take the weapons from its inhabitants, he permitted Sir Johnson to keep his heirloom pieces because he was a gentleman. Schuyler had allowed Sir Johnson the benefit of the doubt, despite the numerous reports that he was raising troops loyal to the British Crown. In May 1776, the tenuous truce ended. Philip Schuyler ended Sir Johnson’s freedom of parole and ordered his arrest, and Sir Johnson took his loyal men and fled to officially join the British Army in Canada.

It is important to note that in May, Schuyler was not in Johnstown. He was at Fort George, dealing with other pressing concerns: the imminent retreat from Canada, the ongoing lack of supplies and provisions, and a sudden proliferation of rumors that Schuyler himself was a traitor, secretly loyal to Britain. He was kept apprised of the situation in Tryon County through letters from Col. Dayton, the Secret Committee of Albany, the Indian Commissioners, and by a visit from Reverend Caldwell, the chaplain assigned to Col. Dayton’s regiment.

Schuyler’s first letter was to Col. Wynkoop, on May 22, ordering him to both strengthen Fort George and to station troops between there and Albany, in anticipation of Sir Johnson and his men fleeing Tryon County.[xi] One of his next letters was to Lieutenant Van Vechten, stationed at Saratoga, ordering him to keep an eye on Schuyler’s house there, to make sure Sir Johnson and his men didn’t burn it down. Additionally, Schuyler ordered Van Vechten to put the account books from his store somewhere safe, but secretly, so his tenants didn’t know there was any risk.[xii] Then Schuyler turned to Lady Johnson.

Col. Dayton asked General Schuyler for permission to have Lady Johnson moved to Albany, noting, “the Guards & Sentries round the Hall must increase the pain of the situation,”[xiii] being as she was without her husband, forced to leave her home as a prisoner, and very advanced in her pregnancy. She had friends in Albany and Schenectady, so it was suggested that she be moved to stay with one of them. Lady Johnson did not want to go, and Col. Dayton admits he didn’t know why. William Duer, on the other hand, was not as confused:

“she pleaded strongly to stay at the Hall, on Account of receiving Intelligence from Sir John; This alone appears to me a Sufficient Reason for her being mov’d because by the same Chance that she receives, she may communicate Intelligence : and I can assure she seems to enter into the Spirit of the Cause wh. Sir John has embrac’d.”[xiv] 

Not only was Duer concerned that Lady Johnson would pass intelligence to and from Sir Johnson, he also believed that she destroyed evidence for her husband. For despite the fact that she easily gave up all keys and papers and let the Continental Army go through her house and all of her husband’s belongings, Duer said, “I conceive that the most material Papers are either burnt, secreted, or perhaps lodged with Mr. Stewart the Minister at Fort Hunter – I believe Lady Johnson did not think there was a Single Paper of any Kind of Consequence amongst those which were examined.”[xv]

Philip Schuyler wrote to Duer the next day: “I have ordered Lady Johnson to be moved to Albany, that she may be in a Place of Safety & incapable of Giving Intelligence to her Husband.”[xvi] She was sent to stay with her great-aunt, Frances Nicolls Holland, who lived in Bethlehem, NY.[xvii] Lady Johnson tried to negotiate to be allowed to return to Johnson Hall, or for her transfer to New York City, where she had more friends and relatives. New York City also had a significantly higher Loyalist population and would ultimately be under the control of the British for much of the American Revolutionary War, although at this time it was still under control of the Continental Army. Schuyler did not give her the opportunity of possibly reuniting with her husband, however, and ordered her to remain at Albany.

Johnson Hall, 2026.

If Lady Johnson had been permitted to return to her home, she would not have liked what she found. Major General Schuyler had ordered Col. Dayton to be stationed at Johnson Hall with his regiment in case Sir Johnson returned, and they remained there for several months before it was determined they were needed more elsewhere. In the meantime, the soldiers had ransacked the Hall and stolen a number of Sir Johnson’s possessions. One of those soldiers, Anthony Walton White, ended up taking most of the blame for leading the destruction. He was tried by court martial for “embezzlement,” and accused of taking things such as a saddle, a pair of boots, some gold lace, and a handkerchief full of cash from the Johnsons. Many of the doors to the rooms had been broken open (a witness claimed White broke down at least one door with an axe), and all of the papers had been taken by the army. White was ultimately acquitted for his role in Johnson Hall’s looting.[xviii]

If Schuyler’s plan to detain Lady Johnson in Albany had been to isolate her from her husband, he was successful. Perhaps a little too successful, his daughter might have argued. On July 4, 1776, 20-year-old Angelica Schuyler wrote a letter to her father, noting that there was “a report in town that Sir John Johnson was dead, some person had told Lady Johnson and made her very unhappy.” Not wanting the poor woman to suffer unnecessarily, Angelica sent her an anonymous message that the report was false. “If you approve of this I shall applaud myself for it;” Angelica told her father, “if not my future conduct must be Improved by your example.”[xix]

In September 1776, Schuyler received a letter on Mary Johnson’s behalf asking to have her returned to her home, as she was nearing the end of her pregnancy and it would be “inconvenient for her to lay in here.” Rather than reply, Schuyler referred the matter to the Albany Committee, requesting their opinion.[xx] They denied her request. Hearing that the refusal came from the Committee, Lady Johnson wrote to Schuyler directly, concerned that the Committee seemingly had command over her movements when she had originally been brought to Albany under Schuyler’s orders. Her letter also blamed him for the destruction of her home. Schuyler replied once more, apologizing for the looting of Johnson Hall, noting that it had been strictly against orders. He informed her that the officers responsible were being investigated for their actions, but that he was “bound to conform to [the Committee’s] Opinion.” With that, Schuyler had effectively washed his hands of Lady Johnson, turning his attention to more pressing matters, such as the fleet building on Lake Champlain.

By this point, Sir Johnson had managed to fully evade the Continental Army and reach Canada, establishing himself with the British forces. While he was able to send her periodic letters and messages, one can only assume that Lady Polly Johnson would have much rather been at home, with her husband by her side, when she gave birth to their fourth child on October 7, 1776. She named their son John, in his father’s absence.

---

[i] Minutes from Albany Committee of Correspondence, March 11, 1776.

[ii] Letter, Philip Schuyler to Continental Congress, March 19, 1776, Letterbook 2, Philip Schuyler Papers, New York Public Library.

[iii] Ibid.

[iv] Houghton Library, Harvard University. https://curiosity.lib.harvard.edu/worlds-of-change/catalog/149-HOU00303C00133.

[v] Dern, Susan Farnum. Lady Mary Watts Johnson: An American Loyalist. MA thesis, SUNY Oneonta, Cooperstown Graduate Program, 1976.

[vi] Letter, Philip Schuyler to Sir John Johnson, March 14, 1776, Letterbook 2, Philip Schuyler Papers, New York Public Library.

[vii] Letter, Elias Dayton to John Sullivan, May 19, 1776, Philip Schuyler Papers, New York Public Library.

[viii] Letter, Elias Dayton to Philip Schuyler, May 22, 1776, Philip Schuyler Papers, New York Public Library.

[ix] Ibid.

[x] Ibid.

[xi] Orders, Philip Schuyler to Col. Wynkoop, May 22, 1776, Letterbook of General Orders, Philip Schuyler Papers, New York Public Library.

[xii] Letter, Philip Schuyler to Lt. V. Vechten, May 23, 1776, Letterbook 2, Philip Schuyler Papers, New York Public Library.

[xiii] Letter, Elias Dayton to Philip Schuyler, May 24, 1776, Philip Schuyler Papers, New York Public Library.

[xiv] Letter, William Duer to Philip Schuyler, May 24, 1776, Philip Schuyler Papers, New York Public Library.

[xv] Ibid.

[xvi] Letter, Philip Schuyler to William Duer, May 25, 1776, Letterbook 2, Philip Schuyler Papers, New York Public Library.

[xvii] Letter, Col. Guy Johnson to Sir John Johnson, August 9, 1776, Claus Papers – 1478, Library and Archives Canada / Bibliothèque et Archives Canada, lac_reel_c1478, https://n2t.net/ark:/69429/m0v97zk5672p.

[xviii] Transcript of the Court Martial Trial of Anthony W. White and others for embezzlement, October 1, 1776, New-York Historical Society, Richard Varick Papers, Military Documents, Digitized by NY Heritage.

[xix] Letter, Angelica Schuyler to Philip Schuyler, July 4, 1776. New York State Library.

[xx] Letter, Philip Schuyler to the Committee of Albany, September 16, 1776, Letterbook 2, Philip Schuyler Papers, New York Public Library.