Part III: Cornelia Lynch Schuyler Morton: Scorned, Miserable, and Passing

 By Sarah Lindecke

Cornelia Schuyler painted by John Trumbull 
in 1792, as part of a series of miniatures 
commemorating George Washington.

In this final installment of the blog series on Cornelia Lynch Schuyler Morton (1775-1808) we will focus on the ending years of her life, from the time of her parents’ deaths in 1803 and 1804, through her own death in 1808, including some details about the people she left behind.

As noted in the previous installment, Cornelia’s choice of a husband was not exactly beloved by her family, and this caused various rifts throughout the years. Despite this, Cornelia was included in the wills of her parents—given a share of the inheritance alongside her living siblings and the children of her deceased ones. In the aftermath of her parents’ deaths, a land dispute between her older sister Eliza Schuyler Hamilton (1757-1854), Cornelia, and their youngest sister, Caty Schuyler Malcolm Cochran (1781-1857) took place. This land dispute started when Cornelia and Caty accused Eliza of taking extra money from her parents after her husband, Alexander Hamilton’s (1755-1804), death. The conflict between the sisters expanded when Cornelia and Caty sought to take land that Eliza had rightfully inherited, but didn’t have the deed for because their father had died before he could finalize it. This scene in Cornelia’s life is fully detailed in a pair of blog posts: Schuyler Siblings Land Squabble Part 1 and My Dear Sister: Eliza and Caty Post Squabble Part 2. While these posts get into the squabble in more detail it is important to note that during the final years of her life, Cornelia was with one of her sisters. It is implied that Cornelia and Caty’s husbands were the ones more insistent on fighting the land battle, though they were not executors of Philip Schuyler’s will. If this is true, Washington Morton was certainly not mending fences with his wife’s family by pressuring a suit about land and inheritances.

A portrait of Mary Anna Sawyer Schuyler--Cornelia's 
sister-in-law--painted by Gilbert Stuart as part of a set 
with her husband, Philip Jeremiah Schuyler. The set was 
commissioned by Cornelia and her husband, Washington 
Morton, most likely as a gift for their wedding that took 
place in 1807. 

While Washington Morton may have been causing more issue between Cornelia and her siblings, the two of them were creating a family of their own. Cornelia and Washington Morton’s five children are as follows: Catherine Lynch Van Rensselaer Morton (1799-1887); Capt Alexander Hamilton Morton (1800-1853); Philip Schuyler Morton (1803-?); Mary Regina Morton (1806-1881); and Cornelia Lynch Morton (1808-1831). While there is not much known about the younger years of Cornelia’s children, we do know a bit about the education Catherine van Rensselaer Morton, their first child. In a letter written on December 6^th, 1807, Mary Anna Sawyer Schuyler (1786-1852), the wife of Cornelia’s brother Philip Jerimiah Schuyler (1768-1835), wrote of Catherine’s education. When Washington Morton visited Mary Anna at her home in Rhinebeck, he told her about Catherine’s placement in “an excellent school.”[1] Mary Anna then asserted her own contrary knowledge of Catherine’s schooling she’d heard from the young girl herself. Catherine, it seemed, did not enjoy the school her father spoke so highly of. Mary Anna appeared to have received this knowledge from a letter Catherine wrote her. The Mortons likely wanted to provide their children with education, but as it can be seen with their daughter Catherine, the schooling may not have been something they enjoyed.

Not long after this letter was written, Cornelia died. According to letters and obituaries, she passed on June 5^th, 1808, in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, at just thirty-three years old. Mary Anna Sawyer Schuyler wrote about Cornelia’s death in a letter from June 13^th, 1808, retelling much of the circumstances of her sister-in-law’s passing. She wrote:

She [Cornelia] had been at Philadelphia for four or five weeks past and the information we got was upon the whole she was gaining – this however was incorrect, she has faltered fast and has finally paid the debt of nature – I just got a few hurried lines from Morton – he says she expired ten minutes past ten on the morning of the 5^th instant. Her remains were brought to New York and interred on the 11^th.

I have some of the particulars – … and you will probably get a letter from him – I know your affection will be great, Cornelia endeared herself to all who knew her by her many [virtues] […]

I saw her almost two months since – she was then confined to her bed & much emaciated – but as cheerful & conversable as ever I knew her in health – It would have afforded us inexpressible comfort could her last moments been here – but it was not to be so…

This letter indicates that Cornelia suffered a wasting illness, most likely a cancer. Something she may have had in common with her older sister Margeret “Peggy” Schuyler van Rensselaer (1758-1801), who died from a similar sort of illness. We cannot be sure what the actual cause of Cornelia’s death was, but can take note that she was likely visiting Philadelphia to seek treatment for her illness as the city was a well-known center of emerging medical technology and treatment.

An obituary from a New York City newspaper following her death read:

Died, at Philadelphia, on the 5^th inst. after a lingering illness, Mrs. Cornelia Lynch Morton, the amiable wife of Washington Morton, Esq. of this city. She has left five children, and a numerous circle of friends, to lament the loss of one of the best of mothers and one of the worthiest of women.

The friends of Mr. Morton are invited to attend her funeral from his residence 118 Greenwich street, to morrow afternoon at 5 o’clock.

From this obituary and Mary Anna Schuyler’s record, it appears that Cornelia was missed greatly by her community. She was a dear mother and friend to many. She also may have been the glue holding her family together as after her death, everything fell apart.

Cornelia’s husband was not a shining example of a grieving widower and father during the years following her death. Perhaps Philip Schuyler’s earlier concerns about Washington Morton had been legitimate because Morton entirely abandoned his role as a father following Cornelia’s death. Mary Anna Sawyer Schuyler wrote on December 5^th, 1809, to Catherine “Caty” van Rensselaer Schuyler Malcom Cochran (1781-1857):

I understand Morton is leading a very splendid and gay life with a handsome French mistress in London – so much for parental tenderness I sometimes think he has completely abandoned his children.[2]

This letter suggests that Mary Anna and much of the extended Schuyler family lost touch with Washington Morton sometime after Cornelia’s death. Furthermore, Mary Anna’s concern for the Morton children was personal, as she and her husband took a large part in the care of the Mortons’ children after Cornelia’s death and Washington Morton’s abandonment of his family.

Engraving of Washington Morton in 1796, by Charles Balthazar Julien Fevert
de Saint-Memin.

Washington Morton’s unspoken but wayward tendencies were made explicit in Mary Anna’s letter. Philip Schuyler and other family chose to obfuscate some of their concerns, likely assuming the recipients of their correspondence were in the know and didn’t need explicit details. Mary Anna, however, was forthright with her worries. Her words may have validated the various concerns of the Schuylers, even years after they were first written.

Cornelia may not have been alive to see the breakdown of her family, but her children would never live with their father again, as he died in Paris in 1810. They remained with Mary Anna, who seemed to have raised them like they were her own children. Mary Regina Morton inherited much of Mary Anna’s estate and later purchase and revitalized Mary Anna and Philip Jerimiah’s house “the Grove” in Rhinebeck, New York.

Cornelia’s story ended with a somber sadness as she died at a young age and her family was torn apart in the wake of her death, but her witty spirit lives on through the letters she penned and through the bold life choices she made. Thank you for keeping up with our series about Cornelia’s life, and look ahead for some more great posts about some of the other Schuyler siblings.

---

[1] Letter written by Mary Anna Sawyer Schuyler from Boston on December 6^th 1807?

[2] Letter from Mary Anna Sawyer Schuyler to Catherine “Caty” Schuyler Malcom Cochran from December 5^th, 1809, in the New York State Museum Catherine Schuyler Malcom Cochran collection.

Part II: Cornelia Lynch Schuyler Becomes a Morton: The Elopement at Stockbridge

by Sarah Lindecke

“The Lovers Tryst” by artist Charles Joseph Frederic Soulacroix. The pair in this
portrait are secluded with loving looks upon their faces. Reminiscent of the
sentiments Cornelia and Washington Morton may have experienced in their marriage. 

Welcome back to our blog series on Cornelia Schuyler (1775-1808). In our last blog post, you learned about her childhood and teenage years. This installment will focus on the scandalous elopement of Cornelia Schuyler and George Washington Morton (1776-1810) that took place in 1797, including the Schuyler family responses to the elopement.

There is not a lot known about George Washington Morton, or Washington Morton as he is most often called. He is said to have been born in Essex, New Jersey in 1776, to John Morton (1711-1781) and Maria Sophia Kemper Morton (1738-1832). His birth month and date are not known, but he was the last of six children in the Mortons’ marriage. Despite the minimal knowledge of Washington Morton himself, his father is well known because he was a financial backer for the Continental Congress. John Morton was often referred to as the “Rebel Banker” because he liquidated much of his personal business holdings and funneled his funds to the Continental Congress. This was not officially sanctioned by the rules of the Continental Congress, but it lent John Morton credit as an “alternative funding source for the rebels,” something greatly appreciated at the time.[1] His family also appeared to have supported the rebel military. They furnished the rebel encampment near their home in New Jersey with some supplies while also establishing an army hospital.[2]

 Washington Morton was a lawyer by trade. He trained at Princeton, where he graduated in 1792. It is not known where or how he finished his studies to become a lawyer. The 19^th century book, History of the City of New York: Its Origin, Rise and Progress by Martha Joanna Lamb and Mrs. Burton Harrison, support the claim that he went to Princeton, but the work also heavily romanticized the details of Washington Morton’s younger years, and is one of very few sources that can speak to his history. The authors suggest:

As a youth, more of his time was given to the pleasures of the world than to its affairs. His fondness for athletic exercise led him on one occasion to test his powers of endurance by walking to Philadelphia for a wager. … Upon returning to New York he was lionized.[3]

These details of Washington Morton’s life are generally parroted by other sources, but there are no primary sources to back them up. Furthermore, these authors butchered and rewrote the story of Washington Morton’s elopement with Cornelia, significantly hindering their credibility.

Though we still don’t know everything about Cornelia and Washington Morton’s choice to elope, there is a first-hand account written by Washington Morton, which he wrote to his sister, Eliza Susan Morton Quincy (1774-1850), in the days directly following the event. The letter is dated October 14^th, 1797, and was written from Albany:

I never could excuse it to my ever Dear sister were I permit any time to elapse without informing her of the alteration in my Situation—On Saturday evening the 8 of October Miss Cornelia Schuyler consented to unite her fate with mine—The manner in which she did it flatters me though it must have pained her; Her mother and myself had a difference which extended to the father and I had got my wife in opposition to them both—She leapt from a Two Story Window into my arms and abandoning every thing for me gave the most convincing proof of what a husband most Desires to Know that his wife Loves him—We were united at Stockbridge and spend two days with Mr. Sedgewick—We returned to the Manor of Livingston where I Left my wife with her godmother Mrs. Livingston and came hither to arrange some Business—On Monday I leave for the […] whence I shall go immediately home […]

Thus my dear sister I am at length Lost and the vast field of matrimony is doomed to be my habitation—Also the rest of the family are my warm friends and you must not permit the present difference [existing] between some of us give you uneasiness—for it will be but for a moment.[4]

George Washington Morton painted by Gilbert Stuart.
Part of the set with Cornelia.

Washington Morton’s version of the story is rather romantic and sanitized and makes him sound like an honorable man. Washington Morton was flattered by Cornelia’s decision to forsake her family, despite the obvious nod to the strife within her family caused by their relationship. He seemed to be quite comfortable with her choice to risk physical danger by jumping out of her second story window. However, beneath the obvious self-flattery of this letter, there is an interesting detail to question. Why was Washington Morton “in disagreement” with the Schuylers and what other sources speak to this split between the Schuylers and Mortons?

The Schuylers themselves never made official or direct reference to what their concern was with Washington Morton. The first mention of Morton was written by Cornelia’s father, Philip Schuyler, to her older sister, Eliza Schuyler Hamilton (1751-1854), on November 26^th, 1797, just a month after the wedding had occurred. The section about Cornelia reads:

I have by the mail that conveys this written a letter to my unhappy Cornelia and in the spirit which you wish. I hope it will restore peace to her mind, if she can possibly enjoy it, with a man of such untoward disposition as her husband – I apprehend very much that he will render her miserable, and increase my affliction, - interpose your advice to her, and intreat my Hamilton to exert his endeavors to bring her husband to reason perhaps that he may still be reclaimed and become intitled to our attentions.[5]

Here no direct mention is made to the disagreements between the Schuylers and Mortons, but, evidently, even within a month of their wedding, there were significant issues within the family. One thing to keep in mind is that we cannot be sure if Philip Schuyler was projecting his own unfounded thoughts about the couple or accurately predicting Cornelia’s future in this letter to Eliza. Philip Schuyler feared for his own health should his daughter’s marriage prove to be as unhappy as he suspected, but instead of pushing his daughter away, he hoped to see their relationship repaired.

There are more references made to Washington Morton’s “incorrigible” behavior, as Philip Schuyler called it. Washington Morton’s conduct appeared to remain something of a spectacle for the well-to-do Schuylers who were personally concerned about their daughter and the life she would lead with Washington Morton. In a letter written by Philip Schuyler to his son Philip Jerimiah Schuyler (1768-1835) on November 20^th of 1801, he stated:

Mr. Morton and your sister leaves this to morrow [sic], his conduct whilst here has been unusual, most preposterous. Seldom an evening at home, and seldom even at dinner – I have not thought it prudent to say the least word to him on the occasion, as advice on such an irregular character is thrown away.[6]

The Schuylers concerns about the Mortons remained somewhat vague. Philip Schuyler wasn’t making a lot of effort to lump Cornelia in with the irregularities, but still refered to the Mortons as a unit. It appears that Schuyler took more issue with Washington Morton’s choice to balk tradition because his choices pushed against usual social conventions. Yet for all the issues he took with Washington Morton’s actions, Philip Schuyler appeared to be so disinterested in correcting the wrongs that he couldn’t be bothered to speak with him, even to offer advice.

When read together, these letters suggest that Cornelia’s family disliked Morton from the outset no matter the arguments or promises Cornelia could make to her family. Despite this rather negative view of the marriage, it was still a productive one as Cornelia had five children with Washington Morton before her passing in 1808.

 Coming soon, check out the final blog in our Cornelia series where her untimely death at thirty-three years old will be discussed, as well as what would come of her family in the following years.

---

[1] John Morton - General Washington's Rebel Banker Hid in Basking Ridge - Mr. Local History Project (mrlocalhistory.org) and John Morton (1711-1781) - HouseHistree

[2] John Morton - General Washington's Rebel Banker Hid in Basking Ridge - Mr. Local History Project (mrlocalhistory.org) and John Morton (1711-1781) - HouseHistree

[3] From the History of the City of New York: Its Origin, Rise and Progress Volume 3 by Martha Joanna Lamb and Mrs. Burton Harrison

[4] Letter from Washington Morton to Eliza Susan Morton Quincy from Albany on October 14^th, 1797, Quincy Papers in the Massachusetts Historical Society.

[5] Letter from Philip Schuyler to Eliza Schuyler Hamilton from Albany on November 26^th 1797, in the Library of Congress Hamilton Papers: 2017 Addition: covering years 1796-1799.

[6] Letter from Philip Schuyler to Philip Jerimiah Schuyler from Albany on November 20^th, 1801.

Part I: Cornelia Lynch Schuyler: A Beauty Matched with Wit

by Sarah Lindecke

Cornelia Lynch Schuyler Morton painted by Gilbert Stuart in
1807 as part of a portrait set with her husband Washington Morton.
The set was a gift to the couple from Cornelia’s brother Philip Jeremiah
and his wife Mary Anna in return for the portrait set they’d received. 

In this three-part-blog-series, we’ll chronicle the life and circumstances of Cornelia Lynch Schuyler Morton (1775-1808), one of the five Schuyler sisters, from her early life to her scandalous elopement with George Washington Morton (1776-1810), and to her unfortunate death at just thirty-three years of age. In this first installment, we’ll explore Cornelia’s childhood and teenage years. 

Cornelia Lynch Schuyler Morton (1775-1808) was born December 22nd, 1775, to Philip John Schuyler (1733-1804) and Catherine van Rensselaer Schuyler (1734-1803). She was the thirteenth of the fifteen children the Schuyler couple had together. Her birth came at an auspicious time for her family. Earlier that year, her father, Philip Schuyler, was made a Major General in the Continental Army, bringing him expanded power and prominence. 

Cornelia was very young when the American Revolutionary War was waged, and the tumult of the times may help explain why records of her childhood are few and far between. In 1783, when she was eight years old, the American Revolutionary War officially ended, and the wider world opened to Cornelia as she started her schooling. A Schuyler receipt from September 26th, 1783, set payment for the education of three children until February for a total of fifteen pounds, four pence at the Academy at Albany, a precursor to the present Albany Academy. The other two children receiving an education alongside Cornelia, per the receipt, were Cornelia’s older brothers Philip Jeremiah (1768-1835) and Rensselaer (1773-1847), who were fifteen and ten years old respectively. At the Academy she and her brothers would have learned the regular subjects of school at this time such as history, reading, writing, economics, and some basic sciences. Her brothers would have received the subjects of animal husbandry and navigation, subjects that were not perceived as useful for the young girls to learn. 

Alongside these common subjects, as a young girl, Cornelia would also have studied the “feminine arts,” such as needlework, painting, drawing, dancing, music, etc. Though records of Cornelia receiving these sorts of tutoring do not exist, she evidently practiced drawing as a letter her father wrote on June 20th, 1790, suggests he was frustrated that drawings she made did not get delivered to her mother. Cornelia’s years of education would prepare her for life as a “gentleman’s daughter.” Her father styled himself as such and thus expected that his children would present themselves as well-educated persons in all the right and honorable subjects. (If you are interested to hear more about education of the Schuyler children, look to "I shall most cheerfully pay": The Education of Caty Schuyler). 

Cornelia’s education was a backdrop for the creation of a well-formed young woman, but what was she like outside her studies? As a young person, Cornelia was described as a great beauty. Alexander Coventry, a visitor to the Schuyler’s between September 17th, 1785, and October 19th of the same year, is the first to describe Cornelia’s appearance in his personal diaries, he wrote that one of the Schuyler daughters held “the appearance of a future beauty.” Later on in his visit, he wrote of a young lady about ten years of age who was “so elegantly dressed, and had a fine person: fair hair and black eyes.” Most of the people who met Cornelia described her in a similar fashion. Even her later portrait shows she had fair features and light hair starkly contrasted with dark "almost black” eyes. 

Stephen van Rensselaer III painted by Gilbert Stuart. 

Cornelia has often been characterized as “the pretty sister,” which would not be a false statement, but this one-dimensional characterization eclipses the rather playful and sparky personality she appears to have had from the letters she wrote. Most of Cornelia’s surviving correspondence are letters written to Stephen van Rensselaer (1764-1839), the husband of her older sister Margarita “Peggy” Schuyler van Rensselaer (1758-1801). Cornelia is rather tongue-in-cheek in her January 12th, 1795, letter to Stephen, when she called herself his “saucy sister” after she was left behind in Albany when the van Rensselaer’s changed residences. The van Rensselaer’s were moving their residence to New York City at this time in the event that Stephen van Rensselaer became the Lieutenant Governor of New York. Seemingly, with Cornelia’s youthful impatience, as she was twenty years old at the time, when the letter went unanswered by her brother-in-law, as she wrote again to him later that month on January 31st, 1795, asserting that: 

I feared the amusements of New York that seat of fashion that repository of frolic and fun in short of all that’s delicious, would drive from your mind (as it has from your wife’s) the friend and Sister whom you could remember in a less agreeable place…perhaps business or the delightful idea of soon being lieutenant governor, had deprived me of the pleasure of hearing from you, if so I beg pardon, and promise never to write or offend again…indeed it would be hazarding to much the loss of your good opinion which I should sincerely regret and which by silence I may still retain… 

In this first part of her letter, Cornelia wrote whimsically about New York City. She seemingly thought it was a place of wonder, excitement, and opportunity, all of which she likely had witnessed first-hand during her young adult years when she lived in New York City with her sister, Eliza, while being tutored. However, Cornelia was also frustrated in this letter as she did not get a response from her brother-in-law in a timely manner. Her threat to Stephen was to never contact him again, as evidently it would “offend” him if she continued writing to him. Yet her diatribe at Stephen did not conclude there. She continued her letter, writing: 

Upon my word Brother as you grow old you grow ill natured, and I shall be free to tell you I hate you for not acqua(i)nting me how all the beaus in N York are, and what handsom [sic] things they say of me…should you chance to see my sweet heart, Jones pray tell him I am well, and think myself twenty time handsomer then ever the men tell me… 

Cornelia’s consummate wit shines through here. She playfully bore down on Stephan van Rensselaer for his failure to reply as a tender reckoning of his old age and poor temperament. What is even more interesting from this second part of the letter, however, is Cornelia’s reference to her “sweetheart, Jones.” It appears from this addition to her letter that Cornelia’s first encounters with romance were not with her husband, George Washington Morton (1776-1810), but rather with others she met during her young adult years. The identity of this “Jones” is unknown, but evidently Cornelia felt fondly for the man, whether in a serious or playful manner. From this section of her letter, we can read some bit of vanity or desire to be seen as beautiful, but also in Cornelia’s tone we can read a proclamation that she is indeed desirable. She is confident of her beauty, but also that her wit is on par or exceeding those in her set. 

Cornelia’s life would heat up significantly in the later years of the 1790s as she, like two previous siblings, chose a non-traditional route to marriage: elopement. Her methods of marriage are almost as interesting as the man she chooses to marry, George Washington Morton. The next installment in the blog series will take a look at Cornelia’s interesting choice in a husband as well as the ways she broke tradition, for better or for worse.

Sources

Letter written by Philip Schuyler (1733-1084) to Eliza Hamilton on June 20^th, 1790 in New York City from the NYPL Schuyler Papers (not available digitally).

Excerpts from the Journal of Alexander Coventry (1783-1831) from the September 23^rd  and October 19^th, 1785.

Letter from Cornelia Lynch Schuyler to Stephen Van Rensselaer, Albany January 12^th, 1795, from the Van Rensselaer Manor Papers in the NYS Archives.

Letter from Cornelia Lynch Schuyler to Stephen Van Rensselaer, Albany January 31^st, 1795, from the Van Rensselaer Manor Papers in the NYS Archives. 

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.

Taken up North: Sold for a Carpet

This blog was written by Sarah Lindecke, a Fall 2023 intern at Schuyler Mansion State Historic Site from Siena College ‘s History and Public History program. The letter examined in this blog had been one of interest for various other Schuyler Mansion staff members, but was taken up for examination by the intern. Finding note of an enslaved woman seemingly sold in exchange for a carpet struck interest and thus the 1776 letter in the correspondence between Philip Schuyler and John Taylor presented the basis for this blog post.

Taken up North: Sold for a Carpet

Displays of Wealth and Severance of Social Connections: The Complicated Narratives of a 1775 Schuyler Letter

When Philip Schuyler was appointed as a Major General, he had a promising career ahead of him, especially with his skills as a strategist, honed in the French and Indian War.  But the major campaign he oversaw—the 1775 invasion of Canada—ended in disaster.  Schuyler himself was unable to be present for the actual campaign due to his ill health, but he was the main mastermind behind it and led the troops as best as he could from his military headquarters at his home in Albany. The campaign was partially successful because Brigadier General Benedict Arnold and fellow Brigadier Generals Richard Montgomery and James Livingston held Quebec under siege during the harsh winter months of 1775-1776. The Colonists began to lose ground in Quebec during this winter and the early months of 1776, but were able to hold Montreal until much later in the year when they retreated. During the complicated campaign and sieges, Major General Schuyler sent his close colleague John Taylor into Montreal on separate business, regarding Schuyler’s personal business. 

John Taylor’s connections to Major General Schuyler ran deep. Through an earlier example of correspondence between the two men, this letter shows how their businesses and interests were very much aligned. As a merchant, Taylor had the proper connections to be appointed to the prized position of Clothier General within the colonial militia. This position connected Taylor often to Major General Schuyler, but a later 1780s position would bring the two under the same government office when they were both appointed to the Commission of Indian Affairs. Taylor was an agent for the commission while Major General Schuyler served as the Commissioner. Major General Schuyler and John Taylor’s business interests connected at home in Albany as well, because Taylor was a local land agent and public officer. Throughout their lives these two men often were in contact for various business ventures and the 1776 letter is no exception. 

The letter is a rather compact note, only covering one sheet of paper—front and back. It is dated for March of 1776. The date is hard to decipher as the shape of the numbers is contrary to usual formations. As for the content, Taylor covers most of the page in discussion about the luxury items he was purchasing in Montreal. He also references his given orders from Major General Schuyler. Taylor’s orders are exemplified in the items that he mentions having purchased. Taylor writes in the first paragraph with notes about the various “lace, the cloth trimmings and epelets [sic]” he purchased during the trip. Later in the letter, Taylor mentioned green tea, stockings, and gloves. Beyond mention of expensive clothing and household goods there is reference to "two carpets the one cost 22 the other 16 Dollars.” These sums would be high for the period and well outside the budgeting of most. From these clues and the reference to Taylor requesting forgiveness for “exceeding orders,” it seems he was sent to Canada to purchase various luxury goods. The nature of the purchases also shows the monumental size of General Schuyler’s wealth even during the tumultuous Revolution years.  

Something important to note about Taylor’s mission is the trade embargos between England and the Colonies that existed at the time. These were established to protect English and colonial interests in the war. English embargos sought to block the movement of goods to the Colonies that could have helped their chances at a win. While colonial embargos sought to disconnect England from its deep resources of wealth gained through colonial ownership of trade. It’s important to note that Philip Schuyler was ignoring the embargos by sending a broker to purchase luxury goods in Canada, creating a conflict of interest. Sending a broker to carry out the transactions eliminated some of the culpability for Schuyler but did not ensure he would not see some sanctions if knowledge of this counter-Colonial trade run were to be exposed.  

So far, this letter appears to be a product of the usual whims of those with great wealth. However, there is a crucial other reason this letter is so important: there is reference to the sale of an enslaved woman in exchange for a fine carpet. The text reads:  

“I came across this one after I bought the other two, it being an extraordinary fine one together with a necessity I was under to take it in exchange for the wench, will I hope apologize for my exceeding my orders in buying three”  

Later in the letter, Taylor wrote that he “sold the wench for sixty-eight pounds.” This could allude to the perceived value of the enslaved woman or the carpet. Considering the language, it could also be interpreted as Taylor seeking a third carpet to return with, but he was unable to because he ran out of allotted funds. If this is the case, then rather than leave Montreal without the third carpet, he sought to liquidate other assets to make the purchase. The unnamed enslaved woman represented a liquid asset that would have been trouble to keep, according to Taylor, because her new enslavers began to “complain of her being dirty, imprudent, & lazy.” Taylor follows this statement with “I hope to leave this before she establishes those characters.” This admission from Taylor suggests that he was aware of the tenuous nature of the deal to sell the woman. Nonetheless, seeing the opportunity to please Major General Schuyler, he may have chosen to sell the unnamed woman to obtain another coveted fine carpet.  

Though we do not have the enslaved woman’s name, there is plenty that can be gleaned from what the letter doesn’t say, mainly regarding her life after being sold hundreds of miles from Albany. Without her name or any other biographical details, this cannot be an individual look at the experience of being sold far away from home, but her story provides us with a way to consider the different aspects of the sudden change until future research reveals the identity of the woman.    

One of the first things to think about is any choice or agency she may have possessed in her own sale. She joined the trip to Montreal likely without much, if any, choice. Her status as an enslaved person meant that her willingness to go was barely, if at all, considered. She would have been forced and expected to comply with the wishes of her enslaver, though this letter does not make clear whom this person was. Unfortunately, from the letter we do not have a concrete location as to where this woman came from before the trip. She may have been from Albany or Saratoga which would have seen her travel with Taylor the entire journey. If this was the case, it is possible she had been made aware of the impending trip to Montreal, but may not have been made aware of any of the specifics, such as the method of travel or purpose of the trip. It's also entirely possibly no explanation was given. In this case it would be possible to suggest that the woman was purchased along the way up to Montreal. As we do not hear the woman in Taylor’s letter’s voice, we cannot know the conversations presented to her before the trip.

Detail of a 1776 map showing part of the trip to Montreal.

Another important factor to consider is the role of community. Before the trip, when living in Albany, or some other local, this woman would have created and had a community around her. She could have had friendships, possibly romances, and even bonds between parent and child, whether that was her own parents or her own children. These connections were the foundation of social lives for enslaved people. Within Albany, the enslaved community was connected within and across households. During holidays like Pinkster, enslaved people had the opportunity to reconnect with people living both nearby and from a distance away. Some enslaved people had opportunities to connect through their labors. Through these meetings, they had strong friendships and familial bonds that made leaving the place they were living in—whether through force or choice—extremely painful.   

When John Taylor took the enslaved woman mentioned in the letter to Montreal, he was forcibly separating her from social community. She may have had a life partner, children, parents, or a friend she would likely never see again after she was sold. These people may have known where she went, but would likely have had no way to contact her. Information about her was possibly entirely withheld from her friends and family. Once she was separated from her community in Albany, she’d need to reestablish social connections in Montreal with those now around her.  

As she was being brought to Canada, there were also possible language barriers. Montreal, and Quebec by extension, was a multi-cultural city. French and Indigenous roots blended with new British influence all within the city's bounds, leading to many different languages being spoken by residences and those there to do business, as Taylor was. The enslaved woman may have had to contend with language barriers from her new owners and the people around her. She likely had some degree of proficiency in English, whether it was a second or first language for her, but probably didn’t know French, leaving her unable to communicate with a lot of people around her. It’s possible the entire transaction selling her away may have been in French. If that was the case, the transaction was potentially outside of her understanding until she was passed over to her new enslaver. As we do not know the language skills of both Taylor and the enslaved woman this can only be posited.  

Overall, this letter has importance in multiple contexts. It shows the lengths the wealthy would go to when obtaining luxuries during the Revolutionary War. Major General Philip Schuyler, and, by extension, his broker John Taylor, circumnavigated trade embargos and utilized the present military campaign to their personal advantage. They considered the trip during the campaign a necessary convenience beyond any other concern. Beyond this letter’s usefulness in understanding the concerns of men like Schuyler, it demonstrates how enslaved people were seen as expendable commodity to their enslavers. The woman mentioned in John Taylor’s letter leaves no biographical details beyond this letter, but researchers at Schuyler Mansion will continue the search for the enslaved woman traveling to Montreal. She is described simply as “wench”, and denied the opportunity to reclaim her story from the men who owned and sold her in exchange for fine carpets. 

Even with only one letter to tell her story, it’s important to examine the letter because it is important to consider the situations that illustrate the perspective of this woman and enslaved populations collectively. With this letter there is space to ponder the feelings of the woman that could fall between frustration, isolation, relief, etc. Her life is not known outside this singular letter, but by asking questions and consulting similar accounts of other enslaved people, perhaps she can be better understood, and her story finally told. 

Bibliography

 

Foster, Frances Smith. ’Til Death or Distance Do Us Part Love and Marriage in African America. Oxford ; Oxford University Press, 2010. 

Harris, Leslie M. (Leslie Maria), and Daina Ramey Berry, eds. Sexuality and Slavery Reclaiming Intimate Histories in the Americas. Athens,Georgia: University of Georgia Press, 2018. 

Kerr, Don. "The Gamble for Canada: In 1775, American Rebels Wanted Independence... and Canada, Too." The Beaver, Dec, 2003, 8-12.  

Malone, Ann Patton. Sweet Chariot : Slave Family and Household Structure in Nineteenth-Century Louisiana. Place of publication not identified: University of North Carolina Press, 1992. 

Williams, Heather Andrea. Help Me to Find My People the African American Search for Family Lost in Slavery. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 2012. 

YOUNG, ALFRED F. The Democratic Republicans of New York: The Origins, 1763-1797. University of North Carolina Press, 1967. http://www.jstor.org/stable/10.5149/9780807838204_young.