Dutch Patroons to English Gentlemen:

New York’s Journey from Prejudice to Acceptance

David Brown

Honors Project 2005-2006Mentor: Dr. Douglas Egerton

Acknowledgements

This project has been a continuous year long process that has traveled quite a way from its origins. Many have helped me throughout the arduous process in listening to ideas, criticizing my arguments, and assigning me many more books to read. My mentor, Dr. Doug Egerton, steadfastly read draft after draft giving me copious amounts of comments and assessment. Dr. Egerton’s support led me through the turbulent, sometimes discouraging, world that any historian experiences in evaluating the past. He also helped make possible an opportunity of a lifetime in supporting my goal of receiving a fellowship from the Society of Historians of Early American Republic and Carnegie Mellon. My experience at the seminar initiated the foundational ideas of the following thesis. Under the tutelage of renowned historians, Dr. James Brewer Stewart and Dr. Mary Kelley, my project grew from a basic idea into a set of promising arguments. The other students at the seminar showed me what it was like to be a part of a community of historians, working together to further the field in many directions. While the seminar began my studies, my work at the Saratoga National Historical Park over the 2005 summer gave me the opportunity to delve deeply into dusty archival research on the protagonist of my thesis, General Philip Schuyler. Park interpreters provided me innumerable insights into the 18th Century lifestyle and modeled a compelling way to convey history to anyone willing to listen. These different groups helped me grow as a historian and reach my academic goals in the process, but I owe a large thank you to my colleagues in the 2006 Honors class. Their encouragement and support helped me through the process and cultivated many deep friendships in the process. Without their help, this project would not have been possible so I say, “Thank you.”

2

Dutch Patroons to English Gentlemen:New York’s Journey from Prejudice to Acceptance

As the funeral procession journeyed through downtown Albany, “the streets were

lined with people, doors and windows were filled, and even the house tops were not without

spectators to behold the melancholy procession, and to pay their last offices to the dead.”

Philip Schuyler’s death in November 1804 not only saddened the Upstate New York

community, it signaled the end of an era in which he dominated practically all aspects of

social culture in the region. Albany lost its leader. While Albany politicians mourned the

loss, all semblances of the state’s past lineage also seemingly disappeared with Schuyler’s

death. At his funeral, the city came together in a unified effort to recognize as well as to pay

tribute and respect to the man who helped construct their city and state into one of

prominence and importance as the fledgling nation grew into a burgeoning economic and

political empire. An article covering Schuyler’s death in the Albany Gazette aptly described

the outpouring of support for their deceased leader; tenant farmers and the urban poor as well

as city merchants and political elites all came together to mourn the death of their beloved

political and social leader. Schuyler devoted his life to the people of Albany and New York

and his funeral revealed just how many people he had influenced throughout his life.1

Much of Schuyler’s political power stemmed from his being an affable figure. He did

not come as an outsider. Schuyler lived in English and American New York; however, he

still cherished his Dutch origins, speaking Dutch and following Dutch social traditions. It

was through these connections that his stature and popularity grew. Despite embracing and

capitalizing upon his own Dutch heritage and history, Schuyler also contributed greatly to the

“Anglicization” of New York. While actively seeking success in his business ventures,

Schuyler fashioned nearly every aspect of his public image in order to achieve status.

Accumulating status permitted him to link culture and politics together. The British

conquered New York in 1664, leading to the influx of British settlers along with their

traditions and culture.2 Schuyler’s elite position gave him clout in the Dutch Reformed

Church, with local tenant farmers, and with Native Americans. Utilizing this social and

1 Albany Gazette, November 20, 1804.2 Patricia U. Bonomi, A Factious People: Politics and Society in Colonial New York (New York: Columbia University Press, 1971) 22.

3

political authority, he was able to facilitate acculturation, whether deliberately or

unconsciously. It took time, though, before the final traces of “Dutchness” were no longer as

visible or acceptable as they were before. Schuyler and other aristocrats helped to retain

segments of traditional Dutch culture, however, the culture as a cohesive unit faded away. In

1664 the Dutch constituted nearly three-fourths of the population, while the British occupied

the other quarter. The Dutch became the first European group in the Americas to encounter

problems of acculturation and cultural absorption. Their struggles foreshadowed the

difficulties and prejudices that nearly all immigrant groups faced coming to America in the

19th Century and beyond.3

Political and legal acculturation occurred quickly, though cultural assimilation

evolved slowly. Possibilities for why this shift occurred were numerous. New Yorkers were

different from other members of British-controlled North America. Vestiges of Anglo-Dutch

colonial competition, animosity, and jealousy remained rampant considering the growing

wealth of New York City.4 The British even feared an attempt by Holland to recapture their

former colony. Dutch groups in New York were also “charter groups,” transplanted from

Europe, although they retained their native language, religion, and other cultural institutions.

The British found it unrealistic that this group of Dutch men and women would adopt

English cultural norms. The threat of Native Americans in the Northern, Central and Western

areas of New York also stunted the growth of an English tradition within the state. Colonists

in New York feared attacks from Native Americans from the point of colonization past the

Revolution and even into the 19th Century. Despite these challenges, a unique culture

formed, blending Dutch and English traditions with the experience of numerous 18th Century

conflicts that forced assimilation. The distinctive Dutch culture in upriver New York

diminished as increasing numbers of outsiders converged on the area. Growing

accommodation with English customs arrived at the same time, although “Dutch” and

“English” cultures no longer existed in a mutually exclusive environment. The two melded

together, constructing a culture unlike any found in the other colonies or states. New

Englanders were English to their cores- in religion, customs, history, and values- setting off

3 Sung Bok Kim, Landlord and Tenant in Colonial New York: Manorial Society, 1664-1775 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina, 1978) 8.4 New York City was formerly called New Amsterdam. The shift in name came in 1664 with the British conquest of the Dutch in the region. The colony then changed its name to New York after James, the Duke of York.

4

New Yorkers as distinctive. This disparity in cultural values, though, eventually helped New

York establish itself as a leading region in the nation’s foundation.5

Historians researching the period tend to focus on the creation of the United States

along with the rebellious behaviors that brought about the political shifts from either Dutch to

British or British to American. Countless books center their studies on the wars for

independence, colonial social culture, or America’s founding. Dutch studies illustrate the

beginning and end of New Netherland as a colony; however, few enter into the challenges of

assimilation in the Revolutionary era itself. Donna Merwick’s narrative, Possessing Albany,

1630-1710: The Dutch and English Experiences, analyzes the events preceding the British

takeover and the subsequent aftermath in the 17th Century. Merwick concludes that through

1710 the British did not attempt to convert the Dutch to English traditions, leaving open an

evaluation for when assimilation did occur.6 Scholars like Alice P. Kenney and Dixon Ryan

Fox discuss the elimination of Dutch vestiges following the Revolution, keeping their focus

in the 19th Century. The following study, though, attempts to tease apart the difficult context

for assimilation which the Revolutionary period presented. Dutch culture heavily influenced

the working of the American Revolution as the reaction against it facilitated the cohesion of

Dutch and English ways of life. Kenney calls it the “Americanization of the Dutch.”

Dutchness became Englishness and then following the struggle for independence both

melded into Americanness.7

Schuyler’s life was emblematic of this transition. As Commander of the Northern

Department during the Revolutionary War, Schuyler faced prejudice from New Englanders

who saw him as a possible turncoat. As a Dutchman, his loyalties were unclear to the British

colonists, and some resented Schuyler for his cultural background. Schuyler’s personal

wealth probably contributed to these feelings, but this instance illustrates a reason why

people moved away from their Dutch background. In a single nation, based mostly in

English culture and values, it would be extremely difficult for a Dutchman like Schuyler to

5 Michael Kammen, Colonial New York: A History (New York: Charles’s Scribner’s Sons, 1975) 372; Edward Henry Tebbenhoff, The Momentum of Tradition: Dutch Society and Identity in Schenectady, 1660-1790 (University of Minnesota, 1992).6 Donna Merwick, Possessing Albany, 1630-1710: The Dutch and English Experiences (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1990) 219, 258.7 Alice P. Keeney, Stubborn for Liberty: The Dutch in New York (Syracuse: Syracuse University Press, 1975) 211-212; Dixon Ryan Fox The Decline of Aristocracy in the Politics of New York, 1801-1840, edited by Robert V Remini (New York: Harper Torchbooks, 1965) 31.

5

fully embrace and honor his heritage and not assimilate into the socially accepted English

conventions. Cultural diffusionism shaped early New York. Besides the Dutch and English

traditions, immigrants arrived from France and Germany bringing their own traditions as

well. Schuyler himself was educated by French Huguenots, creating this liminal identity

which he cultivated in his later years. The existence of all these cultures brought political

and social conflict and identity issues for New Yorkers. With liminality came the inner-

colony conflict amongst Upstate New Yorkers. The war changed this by bonding the people

together behind a common cause, creating a unique Upstate New York-American culture that

melded together all of the previously distinct cultural traditions.8

Schuyler used his social stature to create an image of himself, placing him into the

role of the fatherly patriarch for New York. Schuyler’s status as a patriarchal figure

established him as the person Upstate New Yorkers saw as a role model. In this self-

fashioning process, Schuyler contributed to the dismantlement of Dutch traces in New York

that could be traced back to the Dutch colonization of the region in 1609.9 Philip Schuyler’s

ancestors had emigrated from the Netherlands to New Netherlands just prior to the British

takeover, and with them the Schuylers brought their traditional Dutch lifestyle. John and

Cornelia Schuyler raised their son, Philip, under the same conventions. Philip embraced his

lineage and used it to his advantage, building his businesses and successes on his well-

renowned family name. His 1755 marriage to Catherine Van Rensselaer—of arguably the

wealthiest and most powerful Dutch family in the colony of New York—consolidated his

own worth and brought him to new heights in terms of personal status.10 In accumulating his

wealth, Schuyler established tight connections with the downstate British and foreign

merchants, gradually building himself up as an English gentleman. Schuyler’s Dutch

heritage gradually disappeared and he became more and more Anglicized. He made a

conscious choice to pick up English traditions. By taking up these customs, Schuyler was

able to further incorporate himself into the British economic and political realm and improve

the possibility of accumulating more social standing in the community. This process coupled

with his high-ranking social status offered New Yorkers an example of how to succeed in

8 Bonomi 24.9 Sung Bok Kim, Landlord and Tenant in Colonial New York: Manorial Society, 1664-1775 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1978) 8.10 Montgomery Schuyler, “The Schuyler Family,” An Address Read Before the New York Branch of the Orders of Colonial Lords of Manors in America (Baltimore: Order of Colonial Lords in America, 1925) 32-33.

6

their society: adapt Dutch customs to English culture and merge them into a singular,

coherent, society. Schuyler’s move toward English and then American culture, together with

the narrowing definition of New York culture, allowed for assimilation and social cohesion

to finally commence. The remnants of past influences came together, generating a new

culture where the focus centered on a fundamental commonness- being American- delegating

heritage to another realm in personal identities.

New York, Albany, and Philip Schuyler

Philip Schuyler’s rise to a beloved stature did not develop from modest beginnings.

He exemplified the typical manner in which most elites in colonial society attained positions

of power. Coming from a fairly affluent and well-placed Dutch family in Albany, Schuyler

possessed access to all of the tools necessary to build his own niche in the region.

Characterized as a self-motivated man who could easily adapt to any situation, Philip

Schuyler became one of the most prominent businessmen during the Revolutionary era. His

skills fittingly brought him an enormous amount of wealth. But Schuyler was different from

the rest of the entrepreneurs. His personality and ability to acclimate and settle into any

situation made him extremely influential in building northern regions of New York as the

frontier expanded. The businesses he constructed served nearly everyone in the region in

some way. Schuyler’s public persona became associated with his work as a businessman.

This later translated into political authority. The Albany Gazette described there being little

public business in which Schuyler had not taken some active part for the past thirty years.11

As a result, Schuyler would then be attributed as being highly influential in the creation of a

New York that became one of the more powerful states in the new union.

Albany had been the headquarters for an immense fur industry in the 17th and 18th

centuries. The city served as the gateway connecting the coast to French Canada and the

Great Lakes. While New York City residents lived a cosmopolitan lifestyle, Albany

remained a primitive Dutch town where “homely labors and simple amusements were varied

only by the excitements incidental to its frontier position.”12 The two cities could not have

been any more different. The urban New York City life contrasted the rural agriculturally-

11 Don R. Gerlach, Philip Schuyler and the Growth of New York, 1733-1804 (Albany: University of the State of New York, 1968) 46; Alan Gallay discusses the connection between the public persona and business amongst southern aristocrats in The Formation of a Planter Elite: Jonathan Bryan and the Southern Colonial Frontier (Athens: University of Georgia, 1989).12 Tuckerman 6.

7

based self-sufficiency experienced in Albany. Social culture varied too, with Albany

resembling feudalism in the Middle Ages. New York City was characterized by mercantilist

practices. Despite the differences between the two sections of New York, both worked

cohesively in the fur trading industry.

Dutch culture shaped the upper reaches of New Netherland. The Albany area was

home to the Dutch patroons—who also existed in the more southern parts of the Hudson

River valley—from the initial Dutch colonization efforts through the mid-1800s. “Patroons”

were titular elites of the Dutch colonies who administered large tracts of land in a system

akin to a principality. This system relieved members of the Dutch West India Company from

the burden of managing the colony themselves. Patroons dispensed justice and appointed

civil and military officers on all of their own patroonships. The system resembled feudalism

because the patroons owed their allegiance to the Dutch government, yet they enjoyed

independent control within the boundaries of their purchased territory. Tenant farmers

traditionally assisted patroons in farming the land. They worked under contract for a number

a years and owed almost everything they had to the patroon. Tenants gave “oaths of

allegiance” to their respective patroons promising their loyalty and to give about one-tenth of

their product to him in exchange for the land. 13 Patroons became extremely powerful

figures, dominating the region politically. Accounts of one patroon’s arrival in a town

describe how his tenants “lined Broadway to view him as he passed in his coach-and-four

with liveried footmen in great powdered wigs, and the [family] arms glittering on the panels

of his gilded coach, as if he were a foreign nobleman.”14 Once the British seized control of

New Netherland, Governor Edmund Andros secured an agreement with the patroons of the

Hudson Valley where England purchased the feudal rights. Essentially everything became

an British possession under the leadership of the existing patroon.

The first patroonship was purchased by Kiliaen Van Rensselaer in 1620.

Rensselaerwyck, as his estate came to be known, became the largest tract of land owned by a

single individual in the Albany area, encompassing over 700,000 acres at its height. He had

thousands of tenants and slaves working his land or trapping furs and the Van Rensselaer

13 Kilian Van Rensselaer, Manors in America, “The Van Rensselaer Manor,” Address Delivered at the Third Annual Meeting of the New York Branch of the Order of Colonial Lords of Manors in America (Baltimore, 1917) 10; George Schuyler, Colonial 1:12, for further description of conditions on patroonships and the ties between the patroon and his subjects.14 Van Rensselaer 160.

8

manor prospered.15 Political control was tied to the land under this system. The feudal-like

patroonships were not unique to the upriver New York region; planters in Virginia and other

southern colonies lived under a similar system without being deemed patroonships.16 These

distinctive patron-client relationships further separated Albany from New York City,

although the cultural difference lessened during the 18th Century as the ties between the

Upper Hudson and Manhattan regions strengthened.

Rensselaerwyck was the only patroonship to survive. But large landowners still

dominated the region. Philip Schuyler, for example, never held the title of manor lord or

patroon, however as Don Gerlach observes, he shared the same interests in “property and

civic affairs” while maintaining the matching “unbounded ambition.” Landowners like

Schuyler helped unite the upper and lower reaches of New York because they reached out

more than the patroons. While the patroons worked mostly within their own manors,

Schuyler had business dealings with New York City merchants. Through business dealings,

the two sections of New York came together. The colony, though, was still ostracized from

the other colonies. New York was on its own.17

Upper Hudson New York depended on Philip Schuyler. This does not diminish the

accomplishments of the other well-placed, politically involved men. Nor does this

overshadow the large role that African American slaves performed in the daily lives of the

aristocratic elites. Schuyler was a New Yorker. Born and bred in the Albany area, Schuyler

was easy to relate to and arguably no one knew the region better than he. His family owned

extensive tracts of land near Albany and also north in Saratoga. These immense

landholdings meant that most people in the area had some connection to him, either being a

tenant of his or having dealt with him in his position as surveyor. As a result, Schuyler held

incredible political power and sway. Members of the Albany community looked to Schuyler

for their information. Word came about the battle breaking out in Lexington, Massachusetts

in April 1775 from Philip Schuyler. One observer noted, “After the morning discourse was

15 Rensselaerwyck: Patroonship and Manor, “The Pedigree of the Van Rensselaer Family,” Address Delivered at the Third Annual Meeting of the New York Branch of the Order of Colonial Lords of Manors in America (Baltimore, 1929) 10; George Schuyler, Colonial 1:26.16 See, for example, Stephanie McCurry. Masters of Small Worlds: Yeoman Households, Gender Relations, & the Political Culture of the Antebellum South Carolina Low Country, (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995). 17 Alice P. Kenney, “Patricians and Plebeians in Colonial Albany: Historical Demography and the Hudson Valley Dutch,” Halve Maen 74 (Winter 2001) 75; Gerlach, Philip Schuyler 1.

9

finished and the people were dismissed, we gathered about Philip Schuyler for further

information. He was the oracle of our neighborhood. We looked to him with a feeling of

respect and affection. His popularity was unbounded; his views upon all subjects were

considered sound, and his anticipation almost prophetic.”18 As the face of upper New York,

Schuyler provided the leadership and respect necessary to cohere the obscure, northern New

Yorkers to the more globally-focused, Anglicized members of the New York City

community.

The influx of British traditions in New York City deconstructed lower New York

social structure faster than in upriver New York. As was evident with Schuyler, aristocratic

control did not crumble with Britain’s victory in 1664. The only difference was a change

from Dutch proprietary control to control by the British Duke of York. Historians write of

the gradual Anglicization that occurred, with difficulties in pinpointing when New Yorkers

exchanged their Dutch roots for English ones. Michael Kammen claims that Anglicization

occurs after 1691 when New Yorkers formally offered obedience to the Duke of York.19

Others, like historian Alice Kenney, argue that Dutch traces can be found well into the 19th

Century.20 Kammen’s evaluation may be correct in regards to the political realm; however,

culturally, New York gradually transformed throughout the next century. Kenney’s

evaluation leaves out the possibility that any cultural transformation occurred during the

revolutionary period. This period of history though, radically changed the way New York

interacted with the other colonies. New York, as a whole, also played a pivotal role in

shaping the outcome of the revolution itself, changing its status. As a result of this new

position as leader of the colonies, New York led the transition into what Kenney describes as

“Americanization.”

British conquest did not change much in New York. Immigrants still flocked to New

England or Pennsylvania due to the perceived dangers of Native American attack and the

largely unsettled wilderness in the upper-reaches of New York. Despite this, New York was

considered the most diverse colony of all England’s mainland possessions. Although Albany

18 Tuckerman 86.19 Kammen 73-4.20 Kenney describes the upper-Hudson colonists as Dutch until the colonies are granted independence from Britain. Once the Albany region expands dramatically after 1800, Kenney depicts a process of “Americanization” where Dutchness fades away due to increased immigration and infrastructure progress.

10

was predominantly populated by Dutch residents, many Dutch, Germans, French, and

English settled downriver. Swedes, Irish, and Scots also added to New York’s diversity.21

William Lamb characterizes 17th and 18th Century New York Dutch men and women

as self-reliant, courageous idealists who welcomed foreigners. Seventeenth Century New

York was the most diverse colony. Dutch tolerance and idealism fostered a multicultural

spirit in New York earlier than the 18th Century immigration boom. The large merchant class

associated with the fur trading industry brought cultures into contact. Sixteen languages

were spoken, Dutch being the primary and English a close second. Without a uniform

language, New Yorkers looked to the well-connected aristocracy, or merchant class, for

direction. Since merchants economically dominated the lower trading and farming classes

throughout the colony, the natural progression indicated a move toward patriarchal

dominance. The Upper Hudson patroon system established New York aristocracy. Members

of the aristocracy, like Philip Schuyler, controlled nearly all aspects of economic life,

translating this authority into political power as well. The permanence of these Dutch

families in power positions derived from their control over all colonial, then state, financial

matters.22 Tenant farmers and agriculturists in the Albany region depended so heavily on the

wealthy patriarchs for furnish, services and information. Under the Dutch and British

democratic political systems land equated power, making the affluent the ones who were best

suited to understand the needs of the people.23

In 1664, at the time of British conquest, only three out of the twenty-four wealthiest

men in New York were English. Twenty years later, British merchants composed twenty-

two of the forty-eight most affluent merchants. The richest merchants were still the Dutch,

most likely due to preexisting connections with Native American tribes in central and

western New York, or because of the head start these men had on their new competition.

The increasingly high numbers of wealthy Englishmen during the late 17th Century show the

21 Milton W. Hamilton, Henry Hudson and the Dutch in New York (Albany: The University of the State of New York, 1959) 56.22 Hamilton 60.23 This idea evolved into the concept of “classical republicanism” described by James Rogers Sharp in American Politics in the Early Republic (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993). The elite were believed to be most capable of understanding the needs of the country and they acted out of the interest of the universal good as opposed to their own self-interests. The Founding Fathers believed that classical republicanism was the way in which the young American republic would work. Classical republicanism never truly formed in the American republic, which could have been seen in early New York politics. In early New York, politicians acted out of their particular self-interests, following the Dutch model of democracy.

11

beginnings of New York’s cultural shift. Steadily, British merchants and traders seized the

places of the Dutch elites until only a few remained, demonstrating the removal of Dutch

power and influence.24

The Dutch Reform Church also shaped the aristocratic worldview in New York. A

corporate setup instituted by the Church emphasized the focus on the elite in the cultural

social structure. For instance, church ministers and other lay Church leaders, like Philip

Schuyler, served as intermediaries in land disputes, rights and other issues. This system at

first looked to benefit all segments of the community, but ministers served the wealthy

patroons. Judgments tended to favor the elite, and further reinforced the aristocratic power

structure. The Church, though, became the primary repository for Dutch culture. Followers

retained the Dutch language and spiritual customs. Holland’s architectural contributions to

the region remained visible in the Albany skyline. Since the British had no desire to convert

New York to Anglicanism immediately following conquest, the Dutch never really felt

obligated to assimilate their own culture or to replace it with English culture.25

The Church promoted tolerance for minorities in most of its practices. Early Dutch

governors attempted to implement discriminatory acts against various religious groups. Peter

Stuyvesant tried this in 1657 with anti-Quaker rhetoric. The people responded with the

Flushing Remonstrance, challenging anti-Quaker laws. Protestors wrote that “if any

[Quakers] come in love unto us, we cannot in conscience lay violent hands upon them, but

give them free ingresse and regresse unto our town, and houses, as God shall persuade our

consciences.” Tolerance encouraged inclusiveness. The flexibility of the Dutch Reformed

Church contributed to the retreat of Dutch culture. By sponsoring inclusion, the Dutch

weakened any claims of cultural superiority, allowing British traditions to take root and

slowly push out Dutch customs.26

Education also closely tied into the Dutch Reformed Church. Privatized education in

the 17th and 18th Centuries took place inside the confines of religious institutions. Many

24 Klein 125-6.25 Frederick J. Zwierlein, Religion in New Netherland: A History of the Development of the Religious Conditions in the Province of New Netherland 1623-1664 (Rochester: John P. Smith Printing Co., 1910) 76-77; Firth Haring Fabend, “The Synod of Dort and the Persistence of Dutchness in Nineteenth-Century New York and New Jersey,” New York History 77 (Fall 1996) 274; Kammen 77, 83-86.26 Flushing Remonstrance, 1657, New York State Archives, Albany, NY; Joseph L. Blau, “Religion and Politics in Knickerbocker Times,” in The Knickerbocker Tradition: Washington Irving’s New York Ed. Andrew B. Myers

12

argue that the Dutch valued education more than the British. Dutch ideology focused around

an educated merchant class that traded effectively due to superior intellect and skills. New

York aristocrats adhered to this traditional model by sending their children to these religious

schools. The education system helped insulate Dutch culture from the intrusion of British

traditions. After 1664, schools remained under the control of the Dutch Reformed Church,

maintaining the strong emphasis on education. Females, for example, also remained in

school despite the English educational philosophy which barred most women from receiving

any educational training.27 Cultural assimilation in New York, however, first revealed itself

in the education amongst the upper classes. Children of the wealthy were likely to be more

receptive to British traditions because they came into contact with these customs more often

than the everyday tenant farmers’ children. Gradually, students learned English in addition

to Dutch, which was also reflected in a similar shift to dual language usage in nearly all

Church documents. This shift illustrated signs of cultural assimilation; however, Church

leaders made sure never to relinquish Dutch traditions completely. The gradual weaning of

the Church’s and school’s safeguard on Dutch culture coupled with the transformation and

Anglicization of the family unit show why it took so long for visible signs of cultural

assimilation to emerge.28

Dutch cultural traditions lasted long after 1664. Cultural diffusion incorporated Dutch

customs into English society. The Dutch contributed words like “cookie,” “bumpkin,” and

“youngster” to the English language. Wainscoting and Dutch ovens emerged as standard

findings in American households, while waffles, muffins, and cruellers were suddenly found

in English kitchens. New York served as the vessel that gradually carried traditions into

what became American culture following the Revolution. President Martin Van Buren, a

New Yorker of Dutch descent, was bilingual, speaking both Dutch and English.

Bilingualism proved beneficial especially during the 18th Century in order to trade more 27 Maud Wilder Goodwin, Dutch and English on the Hudson: A Chronicle of Colonial New York (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1919) 96; Firth Haring Fabend, “New Light on New Netherland’s Legacy to the Religious Culture of New York and New Jersey,” Halve Maen 73 (Fall 2000) 53.28 Alice P. Kenney, “The Albany Dutch: Loyalists and Patriots,” New York History 42 (Winter 1961) 333-4; Milton Klein, ed., The Empire State: A History of New York (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 2001) 122-3. The resistance put forth by these three institutions slowed down the process of cultural change. Had British institutions been forced upon the Dutch, assimilation would no doubt have occurred at a faster pace and Dutch traditions may have been lost forever. Instead, slow movement towards British culture, allowed for a blending of cultures. Cultural tensions could have created even more animosity against the Dutch, but some non-New Yorkers saw the move toward English culture and they also became increasingly more accepting of this move and New Yorkers as a result.

13

successfully with foreign merchants. It was more practical for New Yorkers to know both

languages because then they had more opportunities and could be more successful in

elevating social status. The endurance of the Dutch language demonstrated the persistence of

Dutch cultural remnants in Anglo-American society. Pure Dutchness and Englishness were

lost, instead the two merged together to form an American cultural identity.29

British officials never instigated battles with the Dutch proprietors in the Albany

region. Britain faced conflict in multiple areas during this period and New York’s self-

sufficiency made the colony easy to neglect. New Yorkers were settled and adjusted to

colonial life; only political allegiances changed. This was not a dramatic shift because

colonists exchanged one imperialist government for another. Dutch New Yorkers did

officially embrace English as one of two primary languages in 1686, and also adopted

English common law in 1691. New Netherlands changed legal status and became politically

fully integrated into the imperial scheme of government. Culturally, though, New York

preserved its heritage. The bonds of Dutch traditions and customs that tied New Yorkers

together were much more difficult to pull apart. Michael Kammen describes New York as

having a homogenous culture in the late 17th and early 18th Centuries despite the colony’s

great diversity in terms of national heritage. This homogeneity became the primary reason,

he argues, for the lack of any cultural change. There was no outside force pushing these

people to be alike because New Yorkers found commonality in being a part of New York

social culture.30

Britain’s continued focus on an economic and political shift in colonial New York

possibly grew out of changed British government in 1688. The Glorious Revolution brought

William and Mary of the United Provinces to the British throne.31 Prior to their ascension to

the crown, Britain faced its own internal political turmoil, forcing attention away Britain’s

colonies in order to deal with its internal problems. Dissent arose against King James II due

29 Hamilton 59; Donald Cole, Martin Van Buren and the American Political System (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984) 10-13; John Niven, Martin Van Buren: The Romantic Age of American Politics (New York: Oxford University Press, 1983) 4-10.30 Kammen 87, 128, 133; Firth Haring Fabend, A Dutch Family in the Middle Colonies, 1660-1800 (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1991) 246-7.31 At the time of William III and Mary II’s succession to the British throne, the Lowland area northeast of France was still divided into a series of provinces that combined to form the United Provinces. In 1815 the Kingdom of the Netherlands was formed to include modern-day Belgium, Luxembourg, and the Netherlands itself. Belgium separated in 1830, gaining its independence, while Luxembourg finally declared its independence in 1890.

14

to his religious policies that were seen to favor Catholics. Protestant nobles and elites

favored removing James from power and replacing him with William of Orange and James’s

own daughter, Mary. Despite the decline in monarchical power and the increase in

Parliament’s role in politics, William and Mary’s Dutch heritage played a role in their

politics. Reverence for William’s lineage prevented them from instituting any harsh

assimilation laws anywhere in the colonies. Instead, the monarchs worked to implement

tolerant policies toward the different groups within the colonies. The 1689 Act of Toleration,

for example, guaranteed religious toleration to Protestant groups. William and Mary’s

successors increasingly lost more power to Parliament, leaving that body with the

responsibility to enforce any assimilation policy.32

New York’s cultural pluralism was sustained due to the region’s demographic

features, but the Duke’s Laws passed in the late 1600s under Governor Richard Nicolls.

These laws required landowners to reassert their claims to their own land to the British

government. British land proprietors wanted to buy or acquire the resource rich land in the

Hudson Valley, as well as to affirm their own position as the latest authorities in New York.

Although some historians argue that the Duke’s Laws were a blatant attempt to bring down

the Dutch wealth, others find that Nicolls tried to balance both Dutch and British interests by

passing these acts. Nicolls approved almost all of the applications for land patents, allowing

the rich Dutch landowners to preserve their own powerful social positions; the laws, though,

established British rule in the colony. Nicolls’s actions exhibited the conciliatory nature of

any assimilation policies. The British did not try to eradicate Dutch culture. Instead,

political tools were used to steadily wear away residual Dutch culture.33

Direct trade with the Netherlands ended within six months after New York’s

surrender to the British. Merchants dealt instead with British middle-men so as not to

interrupt trade dynamics, however. The preeminent reason for the lack of strict British

control was absenteeism. The British policy of salutary neglect and the Duke of York’s

ambivalence toward cultural assimilation allowed for Dutch influence to remain. In 1673,

the Dutch even made an attempt to recapture the colony because of the acknowledged

indolent British ruling style; this failed, however, as Britain quickly reasserted political

32 Goodwin 149.33 Klein 125-6.

15

control.34 Ruling class British elites, though, never made it to New York. Instead, wealthy

Dutch families retained their power due to their economic dominance. Local governments

held little authority, conferring most political clout on the aristocracy who used tenant

agreements and landholding power to control the workings of New York politics.35

New York was the 18th Century frontier with increasingly more settlers coming to live

in the rural counties around Albany. As it became safer to live in the upper reaches of the

colony with the defeat of Native Americans, more people began to migrate into the colony.

Albany was on the edge of wilderness. Iroquois tribes came into contact with colonists in

northern and western New York. Fur traders and agriculturists dominated the Upper Hudson

region and colonial trade depended on the river which flows in two directions up to around

Troy, New York. Albany was a small town with a predominance of farmers, but also a

healthy supply of merchants. Gorham A. Worth, a New York historian, describes Albany in

1800 as being “indeed Dutch, in all its moods and tenses; thoroughly and inveterately

Dutch.” He continues, “the buildings were Dutch- Dutch in style, in position attitude and

aspect” and “the people were Dutch, the horses were Dutch, and even the dogs were

Dutch.”36 After the American Revolution, New Englanders gradually moved westward into

New York. The former great Dutch landowners opposed the encroachment, claiming that the

New Englanders acted brashly and with much animosity towards their traditional culture.37

George Schuyler, Philip’s descendant and writer on the Dutch Manor system, especially

found the British too aggressive. “Regardless of the facts in [a] case, and against the

remonstrances of the legal owners, [the British] seized the lands, replying to all objections

that the land was good, and ought not to lie waste; they would stay and cultivate it,” he

wrote. “When the Dutch attempted to improve their fields, they were beaten, their

implements thrown into the river, their cattle driven to the pound and afterward sold for

costs.”38 The Dutch saw a contradiction in the way New Englanders oppressed and

disregarded them when the Netherlands allowed religious outcasts, like those in New

34 Kammen 75-6. Salutary neglect was the unwritten British policy toward the American colonies where British laws were relaxed. Britain retained economic ties in order to keep their profits in tack.35 Hamilton 60. 36 William Kennedy, O Albany!: Improbable City of Political Wizards, Fearless Ethnics, Spectacular Aristocrats, Splendid Nobodies and Underrated Scoundrels (New York: Penguin, 1983) 79; Fox, 31.37 Fox 51-2.38 George Schuyler, Colonial 1:67; For further discussions of New York animosity towards New Englanders and the British, see Donna Merwick, “Becoming English: Anglo-Dutch Conflict in the 1670s in Albany, New York,” New York History 62 (Winter 1981) 391.

16

England, to find refuge from the threat of Anglicanism. An obvious divide existed where

New York was separate from the other colonies because of its Dutch heritage. Members of

the other colonies discriminated against New Yorkers, even as the British began to confront

them in the frontier land, leaving a paradox for those who still held these beliefs while living

in New York. New York’s full acceptance into the colonies would have to wait until the

American Revolution when the colonies could find common ground in their desire for

independence.39

Citizen Philip Schuyler: The Man, Family Relations, Businessman, Community Leader

Philip Schuyler’s 1733 birth coincided with a period of conflict and chaos in New

York history. England’s wars with Native Americans and the French accompanied the

culture clashes that had occurred since 1664. The people faced divisiveness and needed a

stable identity through which to anchor their own belief systems. Albany was considered an

awful place to live. It was later described as a place where “contagious diseases” reside.

Philip Schuyler’s generation helped move these problems to closure. Conflict continued and

grew to a climactic point in the American Revolution, but it then diminished, bringing about

a new government that united the colonies together with common interests. Cultural

assimilation occurred, fully incorporating the Dutch into a new American society as well as

lessening the ongoing feud between New York and New England. Philip Schuyler facilitated

this process. A historian and descendent of Schuyler wrote of Schuyler as becoming “merely

a careless, good humored young man. Never was any one so little, what he seemed with

regard to ability, activity, and ambition, art, enterprise and perseverance, all of which he

possessed in an eminent degree, though no man had less the appearance of those qualities.”

Becoming Albany’s patriarchal figure, Schuyler led by example. Through his own life story

one can understand the struggles that faced Albany and Upper New York residents in their

enduring pursuit of cultural acceptance.40

The Schuyler family arrived in New York in 1650, and after humble beginnings they

gained enormous wealth from land speculation. Schuyler’s father, John Schuyler Jr., married

Cornelia Van Cortlandt, who belonged to another leading Dutch family in the Albany region.

The two solidified their own wealth and social status while further enmeshing together the

39 George Schuyler, Colonial 1:90.40 Caleb Lowns to Thomas Eddy, April 19, 1796, Philip Schuyler Papers, Reel 18 Box 37, Saratoga National Historical Park, Stillwater, NY; Montgomery Schuyler 35.

17

upper circles of Dutch society. When Philip was only seven-years-old his father died,

leaving Philip’s Aunt Cornelia, and his grandmother to raise him. He received a first-rate

education under French Huguenots in New Rochelle, New York, where he excelled in

mathematics and logic. Schuyler’s education immediately placed him in line to inherit the

family land surveying business. The Schuyler family served as an early connection with

Native American tribes in the north and west and the preexisting ties would make it easy for

Schuyler to succeed. Family also introduced Philip to the Albany and New York City upper

class social scene, where he had the opportunity to meet high-standing aristocrats and show

off his suave intellect and noble nature. Schuyler took advantage of these family connections

and social position, which brought him to become a leading figure in New York’s 18th

Century cultural transformation.41

At a young age, Schuyler began to stand out as a leader on the rise. In the 1750s,

Britain tried to institute more overt assimilationist policies aimed at bringing a faster end to

Dutch traditions; however the people quickly rejected these policies. One of the first

attempts to accomplish this task came with the conflict over the Dutch Reform Church.42

The Anglican Church attempted to assert itself as the authorized religion after years of being

a nonentity. The Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Herring, moved to check the control

Dutch Reformists possessed in education and in manipulating the dialogue surrounding

politics. Philip Schuyler quickly entered into this debate despite his youthfulness.

Advocating for republican-style resistance to Episcopacy, Schuyler framed the disagreement

as a struggle between the rights of the people and the intrusion of British institutions on these

rights. Schuyler’s argument held and New Yorkers strongly supported his resolved stance

against the British. By saving an integral segment of the Dutch character, Schuyler began to

construct a strong constituency which he used to hasten his move to the extreme top of the

Albany social structure.43

Schuyler married Catherine Van Rensselaer on September 17, 1755. Marriage

between two extremely potent families solidified Schuyler’s progression into his role as

Albany’s patriarch. Philip, himself, left the preparations for the eventual Battle of Lake

41 Montgomery Schuyler 5-6, 32-34; Tuckerman 32-35.42 Dutch Reformists practiced a type of Presbyterianism. The Anglican Church also referred to as the Episcopal Church moved during the 1750s to push out the Dutch Reform Church. This caused the above described conflict between Schuyler, New Yorkers, and the British colonizers. 43 Tuckerman 37-40.

18

George to marry Catherine. People came from all over the Upper Hudson countryside to

witness the wedding since it included two such high-standing families.44 In addition,

Catherine’s family was arguably the wealthiest in New York and unquestionably the most

affluent one in the Albany region. The Van Rensselaers owned much of the Albany region

centered around their manor home in Claverack. Schuyler’s family held the rights to an

enormous land tract in Saratoga. The marriage consolidated their families’ wealth, placing

Philip automatically into one of the top leadership positions in the area since he was the male

head of household. The marriage also signaled the fusion of two Dutch families. Members

of aristocratic families often intermarried at this time to carry out what Schuyler achieved in

consolidating wealth, however, in New York family pride also demanded that the elites retain

their cultural heritage. The survival of Dutch culture relied on aristocratic families, like the

Schuylers, to interfuse fragments of Dutch customs with English ones.45

The eventful year of 1755 also included a military stint for Philip Schuyler, in which

he served as Captain of a British company during the French and Indian War. Schuyler

displayed great tactical and strategic skills and he quickly advanced in rank. Colonel John

Bradstreet noticed young talent. Anne MacVicar Grant describes the apprenticeship that

followed this meeting. Schuyler’s “perfect command of temper, acuteness, and dispatch in

business, and in the hour of social enjoyment, easily relapsing into all that careless, frank

hilarity and indolent good humour…made him a great acquisition to any person under whom

he might happen to be employed.”46 Bradstreet recognized Schuyler’s potential as a leader

and he helped refine Schuyler’s great ambition. Schuyler regarded Bradstreet as the ideal

role model, an aristocratic, well-received military man whose high popularity among New

Yorkers brought him much political clout. Schuyler yearned to be like Bradstreet.

Following the war the two became each others’ confidantes. Schuyler gained valuable

experience and he carried out the disciplined lifestyle of traditional elites from that point

onward in his life.47

44 Humphreys 22, 27. Inheritance documents also indicated the size of the Schuyler land patent at Saratoga being over 160,000 acres. Philip Schuyler Papers, Reel 10 Box 21, SNHP.45 Susan May, “Catherine Schuyler: The Study of an Individual for the Understanding of an Era,” Schuyler Mansion Publication Historic Site Manager II (April 1983) 4-5; Van Rensselaer 18; Humphreys 47.46 Anne MacVicar Grant, Memoirs of an American Lady: With Sketches of Manners and Scenery in America (London: Longman, Hurst, Rees, Orme, 1808) 179; Cunningham 2.47 John Bradstreet to Philip Schuyler, July 7, 1760, Philip Schuyler Papers, Reel 5 Box 9. SNHP.

19

The relationship with Bradstreet proved to be a turning point in Schuyler’s life.

Bradstreet began construction on “The Pastures,” the Schuyler family home in Albany while

Philip Schuyler traveled to Britain to settle accounts. While there, Schuyler purchased many

of the furnishings for the house, including fixtures from China, the Netherlands, France, and

the British Isles. The eclectic mix of eastern and western items became emblematic of the

shift in Schuyler’s own life. His trip opened Schuyler up to the world; he began also to

diversify his own tastes and ideas. While in Britain, Schuyler fabricated his idea for an

extensive canal system throughout New York that would link Manhattan traders to the Upper

Hudson and Great Lakes. He toured London’s canals and believed that they would

revolutionize New York in such a way to produce enormous financial benefits, making New

York the top economic hub in America. Schuyler’s affection for the canal system illustrated

his acceptance for other cultures and his embrace of their customs in his everyday life. The

trip presented Schuyler with the opportunity to discover innovative economic practices which

he used to press his own interests back in New York.48

Schuyler was also open to educating his children in the English style, departing from

the traditional Dutch education in the Church. Catherine Schuyler gave birth to fifteen

children, although only eight survived past their christening. Schuyler perceived his

children’s education as reflecting his personal social status. In order for him to gain elevated

levels of respect, his children needed the best education.49 Private tutors were hired and

Schuyler’s eldest girls attended school in New York City under the oversight of Robert

Livingston. Schuyler checked in often with Livingston. “[They] improve in their education

in a manner almost beyond belief,” Livingston wrote. He continued, “They pray their duty,

to you and mama, love to their sister long to see you all, but rather here than Albany.”50

Being educated in New York City, the Schuyler daughters were exposed to the confluence of

48 Gerlach, Philip Schuyler 3; Tuckerman 66-67; Cunningham 6 for “Invoice of sundries Sent to America.” Schuyler had Chinese motifs throughout his home in Albany. For instance, he had chairs and tables from their. The Schuyler’s also possessed many Dutch and French vases to hold herbs that Schuyler used to treat his gout. His prize piece was a mahogany grandfather clock carved by Anthony Ward, a well-known New York City clockmaker. He also had several pieces made with New England furniture textiles indicating the lack of animosity toward New Englanders despite their own distaste for Dutchmen. For further descriptions of the Schuyler Mansion see: Georgina Schuyler, The Schuyler Mansion at Albany: Residence of Major-General Philip Schuyler 1762-1804, by The Spirit of ’76. (New York: De Vine Press, 1911).49 Linda DePauw and Conover Hunt, Remember the Ladies: Women in America, 1750-1815 (New York: Viking Press, 1976) 9.50 Robert Livingston to Philip Schuyler, March 4, 1765 in Susan May, “Catherine Schuyler: The Study of an Individual for the Understanding of an Era” 9-10.

20

English and Dutch cultures. Philip Schuyler’s many visits to Manhattan to see his girls

presented him with the opportunity to make business connections with British merchants.

Schuyler’s continuous encounters with English culture began to construct his sympathetic

view and acceptance of English culture. Schuyler survived financially with the support

of his many businesses. He established mills on the Hudson River at his country estate in

Saratoga, NY where he employed some one hundred people. Land surveying, however, was

Schuyler’s primary business. He inherited the Saratoga patent from his family. Being the

eldest male, he also inherited the land, although he decided to split up the property,

conferring parts to his brothers and sisters. Property did not signify status in Dutch New

York and many readily subdivided or sold their land. Donna Merwick argues that instead of

focusing on property, Dutch life centered on the town; notions of a landed aristocracy arrived

along with the British. The Dutch system of land tenure differed greatly from British

primogeniture. Under the British system, the eldest male always inherited the land and it

strictly followed this line. Schuyler exemplified the Dutch model, though. Land tenure

tended to follow the eldest male, although the male oftentimes would divide the land up.

Schuyler also gained land that Catherine inherited from her family. The inclusion of women

in land inheritance customs differentiated the Dutch from the British. The flexibility of the

Dutch system proved detrimental to the survival of Dutch traditions. Without a strict system,

it became easy for British primogeniture to dominate.51

The land Schuyler gained from inheritance became the foundation for his land

surveying and milling businesses. Schuyler leased his land out to many tenant farmers in

order to make more capital. Tenants like William Hagerty and Andrew Brown paid rent in

pounds sterling biweekly, but also in timber and grain as well. Tenants also frequented

Schuyler’s General Store.52 Schuyler utilized ideas that he gained when he went to Britain in

the 1760s in managing his successful land business. Flax and hemp became crucial

commodities that Schuyler first introduced into American agriculture. This decision profited

Schuyler greatly. Tenants realized Schuyler’s dedication to his profession and to them. As

was evident at his wedding and funeral, the outpouring of support in either instance

illustrated his beloved status amongst New Yorkers, especially amongst those who worked 51 Donna Merwick, “Dutch Townsmen and Land Use: A Spatial Perspective on Seventeenth-Century Albany,” William and Mary Quarterly 37 (Spring 1980) 54, 67; Montgomery Schuyler 36. 52 Lease to Tenant Farmer William Hagerty and Andrew Brown, September 15, 1779, Philip Schuyler Papers, Box 21, Reel 10, SNHP; Gerlach, After 12-13.

21

for him. Some argue New Yorkers defended Schuyler due to paternalism, that they felt

compelled to support him because of his social position. Schuyler was different, though.

Tenants felt a personal bond to Schuyler, communicating their personal wants through

correspondence; he often fulfilled their wishes. Schuyler’s tenants performed extremely well

for him. Product shipped down the Hudson River to New York City proved profitable,

physically linking the Upper Hudson to the City and abroad. 53 This trade initiated the

transition to a unified New York and encouraged westward expansion at the same time.

People identified Schuyler as the regional leader in economic endeavors. Cotton Mather

wrote to his wife that Schuyler “has sought to manufacture and to teach ye manufacture of

those things which ye colonies most need.” He explained that Schuyler “has erected saw-

mills and smithies and building wherein wool and flax may be spun and wove in large

quantities, and near by are great fields where men and women were cultivating flax.”54

Although Schuyler worked cooperatively with tenant farmers, he also owned slaves.

Accounts show that he owned nine slaves in 1776, thirteen in 1790, and eleven at the time of

his death. Around thirty percent of Dutch households used African slaves, typically as

domestic servants. Schuyler possessed an above average number of slaves for a New Yorker,

and this indicated his social class. Since Schuyler often left the home for business dealings,

his slaves took care of the household as well as helping to tend his set of small fields. Slaves

acted as enablers for Schuyler to function in his public role and became a feature of his social

status. Schuyler emancipated his slaves upon his death, conforming to Dutch tradition in the

American colonies. But he also used slaves to help construct his patriarchal image and

helped his businesses succeed as he dominated them. Still, recognizing the importance of his

slaves in his public image, Schuyler placed an advertisement in the Albany Gazette seeking a

runaway slave. Schuyler exemplified the form of an aristocrat by owning slaves. The

representation that he created by fitting into this form facilitated his move toward the apex of

New York social culture.55

53 Philip Schuyler to Catherine Schuyler, 1790, Philip Schuyler Papers, Box 56, SNHP; John Cochran to Philip Schuyler, December 16, 1765, Philip Schuyler Papers, Reel 11 Box 23, SNHP; Tuckerman 67-71; Gerlach, Philip Schuyler 4, 39-40.54 Cotton Mather to Temperance Smith in Tuckerman 72.55 Gerlach, Philip Schuyler 40; Joanne Pope Melish, Disowning Slavery: Gradual Emancipation and “Race” in New England, 1780-1860 (Ithaca: Cornell University Press, 1998) 18; Nell Irvin Painter, Sojourner Truth: A Life, A Symbol (New York: W.W. Norton Co., 1996) 6-8, 15-17; See also, Shane White, Somewhat More Independent in New York City, 1770-1810 (Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1991) 79-80. White depicts New York slaves as having more autonomy as southern slaves, but this did not indicate milder treatment. Slaves

22

Schuyler’s vision sustained him in all his business ventures. Foresight and ambition

permitted Schuyler to see raw materials and geography while exploiting resources for the

benefit of himself and his tenants. Land disputes often arose during the period leading up to

and immediately following the Revolutionary War. Many of the elite families owned large

tracts of land which sometimes overlapped due to a lack of accurate cartographers and

knowledge of the area itself. Schuyler helped settle conflict between the Livingston and Van

Cortlandt families, turning into a trusted figure. He also worked extensively with Native

American groups in Western New York, like the Iroquois, reaching high rank within their

society. One Iroquois family even adopted the Schuyler surname into their own lineage.

Philip Schuyler was the unifying feature in the region. Through his innumerable land deals

and settlements, he was able to fashion his own image as a patriarchal figure. The Dutch

“measured well-being by the number of capital ventures [one] could maintain.” Everyone

looked to Schuyler as a role model for success, but his caring and compassionate character

made him the man who helped to fully incorporate New York into the rest of the British

colonies.56

The Hampshire Grants: New York and New England Collide

Besides the fight for commercial control, the New York-New England conflict prior

to the Revolutionary War existed in a territorial dispute over the Hampshire grants. Both the

New York and New Hampshire colonial assemblies claimed Vermont. Politically, both

claims seemed justified. The problem was that both assemblies promised land to its citizens,

meaning dual claims were placed on the same land. New Hampshire Governor Benning

Wentworth asked the king to settle the boundary conflict. King George III did so, favoring

New York since it had remained the most loyal to England as the New England colonies

looked for more autonomy. As leader of the New York Commission of Boundaries in the

1760s, Philip Schuyler came to the forefront at this time, declaring Vermont to be part of

New York. Embittered inter-colonial prejudices raged with this decision. New Hampshire

anywhere faced deplorable conditions.56 Merwick, “Dutch” 70; Francis R. Taormina, Philip Schuyler: Who He Was, What He Did (Schenectady, NY: Union College, 1992) 8.

23

settlers were told to vacate the lands as New Yorkers moved in. New York had won; New

Hampshire and the rest of New England were outraged.57

Schuyler took most of the responsibility for the final decision; however, he really

could not be completely at fault. The New York statehouse was really to blame; Schuyler,

though, was the individual face to associate with this debacle. Since he was the leader of the

Commission of Boundaries and a Dutch aristocrat, the preexisting prejudice took effect. An

armed revolt in favor of New England’s rights followed the Hampshire Grants decision. The

failure of the revolt reaffirmed the decision and established a sense of New York’s

superiority to New England. New York’s close association with England hurt the colony a

decade later as the country prepared for war. New York became known as a loyalist haven; a

notion it would have to later refute. Schuyler’s name, similar to King George’s, became

associated with injustice and tyranny. This affected his leadership role in the military when

the Revolution broke out. Ironically, New York won this conflict, but the cost was

enormous. New York placed itself into a separate category of colony. It did not exist

alongside the others equally. The differentiation caused the other colonies to hold New York

and its residents with angst. New York and New England could not resolve their differences

with the king’s favor residing with one side. It would take a break in this relationship for

both sides to understand their position within a political game, and for New York, in

particular, to feel a part of the larger colonial, then American, culture.58

Besides serving as Commission of Boundaries, Schuyler’s earliest political

experience included being a member of the provincial assembly in 1768. Freeholders in

Albany selected him for that position within the political body, illustrating his popularity.59

Schuyler had also been a powerful voice, critical of Britain’s Stamp and Tea Acts, although

he abstained from a New York Assembly vote evaluating the colony’s political situation.

Schuyler did not desire major social or political upheaval. He insisted, in a letter to the

Governor of Canada, General Frederick Haldimand, that the colonies and Great Britain were

strongly interconnected in terms of economy and of politics. By adhering to an ambivalent

position, the social hierarchy would have to stay in place, preserving his public position as

57 Tuckerman 73-4; Montgomery Schuyler 41.58 Tuckerman 74-5.59 Tuckerman 75-6.

24

community patriarch, as well as sustaining the crucial political and economic relationships

that brought him to the top.60

Upon the meeting of the Continental Congress and their decision to wage war with

Britain, Schuyler utilized his political clout to encourage Albany residents to assist the patriot

cause. Gerlach comments, Schuyler “used personal influence to urge Albanians to send

provisions to meet New York quotas, and in May he offered to borrow money on his own

credit so boats for the army might be built at Albany.” By putting his own credibility and

interests at risk, Schuyler compelled his fellow New Yorkers to support the common cause.

Schuyler’s charismatic ability to encourage New York residents to join the patriot cause

helped repel British forces later, as they attempted to take New York and divide the rest of

the colonies into two sections. This very well could have salvaged any hope for victory

amongst colonial supporters.61

General Schuyler: Military Leader, Despised Dutchman

Beginning with the French and Indian War, Philip Schuyler gained invaluable

experience as a deputy-commissary in the British Provincial Army during the conflict. He

built strong relationships with the British high command, like General John Bradstreet, who

facilitated Schuyler’s emergence as a qualified military strategist and logician. Bradstreet

died in 1774, leaving Schuyler to fill his place. Experience during this conflict provided

Schuyler with an education in leadership and discipline under British generals which he later

translated into his own management style when becoming a major general during the

Revolutionary War. Schuyler’s clear aptitude for leadership made it easy for the colonial

leadership to select him as one of its top generals with the onset of conflict with Great

Britain. Colonial strategists recognized New York as a key site with its influential economic

and geographic position. New York was integral in supplying colonial lines as well as

providing geographic unity to the colonies by serving as its geographic center. Since high

numbers of loyalists lived in New York, many saw the need for someone to keep New York

focused on the colonial cause. Few possessed the knowledge of the land, especially in New

York, and the high family standing required to be a major-general. Schuyler’s personality

and military mind addressed all of the potential issues that could have occurred in New York,

making him a perfect selection. Unforeseen problems of prejudice against Schuyler’s Dutch 60 Gerlach, Philip Schuyler 12, 27-29.61 Gerlach, Philip Schuyler 27.

25

heritage developed, though, leading to inner-colony conflict that seriously jeopardized the

Colonial effort.62

Many high-ranking, wealthy New Yorkers—particularly from the New York City

region—remained loyal to the Crown. Economically, they represented the merchant class

and profited from the expansive trading routes established by the British government. They

believed that a rebellion could upset their socio-economic position, so in remaining loyal

they chose to maintain the status quo. New York had always been considered militarily

unreliable up until the Revolution.63 Philip Schuyler’s support for the colonial cause was rare

for men of such high-standing. In commenting on Schuyler’s position, Gerlach writes,

“Schuyler believed that if Congress and the colonies resorted to arms, it should be only to

defend well-established rights.”64 Schuyler risked a lot in supporting the colonial cause, but

in retrospect it showed how Schuyler must have felt the Revolution was justified. As a large

landholder he would have lost all of his wealth and credibility had the British defeated the

colonists. It was Schuyler’s sense of civility and rights that led him to the patriot side. In a

letter Schuyler wrote, “My heart bleeds as I view the horrors of civil war, but we have only

left us the choice between such evils and slavery.” He continued, “For my own part, much as

I love peace- much as I love my own domestic happiness and repose, and desire to my

countrymen enjoying the blessings flowing from undisturbed industry, I would rather see all

these scattered to the winds for a time, and the sword of desolation go over the land, than to

recede one line from the just and righteous position we have taken as free-born subjects of

Great Britain.”65 Schuyler risked his position as a patriarch; however, he did so in order to

fight for the rights of New Yorkers. He believed he acted rightly in fighting what he

considered the tyrannous British government.

Questions arose, though, over Schuyler’s patriotism. Schuyler, overseeing the

Northern Department,66 commanded both New York and New England forces. New England

prejudice erupted with the selection of Schuyler to such a high administrative position.

62 Bayard Tuckerman, The Life and Times of Philip Schuyler 1733-1804 (New York: Dodd, Mead, and Co., 1903) 88-90; Gerlach Philip Schuyler 14.63 Klein 131.64 Gerlach, Philip Schuyler 14.65 Philip Schuyler to John Cruger 1776, in Bayard Tuckerman, The Life and Times of Philip Schuyler 1733-1804 (NY: Dodd, Mead, and Co., 1903) 84-85.66 The Northern Department in the Revolutionary War referred to New York, Vermont, and some parts of New Hampshire. This position was extremely important considering the worth of this region situated in middle of the colonies. Schuyler was considered one of George Washington’s closest and highly-regarded advisers.

26

Conflict had long been part of the relationship between New Yorkers and New Englanders.

Dutch traditions clashed with English ones. The divide between the English and the Dutch

reverts back to the British conquest of New Netherland, but the absence of assimilation, as

historian Sung Bok Kim denotes in his work, left a divide. Deep animosity created tension.

For example, a 1762 last will and testament of Lewis Morris from New York cited a

mother’s wish for her son not to go to Connecticut because of its “dishonesty.” Enmity

played out on both sides, though, as members of the Connecticut officer corps objected to

sending Connecticut flour to New York soldiers. It was culturally a part of both New York

and New England social culture to distrust the other side.67

Schuyler’s Dutch heritage and wealth differentiated him from the men that he

supervised. New Englanders resented Schuyler’s style as a harsh disciplinarian. Tuckerman

describes Schuyler’s New England forces as being “composed of men accustomed to

complete equality and individual liberty. Living isolated on their farms, with little distinction

of wealth and none of social position, they had never known control or the habit of

disobedience.”68 Schuyler micromanaged every aspect of his forces’ daily lives. He limited

the number of possible carriages, and stipulated that camp kettles could not be placed on

carriages. Schuyler’s harsh attitude disenchanted many of his soldiers. Many despised him,

yet Schuyler’s superiors— particularly General George Washington—found Schuyler

organized and effective. As long as Schuyler enjoyed the support of people like Washington,

he remained in his key strategic position.69 Schuyler’s strict administration to his forces

mimicked his tough business style. Success, for him, required respect, organization, and

attention to details. Unfortunately for Schuyler, these traits led many to loathe his military

leadership style.

Schuyler demanded respect while emphasizing his rank and social position,

generating more hostility towards him. Schuyler introduced efforts to organize the fort at

Ticonderoga, regulated supplies and sanitary measures, and instituted a requirement for most

67Kim 8-10; Montgomery Schuyler 44-5; Bayard Tuckerman 103-4 for further discussion of the tension between Connecticut soldiers and General Schuyler.68 Mary Gay Humphreys, Women of Colonial and Revolutionary Times: Catherine Schuyler (New York: Scribner’s, 1897) 88. She continues on to discuss how the ill-feeling between New York and New England troops derived from the differing degrees of freedom and equality expressed in British and Dutch Provinces. Also, see Tuckerman 105.69 Philip Schuyler to Anthony Wayne, December 28, 1776, Wayne Papers Vol. II, 42 (Gratz Collection) Historical Society of Pennsylvania.

27

soldiers to perform other labor activities. The aversion to discipline and authority coupled

with Schuyler’s insistence on order exacerbated the problem. The questioning of authority

placed Schuyler in a unique position. He was familiar with being the patriarchal figure in

New York whose word was valued and respected, while in this case many of his troops

frustrated him.70

The New England skepticism of Schuyler was met with defense from others. Cotton

Mather Smith wrote to his wife that Schuyler could be haughty and overbearing, but

essentially he was a patriot. George Washington found the tension to be resultant from

loyalist attempts to cause dissension to fragment and incapacitate the colonial forces.

Washington, like Schuyler, kept the focus on the enemy, instead of the inner division.

Schuyler never internalized the criticism and found his actions to be serving the betterment of

the military as well as the citizens that viewed him as a role model.71 No correspondence can

be found from New Englanders citing Schuyler as giving certain soldiers special treatment.

Instead, it seems that his harsh discipline style applied to New Yorkers as well. In Schuyler’s

correspondence to Colonel Anthony Wayne, Schuyler’s military subordinate, the general

looked to censure Lieutenant Colonel Thomas Craig for acting inappropriately by

approaching an enemy encampment inciting a dangerous riot that “reflects so much disgrace

upon us military men.”72 Craig was from Pennsylvania, demonstrating how Schuyler was a

tough disciplinarian for all. New Englanders considered him particularly harsh on them

considering the long-term animosity with New York.

The existing prejudice against Schuyler made it easy to ignite controversy around him

amidst an atrocious and unexplainable loss at Fort Ticonderoga. Schuyler claimed his gout

flared up during the battle and he was relegated further behind the lines. Bancroft criticized

Schuyler for allowing one-half of the militia to go home and rest. Schuyler suggested that

troops from Southern NY be used in the North to satisfy the need and fight against

sectionalism. Schuyler’s critics responded that he thought these troops were more valuable

and he was looking for a way to get rid of the New Englanders.73 General Schuyler, though,

70 Tuckerman 123.71 Tuckerman 108, 133.72 Philip Schuyler to Anthony Wayne, January 23, 1777, Wayne Papers Vol. II, 72 (Gratz Collection) HSP; Anthony Wayne to Philip Schuyler January 3, 1777, Wayne Papers Vol. II, 73 (Gratz Collection) HSP.73 George L. Schuyler, Correspondence and Remarks Upon Bancroft’s History of the Northern Campaign of 1777, and the Character of Major-General Schuyler (New York: David G. Francis, 1867) 38.

28

in another letter to Wayne, cited his relieving troops in order to send home those enlisted

men whose terms had expired. Schuyler’s compassion comprised his decision, not prejudice.

While General Schuyler faced much criticism stemming from his own heritage, he did not

deserve it. Schuyler moved toward becoming accepting of all his forces and he always

evaluated how he could utilize his position to further the rebel cause. It was the New

Englanders who could never accept Schuyler. Their prejudice highlighted the division in

cultures in New York and New England. By adopting the ideals of the revolution, Schuyler

provided New Englanders with an example of how to move past former cultural prejudices

and unite against a common enemy.74

Following Ticonderoga, General Schuyler was ousted as commander of the Northern

Department. Schuyler commented upon his removal, “How much it is to be lamented that

rulers charged with the affairs of an empire, will sacrifice the best interests of their

constituents to little, narrow-minded prejudices, and local politics, favorable only to their

unworthy sycophants!”75 Schuyler’s removal from power disgraced his personal record,

giving New Englanders everything they wanted. With Schuyler gone, the Northern

Department enlistment numbers swelled by over four thousand men, allowing for the

remarkable military victory at Saratoga. Horatio Gates, Schuyler’s successor, took credit for

the inspiring victory for the colonies several months later at Saratoga, despite Schuyler’s

crucial knowledge of the local geography and his continued influence in formulating

strategy. The majority of the fighting at the Battle of Saratoga was fought on the land of

Philip Schuyler’s tenants.76 The shame brought to Schuyler as a result of his removal likely

contributed in part to his being left out of the history books. This event tarnished his career,

something that he fought to regain in a voluntary court martial that exonerated him. But the

damage was done, Schuyler’s fame was sealed in the Upstate New York Hudson corridor and

national glory evaded him.77

74 Philip Schuyler to Anthony Wayne, December 10, 1776, Wayne Papers Vol. II, 22 (Gratz Collection) HSP.75 Gerlach, Philip Schuyler 155; Gerlach, “Philip Schuyler and the New York Frontier in 1781,” The New York Historical Society Quarterly 53.2 (April 1969) 149; Samuel L. Knapp, The Life of Thomas Eddy Comprising as Extensive Correspondence with Many of the Most Distinguished Philosophers and Philanthropists of this and Other Countries (New York: Conner and Coke, 1834) 372-3.76 Philip Schuyler’s Lease of Farm #3, Great Lott 16 of the Saratoga Patent to John Freeman, 1769, Philip Schuyler Papers, Reel 10 Box 43, SNHP.77 Anna K. Cunningham, Schuyler Mansion: A Critical Catalogue of the Furnishings and Decorations (Albany, NY: NYS Education Department Division of Archives and History, 1955) 4-5.

29

Further humiliating to Schuyler following the Battles at Saratoga was his decision

to allow the defeated British commander, General Burgoyne, to stay in luxury at his Albany

mansion following the battle. Burgoyne’s burned Schuyler’s country estate in Saratoga

shortly before the end of the fighting, adding to the unusual nature of Schuyler’s invitation.

As Burgoyne was about to depart the Schuylers’ home, he “mentioned to Mrs. S. with Tears

in his Eyes, his Situation- That he had received so much Civility” from the Schuyler family.78

Schuyler fulfilled his role as a member of the gentrified aristocracy in not disgracing the

defeated enemy, but in doing so he allowed for more challenges to his patriotism. Although

his actions followed the conventions of how a traditional English gentleman would act, his

chivalry showed his ignorance of public perceptions of himself. Schuyler demonstrated how

he had become amalgamated into English society and he exhibited his move away from strict

adherence to the Old Dutch customs.79

Despite Schuyler’s deference to English social traditions, he still held enormous

sway in military affairs. General George Washington utilized Schuyler’s vast knowledge of

New York geography to develop secure routes for delivering provisions shipped to ports on

the St. Lawrence Seaway. New York was geographically pivotal due to its position between

areas of strong colonial support: New England and Pennsylvania. By holding reliable

provision lines, the colonial forces had a much better opportunity to prolong possible defeat.

Schuyler’s close relationship also helped him gain further credibility amongst New Yorkers

even after being removed from military command; Schuyler even named Washington

godfather to his daughter Katharine. Affiliation with Washington also exemplified the

formation of a unified aristocrat class. Societal differences encompassed race, gender, age,

and ethnicity for most. However, British elites accepted Dutch aristocrats into their circle

atop the newly formed national social structure.80

Post-Revolutionary New York: Schuyler’s Political Involvement

Post-Revolution New York saw the destruction of former cultural values. New York

social culture changed greatly. The manorial system began to disintegrate and era of massive

patroonships gradually withered away as heirs divided up land according to British (now

78 Richard Varick to Philip Schuyler, November 21, 1777, unpublished letter 2342. SNHP.79 Howard C. Rice, Jr, trans., Travels in North America in the Years 1780, 1781, 1782 by the Marquis de Chastellux (Chapel Hill: North Carolina University Press, 1963) 1:220-1.80 Tuckerman 244.

30

American) standards.81 Previously highly regarded occupations such as land surveyors were

moved to newly emerging cities in the Upper Hudson. Cities on the river like Albany,

Schenectady and Troy grew quickly as more people flooded into the area. Following the

war, New York’s population swelled from 340,120 people in 1790 to 1,372,812 in 1820. This

shifted New York from fifth to first in terms of state population.82 Most of the expansion

took place in the northern, central, and western districts, due to the existing arable land and

the decline in the Iroquois nation’s population and power. The upper Hudson area, in

particular, changed from wilderness to an economic powerhouse. Newly built canals made it

more cost-effective to farm the Upstate region and use New York City’s ports as well as ones

along the Erie Canal corridor. The frontier line shifted, allowing New York to become the

financial and commercial center for the nation, bringing along with it much political clout.83

As the frontier line moved further west, white settlers increasingly came into contact

with the Iroquois tribes. Many of the Six Nations abandoned land in western New York

since they supported the British during the Revolution. The Seneca, Cayuga, Onondaga, and

Mohawks who all fought alongside British forces moved to Canada and the Ohio River

Valley. Moving these tribes out of New York opened the area up for white settlement and

the dissolution of the local Native American culture. Americans feared that British and

Native forces would band together and continuously attack settlement along the frontier.

Philip Schuyler thought up a solution to lure displaced Iroquois tribes back to New York

where Anglo-American culture had moved in. Schuyler calculated that Indian numbers

would “dwindle comparatively to nothing, as all Savages have done who…live in the vicinity

of civilized people, and thus leave us the country without the expense of a purchase, trifling

as that will probably be.” Acculturation would replace Iroquoian culture with white, Anglo-

American culture. Otherwise, Schuyler argued that Indians, “if driven to reside in the British

Territory, they will add strength to those people… and in case of a future rupture, expose the

western country to the most dreadful extremities.”84 Dislocated Iroquois tribes indeed

81 Stephen Van Rensselaer, Philip Schuyler’s son-in-law, is commonly listed as the final patroon. Van Rensselaer lived from 1764-1839.82 Alan Taylor, William Cooper’s Town: Power and Persuasion on the Frontier of the Early American Republic (New York: Vintage, 1995) 4; Alice P. Kenney, “The Transformation of Albany Patricians, 1778-1860,” New York History 68 (Summer 1987) 159.83 Tuckerman 264.84 Alan Taylor, The Divided Ground: Indians, Settlers, and the Northern Borderland of the American Revolution (New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2006) 9-10, 100-1, 134; Philip Schuyler to the President of Congress, July 29, 1783 as quoted in Taylor, Divided 118.

31

returned to New York when the government promised land grants to them. Schuyler’s

vision, though, came true when settler culture enveloped the returning Iroquois, eradicating

Native autonomy and facilitating the breakdown of Iroquoian culture.

Oneida and Tuscarora Indians who supported the Patriot cause also received atrocious

treatment from white elites in Albany. In 1783 and 1784 US Congress and Schuyler both

reiterated to Oneidas and Tuscaroras that their lands would not be touched by settlers.

Schuyler gave a speech that declaring that settlers “[had] no right at all to settle in Oneida

and Tuscarora country without the leave of these two nations, and none will do this.” Federal

assurance of Indian land upset settlers and strengthened their resolve to procure all land from

Indian groups.

The guarantee to the Oneidas and Tuscaroras was short-lived. Philip Schuyler’s

prejudicial view of Native Americans, along with the resentment settlers held, made it easier

to break the promises made to the Oneidas and Tuscaroras. By 1790, the Oneidas discovered

that state surveyors cut out portions of their land, instead leasing it to white settlers. Schuyler

undoubtedly partook in this operation. He valued Oneida land, in particular, as it fell along

on the line of Schuyler’s envisioned western canal. Schuyler took advantage of his high-

standing with the Oneida tribe that he constructed during the Revolutionary period and

beguiled the Indians. Oneidas were also asked to conform to American agrarianism as

whites encroached upon their land. Schuyler pressured young Oneida men to become

farmers. He described their reaction as such: “They answered that it was the work of

women; that man was not made to work in the Earth like a hedge hog, but to go to war &

hunting.” Schuyler concluded that the Oneida’s “contempt for labor” grew out of pride,

which they had to change in order for any chance at cultural survival. Taking both their land

and their culture, Schuyler and the rest of New York’s landed aristocracy facilitated the end

of any hope for less tenuous relations between whites and Native Americans.85

Following the Revolution, Schuyler was an obvious choice to represent New York in

the newly formed government; however, being removed from his position as commander of

the Northern Department embittered him toward any type of public service. In a letter to

New York’s Assembly Schuyler wrote, “As I shall shortly be altogether out of public life…

85 Schuyler speech, January 11, 1784 as quoted in Taylor, Divided 145; Taylor, Divided 186-7, 303-4; Schuyler quoted in Jeremy Belknap, “Notes on a Journey to Oneida,” 1796 in Taylor, Divided 372.

32

that I may be as far out of the noise and hustle of the great world as possible.”86 Schuyler

was a true nationalist, though, whose fervent belief in sustaining national interest focused his

political intentions and he readily accepted the nomination to be New York’s first United

States Senator. Schuyler associated with Federalists in the early government. He and

Alexander Hamilton— Schuyler’s son-in-law—worked intensely together as two of New

York’s top political figures.

Concern for his state and constituency, though, counterbalanced his nationalist spirit.

Believing that “his State’s welfare depended upon a growing strength of the United States,”

nearly all of Schuyler’s political action centered on New York’s vested interests.87 Schuyler

cared about issues facing northern New Yorkers, not only those in New York City. In a letter

to William Cooper, Schuyler spoke at length about the construction of an academy in

Schoharie or Otsego counties, illustrating concern over New York’s future. Two

unsuccessful bids for New York governor devastated Schuyler. Losing to George Clinton in

1777, Schuyler failed to defeat a man of lower economic and social class. The loss meant

that although Schuyler held political sway in the upper Hudson, his network did not extend as

far as he hoped. He later lost to John Jay in 1792. His service as a US Senator, though,

boosted his own confidence. Schuyler also assisted as a member of the New York State

Board of Regents from 1784-1804. There, Schuyler planned and implemented the

construction of Union College in Schenectady. His interest in serving his constituents

endeared him to their favor, decisively solidifying his position as local patriarch. Schuyler

adhered to the Dutch tradition of politics where service took local issues, and applied them to

the larger political world. The needs of the community were important because they

signified considerable issues that all of society faced.88

Schuyler remained a public man through the final years of his life. Aaron Burr

defeated Schuyler in his bid reelection to the US Senate in 1792, returning him back to the

state government. He served there until March 1797. Schuyler was then elected to return to

the United States Senate, serving until January 3, 1798, when he resigned due to failing

86 Philip Schuyler to Assembly, November 4, 1777, Philip Schuyler Papers, Reel 29 Box 33, SNHP. 87 Philip Schuyler to William Duer, July 3, 1777, Bancroft Transcripts: Schuyler Letters 1776-1788, 251-252; Gerlach, Philip Schuyler 310. 88 Philip Schuyler to William Cooper, January 26, 1796, Gratz Collection, Case 1 Box 11, HSP; Merwick, “Dutch” 77; Alice P. Keeney, “Dutch Patricians in Colonial Albany,” New York History 49 (Fall 1968) 260; Taormina 21; Taylor, Divided 150-1.

33

health. In his letter of resignation, Schuyler wrote, “I still had hopes of taking my seat at

their present meeting, but a diminution of my sight which commenc’d last spring, has

gradually increased to such a privation that I cannot read either print or writing my own

excepted, and even that without extreme difficulty.”89 Schuyler remained active after his

departure from the Senate; he constantly wrote Hamilton. But Catherine’s death in March

1803 crippled Schuyler. Depression that had already set in enveloped every aspect of his

life. Letters to Hamilton spoke always of Catherine and her steadfastness and genuine being.

Philip Schuyler wrote about her death, “after giving and receiving, for nearly half a century, a

series of mutual evidences of an affection and of a friendship which increased as we

advanced in life, the shock was great and sensibly felt, to be thus suddenly deprived of a

beloved wife.” Schuyler’s devastation continued with Hamilton’s unexpected death in July

1804. Living in a depressed and anxious state, Philip Schuyler died four months later on

November 18, 1804. Albany’s patriarch was gone, but only after helping to change its

cultural landscape for the generations that would follow.90

Conclusion

Philip Schuyler can be considered one of the Founding Fathers, but why is his name

unfamiliar? Perhaps it is because Schuyler’s contributions were overshadowed by the

prominence and significance of what other leaders of the time accomplished. He did not, for

instance, compose large amounts of well-known historical documents that contributed to the

establishment of government. Joseph Ellis’s book Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary

Generation accounts for the lives of those whom most Americans consider the leading men

in that generation. Ellis includes Schuyler in his text by placing him in his familial role as

Alexander Hamilton’s father-in-law.91 Historiography reduces him to a footnote. Schuyler’s

importance to New York State is lost as historians instead focus more attention on the

formation of the federal institutions.

Schuyler’s life melded two traditions together to become a new, distinct, American

culture; his life served to illustrate the formulation of the diverse, accepting American

culture. One could hold on to pieces of the past, while refashioning it into a new whole with

89 Philip Schuyler Resigning his Seat in the US Senate to the Honorable the President of the Senate and the Honorable the Speaker of the House of the Assembly, January 2, 1798, A.L.S. Ferdinand J. Dreer Autograph Collection 47:1 Volume, Generals of the Revolution I, page 4-6. Historical Society of Pennsylvania.90 Tuckerman 267.91 Joseph Ellis, Founding Brothers: The Revolutionary Generation (New York: Vintage Books, 2002) 40.

34

an entirely new appearance. Schuyler became a beloved individual who was well-respected

within the Anglo-Dutch New York community for valuing tolerance, acceptance and

multiplicity within the ever-diversifying American nation. Likewise, America melded

together the traditions of many cultures.

New York culture did not gain full acceptance until the American Revolution. Before

the war, British ridicule dominated Dutch New York culture. The British taught New

Yorkers about marginalization and exclusion while misunderstanding Dutch culture. The

flexibility of Dutch institutions made the culture more amenable to democracy. Instead of a

hierarchical setup like Anglicanism, the corporate structure of the Dutch Reformed Church

opened leadership positions up to the masses. Dutch land tenure traditions passed property

through the hands of men and women making it more egalitarian. The democratization of

Dutch practices left them indistinct and weak, allowing for a highly structured British system

to easily encroach upon and diminish Dutch culture. Dutch traditions survived in parts as the

entire American culture evolved during the revolutionary period. By fighting a war, the other

colonies realized the significance of New York. Its leadership, economic wealth and cultural

distinctiveness would come to be celebrated. The formation of a new union facilitated the

end of distinct sovereign colonies and the beginning of a group of interdependent states,

charged with the task of cooperating together in order for their government to survive. New

Yorkers finally gained full integration into a new American society.92

Philip Schuyler provided insight into the lifestyle of an upper-class New Yorker

during the American Revolution. Primarily acting as a businessman, Schuyler interacted

with many different groups of people. Like George Washington and other leading

Americans of the time, Schuyler surveyed land. His perceived cooperation with Native

American groups and rural local communities in the Upstate New York area differentiated

him from other Manhattan-based businessmen. The congenial and lasting relationships he

formed amongst these people became the base of his status a patriarchal figure.

Communities looked to Schuyler for information, which he then used to construct a political

and social identity where he dominated.

Schuyler, as one of the primary leaders and a member of the privileged class, exerted

strong influence on the way in which this “new” New York formed. Saratoga, the home to

92 Merwick, “Becoming” 411-2.

35

both his country estate and one of the most important battles in American history, was

transformed into an upper-class retreat. Schuyler’s use of the Hudson River for shipping

goods to New York City, along with his designs for canals to incorporate the St. Lawrence

River and Lake Erie into these lucrative commercial routes, was instrumental in New York’s

growth. Although Schuyler’s canal companies failed, they did signal the move to unite all

parts of the state together. With Schuyler’s ambitions came the influence and power he held,

which he used to fashion his own image. He acted in a way so that he was perceived by all

New Yorkers in a heroic light. These were his people and he strongly desired to be their

well-respected leader and patriarchal figure. Schuyler would later use his personal traits and

aspects of his own life to end the divisive exclusion of New York from the cultural unity that

existed between the other colonies.93

Schuyler truly fit Alexander Coventry’s description of him. “Schuyler was a spare,

thin man, more like a cent per cent man, than a military man,” Coventry wrote. “He was

plainly dressed, and his appearance so much against him, that when I was introduced I

looked around the room to see if there were not some other person. I soon found that

however cool his behavior might appear, he meant to be my friend, and as such, I would

much prefer him to any person I had ever met. His words were few, but in them there

appeared a degree of sense and wisdom which surprised me surpassed anything I had met

with.”94 Despite his meek public appearance, Schuyler’s strong identification with New

York culture made it easier him to dismantle it and then refashion it into a newer, more

widely accepted one. By facilitating the fusion of Dutch and English cultures into one

American culture, he helped integrate the upper reaches of New York into the rest of the

young nation. Instead of remaining outsiders, upriver New Yorkers deserted certain Dutch

traditions and acculturated to English culture. Undoubtedly, some of Schuyler’s efforts were

unconscious, although he fashioned his own self-image in order to generate the aura of a

patriarch. He then utilized this position to achieve his own personal ends. In the process,

Schuyler demonstrated the closeness of culture and politics. Schuyler linked the two together

93 Tuckerman 259-260.94 Alexander Coventry, Unpublished Manuscript Diary, “Memoirs of an Emigrant, the Journal of Alexander Coventry, M.D. In Scotland, the United States of America and Canada during the Period 1783-1831,” NYSL, Albany, NY: Manuscripts and Special Collections, volume 1, 73-76, 82 cited in Laura M. De Normandie, Historic Furnishings Report: Philip Schuyler House (SNHP, 2004) 20.

36

and brought Dutch culture beyond prejudice, demonstrating the possibility for politics to

legislate cultural acceptance.

Bibliography

Archives and Libraries:

Manuscript Collections, Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.

Book and Manuscript Collections, Library Company of Philadelphia, Philadelphia, PA.

New Netherlands Project.

Manuscript and Special Collections, New York State Museum, Albany, NY.

Noreen Reale Falcone Library, Le Moyne College, Syracuse, NY.

Onondaga Library System. Syracuse, NY.

Philip Schuyler Mansion. Albany, NY.

Philip Schuyler Papers collected on microfilm at Saratoga National Historical Park,

Stillwater, NY.

Archives, Saratoga Springs Public Library, Saratoga Springs, NY.

Van Pelt Library, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA.

Primary Sources:

Baxter, Katharine Schuyler. Godchild of Washington. New York: F. Tennyson Neily, 1897.

de Chastellux, Marquis. Travels in North America in the Years 1780, 1781, 1782 by the

Marquis de Chastellux. Trans. Howard C. Rice, Jr. Chapel Hill: University of North

Carolina Press, 1963.

Coventry, M.D., Alexander. Unpublished Manuscript Diary, “Memoirs of an Emigrant, the

Journal of Alexander Coventry, M.D. In Scotland, the United States of America and

37

Canada during the Period 1783-1831,” NYSL, Albany, NY: Manuscripts and Special

Collections, volume 1, 73-76, 82.

Grant, Anne MacVicar. Memoirs of an American Lady: with Sketches of Manners and

Scenery in America, as they existed Previous to the Revolution. London:

Longman, Hurst, Rees and Orme, 1808.

Knapp, Samuel L.. The Life of Thomas Eddy: Comprising as Extensive Correspondence with

many of the most Distinguished Philosophers and Philanthropists of this and Other

Countries. New York: Conner and Coke, 1834.

Secondary Materials:

Bonomi, Patricia. A Factious People: Politics Society in Colonial New York. New York:

Columbia University Press, 1971.

Cole, Donald B.. Martin Van Buren and the American Political System. Princeton: Princeton

Universtiy Press, 1984.

Cunningham, Anna K.. Schuyler Mansion: A Critical Catalogue of the Furnishings &

Decoration. Albany, NY: NYS Education Department Division of Archives and

History, 1955.

DePauw, Linda and Conover Hunt. Remember the Ladies: Women in America, 1750-1815.

New York: Viking Press, 1976.

De Normandie, Laura M.. Historic Furnishings Report: Philip Schuyler House. SNHP, 2004.

Fabend, Firth Haring. A Dutch Family in the Middle Colonies, 1600-1800. New Brunswick,

NJ: Rutgers University Press, 1991.

Fabend, Firth Haring. “‘Nieu Amsterdam’: A Copper Engraving from the Seventeenth

Century.” New York History. 2004 85(3): 233-246.

Fabend, Firth Haring. “New Light on New Netherland’s Legacy to the Religious Culture of

New York and New Jersey.” Halve Maen. 2000 73(3): 51-55.

Fabend, Firth Haring. “The Synod of Dort and the Persistence of Dutchness in Nineteenth-

Century New York and New Jersey.” New York History. 1996 77(3): 273-300.

Fox, Dixon Ryan. The Decline of Aristocracy in the Politics of New York, 1801-1840. New

York: Harper and Row, 1965.

Gallay, Alan. The Formation of a Planter Elite: Jonathan Bryan and the Southern Colonial

38

Frontier. Athens, GA: University of Georgia Press, 1989.

Gerlach, Don R.. “After Saratoga: The General, His Lady, and Gentleman Johnny.” New

York History Magazine. January 1971.

Gerlach, Don R.. Philip Schuyler and the Growth of New York, 1733-1804. Albany, NY:

University of the State of New York, 1968.

Gerlach, Don R.. “Philip Schuyler and the New York Frontier in 1781.” The New York

Historical Society Quarterly. New York: New York Historical Society (April 1969)

53:2.

Goodwin, Maud Wilder. Dutch and English on the Hudson: A Chronicle of Colonial New

York. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1919.

Hamilton, Milton. Henry Hudson and the Dutch in New York. Albany, NY: University of the

State of New York, 1959.

Humphreys, Mary Gay. Women of Colonial and Revolutionary Times: Catherine Schuyler.

New York: Scribner’s, 1897.

Kammen, Michael. Colonial New York: A History. New York: Scribner, 1975.

Kennedy, William. O Albany!: Improbable City of Political Wizards, Fearless Ethnics,

Spectacular Aristocrats, Splendid Nobodies and Underrated Scoundrels. New York:

Penguin, 1983.

Kenney, Alice P.. “The Albany Dutch: Loyalists and Patriots.” New York History. 42 (Winter

1961): 331-350.

Kenney, Alice P.. “Dutch Patricians in Colonial Albany.” New York History. 49 (Fall 1968)

249-283.

Kenney, Alice P.. “Patricians and Plebeians in Colonial Albany: Historical Demography and

the Hudson Valley Dutch.” Halve Maen. 74 (Winter 2001) 75-77.

Kenney, Alice P.. “The Transformation of the Albany Patricians, 1778-1860.” New York

History. 68 (Summer 1987): 151-173.

Kenney, Alice P.. Stubborn for Liberty: The Dutch in New York. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse

University Press, 1975.

Kim, Sung Bok. Landlord and Tenant in Colonial New York: A Manorial Society, 1664-

1775. Chapel Hill, NC: University of North Carolina Press, 1978.

Klein, Milton M.. ed. The Empire State: A History of New York. Ithaca: Cornell University

39

Press, 2001.

Lamb, Wallace. New York State and Its Communities. New York: American Book Co., 1942.

Lossing, Benson. The Life and Times of Philip Schuyler. New York: Da Capo Press, 1973.

May, Susan. “Catherine Schuyler: The Study of an Individual for the Understanding of an

Era.” Schuyler Mansion Publication (Historic Site Manager II). April 1983.

McCurry, Stephanie. Masters of Small Worlds: Yeoman Households, Gender Relations, and

the Political Culture of the Antebellum South Carolina Low Country. New York:

Oxford University Press, 1995.

Merwick, Donna. “Becoming English: Anglo-Dutch Conflict in the 1670s in Albany, New

York.” New York History. 62 (Winter 1981): 389-414.

Merwick, Donna. “Dutch Townsmen and Land Use: A Spatial Perspective on Seventeenth-

Century Albany, New York.” William and Mary Quarterly. 37 (Spring 1980) 53-78.

Merwick, Donna. Possessing Albany, 1630-1710: The Dutch and English Experiences. New

York: Cambridge University Press, 1990.

Myers, Andrew B.. Ed. The Knickerbocker Tradition: Washington Irving’s New York.

Tarrytown, NY: Sleepy Hollow Restorations, 1974.

Niven, John. Martin Van Buren: The Romantic Age of American Politics. New York: Oxford

University Press, 1983.

Rink, Oliver A.. Holland on the Hudson: An Economic and Social History of Dutch New

York. Ithaca, NY: Cornell University Press, 1986.

Schuyler, George L.. Colonial New York: Philip Schuyler and his Family. 2 vols. New York:

Scribner’s, 1885.

Schuyler, George L.. Correspondence and Remarks Upon Bancroft’s history of the Northern

Campaign of 1777, and the Character of Major-General Schuyler. New York: David

G. Francis, 1867.

Schuyler, Georgina. The Schuyler Mansion at Albany: Residence of Major-General Philip

Schuyler, 1762-1804, by the Spirit of ’76. New York: De Vine Press, 1911.

Schuyler, Montgomery. “The Schuyler Family” An Address Read Before the New York

Branch of the Orders of Colonial Lords of Manors in America. Baltimore, 1925.

Sharp, James Rogers. American Politics in the Early Republic: The New Nation in Crisis.

New Haven: Yale University Press, 1993.

40

Strach, Stephen G.. “An Episode in the History of the Schuyler Mansion, Albany, NY: The

Visit of Lieutenant-General John Burgoyne, October 18-27, 1777.” Schuyler

Mansion. October 1980.

Taormina, Francis R.. Philip Schuyler: Who He Was, What He Did. Schenectady, NY: Union

College, 1992.

Taylor, Alan. The Divided Ground: Indians, Settlers, and the Northern Borderland of the

American Revolution. New York: Alfred A. Knopf, 2006.

Taylor, Alan. Liberty Men and Great Proprietors: The Revolutionary Settlement on the

Maine Frontier, 1760-1820. Chapel Hill, University of North Carolina Press, 1990.

Taylor, Alan. William Cooper’s Town: Power and Persuasion on the Frontier of the Early

American Republic. New York: Alfred Knopf, 1995.

Tebbenhoff, Edward Henry. The Momentum of Tradition: Dutch Society and Identity in

Schenectady, 1660-1790. University of Minnesota, 1992.

Tuckerman, Bayard. The Life of General Philip Schuyler 1733-1804. New York: Dodd,

Mead and Co., 1903.

Van Rensselaer, Kilian. Manors in America. “The Van Rensselaer Manor.” Address

Delivered at the Third Annual Meeting of the New York Branch of the Order of

Colonial Lords of Manors in America. Baltimore, 1917. Found at the Library

Company of Philadelphia.

Van Rensselaer, Kilian. Rensselaerwyck: Patroonship and Manor, The Pedigree of the Van

Rensselaer Family, Address delivered at the Third annual meeting of the NY Branch

of the Order of Colonial Lords of Manors in America. Baltimore, 1929. Historical

Society of Pennsylvania.

White, Shane. Somewhat More Independent: The End of Slavery in New York City, 1770-

1810. Athens: University of Georgia Press, 1991.

Zwierlein, Frederick. Religion in New Netherland: A History of the Development of the

Religious Conditions in the Province of New Netherland, 1623-1664. Rochester, NY:

John P. Smith Printing Company, 1910.

41