A Closer Look at Prince

 

By Sarah Lindecke

This blog post is an update to one posted by Schuyler Mansion in February 2021 discussing Prince, a man who was enslaved by civilian commissary Alexander McCullough of the British Army and was later purchased by Major General Philip Schuyler. New research has uncovered more information on Prince’s life during 1775 as he was captured and made a prisoner of war.

The Invasion of Canada during the winter of 1775-76 was considered a major failure for the Continental Army. The army was able to capture Montreal but failed spectacularly when attacking Quebec City. After capturing Fort Chambly, several officers and civilians were taken prisoner of war. Civilian commissary Alexander McCullough was among them.[1] Alongside the capture of Alexander McCullough, but not mentioned in many official papers, was Prince, a man enslaved by McCullough who was also made prisoner. 

Fort Chambly National Historic Site.
Parks Canada.

              Prince’s life prior to his capture is unclear. It is not known if Prince was born in Africa, the Caribbean, the North American colonies, or Canada. He may have known several languages, French and English being most likely, because of his current situation in the English-French province of Quebec in Canada. His enslaver, Alexander McCullough, lived in Quebec with his family prior to the Continental army invasion.[2] It is presumed Prince accompanied McCullough to Fort Chambly, but it is unknown how long Prince was enslaved by McCullough prior to their capture.

In addition to a lack of records relating to Prince’s origins, it is unclear what labor he provided to McCullough. As commissary, McCullough was likely tasked with providing needed supplies, such as food, arms, munitions, clothing, and pay to soldiers stationed at Fort Chambly, and Prince may have served McCullough as an assistant in this business. Though the work of enslaved people was often implied rather than explained directly, there are several examples of those who performed assistant work to their enslavers. William Lee, a man enslaved by George Washington, traveled alongside his enslaver for the entire Revolutionary War. Lee’s role as valet saw him constantly attending to Washington’s needs whether that meant carrying messages or assisting with dressing.[3] Prince, though never referred to as valet or manservant in any known primary sources appears to have taken a similar place with McCullough and Philip Schuyler.

Primary evidence indicates to us that Prince could read and write. One example, which we will return to, was written to Catharine Schuyler in 1776 in which he described his situation and personal details. Much later, on October 8^th, 1791, Major General Philip Schuyler wrote to his son John Bradstreet Schuyler, “Prince mentioned boards [planks].”[4] From this example, it is possible to suggest that Prince was reading over Philip Schuyler’s shoulder and making informed commentary to remind him not to leave out important information. The exact nature of his labor while enslaved to McCullough and Philip Schuyler is oftentimes unclear, but it is possible that Prince served in a capacity that required literacy in both situations.

An engraving of carpenters,
A Panorama of Professions and Trades.
Edward Hazen, 1837. 

The first known mention of Prince appears in a letter from Philip Schuyler to Brigadier General Richard Montgomery on November 5^th, 1775.[5]   Schuyler noted, “Mr. McCullough has a Negro at St. Johns named Prince … should You become Master of that Place, I wish You to secure him, that his Master may have him again.” Fort Chambly and Fort St. Johns were about 12 miles apart. It is likely McCullough’s commissary duties required him to travel between the local forts. During the siege in which the forts were taken, McCullough happened to be at Chambly, away from St. Johns where Prince had remained. As soon as General Montgomery could arrange matters, Prince was to be returned to McCullough. Separated from his enslaver, the record shows that Prince was working for the master carpenters at St. Johns.[6] Prince was likely working outside of his usual duties at this time. Despite the separation, and temporary work assignment, Prince would be returned as “property” to McCullough, even though McCullough was now in custody as a prisoner of war to the Continental Army.  

Major General Philip Schuyler, decided at the request of the captured British officers, that the prisoners of war would be marched to Trenton, New Jersey.[7] Many of them, including McCullough, had already traveled south to Fort Ticonderoga, where Philip Schuyler was stationed. Schuyler gave McCullough permission to remain at Ticonderoga to “make suitable arrangements for his wife and children at Quebec.”[8] Later, on November 19^th, 1775, Schuyler wrote that McCullough was permitted to return to Quebec to make arrangements for his children, alongside the message that McCullough’s wife had died.[9] By late January 1776, arrangements were still unsettled for the care of McCullough’s “four small children.”[10] The fate of these children is unclear.

A 19th century engraving of the Albany City Hall.
People of Colonial Albany.

To date, evidence does not reveal the whereabouts of Prince from November to February, but it is likely that during this period he was making the trek southward from Canada to Albany. By early February 1776, Prince was held prisoner in the jail below city hall in Albany, awaiting another 200+ mile journey to Trenton, New Jersey. While imprisoned, he seemingly experienced significant shortage of provisions, as well as illness from the long trek to Albany during winter. His situation was dire; he could either remain in prison or seek another situation enslaved in an Albany household. Neither option was desirable, but Prince made the choice to advocate for himself and his safety. Sometime prior to February, he wrote to Major General Philip Schuyler. After receiving no response, he decided to write to Schuyler’s wife, Catharine, at the family home in Albany. The text of this letter reads:

“To The Honourable Lady Schuyler. –

The Humble Petition of Prince the Negro Belonging to M^ac

Colough - - -------------------

Most Humbly Sheweth that as Your Petitioners in the Greatest

Distress & Lowest Situation being almost set up With

Verment & have Quick Lost the use of My Limbs With Cold
for Want of Cloaths & Blankets – & to Inform Your Ladyship
that I Wrote to his Excellency the General but Received no
intelligence of My Being Released from my Long & Miserable
Confinement I am Very Willing to Go to Work for his
Excellency the General at any Sort of employ or any of the
Inhabitants in the Town for My Vituals & Cloaths. Therefore
I Humbly Beg Your Ladyship Would be so Good & to inter
cede With His Excellency for Me and Get Me Released as i am
Informed My Master M^r. M^acCulough is in Remedy and Your Good
Great & Bountious Goodness I Shall be as in duty Bound
ever Pray

                                                                        Prince the Negro”[11]

              This letter provides good evidence that Prince was literate. As a prisoner and an enslaved man, it is unlikely Prince found a helpful jailor to transcribe his plea. The letter is also signed by “Prince, the Negro.” It was commonplace for illiterate individuals, free and enslaved, to have written documents for property transactions or other business. However, these people would often sign with a distinguishing mark or an “x.” The signature, in the same hand as the rest of the letter, suggests that Prince wrote it himself.

              A response from Catharine Schuyler has not been found, but by March 20^th, 1776, General Schuyler returned to Albany. He received a letter that McCullogh “has sent him the Negro man Prince together with the Bill of Sale.”[12] Philip Schuyler purchased Prince, and he was brought to Schuyler Mansion where he would begin his enslavement to the Schuylers. However, within a few months, matters involving Prince appear to have been less than settled.

On May 27^th, 1776, Philip Schuyler wrote to his secretary, Richard Varick, expressing frustration with Prince: “[I] cannot keep such a worthless scoundrel in my house. If you have already written to [McCullough], pray write again.”[13] Schuyler does not explain to Varick the matter of contention with Prince, but Prince’s own letter may add vital context.

Winter Landscape
Caspar David Friedrich, 1811.
Gallery of Old and New Masters, Germany.

In his February 1776 petition to Catharine Schuyler, Prince writes about the “loss of the use of my limbs with cold.” This debilitating situation was likely the result of the long trek to Albany during winter without proper clothing and footwear. Frostbite may have been the result—a common condition among many enslaved people in the Northeast. The weeks Prince spent in jail were likely no better, as conditions were often cold and damp. Upon coming into the Schuyler household, Prince may not have been in a condition to do labor of any sort. Schuyler likely felt his investment a poor choice. The weakness in Prince’s physical body may have severely limited him, requiring time to recover. For Prince, a change in his situation was a matter of life-or-death. For Philip Schuyler, the choice to purchase Prince was a business decision that went awry.

The next month Alexander McCullough responded to Richard Varick. On June 22^nd, 1776, he wrote:

“I am Extremely Sorry to find that the Negro man does not now answer the Character I entertained of him, for I flattered myself that having no Complaints during my stay at Albany nor any time till now that he was the General’s property agreeable to his Bill of Sale to all Intents … Let General Schuyler keep the Negro, until my Releasment, which I hope will be soon, shall make him abalement in his price or take the Negro to myself if the General still persists.”[14]

              McCullough’s response was cordial, considering the situation. He remained a prisoner of war but believed he would be released. Once released, he would either reduce the purchase price for Schuyler or take possession of Prince again, if Schuyler wished. Neither party involved give insight into Schuyler’s specific grievances, however, Schuyler had missed out on months of expected labor if Prince was still recovering in June 1776. Little is known about Schuyler’s expectations for those he enslaved, and it is unclear how he treated the people he held in bondage, but whatever those standards were, it is clear that at least for the first months of his time with Schuyler, Prince was not complying with them. 

In the case of Alexander McCullough, it is unclear if he was ever released from captivity as he had hoped. Letters between General Putnam and George Washington from May 1777 state that no “officers have been returned in exchange for those you mention; proper notice will be taken respecting them.”[15] McCullough made it to New Jersey where he was in captivity, but a full year after the sale of Prince to Philip Schuyler there is no evidence that he had been released or was in any position to repurchase Prince.

Prince does seem to have recovered from his winter-related illnesses, as is evidenced by his continuing presence within the Schuyler household. A receipt from Dr. Stringer, the family’s primary physician, in 1787 suggests that Prince was one of the individuals who received medications, but none listed for him suggests a lingering winter related illness.[16]

Once recovered, Prince remained enslaved by the Schuylers, and from Schuyler family records, it appears that Prince stood apart from others enslaved by the family. The name ‘Prince’ for enslaved men is often associated with people who are perceived to have been descended from royalty. A great-granddaughter of Philip Schuyler, Katherine Schuyler Baxter, in her book A Godchild of Washington, alludes to Prince’s personality and how he behaved differently from the other people the Schuylers enslaved.[17] This descendent tells a romanticized story based on the memories of her grandmother Catharine ‘Caty’ van Rensselaer Schuyler (1781-1854), who had not been born until several years after Prince came into the Schuyler household. Caty had grown up with Prince already incorporated into the household.  Baxter’s narrative relies on common 19^th century stereotypes about slavery that imagine a familial relationship between the enslaver and the enslaved.  These biases do not account for the inhumanity and violence inherent in the ownership of another person.

Prince’s story after becoming the “property” of Philip Schuyler remains partially unknown. The exact nature of Prince’s duties is not documented in primary documents, but references suggest his work likely was as a butler or valet. Every mention of Prince does seem to associate his labor closely with Philip Schuyler. The role would have required the sort of person, like Prince, who had documented literacy and attention to detail. It is likely that Prince became integral to the household in the eyes of the Schuyler family. 

There are mentions of Prince throughout the correspondence of the Schuylers’ and friends. In a letter written by John Jay to Philip Schuyler on February 19^th, 1780, a keyword of a cypher is determined, which was likely based on Prince’s name. Jay wrote: “Let the Keyword be the name of the man who so long and regularly placed every day a Toot-pick by Mrs. Schuyler’s plate, written backwards, that is…”[18] The letter does not clarify the name being used but the keyword it would need to be an intimate detail, something that only someone close to the Schuylers would know. A valet or manservant likely would have been the one to place a “Toot-pick” on Mrs. Schuyler’s plate. Every indication from other sources places Prince in the role of valet, which Jay would have known.

              It is possible that Prince died sometime in the 1790s as there are no known references to him after 1794. Prince is also not listed in the manumission register for Albany in 1804 in which seven individuals enslaved by Philip Schuyler were listed as freed by the executors of his estate. It is possible that Prince was among the enslaved individuals above the age of 50 and ineligible for manumission after Philip Schuyler’s death. Several of these individuals were incorporated into the households of the Schuyler’s six surviving children—all of whom enslaved people during their lifetimes.[19]  

              Though the majority of Prince’s life remains unknown, his story can show us how evidence is lost when a person is considered property rather than a person whose life’s experience warranted memorializing. Through persistent research, more evidence of Prince’s life has been discovered over the last several years. The staff at Schuyler Mansion will continue to seek more answers about Prince and the 60+ other individuals enslaved by the Schuylers, in order to better understand their lives, stories, and for some, their paths to freedom.

 

---

[1] https://www.loc.gov/resource/bdsdcc.00601

[2] ("Letterbook 1" The New York Public Library Digital Collections. 1775 - 1776. https://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/43915150-8829-0134-2908-00505686a51c, Unnumbered, p. 248.) Full letter Images 10-11, Excerpt Image 11.

[3] https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/william-billy-lee

[4] October 8^th, 1791, Philip Schuyler to John Bradstreet Schuyler, NYPL Philip Schuyler Papers, Letters to Family.

[5] ("Letterbook 1" The New York Public Library Digital Collections. 1775 - 1776. https://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/43915150-8829-0134-2908-00505686a51c,  No. 162, p. 224.) Image 08

[6] "Letterbook 1" The New York Public Library Digital Collections. 1775 - 1776. https://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/43915150-8829-0134-2908-00505686a51c, No. 162

[7] Journals of the Continental Congress, Vol. 3, p. 359

[8] ("Letterbook 1" The New York Public Library Digital Collections. 1775 - 1776. https://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/43915150-8829-0134-2908-00505686a51c, No. 161, p. 218.) Full letter Images 02-07, excerpt Image 02

[9] Ibid.

[10] ("Letterbook 1" The New York Public Library Digital Collections. 1775 - 1776. https://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/43915150-8829-0134-2908-00505686a51c, No. 225, p. 311.) Full letter Images 12-15, Excerpt Image 13

[11] Manuscripts and Archives Division, The New York Public Library. "Lists of Tories; oaths; petitions" The New York Public Library Digital Collections. 1775 - 1777. https://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/edc87a90-3735-0134-36ca-00505686d14e) Image 16

[12] (Manuscripts and Archives Division, The New York Public Library. "1776 March 20" The New York Public Library Digital Collections. 1776. https://digitalcollections.nypl.org/items/58be18d0-3733-0134-628d-00505686d14e) Images 17-18

[13] https://www.carpelibrumbooks.com/philip-schuyler-autograph-letter-signed-to-richard-varick-on-the-war-in-quebec-and-his-slave-prince-1776) Image 19

[14] (NYPL Schuyler Papers Reel 19, Box 38) Images 20-21.

[15] (https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-09-02-0398)

[16] NYPL Philip Schuyler Papers Reel 2, Box 3, Schuyler to Samuel Stringer Jan-Dec 1787.

[17] A Godchild of Washington, Katherine Schuyler Baxter (pg 435-436).

[18] Schuyler Mansion Collection found in A Godchild of Washington

[19] November 30^th, 1804, John Barker Church to Philip Jeremiah Schuyler, New York Historical.

---

Stepping into History: The Complicated Process of Studying A Ledger of Shoe Purchases from Cornelia van Cortlandt Schuyler

 By: Sarah Lindecke

Historians and researchers work with a myriad of written and object sources when trying to learn about topics in history. What happens, though, when sources are inaccessible because accessing them requires specialized knowledge, language skills, or transcription that are beyond a researcher’s ability? In this blog post, we will explore a ledger made for Philip Schuyler’s mother, Cornelia van Cortlandt Schuyler, for shoes purchased and repaired between 1754 and 1762. Examining this ledger will allow us to examine the challenges associated with primary sources and how researchers work through these complications.

Schuyler family home at the corner of State St. and South Pearl in the 1880s

            Cornelia van Cortlandt Schuyler was born into the interconnected and wealthy Van Cortlandt family in Manhattan. Her father was Stephanus van Cortlandt (1643-1700) and her mother was Albany native Geetruijd “Gertrude” Schuyler van Cortlandt (1654-1732). Cornelia was the youngest child born to her parents but was still a wealthy heiress expecting to inherit lands in Manhattan, as well as from her family’s manor in present day Westchester County. At twenty-five, Cornelia made an advantageous match when she married Johannes Schuyler Jr. (1697-1741). The couple lived mainly in Albany where Johannes’ family and businesses were. Johannes’ prominence would grow during the early years of their marriage, and he soon became a leader in Albany’s politics and society. Their home was a prominent house on the intersection of State and South Pearl Streets. Though no period images exist showing the house when Schuylers lived there, it remained standing until the end of the 19^th century.

            Cornelia and her husband had ten children, with only a few surviving childhood. The children who are known to have survived are: Gertrude Schuyler Cochran (1724-1813); John Schuyler (1725-1746); Philip John Schuyler (1733-1804); Cortlandt Schuyler (1735-1773); and Stephen Schuyler (1737-1820). These children were raised in the multi-generational home on State Street.

            Unfortunately for the family, Johannes Schuyler Jr. passed in 1741 at forty-four years old. He’d been a merchant and civic leader during his lifetime and was serving a term as mayor in the City of Albany at the time of his death. Cornelia was given autonomy over personal property in the household following Johannes’ death. Under English rule, this was somewhat unusual, but in the Hudson River Valley, where continued adherence to Dutch traditions offered women inheritance rights and access to autonomous ownership of property and businesses, and Cornelia was well within her rights to inherit property from her husband. By comparison, women living in more traditionally English communities expected strict legal bars on their ownership of businesses or property under the legal framework of coverture. Cornelia may have experienced her share of hardships following her husband’s death, as she was left with least five children who needed education and care. The job of raising these children fell to Cornelia but also to the enslaved in her household.

           With the setting established, we can look to a document likely created for Cornelia by her son, Philip Schuyler. This ledger was kept between 1754 and 1762, with notes from Cornelia’s estate made after her passing in 1762. The text itself is in Dutch. As Dutch settlers, Cornelia and her family were deeply connected to the language. It was common throughout New Netherland and early New York for many families to continue using Dutch as a primary language, even through the 19^th century. For researchers, this document presents the additional puzzle of considering the deviations between Dutch spoken in New Netherland and modern Dutch. In the 18^th century, the Dutch written and spoken in New York was considered “low Dutch.” Due to the natural evolution of language since the 18^th century, the Dutch used by people like Cornelia van Cortlandt Schuyler is not entirely intelligible, even by a modern native Dutch speaker. It takes time to translate documents, and for the purposes of historical research the translation needs to be done accurately. Cursory use of various translation apps can provide some direction in the process of translation, but without the nuances available only to a native speaker, the translation is not exact.

            When looking at the text of the ledger there are a few words that are repeated on many of the lines. This can help to speed up the translation process by establishing patterns. It is important to remember spelling was not yet consistent in the 18^th century. For Cornelia’s ledger, the text also has several common shorthand notes representing various things repeated in the content. In the text of the ledger, most of these markings are representative of “ditto.” This was an abbreviation meant to express the current line had the same word as the line directly above it. In the case of this ledger, most of these “ditto” marks note that the ledger continues to discuss shoes. The mark before most of the “ditto” symbols are standing in for “pair,” as in pair of shoes or boots.

            Each line generally has the same structure with a date beginning the line, followed by text that typically appears like this sample, (approximately translated to English):

1757 

Feb 8 for 1 pair shoes for Stephen                                                                                           0n 9n 0

ditto for 1 pair for Coff                                                                                                            0n 9n 0

March 14 for 1 pair for Dick                                                                                                     0n 9n 0

ditto for lappe (cobble?) for Cesar                                                                                           0n 0n 9

July 3 for 1 pair shoes for Dick                                                                                                 0n 9n 0

ditto 18 for 1 pair ditto patched for Coff                                                                                 0n 2n 0

Sept 16 for 1 pair adjusted and new heel?                                                                              0n 4n 0

Dec 19 for 1 pair for Coff                                                                                                     0n 10n 0

            This selection of lines from 1757 there are representative of the ledger as a whole document. The line for “Feb 8” lists one pair of shoes for Cornelia’s youngest son Stephen, who was twenty years old, which cost “0n 9n 0.” As this ledger comes from the period where British money was used, the columns along the right side denote value in that currency. From right to left the values are pounds, shillings, and pence, in decreasing order of value. Stephen’s shoes therefore cost 9 shillings. The sum for a new pair of shoes had seemingly risen from earlier years, as at the beginning of the ledger, 1754, a new pair of shoes was 8 shillings and at the end of the ledger, in 1762, the cost was 10 shillings.

            Reading further down in the ledge excerpt, there are two listings for July 3^rd. The first is a new pair of shoes for Dick for 9 shillings, and the second listing is repair of shoes for Coff for 2 shillings. These two people were enslaved men in Cornelia’s household. The price for Dick’s shoes is of note since it is the same as what was paid earlier in 1757 for Cornelia’s son Stephen. Oftentimes fictional accounts or popular assumptions about the clothes of enslaved people suggest that all were clothed in inferior quality items, which was not always the case. However, repairs or better-quality items provided for enslaved people did not imply that their enslavers were kind for these provisions. Dick’s labors may have necessitated Cornelia to hire a cobbler either for new shoes or repairs frequently. The names of various people who were likely enslaved are recorded throughout the ledger for the purchase of new shoes or repairs made. Dick’s name is mentioned 13 times over the period of eight years the ledger covers.

            In comparing the prices from other ledgers at the same time period, Cornelia was paying higher prices for the shoes she purchased for her household. On June 22, 1760, George Washington’s cash accounts show a payment of 6 shillings for a pair of shoes for a man listed as ‘Peter the Smith,’ likely an enslaved man working as a blacksmith. Though this price is lower than Cornelia’s, the shoes Peter may have required for his work may have been treated shoes that would protect from the hazards of blacksmithing, like sparks. A ledger kept by Elisha Blackman in Pennsylvania between 1770 and 1804, shows various purchases and wages paid to members of his family. In 1784 he paid 7 shillings and 6 pence for one pair of shoes. Since Cornelia paid 8 shillings for shoes for an enslaved man in 1756, twenty-eight years earlier, we can see, shoe prices remain somewhat steady, but that costs were higher in Albany than in other locations. The prices Cornelia paid only increased by two shillings over the course of eight years but were still higher than those paid by Washington in Virginia and Blackman in Pennsylvania.

Of course, these numbers are not exactly comparable to each other as there were significant time, place, and possibly labor differences between ledgers. They do indicate, however, that Cornelia was paying a relatively average price (if sometimes higher) for the shoes she bought. Throughout the entire 18^th century there were constant fluctuations in all colonial currencies because each colony used both their own printed money and British currency interchangeably. Prices on ledgers were often listed in these various currencies because exchange rates were indeterminate. Additionally, due to regional fluctuations in material and labor costs during the later 18^th century, it can be difficult to determine how prices compared to each other regionally.

            Cornelia van Cortlandt Schuyler’s shoe ledger concludes with notes after her death in 1762. The notes mention the total price of 22 pounds, 10 shillings, and 8 pence. Cornelia paid this amount to the person who the account was kept with, possibly a cobbler named “Jillis” or “Jellis”. Further down there is a note “Cornelia Schuyler/ My Mother” which further supplies evidence that this account was kept in part by one of Cornelia’s children. The ledger was passed down through Louisa Lee and Georgina Schuyler, two of Philip Schuyler’s descendants. It is likely Philip kept his mother’s accounts and papers after her death. Other notes seem to be added by later curators or owners for the purpose of adding context to Cornelia being “mother of gen. Schuyler.”

            It is also possible to connect this ledger to Philip Schuyler’s own household. Several of the names of the enslaved people mentioned throughout the ledger show up in accounts from Philip Schuyler’s household after Cornelia’s death. In a ledger from Philip Schuyler’s household on December 16^th, 1771, also for the purchase of shoes, several of the enslaved people from Cornelia’s ledger are named as having shoes made or repaired. The names of these people are Bett, Cesar, Dick, and Coff (his name is also written as Cuff in some sources), and it is possible that these are the same people referred to in Cornelia’s ledger. Cornelia’s will does not make provisions for the lives of these enslaved people after her death, but it stands that many of the people from Cornelia’s household were inherited by her son Philip Schuyler. Since Philip Schuyler was Cornelia’s eldest living son, and he and his wife lived with Cornelia at the State and Pearl Street residence, it is likely that he took possession of the household property, which included the people enslaved there.

           Researchers often encounter challenges in their search through primary source materials. These documents are often inaccessible for various reasons: language, handwriting, document condition, etc. Cornelia van Cortlandt Schuyler’s ledger is a complex document to use as a source, not only because of the language, but because of the mundanity of the contents. So much historical research has been conducted on 18^th century topics, but because prices and currencies were in flux, it becomes difficult to grapple with actual prices and compare and contrast costs in Colonial America. Cornelia’s ledger is a useful document because, while it is a micro part of the 18^th century story, it helps better the understanding of the structure of an upper-class household in Colonial Dutch Albany.

 

Sources:

“Cash Accounts, June 1760,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/02-06-02-0238. [Original source: The Papers of George Washington, Colonial Series, vol. 6, 4 September 1758 – 26 December 1760, ed. W. W. Abbot. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1988, pp. 429–431.]

Report of the Statistician: Farm Prices in Two Centuries; Extracts from the account of Elisha Blackman, 1770-1804. https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=mdp.39015035798035&seq=4

Shoe ledger of Cornelia Van Cortlandt Schuyler kept between 1754-1763, in SM collection.

Shoe ledger of Philip Schuyler from December 16^th, 1771.

Schuyler’s Peacock Expedition: The January 1776 Raid on Johnson Hall

This blog is the first part in a series discussing the Continental Army’s attacks on Johnson Hall, in Johnstown, New York.

In January 1776, Major General Philip Schuyler was very busy. He had rung in the New Year providing vital support to Col. Henry Knox, who had recently passed through Albany with his “Noble Train of Artillery.” Knox stayed in Albany for about two weeks while he struggled with the weather and logistics of moving 60 tons of cannon. From January 4-6, while Knox was still in Albany, Schuyler was in treaty with a delegation from the Caughnawaga tribe, and reached an agreement that the tribe would remain neutral in the war. He was also greatly concerned with the Continental troops in Canada, and the progress of their campaign at Quebec. Due to the delay in receiving mail from Canada, Schuyler would not hear about the loss at Quebec and the death of General Montgomery until January 13. In early January, however, Schuyler would hear some news about activities a little bit closer to home.

On January 1, 1776, a Committee of Congress consisting of John Jay, Thomas Lynch, and Thomas McKean, sent a letter to Philip Schuyler informing him that a significant quantity of arms and powder were being hidden by the Loyalists at Sir John Johnson’s house in Johnstown. Schuyler was ordered by Congress to seize the weapons and imprison anyone deemed too dangerous to be left alone. “We rest assured,” they wrote, “you will exert every prudent & necessary Step immediately to accomplish the above, and with the utmost Secrecy collect as many Men as may be sufficient for the purpose.”[i]

Sir John Johnson’s father was Sir William Johnson, 1^st Baronet, noted for his military accomplishments during the French and Indian War, and British Superintendent of Indian Affairs for the Northern District. Upon his father’s death in 1774, Sir John inherited his father’s estate, his Baronetcy, and his position as British Superintendent of Indian Affairs. Deeply connected to Britain and personally indebted to the King (having been knighted when he visited London in 1775), Sir John established himself as a Loyalist early on in the conflict. The previous July (1775), the Loyalist Sheriff of Tryon County, Alexander White, was overzealous in threatening the “rebels” in the county. As a result, a mob of over 100 men tried to drag him from his lodgings. Sir John brought the sheriff into his house, barricaded it, and announced he would protect him.[ii] The mob and Johnson came to terms about a week later, deciding that Sheriff White would flee the county, and Sir John would keep out of the war effort, but he made his point clear – Johnson Hall would remain loyal to the King. Though he’d pledged to not participate in the war, Sir John Johnson’s profession of loyalty to England caught the attention of those who feared Loyalist plots in the New York west-country.

Sir John Johnson

And so it was, at the end of December, reports spread of a sizable force of men gathered at Johnson Hall. Congress ordered Schuyler, as Major General of the Northern Department, to investigate. On January 13, Schuyler received a letter from the Tryon County Committee of Safety, reporting that the Loyalists at Johnstown were making “inimical preparations” and “planning an ambush,” although it was not specified who the target of the ambush was. They sent a copy of a testimony confirming these reports, with the news that Sir John had about seven hundred men, with cannon, around his house.[iii] These men included not just Loyalists, but at least 300 Indigenous men, and several hundred Scottish Highlanders, who had been encouraged to move to the county by Sir William Johnson and were all fiercely loyal to the British crown. Although Schuyler had initially been sworn to secrecy about his plans, the corroboration of these reports allowed him to openly announce his intentions to bring militia to Johnson Hall and seize their weapons.

On January 15, Schuyler sent out an order to his troops:

“The Honorable the Continental Congress having been informed that dangerous Designs have been formed in the County of Tryon against the good people of the British Colonies, have ordered General Schuyler to march a Body of Troops into that Country to aid him in carrying their Resolutions into Execution … The Troops are to parade at sunrise to Morrow Morning in the Street between the English and Dutch Churches; Immediately after they will march … and proceed to Schenectady.”[iv]

Schuyler immediately recognized one significant complication: in order to get to Johnson Hall, he would have to pass through Caughnawaga territories. Not wanting to offend or alarm, Schuyler asked the Albany Committee of Correspondence whether he should send them a message first, and the Committee agreed.[v] The Haudenosaunee, known then as the Six Nations, had signed a Treaty of Neutrality with the Americans in 1775. Schuyler knew that if he marched a body of militia into their territory, they would see it as an invasion, and a violation of that treaty. Accordingly, he sent a message informing them of his true intentions, and another to Sir Johnson, asking to meet him on the way to Johnstown to discuss the orders he had been given by Congress.[vi]

The next day, Schuyler and his assembled militia left Albany, gathering more troops as they went towards Johnstown. As he told Congress, “such was the Zeal and alacrity of the people that altho’ the Weather was cold in the Extreme it was impossible to prevent their coming up, which they did in such Numbers that by the Time I reached Caghnawaga [sic] I had very near if not quite 3000 Men including nine hundred of the Tryon County Militia.”[vii]

As expected, Schuyler was met by a delegation from the Mohawk people, who objected to him marching an army through their territory, in apparent defiance of the treaty. They did not believe that Sir John had gathered any weapons, believing him to be peaceful as his father had been. The Mohawk delegation requested to be present when Schuyler met him, Schuyler reassured the Mohawks that he did not intend to attack them, but that he had received trusted reports that Sir John was planning to attack the Continental Army, and needed to prevent it. He asked if they would serve as mediators between him and Sir John in return for protection.

In response to Schuyler’s note, Sir John agreed to meet with him to hear the terms. When they met, Schuyler informed him of his orders from Congress to take all the arms and ammunition from the men at Johnson Hall, the Scotch Highlanders, and all Tories living in Tryon County. Additionally, Sir Johnson would have to give up all blankets and gifts intended for the Haudenosaunee nations, so they could instead be presented by General Schuyler as a token of friendship from the Continentals. As Schuyler later reported to Congress, Sir Johnson

“assured me that the Indians would support him, that some were already at Johnson Hall for that purpose and others on their Way down. In Return I told him that altho’ averse to shedding any Blood yet if resisted that Force would be opposed to Force without Distinction and that the Consequences would be of the utmost serious Nature unless he complyed with my Requisitions, he begged Time to answer until next Evening to which I consented.”[viii]

Once Sir John Johnson left, however, Schuyler was met by two Mohawk men who declared that Sir Johnson was lying. They had not promised to support Sir John, and in fact would limit themselves to acting as mediators, as they had earlier told Schuyler.

Sir Johnson sent his reply to the terms that evening: he rejected almost all of the terms, saying that he would keep all his weapons, go wherever he liked, and that he did not have any blankets or gifts to give up. The only term he agreed to was that the Highlanders would give up their own weapons. Schuyler informed him that since he rejected the terms, he would “march my troops to that place without a delay.”[ix]

On January 18, Major General Schuyler marched his men to within four miles of Johnstown while he waited for Sir Johnson’s response to the terms. Schuyler reported to Congress “the Sachems and all the Warriors of the lower Mohawk Town and some from the upper called upon me, and informed me that Sir John Johnson had related to them the Contents of the Terms I had offered to him,” and “begged that if his answer was not satisfactory that I would give him until four O’Clock in the Morning that they might have Time to go and shake his Head as they expressed it, and bring him to his Senses,” and “declared that they would never take arms against us” in return for letting Sir John remain at Johnson Hall. Schuyler agreed, as a way of showing the “Love and Affection” he had for the Mohawks and hoping that he could convince Sir John to change his conduct (which Schuyler called “extremely obnoxious”).[x]

Johnson Hall State Historic Site

The Major General then sent amended terms to Johnson Hall: Sir John would give up his weapons, (although “General Schuyler’s Feelings as a Gentleman induce him to consent that Sir John Johnson may retain the few favorite Family arms”),[xi] and that he would be limited to the area around Johnson Hall, and would need to apply to Congress for permission to travel farther. Six of the Scottish inhabitants would be taken prisoner, although Schuyler gave no promises of where Congress would decide to send them. Additionally, “General Schuyler expects that all the Scotch Inhabitants of whatsoever Rank that are not confined to their Beds by Illness, shall attend with their Arms – and deliver them on Saturday at 12 O’Clock... General Schuyler never refused a Gentleman his side arms.”

The next day, Schuyler sent Col. Nicholas Herkimer to collect all of the Tories in the area so they, too, could surrender their weapons. Schuyler then marched the rest of the way into Johnstown. On January 20, all of Major General Schuyler’s troops at Johnstown lined up at attention along the road in complete silence, making a line “from [his] Quarters to the Court House,”[xii] and between two and three hundred Scottish Highlanders marched in front of them to deliver their weapons. Since Schuyler had traveled with approximately 3000 men,[xiii] it would have been an impressive sight. However, based on Schuyler’s letter to Sir Johnson complaining about how none of the Highlanders had managed to surrender a dirk, broad sword, or any ammunition, it seems that they were not as intimidated as Schuyler would have liked.[xiv]

Schuyler’s men then searched the small island in the duck pond by Johnson Hall, where Sir John had supposedly hidden a cache of weapons, but were unable to find anything. Over the next two days, over 100 Tories from the surrounding areas were brought in to surrender their weapons. Schuyler returned to Albany on January 21, leaving behind Col. Herkimer and his regiment to collect any more weapons still being brought in.

Schuyler’s march was successful in that Sir Johnson and a number of other Loyalists were disarmed, and the seized weapons were sent to Continental troops in Canada. At the meeting of Congress on February 5, Congress praised Schuyler’s work in disarming the Tories in Tryon County, “and providing for future tranquility of those parts.” Additionally, Congress stated that they hoped none of the men who traveled with Schuyler “will allow their countrymen to entertain a suspicion that any ignoble motive actuated them, by requiring a pecuniary reward.”[xv]

Loyalists mocked Schuyler’s march into Tryon County, referring to it as his “Peacock Expedition.” The name apparently stems from an event in which a number of Schuyler’s men killed a flock of Sir John’s peacocks and decorated themselves with the feathers,[xvi] but in some ways, the moniker is fitting to Schuyler’s role in the event. While he was successful in following the orders issued to him by Congress, disarming the Loyalists, arming Continental soldiers, and negotiating tenuous agreements with the Indigenous nations, he also put on a show, marching to Johnson Hall with an excessive number of men, and lining them up as a silent gauntlet for the Tories to pass through and deliver up their arms. As one poet described it, “Hark, hark! the valiant Hero comes! / With screaming Fifes, and roaring Drums … And what but timid Hares are We, / O Schuyler, when compar’d to thee.”[xvii]

Schuyler’s plan, as he explained to Congress, was not only to seize weapons, but to convince those on the fence that it would be futile to support the British. To support Schuyler’s position, Congress had his account of the expedition published in The Pennsylvania Evening Post, in February 1776. It served as a warning to other potential Loyalists: not only did Major General Schuyler assemble an army at a moment’s notice to go after Sir John Johnson, but he could do it again to go after you, so take heed.

Despite the enormous show of force, a conservative reading of these events would suggest that Schuyler was actually quite lenient and respectful with Sir Johnson.

The initial terms presented to Sir John read “General Schuyler, out of personal respect to Sir John, and from a regard to his rank, consents that Sir John shall retain for his own use, a complete set of armour [sic], and as much powder as may be sufficient for his domestic purposes.” On January 19, when Schuyler sent Sir John the final terms, he allowed for Sir Johnson to retain “the few favorite family arms,” as well as his side arms.[xviii] Despite the fact that the goal of the entire expedition was to seize all of Sir John’s weapons and ammunition, Schuyler gave him permission to keep some for personal use and sentiment.

Philip Schuyler also concerned himself with the welfare of Lady Mary Johnson, Sir Johnson’s wife. When he first wrote to Sir Johnson that he would be heading towards Johnstown with the militia, Schuyler asked Sir John “to assure Lady Johnson, that whatever may be the Results of what is now in agitation, she may rest perfectly satisfied that no Indignity will be offered her.”[xix] And again, when Sir John refused to accept terms and Schuyler said he would march to Johnson Hall, he sent a passport to allow Lady Johnson to leave before the troops arrived.[xx] In contrast, Schuyler refused to make any provisions for the women and children among the Scottish Highlanders who would be taken prisoner, and even expected them to report with the men to deliver up arms, to which Sir Johnson noted that “women and children to be required, a requisition so inhuman as we hope the General will dispense with.”[xxi] Lady Johnson was protected by her status and the rules of high society, but many other women and children without a standing in society could not expect such considerations.

Lady Johnson

Major General Philip Schuyler and Sir John Johnson were very similar in many ways – wealthy men with large, landed estates, family legacies, and strong political ties, including with Indigenous nations. They were peers, and had the American Revolutionary War not broken out, they would likely have continued to live very similar lives. Schuyler was biased towards people of his class, and many of his soldiers complained about his disdain for the average troops. In January 1776, Schuyler seems to have let these biases influence his treatment of Sir Johnson and his family, despite his allegiance with the Crown. Due to this leniency, Sir Johnson was able to maintain power and influence in Tryon County – and would, in only a few short months, attempt to build an army of men loyal to the king.

Check our blog later this year for a follow up discussion of the second raid on Johnson Hall that took place in May of 1776.

---

[i] Letter, Committee of Congress to Philip Schuyler, January 1, 1776. Published in Letters of Delegates to Congress, January 1-May 15, 1776. Paul H. Smith, Editor, 1978.

[ii] See Minutes from the Albany Committee of Correspondence, July 22, 1775.

[iii] Letter, Tryon County Committee to Philip Schuyler, January 11, 1776. NYPL Philip Schuyler Papers.

[iv] Philip Schuyler, General Orders, January 15, 1776. Orderly Book of Philip John Schuyler, 1775, June 28-1776, April 18, New York, Fort Ticonderoga, Albany, Fort St. George., Manuscripts, Huntington Digital Library.

[v] Minutes of Albany Committee of Correspondence, January 15, 1776.

[vi] Letter, Philip Schuyler to Sir John Johnson, January 16, 1775. In Letterbook 1, NYPL Philip Schuyler Papers.

[vii] Letter, Philip Schuyler to Continental Congress, January 23, 1776. In Letterbook 1, NYPL Philip Schuyler Papers.

[viii] Letter, Philip Schuyler to Continental Congress, January 23, 1776. In Letterbook 1, NYPL Philip Schuyler Papers.

[ix] Pennsylvania Evening Post, February 8, 1776.

[x] Letter, Philip Schuyler to Continental Congress, January 23, 1776. In Letterbook 1, NYPL Philip Schuyler Papers.

[xi] Letter, Philip Schuyler to Sir John Johnson and Allen McDonald, January 19, 1776. In Letterbook 1, NYPL Philip Schuyler Papers.

[xii] Philip Schuyler, General Orders, January 20, 1776. Orderly Book of Philip John Schuyler, 1775, June 28-1776, April 18, New York, Fort Ticonderoga, Albany, Fort St. George., Manuscripts, Huntington Digital Library.

[xiii] Schuyler recruited militia from the Albany area and along his route to Johnson Hall, amassing a body of about 2000 men. He was joined by Col. Nicholas Herkimer, who was in command of an additional 1000 militiamen from Tryon County.

[xiv] Letter, Philip Schuyler to Sir John Johnson, January 21, 1776. In Letterbook 1, NYPL Philip Schuyler Papers.

[xv] Journals of the Continental Congress, February 5, 1776.

[xvi] Littell’s Living Age, Fifth Series, Volume L, 1885, p. 475.

[xvii] Dubin Edelberg, Cynthia. Jonathan Odell, Loyalist Poet of the American Revolution. Duke University Press, 1987, p. 38.

[xviii] Letter, Philip Schuyler to Sir John Johnson and Allen McDonald, January 19, 1776. In Letterbook 1, NYPL Philip Schuyler Papers.

[xix] Letter, Philip Schuyler to Sir John Johnson, January 16, 1775. In Letterbook 1, NYPL Philip Schuyler Papers.

[xx] Letter, Philip Schuyler to Sir John Johnson and Allen McDonald, January 17, 1776. In Letterbook 1, NYPL Philip Schuyler Papers.

[xxi] Pennsylvania Evening Post, February 8, 1776.