An Egregious Want of Publick Spirit: The American Invasion of Quebec

By Maria Karasavidis

Major General Philip Schuyler
by John Trumbull, circa 1792

    It was November of 1775, and Major General Philip Schuyler had had enough. A persistent attack of an illness he described as a “violent flux” kept him stuck at Fort Ticonderoga for most of October and all of November. Instead of leading the Northern Department to begin an invasion of Canada, he was confined to a sick bed. The expedition, which he had planned, was intended to weaken the British strongholds in the area and gain support of the French Canadians, taking advantage of their tense relations with the British following the French and Indian War. The invasion of Canada was an undertaking George Washington would call "of unmeasurable Importance to the Cause we are engaged in.” Due to Schuyler’s ill health, command over the invasion was instead given to Brigadier General Richard Montgomery, who had previously been passed over for appointment as Major General in favor of Schuyler. Montgomery was in many ways an ideal replacement for Schuyler; he had more experience in combat, and, vitally, he had participated in a successful invasion of Canada over the same route for the British during the French and Indian War. 

Included in the plans to invade Canada, the New York colony was tasked by Congress to determine whether or not the Canadians would be amenable to the Continental Army coming to “liberate” them from the British. Washington expressed concern there was “some Danger” that the assault on Canada would alarm the inhabitants so much that they would break their neutrality and side with the British. He assured Schuyler if they acted with discernment, the Canadians would welcome the Continental Army as their liberators. Congress officially authorized the invasion of Canada on June 21^st. Due to significant delays, however, Montgomery would not leave for Canada until August 31^st; these delays ultimately proved fatal.

Map of the routes taken by Montgomery and Arnold
in their two-pronged assault on Quebec

Two expeditions into Canada launched in the late summer and early fall: one under the command of General Montgomery coming at Quebec from southwesterly Fort Ticonderoga, the other under the command of Benedict Arnold launching from Cambridge, Massachusetts and traveling northwest through Maine. Montgomery and his troops encountered several early successes on the road to Quebec. The Continental Army, led by Montgomery successfully took Fort Chambly, Fort St. Jean, and Montreal, clearing a path for the army to reach Quebec unimpeded. Colonel Arnold’s half of the expedition was significantly more problematic from the outset. Even though the route to Quebec through Maine was technically shorter, the terrain was considerably more difficult to traverse, and subsequently letters from Arnold were few and far between. Many letters from Washington and Schuyler note with concern that they were unsure of Where Arnold and his troops were. In late October, the commander of Colonel Arnold’s Rear Division, Colonel Roger Enos, deserted the expedition, returning with his troops to Cambridge when they found provisions to be significantly wanting. Enos wrote to George Washington informing him of his intentions to return to Cambridge, “When we took the Situation of our Divisions into Consideration & upon the whole for Several Reasons it was thot best for my Whole Division to Return & furnish those that proceeded with all our provisions”. Washington was waiting for Enos in Cambridge and had him arrested for “leaving his Commanding Officer without permission, or orders”. Enos was court martialed but was cleared by the court of all charges. This event was further confirmation that the state of the Continental Army was growing increasingly dire. Additionally, several officers under Arnold told Montgomery that they would only continue their service if they were allowed to do so under another officer. These perpetual personnel issues were characterized by Washington as an “egregious want of publick Spirit.” 

Despite his optimism after the taking of Montreal, Washington remained pragmatic, understanding that the quick surrender at Montreal would leave the British more time and more supplies to fortify Quebec. He wrote to John Hancock on November 19th, “as it is Likely the Governor Carlton will with what forces he Can Collect after the Surrender of the rest of Canada, throw himself into Quebec, & there make his last effort.” General Carleton did exactly this, letting Montreal fall with little expenditure of forces, which allowed him to make a quick escape by boat to Quebec to prepare for attack. After the surrender, the British garrison at Montreal dumped the entirety of their supply of powder into the river so it could not be used by the Americans.

Meanwhile, at Fort Ticonderoga, Schuyler was still inhibited by his illness and now dismayed at what he perceived as the lack of discipline amongst the American forces. He wrote to George Washington in November, “Habituated to Order, I cannot without the most extreme Pain, see that Disregard of Discipline, Confusion & Inattention which reigns so General in this Quarter, & am therefore determined to retire…” Schuyler was not the only one suffering fatigue from command; General Montgomery also expressed his desire to be done with military life, writing to Schuyler that he was “weary of Power.”. This was a sentiment Schuyler empathized with greatly and lamented to Washington that both he and Montgomery had been “drove to the Necessity of Wheedling, Coaxing & Even Lying… in Order to carry on the Service.”

General Richard Montgomery
by Alonzo Chappel, circa 1840

    Prior to the outbreak of fighting during the Revolutionary War, Montgomery had left military service and planned to live the rest of his life as a gentleman farmer on his farm in Westchester, and he desired greatly to return to that life. Montgomery had little of the optimism about success in Canada that was seemingly so abundant in General Washington. He worried about the dangerous mix of low morale and the impending expiration of the enlisted men's commissions. In Washington’s opinion, however, “No Troops were ever better provided or higher paid,” an observation not supported by the myriad testimonies from enlisted men and officers in the field. Montgomery wrote frequently to both Schuyler and Washington requesting badly needed supplies, noting that the men were in much want of money, clothes, and food. Schuyler also had concerns about the lack of specie and frequently wrote to Congress asking for hard currency.

“The Urgent Necessity of an immediate supply of Gold or Silver, strikes me so forcibly, that Congress will pardon me, if I seem importunate, & intreat them to send me what can be got at Philadelphia by Express, as none is to be had at Albany.” He understood the issues the Canadians had with taking the Continental Army’s paper money, saying that they had “suffered much by paper Currency, and a burnt Child dreads the fire.”

The siege of Quebec started on December 6^th, and General Carleton resolutely refused to surrender. The impending expiration of the enlisted men’s enrollment forced Montgomery to act quickly, and a full-frontal attack was planned for December 31^st. This sped up timeline left no room to account for the weather conditions, and the attack on the 31^st took place in the midst of a blizzard. The Continental Army was also outnumbered, with Schuyler’s repeated requests for reinforcements to be sent to Canada having been declined by Congress. The American forces that attacked Quebec were mentally weakened by the lack of morale and physically weakened by the lack of food and proper clothing. Montgomery had refused to allow his men to take the clothes from captured British soldiers as he was a strict observer of military code and would not allow even enemy soldiers to be stripped of their belongings, a viewpoint that garnered him significant ire from the men whose clothes were almost entirely threadbare in the harsh Canadian winter.

The Death of General Montgomery in the Attack on Quebec,
December 31, 1775, John Trumbull, 1786 

    During the battle, the British had been firing at the Americans intensely to keep them away from the city walls, and Montgomery incorrectly assumed that the British must be out of artillery at that point, vastly underestimating their strength. Montgomery was killed instantly, never learning that on December 9^th Congress had resolved to promote him to the rank of Major General. On the day he died, Philip Schuyler wrote Montgomery a letter congratulating him on his promotion. The battle was a decisive victory for the British, reporting only 5 causalities, in comparison to the 50 American soldiers killed and the 400 taken prisoner. Philip Schuyler would not learn of Montgomery’s death until nearly two weeks later, on January 13^th. It seems, however, that either mounting fears about the desperate condition of the army in Canada, or the lack of any good news about the outcome of the battle, were starting to plague Schuyler’s thoughts, and on January 8^th he wrote to the already deceased Montgomery, “Your Force at Quebec is so small that I feel a most distressing Anxiety lest an accident should happen to you and Colo. Arnold, which might be attended with the most fatal Consequences…”.

By January of 1776, Montgomery was dead, and Schuyler was left to reassess his dedication to the cause of American independence. For much of 1775, Schuyler had still been hopeful for a reconciliation between England and her colonies, but he reached a turning point during that winter. Perhaps the death of his good friend Montgomery by the British had alienated him from the mother country, or perhaps the success of the Canadian campaign up until Quebec had proved to him that the Continental Army had the ability to stand up to the British. Whatever the reason, in January of 1776 he wrote to Washington of his commitment to “sink or swim” with his country. Following news of Montgomery’s death, he rescinded his request to retire, admitting that the weakened state of the American forces reinvigorated him, in spite of his weak health, to do what he could for the cause of liberty.

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.

The Articles of Association and the Smuggling Elite

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

by Sarah Lindecke

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

Page 1 of the Articles of Association

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

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

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

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

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

"Vue de la Nouvelle Yorck" by Balthasar Friedrich Leizelt

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bibliography

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The Story of Adelaide and Alice

A letter from Adelaide to her nephew, Schuyler Hamilton Jr.

by Jessie Serfilippi

This research was made possible by a new collection of Hamilton papers Schuyler Mansion acquired from the Norwalk Historical Society.

In January of 1899, Adelaide and Alice Hamilton’s names were all over the news. On January 17^th, 1899, the New York Times published an article titled “Miss Hamilton is Insane: Wealthy Granddaughter of Alexander Hamilton Pronounced So by Jury.” The article followed a court case brought against Alice by her older sister, Adelaide, in which she sought to have her younger sister institutionalized. From these facts alone, it’s easy to assume there was no love between them and that Adelaide sought to institutionalize Alice out of desire for her sister’s money or out of malice, but when their entire lives are taken in account, a much more complex story emerges.

Adelaide (1830-1915) and Alice Hamilton (1838-1905) were two of twelve children born to Maria Eliza van den Heuvel (1795-1873) and John Church Hamilton (1792-1882), who was Elizabeth Schuyler (1757-1854) and Alexander Hamilton’s (1755-1804) son. They grew up in an incredibly wealthy household in New York City, with both of their parents coming from well-off and societally important families. They lived at 17 West 20^th Street in Manhattan, where Adelaide stayed until her death.

While not much information exists about the girls’ childhoods, one letter offers a small window into their world. In a letter from their mother to Adelaide written in January of 1851, when Adelaide was twenty and Alice was twelve, their mother filled Adelaide in on her travels in Baltimore and Washington D.C., and sent suggestions and wishes to her other children still at home with Adelaide. She told Adelaide to give Alice her “best love” and hoped she would go to the opera.

In the crosswritten section, Adelaide sends their nephew Alice's best wishes.

A letter from their brother, Laurens Hamilton (1834-1858), to their other brother, Alexander Hamilton, written in 1855, gives more insight into their lives as well. Laurens wrote that Alice was “’coming out’” that winter, and that he was making his debut too. He described how for women, there is “Fussing all the time before the parties,” while a man “puts on clothes which has probably been worn frequently and walks into the ballroom.”

From these letters, it’s clear the Hamilton children were expected to partake in high society and went through the usual traditions, such as making their formal entrance into the social scene and attending operas and plays.

Adelaide and Alice, as well as one of their other sisters, Charlotte (1819-1896), remained unmarried and
lived in their family home together through adulthood. While Charlotte predeceased them both, later letters from Adelaide to her nephew, Schuyler Hamilton Jr. (1853-1907), reveal she often summered at Newport, Rhode Island, which was a common stomping ground for the wealthy members of New York society. Adelaide and Alice spent the summer of 1897 in Newport. One letter to her nephew dated June 17^th of that year mentioned the house they were staying in, and on September 11, 1897, Adelaide wrote that “Aunt Alice is well and would beg to be remembered if she knew I was writing.”  

Adelaide describing the rooms she and Alice share at their summer home in Newport.

Sadly, within less than a year, everything changed for Alice and Adelaide. The New York Times article on Alice stated that she had been suffering from depression and delusions since at least April of 1898, when she was committed to Pleasantville Sanitorium. Adelaide brought the court case against Alice in 1899, seemingly to keep her there.

Adelaide, as well as medical experts, testified that Alice believed her relatives and herself to be dead, that she experienced religious delusions, and suffered from “melancholia.” She was found insane and had to stay at Pleasantville Sanitorium. The New York Times noted that Alice had a large estate—over $200,000 in property and a personal income of about $6,000 per year—but it did not mention what happened to her assets.

Alice was hospitalized at the “MacDonald House” in Mount Pleasant in Westchester County, New York, right outside of New York City. The doctor who ran the private hospital was Dr. Carl MacDonald, who lived there with his wife and daughter. In 1900, there was a staff of seventeen people, including eight nurses. That year, at the time the census was taken, there were seven patients, including Alice, at the hospital. Nothing is really known about the hospital or the doctor who ran it, but the small number of patients suggests it was for wealthy families, and its location in Westchester County was secluded from New York City in the relative countryside. Alice lived there until her death in 1905.

Adelaide died in 1915, at her family home, with multiple servants living at the estate with her. She was the last of her sisters to die.

As publicized as this story was within their lifetimes, the personal details—such as the true thoughts and emotions behind it—remain a mystery. As we have this new collection in our possession, there’s always a chance we’ll find something in it or in a new collection yet to come that sheds more light on their lives. Until then, this is the story of Adelaide and Alice as the records have told it.

From the Commonplace Book to the Scrapbook

Excerpt of Eliza Schuyler Hamilton's commonplace book. 

Did you know that the first Saturday in May is National Scrapbook Day? Although the term “scrapbook” wasn’t used until the mid to late-1800s, the concept has existed for centuries. Popularized in the 15^th century with the advent of the printing press, people have been using what were called “commonplace books” to compile documents such as recipes, letters, poems, and journal entries. Even as early as the 8^th century, these types of books were used to compile biblical texts, and the concept of these books as a form of personal expression and record keeping developed thereafter.

In 1685, Enlightenment philosopher John Locke wrote a treatise on commonplace books, translated into English in 1706 as A New Method of Making Common-Place-Books. Locke offered insights into how a person could document a wide array of information, including proverbs, speeches, and ideas. By the 18^th century, the commonplace book had cemented its status as a cherished resource for educated women, providing them with a repository for pamphlets, newspaper clippings, and reflections on the world around them.

Within the Schuyler Mansion collections, there is an excerpt of a commonplace book kept by Eliza Hamilton Schuyler (1811-1863), great-granddaughter of Catharine and Philip Schuyler. Entitled “A Common Place book of Winter life,” these pages detail just eight days from January 1^st-8^th of 1855. Three small holes visible on the left-hand side of what is now a single sheet of paper indicate it was once a longer book Eliza kept. How long she kept it, and where the missing pages are, is currently unknown.

The eight surviving entries allow us a glimpse into Eliza’s daily life. Almost every day, she recorded the temperature at exactly 8AM. While she sometimes mentioned activities in her family life, such as taking her children to German school, she mainly focused on nature. Her notes were poetic at times: “soft glowing sunset—streaking the [Hudson] river with broady [sic] bands of red, purple & gold—I take this hour for myself & such to rise” In this case, she was describing the view from her father’s home near Irvington, NY. She wrote that the sunset reminded her of the day she was married. She said that day had been “rainy & dull,” but the “clouds broke—such joy flashed upon me with these brilliant slanting beams, that they have strengthened me ever since—” Her entries provide a beautiful window into her world and memories even over 160 years since she recorded them.

While Eliza’s commonplace book focused on nature and her daily life, so many 19^th century scrapbooks were full of other mementos like tickets, playbills, and magazine clippings. As magazines began to disseminate even more, the art of scrapbooking as we know it today began to develop thanks to Mark Twain patenting a self-pasting scrapbook that would generate over $100,000 in sales. With the photography also becoming more accessible as near the turn of the 20^th century, scrapbooking as opposed to keeping commonplace books became more typical in American homes.

Perhaps as adults, Eliza’s children clipped articles or photos from ladies’ magazines or saved calling cards and playbills. Thanks to each generation’s unique way of keeping mementoes and snippets of their lives as they wanted to remember them, we get a glimpse into a much more personal past.

Poets of the Schuylers' Time: A National Poetry Month Recap

Phillis Wheatley, possibly by Scipio Moorhead;
circa 1773

In April we introduced you to poets from around the world who lived during the 18^th and early 19^th centuries! Here’s a recap, in order of the poets’ births, in case you missed out on a post.

JUPITER HAMMON

Jupiter Hammon was born into slavery in 1711, on Henry Lloyd’s estate on Long Island, New York. Though the details are unknown, he was educated by the Lloyds. As an adult, he worked with Henry on his business, often going to New York City to negotiate trade deals. Hammon may have served in a similar role to Prince, a man enslaved by the Schuylers. Prince also knew how to read and write, a skill he acquired before being enslaved by the Schuylers, and occasionally weighed in on farm management.

Hammon’s first work, “An Evening Thought,” was published in 1760. Like many of his works, it was rooted in religion, which played a vital role in his life. It’s unclear to what degree or how the Lloyds supported him, but the religious nature of his poems may have played a part. In 1778, Hammon wrote a poem to Phillis Wheatley, also known for using religious imagery in her poetry, seemingly to give her encouragement to continue writing:

Jupiter Hammon’s poem to Phillis Wheatley,
courtesy of the Connecticut Historical Society.

Come you, Phillis, now aspire,
And seek the living God,
So step by step thou mayst go higher,
Till perfect in the word

A prominent member of the larger Black community, he gave a speech titled “Address to the
Negroes of the State of New York” to the African Society of New York City in 1787, when he was 76. This and his other works were used throughout the 19^th by anti-slavery activists in support of their cause.

Hammon died in the early 19^th century, sometime before 1806, still enslaved by the Lloyds. He is buried in an unmarked grave on the Lloyd estate. His writing continued to fuel the abolitionist movement throughout the 19^th century. You can learn more about him through the Jupiter Hammon Project: https://preservationlongisland.org/jupiter-hammon-project/

Read more of his poetry here: https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/52546/an-address-to-miss-phillis-wheatly

Yosa Buson by Matsumura Goshun

YOSA BUSON

Yosa Buson was born in the village of Kema (in present day Osaka), Japan, in 1716. He moved to present-day Tokyo to study painting and haiku. He then travelled throughout Japan, keeping records of his travels, before settling in Kyoto in the 1750s.  

Yosa worked as both a painter and poet, and was considered one of the best poets of the Edo Period (1603-1867). He married and had a daughter in Kyoto, but eventually resumed his work and travels. When he returned, he settled down to teach poetry and continue writing.

He died at the age of 68 and was buried at a temple in Kyoto. As his poetry is in Japanese, there are multiple translations into English by different translators. We’ve provided the original Japanese and two translations to show how they vary.

初雪の底を叩ば竹の月

hatsuyuki no soko wo tatakeba take no tsuki

The first light snow
then when the bowl of the sky is empty
the moon hanging in the bamboos

(translated by Merwin and Lento)

The first snow
Emptying itself to its last flake —
The moon above bamboo.

(translated by Takafumi Saito and William R. Nelson)

See more translations and more of his poetry here: https://www.upaya.org/uploads/pdfs/ThirteenHaikubyYosaBuson.pdf

Mrs. James Warren (Mercy Otis) by
John Singleton Copley, circa 1763

MERCY OTIS WARREN

Mercy Otis Warren was born in 1728, in Barnstable, Massachusetts. She had no formal education, but learned by sitting in on her brother’s lessons and using her uncle’s library. When she married James Warren, he encouraged her interest in politics, history, and writing.

When her husband was elected to the Massachusetts Legislature in 1766, they began hosting many politically prominent people, such as the Adams, and Warren began lifelong (at times rocky) friendship with John Adams. When the American Revolution began, she was a staunch rebel. She wrote a history of the American Revolution and became the third women in the United States to publish her poetry. She continuously engaged in politics—expressing her disapproval of the Constitution and desire for women’s education. She died at 86.

You can read one of her poems here and see her ponder keeping within “the narrow bounds, prescrib'd to female life” in response to the man who requested she write a poem on “primitive simplicity” https://quod.lib.umich.edu/e/evans/N17785.0001.001/1:15.14?rgn=div2;view=fulltext 

JOHNATHAN ODELL

 An undated portraited miniature of Odell;
artist unknown; courtesy
of New Brunswick Museum

Johnathan Odell was born in 1737 in Newark, New Jersey. He studied medicine at Princeton and graduated in 1754. While still practicing medicine at times, he mainly became an Anglican minister, preaching at parishes in Burlington and Mount Holly in New Jersey.

In 1772, Odell married Anne de Cou and they had three children, one named for Odell’s lifelong friend, William Franklin, Benjamin Franklin’s Loyalist son. The couple tried to appear neutral at the start of the war, but his support of the British soon became known, and in 1776, he was forced by the New Jersey Provincial Congress to sign an oath of loyalty to the rebels. Not long after, they ordered him captured—dead or alive—and he and his family fled to British-held New York City, where he continued supporting the British.

Odell became a spy, satirist, essayist, and poet for the Loyalist cause. His poems were long, and sometimes written with fellow Loyalist, Samuel Seabury. He often named famous rebels in his poems, though Schuyler was seemingly never named in one.

Following the war, the Odells moved to New Brunswick, Canada, where he held multiple government positions. He lived there until his death in 1818. You can read some of his poetry here: https://xtf.lib.virginia.edu/xtf/view?docId=chadwyck_ap/uvaGenText/tei/chap_AM0706.xml&chunk.id=d3&toc.id=d3&brand=default

(Image: an undated portraited miniature of Odell; artist unknown; courtesy of New Brunswick Museum)

PHILLIS WHEATLEY

Phillis Wheatley's signature.

Phillis Wheatley was born in West Africa—possibly Senegal or Gambia—in 1753. She was
kidnapped in 1761, arriving in Boston on July 11^th, 1761. She was purchased by the Wheatley family when she was seven and enslaved by them until she was about twenty.

While enslaved & working in the Wheatley’s household, the Wheatley’s children tutored her in reading & writing. By twelve, she could read Latin & Greek. At fourteen, she wrote her first known poem. While they supported her education & writing, the Wheatleys still enslaved her.

In 1773, Nathaniel Wheatley took her to England, to get her poetry published in a volume, as it was difficult to find a printer willing to do so in the Colonies. The book was published in the summer of 1773, and Wheatley was freed in 1774. Within a few years, both of the Wheatleys were dead, and Phillis married a man named John Peters. They had three children together, but they all died in infancy. Her husband was soon imprisoned for debt and Phillis fell ill while working as a maid. She died in 1784 at 31.

Wheatley’s poetry was recognized by many famous figures of the 18^th century, including George Washington, who she wrote a poem for. While modern scholars sometimes claim she didn’t write about her enslavement, her use of religious metaphors may have been her way of doing so. She was the first Black woman to have her writing published in the United States. You can read one of her poems, “On Imagination,” here: https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/52632/on-imagination

 

Self portrait circa 1802.

WILLIAM BLAKE

William Blake was born on November 28, 1757 (just a few months after Elizabeth Schuyler), in London. He attended formal school up until the age of 10 and was then educated at home by his mother. He was soon enrolled in drawing school and began to take an interest in poetry.

At 15, he was apprenticed to an engraver and was a professional by the time his indenture was over at the age of 21. Afterward, he studied art at the Royal Academy. He married Catherine Boucher in 1781, and she became a partner in his work. In 1783, he published his first book of poetry.

He ran a printshop with a radical publisher, Joseph Johnson, and met many English dissidents this way. Some of his work shows he believed in women’s rights and equality. He was also we talented artist, especially as an engraver, relief etcher, and illustrator.  

He died on August 12, 1827, after drawing a sketch of his wife & promising he’d remain by her side. While friends published and sold his writing, they also destroyed & edited some of it. It wasn’t until the early 21^st century that his importance as a poet was fully acknowledged. 

In his poem “The Clod and the Pebble,” he gives two different views of love: one based on selflessness, and another based on selfishness. You can read it here: https://www.poetryfoundation.org/poems/43655/the-clod-and-the-pebble

 WU ZAO

Image of one of Wu Zao's poems and a print.

Wu Zao was born in 1799 in Renhe, now Hangzhou, in the Zhejiang province of China. Her
father was a merchant, and she later married a merchant named Huang. It’s been suggested that neither of them were interested in literature.

At the time she was born, the US was importing tea, porcelain, silk, & other goods from China. Wealthy families like the Schuylers bought these goods to show off their status & taste. While these goods were being imported, Chinese poetry had yet to be shared with the wider world.

Wu was a poet and musician, writing an opera, lyrics, and playing the qin—a stringed instrument. Her poems were commonly sung throughout China and had a casual and personal tone to them. She wrote multiple romantic poems to women throughout her life.

Not much is known about her later life aside from the fact that she converted to Buddhism. Many scholars consider her to be one of the top three women poets in China. Some of her poems have been translated into English. Read “Swallows” in the original Chinese and as translated into English by Irving Y. Lo 译 below.

吴藻·《如梦令·燕子》

燕子未随春去，
飞入绣帘深处。
软语话多时，
莫是要和侬住？
延伫，延伫，
含笑回它：“不许！”

Not all the swallows have left with the spring:
One flies past embroidered curtains into my inner room.
Softly, endlessly, it murmurs;
Could it be saying, “May I stay with you?”
Waiting for an answer,
Waiting for an answer,
With a smile, I reply, “No, you mustn’t.”

You can learn more about her here: https://legacyprojectchicago.org/person/wu-zao

Jane Johnston Schoolcraft;
artist and date unknown.

JANE JOHNSTON SCHOOLCRAFT

Baamewaawaagizhigokwe, or “Woman of the Sound the Stars Make Rushing Through the Sky,” also known as Jane Johnston Schoolcraft, is considered by many historians to be the first known Native American English literary writer.

Jane Johnston Schoolcraft was born in 1800 in Sault Ste. Marie in what is now Michigan. Her mother, who was Ojibwe, was an important political leader and her father, who was Scottish-Irish, was a fur trapper. They were important leaders in the local Ojibwa and Euro-American communities.

Jane learned the Ojibwe language & culture from her mother & had access to her father’s English library, where she learned about written English literature. She wrote her own works in both languages and translated Ojibwa works into English, likely being the first person to do so.

In 1823, she married Henry Rowe Schoolcraft, also a writer, and US Indian Agent in the Michigan Territory for some time. They had four children together. Her writing, which was mostly private, included a homemade literary magazine circulated only between herself & her husband.

Even though she was born much later, her life contained multiple parallels to Schuyler’s with her father working in the fur trade industry as Schuyler once did, and her husband serving as a US Indian Agent, similar to Schuyler’s position of Commissioner for Indian Affairs.

She died in 1842, after experiencing frequent bouts of illness for several years. Today, she is recognized as a poet, translator, and storyteller. Her poems have been published in both Ojibwe and English, with some set to music. You can read her poem, “To the Pine Tree,” translated by Maragret Noodin, here: https://poets.org/poem/pine-tree

Zhingwaak! Zhingwaak! Ingii-ikid, – Pine! Pine! I said,
Weshki waabamag zhingwaak – The one I see, the pine
Dagoshinaan neyab, endanakiiyaan. – I return back, to my homeland.
Zhingwaak, zhingwaak nos sa! – The pine, the pine my father!

Azhigwa gidatisaanan – Already you are colored
Gaagige wezhaawashkozid. – Forever you are green
Mii sa naa azhigwa dagoshinaang – So we already have arrived
Bizindamig ikeyaamban – Listen in that direction

Geget sa, niminwendam – Certainly I am happy
Miinwaa, waabandamaan – And I see
Gii-ayaad awiiya waabandamaan niin – He was there I saw it myself
Zhingwaak, zhingwaak nos sa! – The pine, the pine my father!
Azhigwa gidatisaanan. – Already you are colored.

Gaawiin gego, gaa-waabanda’iyan – Nothing, you did show me
Dibishkoo, ezhi-naagwasiinoon – Like that, the way it looks
Zhingwaak wezhaawashkozid – Pine he is green.
Wiin eta gwanaajiwi wi – He is beautiful
Gaagige wezhaawashkozid. – Forever he is the green one.