THE MOVEMENT OF THE RIGHT WING
The right wing of the expedition, consisting of the 3rd, 4th and 5th New
York, the 6th Massachusetts, and 4th Pennsylvania, with four companies
of riflemen and two pieces of artillery, was under the command of
General James Clinton. This veteran officer gathered his forces at
Schenectady. He encamped his regiments around this little palisaded
frontier town, while his flotilla of over 215 boats was building in the
boat yards that then lined the Mohawk river, between the stream and the
town’s wooden walls on its north and west sides.
When all was ready, about June 15, the boats were pushed, poled or rowed
up the river to Canajoharie. Then both the stores and the boats were
loaded on wagons drawn by four yokes of oxen, carried over the hills and
unloaded on the beach at Otsego Lake. This very toilsome work was over
by July 3, and on the “Glorious Fourth” was celebrated by a parade,
salute of cannon, divine service and a banquet with thirteen patriotic
toasts. Herds of cattle had been driven from Kingston, N. Y., by the
great western route through the Catskill mountains, to furnish fresh
beef. The soldiers enjoyed their camp life in the fragrant woods, though
eager to move against the enemy.
An engineer and the father of the “father of the Erie Canal,” General
Clinton’s first object was to provide enough water to float his boats
down out of the lake and into and along the shallow Susquehanna, in
order to make junction with Sullivan at Tioga Point. To secure this, in
the dry mid-summer a reservoir was made by damming up the little lake at
its source near the present Cooperstown. The flow of rain not only in
this, but also in the adjoining Schuyler Lake, during four weeks of
waiting to hear from Sullivan, was thus secured. The gain of one month’s
water from sky and earth was apparent. It is uncertain from extant
journals and diaries how high a level was reached, some saying that
three feet, but one declaring that only one foot of water was gained. At
any rate, the rise was sufficient to send the flotilla down into the
valley, as if moving on a toboggan slide.
Monday, August 9, was fixed as the date of movement. On the previous
Saturday, the chaplain, the Reverend Mr. Gano, inquired of the general
whether he could break the news to the army. Being forbidden, he asked
whether he might make choice of any text he pleased. To this full
liberty was granted. When the preacher stood up before his audience he
pronounced the words in Acts xx. 7, “Ready to depart on the morrow”; at
which the faces of all the troops lightened.
The glad work of chopping away the dam was begun on Sunday night when
the water rushed out, so filling the lower channels of the river as to
afford easy passage for the boats. The Tuscaroras dwelling in the valley
looking upon the swollen stream and their inundated cornfields, deemed
themselves under the wrath of the Great Spirit, and fled in alarm. After
every defeat the savages, according to their custom, hung up white dogs
to avert the anger and beg for the pity of their gods. Our men found
these tokens of primitive religion all along the route. As the army
marched overland the various settlements of Indians and Tories were
destroyed by fire and axe.
WILLIAM ELLIOT GRIFFIS.
ITHACA, N. Y.
(_To be continued._)
THE BRITISH NAVY IN THE REVOLUTION
SECOND PAPER
During the early summer of 1776 the American forces were actively
engaged upon a work of great magnitude, which it was hoped would prevent
the British vessels ascending the Hudson.
The project was the blocking, by means of sunken vessels filled with
stone,[1] of the narrowest portion of the deep channel of the river.
This was, and still is, the waterway extending between what is now known
as Fort Washington Point, about 178th street, then called Jeffrey’s
Hook, and the foreshore below the Palisades about due west of the Point,
under Fort Lee.
Both sides were more or less protected by guns mounted in the earthworks
of Fort Washington and Fort Constitution, the extent and character of
which were not well known to the British commanders, though they seem to
have been kept pretty well informed by treacherous informers of the
progress of the work of obstructing the channel with the sunken vessels,
from the decks of which protruded masts or sharpened poles, forming a
rough “chevaux-de-frise,” a dangerous form of obstruction for wooden
vessels propelled by tide and wind.
During all the spring and early summer the British naval force in the
waters around New York was represented by two very active vessels, the
sixty-four-gun man-of-war _Asia_, Captain George Vandeput, and the
forty-four-gun frigate _Phœnix_, commanded by an able and energetic
officer, Sir Hyde Parker, Jr., son of a well-known commander of the same
name, who had already done good service for his king.
On June 30, the advance guard of the British fleet under Vice-Admiral
Molyneux Shuldham, Rear-Admiral of the White, arrived at New York from
Halifax. His flagship was the _Chatham_, of fifty guns and with her was
her consort, the _Centurion_, also of fifty, and the twenty gun frigate
_Rose_, which took a very active part in later affairs. By the first
week of July the force under Shuldham had increased to fifty-four armed
vessels of all ratings, aggregating about 1200 guns in broadside, with
fully eighty supply vessels and transports laden with troops under the
command of General Howe, who had made the journey from Halifax in the
frigate _Greyhound_, of thirty guns.
On the 7th of July, while messengers from Philadelphia were bearing the
news of the Declaration of Independence to New York, Governor Tryon and
Howe were consulting aboard the _Greyhound_ as to the expediency of
sending a naval force up the North River in order to obstruct the
supplies of the Americans. Action on this scheme was evidently deferred
pending the expected arrival of Admiral Lord Howe, the general’s
brother, with a powerful addition to the fleet.
No sooner was the arrival of this force announced by its advance guard
than a squadron was ordered up the North River in a bold attempt to
force their way past the obstructions at Fort Washington.
The vessels selected were the _Phœnix_ and _Rose_, with the armed
schooner _Tryal_, and two bomb-ketches, tenders of the two frigates,
respectively the _Shuldham_ and _Charlotta_.
It will be remembered that on passing the town of New York these vessels
opened a bombardment, which it has been claimed was unprovoked by firing
from the defences, and that a distressing bloodshed and panic among the
inhabitants resulted.
The log or journal of Captain Hyde Parker relates the events as follows:
“Saturday 13th. Wind. S. W. Moderate breeze and fair weather. At 3 made
the signal and weigh’d and came to sail in company with the _Rose_,
_Tryal_ Schooner with the _Shuldham_ and _Charlotta_ Tenders, at ¾ past
3 the Battery at Red Hook on Long Island began fireing on us, on our
standing on, the Batterys on Governors Isl^d and on Powle’s Hook
commenced a heavy fireing at us. At 5 minutes past 4 being then between
the last mentioned batterys we began fireing upon them at ½ past 5 we
pass’d the Batterys near Town and at 7 anchor’d in Tapon Bay abrest of
TarryTown in 7 fathom.... In passing the Batterys Rece’d two shott in
the Hull, one on the Bowsprit and several through the Sails, and had one
Seaman and two marines wounded.”
The log of Mr. Savage Landor,[2] sailing master of the _Rose_, gives
further details, as follows:
Week day Mo Winds REMARKS IN YORK RIVER
July dy
1776
Friday 12th N.W. First part light Breez^s Middle & latter
light Breez^s & clear. PM Came in H. M.
Armd Brigg _Hallifax_.
Saturday 13th S.W. Little wind and clear w^r Came in H M sloop
_Kingsfisher_ at ½ past 1 H M ship _Phenix_ made
the Sig^l to unmoor d^o & hove short on the B^t B^r
½ past 2 the _Phenix_ made the signal to weigh d^o
and Came to Sail as did y^e _Phenix_ & _Tryal_
Arm^d Schooner & 2 Tenders Steering up the North
River at ½ past 3 the Rebels began a Constant
fireing on us and the _Phenix_ From the Red Hook
Governours Island Powles Hook and the Town as we
past and continued there fireing from 6 different
Batterys on the E^t shore above the Town for 11
miles as high as Margetts Hooke ret^d a Constant
fire’g to all the Batterys as we past. they shot
away the Starboard foreshroud, Fore tackle Pendant,
forelift, fore topsail Clewline, Sprit sail and
Main topsail Braces, one 18 Pound Shott thr’o the
head of the Foremast one thr’o the Pinnace several
thr’o the Sails and some in the hul^l: at ½ past 5
passd the last battery there Number of Guns not
known Weight of mettle from 12 to 32 pounders at 8
anch^d in Torpand [Tappan] Bay 28 miles above the
Town with the B^t B^r [best bower anchor] in 6½ f^m
low water soft bottom Veerd to ½ a Cable Carried
out the Stream Anchor to N W to Steady the Ship
Terry town E ½ N The high Bluff head on the Western
shore S W b W ½ d^o anchr^d the _Phenix_, _Tryal_
Schooner & 2 Tenders. A M Sailmakers Employed
repair^g Sails damaged by the Shot. Emp^d
repairing, Carpenters fishing the Foremast.
The journal of the Captain, Sir James Wallace, is nearly identical in
the main features recorded; repeating that “the Rebels began to fire
upon us and the _Phenix_,” and confirming the material damage done to
the ship. As to this it may be remembered that Anthony Glean, who fired
the first gun at the squadron from the guns at the Battery, claimed that
his shot took effect on the hull of the _Rose_, and the good gunnery of
the Americans is evident from the general damage inflicted.
REGINALD PELHAM BOLTON.
NEW YORK CITY.
[Illustration: [Fleuron]]
THE LIBERTY OF THE PRESS
IN THE AMERICAN COLONIES BEFORE THE REVOLUTIONARY WAR, WITH PARTICULAR
REFERENCE TO CONDITIONS IN THE ROYAL COLONY OF NEW YORK.
CHAPTER IV (_Concluded_)
THE LIBERTY OF THE PRESS IN NEW YORK
In the fall of 1767 a pamphlet of which a few copies were reprinted from
a London edition, appeared in New York and created considerable
excitement. It was entitled “The Conduct of Cadwallader Colden, Esq.
Lieutenant-Governor of New York, relating to the judges’
commissions:—Appeals to the King; and Stamp Duty.” It had been presented
by the grand jury in October as a libellous reflection on the Council,
the Assembly and the Courts of Justice in the province of New York, and,
as its sub-title would indicate, was a defense of Colden’s conduct, when
acting as Governor. In the course of the argument reference was made to
the action of the two branches of the Assembly in these matters, and
both bodies took umbrage and appointed a joint committee to investigate,
and if possible discover, the author and the person responsible for the
republication in New York.[3]
The committee carried on its work with vigor, summoning among others the
printers of the province and also Colden’s son and son-in-law,[4] and
the matter finally ended in a report by the committee to the General
Assembly and the adoption of the following resolutions.[5]
“Resolved, ... That the said pamphlet highly reflects upon the honor,
justice and dignity of his Majesty’s Council, the General Assembly, and
the Judges of the Supreme Court; and contains the most malignant
aspersions, upon the inhabitants of this colony in general.
Resolved, That the said pamphlet tends to destroy the confidence of the
people, in two of the branches of the legislature, and the officers
concerned in the due administration of justice; to render the government
odious and contemptible, to abate that due respect to authority, so
necessary to peace and good order, to excite disadvantageous suspicions
and jealousies in the minds of the people of Great Britain, against his
Majesty’s subjects in this colony, and to expose the colony in general,
to the resentments of the crown and both houses of Parliament.
Resolved, That as the House has not been able to discover the author of
the said pamphlet, a dissolution of the general assembly is speedily
expected; his Excellency the Governor be humbly requested, in case the
author should hereafter be discovered, to order a prosecution to be
issued against him, that such punishment may be inflicted on so great an
offender as the law directs.”
This is an instance where neither branch of the Assembly can force an
avowal of authorship from those who are suspected; a little later we
shall find in the Parker-McDougall case that the Governor and Council
did not consider it beneath their dignity to resort to very questionable
actions when they were trying to find the person responsible for a
pamphlet which displeased them.
It is not necessary to enter here on the details of the circumstances
which finally led to the repeal of the Stamp Act and the passage of the
Mutiny Act.[6] The more extreme party had viewed with great disquietude
the passage of the latter act, and the way in which the Assembly had
yielded in the matter of meeting its provisions. When the Governor, Sir
Henry Moore, died on Sept. 11th, 1769 and Lieutenant-Governor Colden
once more took up the reins of government, the feeling was intensified,
and on Dec. 16th, two printed papers appeared, the first signed “A Son
of Liberty,” and the second “Legion” in which “the betrayed inhabitants
of the City and Colony of New York” were invited to meet on the
following Monday at the House of De La Montayne in the Fields near the
City, and there take steps to set forth their rights and vindicate the
privileges which the Assembly seemed unable to successfully assert.
At this meeting which was largely attended a speech was made by John
Lamb a prosperous merchant of the city.
Meanwhile the Assembly had had its attention called to the papers and
had declared the first to be “false, seditious and infamous,” and had
branded the second as “an infamous libel,” and had requested the
Lieutenant-Governor to issue his proclamation, offering a reward of £100
for the discovery of the author.[7] After the meeting in the Fields the
Assembly ordered Lamb to appear before it, and examined him as to “his
conduct about the two libels” but as it did not appear that his actions
at the Fields had been in consequence of the two libels he was allowed
to depart.[8] But the Assembly had not given up all hope of finding and
prosecuting the author of the two pamphlets. One of Parker’s journeymen
for the sake of the reward, gave information against him, and on Feb.
7th Parker was arrested and examined by the Governor and Council. While
the latter was detained in a room off the Council Chamber, his
apprentices were arrested, and brought before the Council, and although
for a long time they stoutly refused to admit any knowledge of the
papers, one of them by gross intimidation was finally brought to admit
that the papers had been printed in his master’s office.
Parker was then brought back before the Council, told that his
apprentice had admitted that it had been printed by him, and threatened,
in case he refused to name the author, with the loss of his position as
Secretary of the Post Office. Finally Parker, being promised indemnity,
gave information which resulted in the arrest on a bench warrant of
Alexander McDougall, who was taken before the Chief Justice, and on
refusal to admit the fact of authorship, committed to prison.
Some seven years before this, in 1763, John Wilkes, member of
Parliament, and editor of the “North Briton” had been arrested on a
general warrant for having attacked in No. 45 of his journal the Bute
administration and abused the King, charging the latter with falsehood.
Wilkes was discharged on the ground of parliamentary privilege, and the
question being carried before the Chief Justice, Lord Camden, the latter
declared general warrants to be illegal. Wilkes was expelled by a
subservient Parliament, but was regarded by great numbers in the nation
as a martyr to the cause of liberty and freedom of discussion.
Now it happened that the vote of the Assembly declaring the hand bills
libellous had been printed on the forty-fifth page of the journal. For
either this reason, or more probably because of No. 45 of the “North
Briton” (which number was often used as a party-cry in England),
“Forty-five” became the watchword of the Sons of Liberty, at this time a
numerous body. McDougall was overrun with visitors at the jail and was
forced to issue in the “New York Weekly Journal” for Feb. 15th, a card
to his friends in which he appointed the hours from three to six in the
afternoon to receive them.
In the same number of the Journal appears an account of one of these
receptions:
“Yesterday, the forty-fifth day of the year, forty-five gentlemen, real
enemies to internal taxation, by, or in obedience to external authority,
and cordial friends to Capt. McDougall, and the glorious cause of
American liberty, went in decent procession to the New Gaol; and dined
with him on forty-five pounds of beef, cut from a bullock of forty-five
months old, and with a number of other friends who joined them in the
afternoon, drank a variety of toasts, expressive not only of the most
undissembled loyalty, but of the warmest attachment to Liberty, its
renowned advocates in Great Britain and America, and the freedom of the
press. Before the evening the whole company, who conducted themselves
with great decency, separated in the most cordial manner, but not
without the firmest resolution to continue united in the glorious
cause.” In April he was indicted by the Grand Jury for libel, and being
brought to the bar pleaded not guilty and was admitted to bail.
While matters were in this condition the Assembly again took the matter
up. On Dec. 13, 1770, the Speaker was directed to order McDougall to
attend at the Bar of the House to answer a complaint made against him by
Mr. De Noyellis for being the supposed author or publisher of the paper
signed “A Son of Liberty.”[9] On his attending, McDougall was asked
whether he was or was not the author of the paper. He replied “That as
the grand jury and house of Assembly had declared the paper in question
to be a libel, he could not answer the question. Secondly, that as he
was under prosecution in the Supreme Court, he conceived it would be an
infraction of the laws of Justice to punish a British subject twice for
one offense, for that no line could be run, that he might be punished
without end; but he would not be understood to deny the authority of the
house to punish for a breach of privilege, when no cognizance is taken
of it in another Court.”
The Assembly decided that this was a contempt of the authority of the
house, and, since he refused to ask pardon of the house, he was ordered
into the custody of the Sergeant-at-Arms, and placed in the county jail.
A writ of Habeas Corpus was sued out before the Court of Justice,
whereupon the sheriff notified the house and asked what he should do. A
committee was appointed on Jan. 22d, 1771, “to search the journals of
the house of Commons, for precedents in cases where writs of habeas
corpus have been issued, to bring persons committed by the Commons
before other Courts.” The committee reported on Feb. 16, that several
precedents had been found, which precedents were ordered printed in the
Journal of the House. It was also determined that the sheriff should be
indemnified for his action in not obeying the order of the Court.
The Assembly was prorogued on March 4, 1771, and did not come together
till Jan. 7, 1772, and we hear no more of the McDougall affair. About
this time Parker died and as he was the principal witness in the case it
was probably considered useless to bring up the indictment before the
Court.
From this time on, pamphlets, opposing the Crown and its policy of
repression, continued to appear in ever increasing number, but the
government made no serious sign of opposition, and seemed to have given
up in despair the attempt to control a press which the majority of the
people warmly supported.
CHAPTER V
THE PRESS IN THE SOUTHERN COLONIES
In the Southern colonies we find, as we should expect, an absence of any
very important cases bearing on the subject under consideration.
The ideas of Sir Wm. Berkeley, (for thirty-eight years Governor of
Virginia), in regard to the dissemination of information, may be
gathered from a reply made by him to some enquiries of the Lords
Commissioners of Foreign Plantations.
The question being “What course is taken about the instructing the
people, within your government in the Christian religion; and what
provision is there made for the paying of your minister?” his answer is:
“The same course that is taken in England out of towns: every man
according to his ability instructing his children. We have forty-eight
parishes, and our ministers are well paid, and by my consent should be
better if they would pray oftener and preach less. But of all other
commodities, so of this, the worst is sent us, and we had few that we
could boast of, since the persecution in Cromwell’s tiranny drove divers
worthy men hither. But, I thank God, we have not free schools nor
printing; and I hope we shall not have these hundred years. For learning
has brought disobedience and heresy and sects into the world; and
printing has divulged them and libels against the government. God keep
us from both.”[10]
At the beginning of the last quarter of the seventeenth century Virginia
suffered from internal disorders (as Bacon’s Rebellion), due to
political disturbances having their origin in the English Civil War.
Lord Culpepper, the Governor, was inclined to stretch the royal
prerogative to its furthest limit and met the murmurings of the Assembly
with a cold and gloomy dignity.[11]
The Assembly insisting on its rights as given in the charters, Lord
Culpepper dissolved the body and endeavored to stamp out all remembrance
of past freedom. In the Bland MS. p. 498,[12] we find the following
entry: “Feb. 21, 1682, John Buckner called before the Lord Culpepper and
his Council for printing the laws of 1680, without his Excellency’s
license, and he and the printer ordered to enter into bond in £100 not
to print anything thereafter, until his majesty’s pleasure should be
known.” Thus, the press was strangled at its birth, since we have no
record or copy of any other work, and that the government continued to
watch carefully lest it should appear again is proven by the
Instructions of Lord Effingham, the next Governor, in which he is
ordered “to allow no person to use a printing press on any occasion
whatsoever.”[13]
In the period between 1733, when Wm. Parks established his press at
Williamsburg, and 1765 when Wm. Rind began to issue a paper at
Williamsburg, there was but the single press in Virginia, and being the
organ of the government it may be easily imagined that it had no great
temptation to struggle for the liberty of the press.
With the exception of libel suits against Wm. Parks about the year 1740
(by which the House of Burgesses sought to punish him for publishing an
article reflecting on one of the members), and the presentment in 1766
of Rind, and of Purdie and Dixon, the publishers of the two Virginia
Gazettes (for referring in a way considered improper, to the bailment of
Colonel Chiswell), in both of which instances the prosecution failed
utterly in its attempt,—there is nothing on the subject which claims our
attention.
In South Carolina the press was encouraged, liberal inducements being
held out to any printer who would settle in the colony. As a result of
this policy we find the printing press in operation from the year 1730,
a newspaper being published in 1731. In the early period of the history
of the press in the colony the only cause of serious trouble that we
find was one involving Peter Timothy, of the Gazette, who had published
a letter by one Hugh Bryan in which occurred the statement that “the
clergy of South Carolina broke their Canons daily.” With Timothy were
also arrested Bryan and George Whitefield, the Evangelist, who had
corrected the manuscript. All three were admitted to bail, and the
matter was dropped.
In 1773 one of the most important cases that ever occurred in the
colonies came about through the publication in the South Carolina
Gazette, then owned by Timothy and a partner whom he had lately taken,
named Thomas Powell, but managed entirely by the latter, of a portion of
the proceedings of the Council on the previous day. Being summoned to
attend the body, he admitted that he was the publisher of the Gazette,
and that he had printed the proceedings, which on being asked he said
had been brought to him by the Hon. Wm. Henry Drayton, a member of the
Council. The Council then adjudged him “guilty of a high breach of the
privileges, and a contempt of the house.”
Powell refused to ask pardon of the Council which then,
“Resolved, That Thomas Powell, who hath this day been adjudged by this
house, to have been guilty of a high breach of privilege, and a contempt
of this house, be for his said offense committed to the Common Gaol of
Charleston; and that his Honor, the President of this house, do issue
his warrant accordingly.”
Mr. Drayton, who was present, and had acknowledged his share in the
affair, protested strongly, but without avail, and Powell was placed in
prison. Two days later, on Sept. 2d, the Hon. Rawlins Lowndes, and Mr.
George Gabriel Powell, the former being Speaker of the Assembly, and the
latter one of the members of the body, and both being justices of the
peace, had Powell brought before them on a writ of Habeas Corpus and
discharged him. The Council then took action in these resolutions:
“Resolved, That the power of commitment is so necessarily incident to
each house of Assembly, that without it neither their authority nor
dignity can in any degree whatsoever be maintained or supported.
Resolved, That Rawlins Lowndes, Esqr., Speaker of the Commons House of
Assembly, and George Gabriel Powell, Esqr. member of the said house,
being two justices of the peace, _unus quorum_, lately assistant judges
and justices of his majesty’s court of Common Pleas, have, by virtue of
habeas corpus by them issued, caused the body of T. Powell to be brought
before them, on the second of this instant September, and the said
justices, disregarding the commitment of this house, did presumptuously
discharge T. Powell out of the custody of the sheriff under the
commitment of this house.
Resolved, That the said justices have been guilty of the most atrocious
contempt of this house.”
The resolution which follows calls upon the Assembly to disavow the
action of these men and give them up to receive proper punishment. This
the Assembly refused to do, and then both houses carried the matter on
petition to the Crown, and it had not been settled when the breaking out
of the Revolutionary War put an end to the affair.
In this case the attempt of the upper house to destroy the liberty of
the press, was opposed by the desire of the lower house to uphold it,
and the fact that this occurred on the eve of the Revolution is
significant, teaching us that even to the last the principle that the
press must be free had not been established in the American colonies.
CHAPTER VI
CONCLUSION
We have had brought before us all the instances of any importance,
throughout the American colonies of efforts on the part of the
government to control the liberty of the press. Let us now attempt to
deduce from them the general principles which governed the matter.
In the first place it is clear that, as the several colonies differed
the one from another in their relations with and dependence upon the
home government and their Governor, who represented that government, so
too the press was in some colonies far more free from control than in
others. In Massachusetts, where interference from outside was always
resisted, control by the Governor was seldom attempted. Before the
administration of Governor Andros the Crown made no attempt to
interfere; Andros himself appointed Edward Randolph (vide p. 9) as
licenser, and Bartholomew Green, the Boston publisher testifies (vide p.
10) to the fact that in his time (the end of the seventeenth century),
Lieutenant-Governor Stoughton took a keen interest in the productions of
the press, and refused to allow any publications without a previous
application to him, with a copy of the matter to be published. After
this period the control by the Crown again was lost in that as also in
political matters.
In Pennsylvania we have an instance of a Governor representing an
individual proprietor. Here the struggle between the people and Penn’s
representative in political matters was carried over into the field
occupied by the press, and so we find in the early period of the
existence of the press a dual authority exercised, the Crown and the
Quarterly Meeting, both claiming the right of censorship (vide p. 23).
In the first half of the eighteenth century the power of the Quakers
passed away as far as our subject is concerned, but the control
exercised by the Crown continued, although more and more questioned,
until the breaking out of the Revolutionary struggle.
In New York the Governor himself was responsible for the introduction of
the press and for forty years (1692–1734), it took no active part in
political agitations, maintaining a cautious neutrality under Bradford.
In this colony it was rather a question of the right to freedom of
speech, a question raised in the prosecution of Col. Nicholas Bayard.
From the period of the Zenger trial newspapers continued to increase and
the twenty-five years before 1775 witnessed a continuous production of
pamphlets in which the Crown and its representative were attacked, the
efforts to punish by the government being in almost every case entirely
futile. The press divides itself into two groups, the supporters and
opponents of the Governor, and the party newspaper becomes a reality.
In the Southern colonies the press never attained any liberty, the
government being ever on the watch to repress the smallest attempt at
freedom of discussion and criticism.
In the second place we find that the attitude assumed by the inhabitants
of the colonies, as expressed by the actions of their representatives,
varied in the different colonies. We do find this general similarity,
that in all there was a very jealous upholding of the rights of the
legislative body as against criticism. That can be easily established by
a perusal of the Minutes of any of the Assemblies. But in Massachusetts
a distinction seems to have been early established between a criticism
of the proceedings of the General Court as such, and a criticism of the
policy of the government. In Pennsylvania this view was only in the
latter period arrived at; in New York the General Assembly was
constantly taking offense at writings appearing in the newspapers or
distributed in the form of pamphlets; while in Virginia the question
never arose because there was no criticism.
Everywhere we find that there was, as time goes on, a general advance
towards freedom of discussion. But this is best seen in nonpolitical
matters. With the failure by Parliament in 1695 to renew the Licensing
Act all publication became at least theoretically free except in so far
as it was restrained by the law of libel. To just what extent this law
could be stretched was always a matter of dispute. The maxim “the
greater the truth, the greater the libel” must certainly have exercised
an influence to deter the publications of the time from the discussion
of private affairs. In fact in many instances the news contained in an
issue of a newspaper was practically nothing, the few columns being
occupied with a very bald statement of Indian affairs, or the relations
with France or perhaps a short account of something which had taken
place in England or on the Continent. The needs of the community, as
better roads or the impounding of wandering cattle, were lightly touched
on, but there was but slight evidence of any conception of the idea that
the press could lead and direct public opinion as to municipal affairs.
In political matters not directly affecting the Crown there was also a
slight advance towards freedom of discussion, which, as the time of the
Revolution approached, became very much extended. But here again no
general rule can be established for the more radical colonies, as
Massachusetts, would naturally be far in advance of the more
conservative, while between would stand New York.
Of one thing we may be confident. In no colony would the Governor, as
representing the Crown, permit a criticism of its actions to pass
without censure, and, if possible, punishment. When the Evening Post of
Boston (vide p. 14) published in 1741 the paragraph in regard to the
expected overthrow of the Walpole Ministry, the Attorney-General was at
once ordered to file an Information against the printer, Thomas Fleet,
and although no further proceedings were ever taken, the omission was
due rather to want of confidence in the Massachusetts jury than to any
leniency on the part of the Governor. In the case of McDougall (vide p.
65), we find the writer of a pamphlet obnoxious to the Crown kept in
prison even against a writ of Habeas Corpus, and only released when the
death of the principal witness in the case made his conviction
impossible.
The liberty of the press was still further curtailed by the influence
exerted by certain classes in the community. There was always a strong
feeling among those who had grants of land (either directly from the
Crown or by the Crown as confirmatory of purchases already made from the
Indians), against any discussion of their rights over those who were
their tenants. This influence would of course be of importance only in
the colonies where grants were numerous, as in the colony of New York.
But another class influence, that of the Clergy, was far stronger at all
times and universal in its extent. In Massachusetts and Pennsylvania it
is hardly possible to overestimate the importance of this influence, and
in none of the colonies can it be neglected if we desire to properly
appreciate the difficulties that faced the printer in his struggle for
the right of free discussion. The troubles of Wm. Bradford, the elder in
Pennsylvania (vide p. 26), and of James Franklin in Massachusetts (vide
p. 11), give us a pretty clear idea of the troubles that would beset the
man who did not keep himself out of controversy. Just as the New England
Election Sermons give us perhaps the best means of understanding the
influence of the Clergy in the field of politics, so these quarrels
between printer and Quarterly Meeting or Presbytery show us the feeling
toward freedom of discussion.
LIVINGSTON ROWE SCHUYLER.
NEW YORK CITY.
(_Concluded next month._)
REMINISCENCES OF ROBERT FULTON
Among the relics of Robert Fulton in possession of the American Society
of Mechanical Engineers at their house in New York City is a manuscript
(hitherto unpublished, it is believed), in which in 1859 the only
surviving associate of the inventor recorded his recollections. These
simple and obviously honest reminiscences from the hand of a plain man
become of interest, however deficient in literary art. He was J. B.
Calhoun of Brooklyn, and told his story thus:
“In 1807 Mr. Fulton’s first boat, the _North River_, of Clermont,
commenced running on the Hudson River to Albany. Between 1809 and 1811,
he had two more, the _Car of Neptune_ and the _Paragon_. Each steamer
had two masts—on the foremast was a square sail, two topsails, and a
jib. On the mainmast was a spanker and topsail. The foremast had at the
heel trunnions by which the mast could be lowered when the wind was
ahead. When the wind was fair, all hands, passengers too, were called to
raise the mast and set sail.
These steamers had high or poop decks some four feet above the main
deck; the entrance to the cabin was by the old-fashioned ship
companionway—not a house on deck. These steamers, being on the bottom as
flat as a house floor, each had two heavy side lee boards, to prevent
making leeway when sail was set. In those days neither the pilot nor
engineer had an assistant, nor the captain any clerk. In leaving New
York at five, the pilot would take the wheel until supper; after supper
he would again take the wheel and keep it till next morning; he had no
fine pilot-house, not even an awning to protect him from the hot sun nor
the most severe weather. When coming to landings, instead of a bell to
ring, the pilot blew a tin horn some five feet long; the bell was used
only for meal times....
Mr. Fulton had at North Point, Jersey City, four large shops, and a
dry-dock some 200 feet long, 36 feet wide, and 16 feet deep to repair
his boats in; the first dry-dock in this country. In those days such a
thing as a cut-off, a throttle-valve, or an eccentric was not known by
the engineer.
To make the trip to Albany took from twenty-six to thirty hours, burning
in that time about thirty cords of firewood. None of Mr. Fulton’s
steamers made the trip in less than twenty-five hours. In 1813 Mr. Louis
Rhoda, Mr. Fulton’s chief engineer, was killed on the trial trip of the
ferry-steamboat on the East River, the _Nassau_, by being caught in the
engine when in motion. He had his entire right shoulder taken from his
body by the crank. Mr. Rhoda was the first engineer killed in this
country.”
Then follows a paragraph descriptive of Fulton’s personal appearance and
manners. The sketch adds:
“His death was rather sudden; so much so that many attributed it to
suicide. This was not so; he died a calm, natural death in the bosom of
his family, at No. 5 Broadway, opposite the Bowling Green. In attending
court at Trenton, N. J., he had taken a cold, and on returning home to
New York the ferryboat on which he was was caught in the ice, and was
thus delayed some three hours. It was a cold, stormy day in January;
this confirmed and increased his illness, which finally sent him to his
grave.”
In 1811 Mr. Fulton built at Pittsburgh, Pa., a boat for the New Orleans
trade; she was called the _New Orleans_, the first steamer on the Ohio
and Mississippi Rivers.
In 1810–11 a company was formed—they built two boats to run in
opposition to Mr. Fulton’s. One was called _Perseverance_, Captain
Bunker, and the other _The Hope_, Captain Sherman, afterwards well known
on Lake Champlain. These steamers were some faster than Mr. Fulton’s.
After a long contest in courts of law, the two Albany boats were
confiscated to Mr. Fulton, and he had them soon broken up at Albany, in
sight of their former owners.
In 1812–13 some gentlemen in New York built a steamer called the
_Fulton_, to run to Albany, by Mr. Fulton’s consent, under the following
terms: The new boat was to charge $10 for each passenger, paying Mr.
Fulton $3 out of every $10 paid by the passengers; this did not prove
profitable, and the next season the _Fulton_ was placed on the East
River and the Sound, being the first steamer ever before on the
Sound.... It was expected that the steamer _Fulton_ would make the trip
to Albany in thirteen or fourteen hours’ time, but I think she never
made the trip in less than sixteen or seventeen hours.
The first steamer on the Potomac River, Va., was built by Mr. Fulton in
the last days of his life; she was called the _Washington_; she was
intended to run between Washington City and Norfolk; she went there in
May, 1815; the writer of these lines went out with her and stayed long
enough to teach a black man, a slave, how to start and how to manage the
engine.
The first steamer for the great Western Lakes was built at Black Rock on
the Niagara River by Mr. Noah Brown of New York, in 1818. She was a
handsome vessel of 360 tons’ burden, full brig-rigged. She was called
the _Walk-in-the-Water_. She was owned by Dr. J. B. Stewart, then of
Albany. The writer put up her engine. She was totally lost in a terrible
gale on Lake Erie, in October, 1820. In these years from 1818 to 1820,
no dividends were made from the earnings of the steamer. Such was the
little travel on those lakes at these times that if the steamer carried
thirty or forty passengers, it was doing pretty well. The strength of
the Black Rock Rapids was so strong that besides the power of the
engine, it required the use of eight pairs of oxen to get the steamer up
the rapids on to the lake, a distance of two miles.
The first steamer that made the trip to Albany in twelve hours was the
steamer _Sun_, of which the writer was the engineer. She was a double
engine, called the Woolf engine, high and low pressure—had six
high-pressure boilers, 24 feet long, and 30 inches in diameter, intended
to carry 120 pounds of steam—cylinder, four feet stroke.
The first attempt to use hard coal on a steamer on the Hudson River was
made by the Messrs. Mowatt on the steamer _Sun_ and the _Henry Eckford_
in 1825. Wood and coal were tried together; then coal alone. The trial
was not successful, but it was soon seen that what was wanted was a
strong draft or the use of some kind of a blower. The writer received
$50 for making the trial. In those days, blowers were unknown. The first
blower was introduced by the late Robert L. Stevens, on board the _North
America_ in 1826.
About the year 1827 the steam chimney was introduced by the late J. P.
Allaire. He claimed he had a patent for the same, but I think he had
not.
In 1825 the steam towing business was commenced by the late Mowatts on
the Hudson River, with the steamboat _Henry Eckford_ and six barges.
About the same year Mr. William C. Redfield introduced the
passenger-barge, towing, with the steamers _Swift-sure_ and _Abe
Commerce_ and the barges _Lady Clinton_ and _Lady Van Rensselaer_; it
was an aristocratic [venture]—got up to catch the support of the rich
and powerful, but it did not succeed well, and in two years it went
down.
All the fixtures about the ferry landings, the bridges, the floating box
underneath, the chains and pulleys, were all invented by Mr. Fulton.
I have many things in my memory in regard to him. All of the above was
written wholly from memory; not one word or a line of reference have I
had before me while writing this historical record of old times. When I
get in good health I have much to say on these subjects.
Apparently he never “got in good health,” for no other record of his
than this is known.
[Illustration: [Fleuron]]
DOMINIE SOLOMON FROELIGH AND HIS GREAT SCHISM
No region in the vicinity of New York has more natural beauty or
historic interest than that lying west of the Palisades. Until a few
years ago it was to most people an almost unknown land. Hackensack,
Englewood, Paterson, and Passaic were familiar names; but the country
north of these was seldom visited. Recently the valleys of the Ramapo,
Pascack, Saddle, and Hackensack Rivers have attracted many suburban
homeseekers, and their character is rapidly changing. Yet their charm
still centers in the ancient stone farmhouses that speak of a
civilization that has lasted for two hundred and fifty years. In some of
the villages are churches built in early colonial times, and about these
cluster the graves of the forefathers. New names have been given to many
of the hamlets, and the present residents know little and care less for
their past history. Only in musty records, and fading memories, do the
ancient Indian and Dutch names survive. Ka Keat, Mahakemack, Minesing,
Aquackanock, are some of these. From Tappan on the north to English
Neighborhood on the south, a distance of thirty miles, this country,
except in the four chief towns, was until a generation ago stagnant; its
population was no greater than at the beginning of the nineteenth
century. A few years since, the writer journeyed with a friend to one of
its ancient churchyards, to commit to its grave the body of an aged
lady. There it rests with those of ten generations of the Bogarts,
Brinkerhoffs, Demarests, Zabriskies, and other historic families.
A number of natives had gathered at the porch of the church on the
capstone of whose arch was engraved “Nisi Dominus Frustra.” As this is
the motto of the Reformed Church of America I, as one of its ministers,
felt at home. The day was stormy, and I asked that the building might be
opened for a funeral service. The gentleman addressed said he feared
that this was impossible, as the pastor was opposed to such a
proceeding. The parsonage was next to the church, and I sent word to the
minister asking him to assist me in the burial office. My card was
returned with a curt refusal. The old sexton was more communicative, and
from him I learned the story of this “True Reformed Dutch Church”; could
this have been reported word for word it would rival in interest the
best of Miss Wilkins’ or Mrs. Wiggin’s tales.
Two facts remain in my memory; first, that Dr. Solomon Froeligh was to
this peculiar people all that Knox had been to those who sat under the
Scotch Reformer; and, second, that the True Reformed Dutch Church was
the remnant of God’s elect; for the rest of Christendom had irrevocably
passed under condemnation.
With these experiences in mind I have as far as possible gathered the
facts that outline the story of a schism which, nearly a hundred years
ago, threatened to disrupt the Reformed Dutch Church, then relatively
among the largest of Protestant denominations. Dr. Chambers, in the
Schaff-Herzog Encyclopædia, has stated: “The True Reformed Dutch Church
is the result of a secession led by the Rev. Solomon Froeligh, a learned
man. The reasons assigned for the separation were that the Dutch Church
had become erroneous in doctrine, lax in discipline, and corrupt in
practice. The secession, however, did not adopt any new standards. At
one time it was very formidable, numbering over one hundred churches and
as many ministers. But it now numbers hardly a dozen churches. It was a
great injury to the church from which it seceded, but it is hard to see
what service it has been to its own members, or to anybody else.” This
statement, while judicious, is hardly comprehensive. The cause of the
disruption was perverse human nature; pride, envy, and jealousy had much
to do with it, and the effect was that a people who might have led in
the moral and material growth of the State retrograded. The evil it
caused brought disaster to upwards of a thousand families who had
possessed every advantage of birth, property, and intelligence.
The beginning of the settlement of the region I have described was
almost coeval with that of New Amsterdam. Later the occupation of New
York by the English led to a large emigration thither of Dutch families
from Manhattan and Long Island. Slowly and painfully these early
settlers removed the forests, drained the swamps, and established their
homes. The organization of Dutch churches in the neighborhoods of this
section began immediately. The people were intelligent and devout as
well as thrifty. Godly and learned clergymen, among whom were
Taschmaker, Varick, Bertholf, Schuyler, and Van Benschoten, soon
gathered large congregations. The story of the labors of these men is
one of a heroism and devotion hardly equalled in colonial history. The
minutes of the synod of 1778 reported seventeen strong churches in the
district. In 1818 the classes of Bergen and Paramus, into which it was
divided, reported 2,400 communicant members, and more than 15,000
persons in the congregations. At this later date some of these churches
were larger than those in the cities of New York and Albany.
For many years the most influential man in the region, and in the
estimation of his admirers in the Dutch Church, was Dr. Solomon
Froeligh, minister of the Collegiate Churches of Hackensack and
Schraalenburgh. Born near Albany in 1750, he had spent his boyhood in
Walkill valley. There, and in the adjacent Catskill district, the
venerable Schuneman ruled for fifty years like a bishop of mediæval
times. He was the lawyer, physician, pastor, and friend of a large and
scattered flock, among whom his wisdom and authority were unquestioned.
A narrative of his life and labors is told in a story of some sixty
years ago called “The Dutch Dominie of the Catskills.” Through his
guidance Froeligh was led to dedicate himself to the ministry. For ten
years he studied under Dr. Dirck Romeyn of Schenectady—the founder of
Union College—and Dr. Peter Wilson of Hackensack, for many years a
leading professor in Kings College. Although he never visited Princeton,
the College of New Jersey conferred on Froeligh at eighteen years of age
the degree of master of arts, because of his profound attainments. He
became a favorite of Dr. John Livingston, whom Mrs. Jay, the wife of the
chief justice, named to Washington as the first citizen of New York.
This great man, long the unquestioned leader of the Dutch Church, was
accustomed to make progresses through the various congregations; on two
at least of these, and the time occupied was frequently several months,
Froeligh accompanied him. Upon his licensure in 1775 he received four
calls, of which he accepted that of the Collegiate Churches of Queens
County, Jamaica, Newtown, Success, and Oyster Bay. In 1776 his house
near Newtown, containing his valuable library, and all his earthly
possessions, was burned by the British, and he barely escaped death at
their hands. For the eight succeeding years he went up and down New York
and New Jersey as a missionary and fearless patriot. At the close of the
war for independence he accepted a call to become the colleague of the
Rev. Warmardus Kuypers in the pastorate of the Collegiate Churches of
Hackensack and Schraalenburgh. Shortly after this, he was named by the
General Synod of the Church together with Drs. Livingston and Romeyn, a
professor of theology. For thirty years he held this office, and trained
for the ministry nearly one hundred young men.
By inheritance Dr. Froeligh was a strong, self-sufficient man. His
education and life accentuated these traits. His intercourse during the
impressionable years of youth with such masters as Schuneman, Romeyn and
Livingston must have developed in him an aptitude to command. In
scholarship he was in a narrow sense profound. His early possession of
the seat of authority led to a certain dogmatism. He was pronounced
hyper-Calvinist, and ever ready to defend his extreme views. The synods
of the Church were in that day the great events of each year, not only
for clergymen but laymen. In these Dr. Froeligh was ever the leading
controversialist. Both tradition and records show that he was strenuous
to harshness in manner, unyielding, and exacting in statement, and
always ready to estrange a friend rather than bend in the least.
Combined with these traits there was in him a vein of mysticism. He
dreamed dreams and saw visions that were to him authoritative
communications of the Most High. Naturally such a man gathered about him
devoted and obedient followers, and at the same time offended and
antagonized many. Religion and politics were then, far more than in our
day, issues of intense personal moment to all thoughtful persons. Party
spirit blazed fiercely in every community. In the memorable Presidential
contest of 1800, when the Federalist party was defeated, Dr. Froeligh
was an elector and voted for Jefferson. What this meant to most of the
ministers and influential laymen of the Church, who were devoted to
Hamilton, can be surmised.
As years passed his character did not soften, nor could he accept defeat
gracefully. Gradually, new and younger leaders in the Church came to the
front. Men like Milldoler, Brownlee, Broadhead, and Fonda, whom he would
not treat as his equals, paid him less and less deference. But his chief
antipathy was his neighbor of Paramus, once his own scholar, Dr. Wilhelm
Eltinge. They were men much alike in character, who invariably stood on
opposite sides of every question.
Now the churches of Hackensack and Schraalenburgh, while ruled by one
Consistory, were far from friendly to each other. They were rich in
property, having inherited thousands of acres of farm land, and their
members were noted for their wealth. Even before Froeligh’s day there
was bitter rivalry between the two. Mr. Kuypers, Froeligh’s colleague,
was a gentle and infirm man, who, above all things, hated discord. He
readily yielded to his energetic associate. As the years passed the
friction between the communities and factions in each church grew.
Questions as to the sale of property, the rebuilding of churches,
assessments of costs, and the like were constantly rising. On these
friends parted and even families divided. At length four separate
consistories and congregations were established, one for each minister
in each place, but all in one corporation. During the earlier years of
his settlement Dr. Froeligh sought to act the part of peacemaker. Not
understanding the grounds for the fierce disputes, he diligently set
himself to enforce agreement, and by the exercise of his masterful will
partially succeeded.
In 1799 Mr. Kuypers died, and the question of his successor became a
burning one. The dominie was, of course, intensely interested, and took
a decided stand against a majority. During a summer storm a bolt of
lightning split the tablet over the door of the largest church, on which
was engraved “Endraacht maakt macht”—union makes strength. Taking this
as a sign from heaven, Dr. Froeligh proclaimed in his sermon on the
following Sunday, “It is our belief founded on what we have seen and
know of this people that, according to the sign given on July 10, the
Triune God has made them two. The fire of divine grace is on one side,
and the fire of discord and rage is on the other.” Even under such
conditions the dominie was master of the situation, and held the reins
tightly. He was sole minister of four rich churches, and by
ecclesiastical law each meeting of the consistory was subject to his
call. By the civil law he was president of the corporation, and no
business could be transacted without his presence. At last, in 1800, the
General Synod of the Church intervened, and by the exercise of its
supreme authority placed Dr. J. V. C. Romeyn in Mr. Kuypers’ stead. It
also divided the old Classis of Hackensack into two, with Dr. Froeligh’s
two churches in that of Paramus, and Dr. Romeyn’s in that of Bergen. Dr.
Froeligh entered a solemn protest against this action, and began a
course of systematic effort to undo the arrangement. For eighteen years
the controversy continued. It is needless to particularize the phases of
this unhappy church quarrel. At last, in 1818, the crisis came.
Proceedings under church law were instituted against Dr. Froeligh on the
question whether the ministry or spiritual consistory composed of the
elders of a church, was the responsible party in the matter of receiving
or dismissing members. The Classis of Paramus sided with Dr. Froeligh,
the next higher court, the Particular Synod, sustained Dr. Romeyn, and
then, in 1822, the General Synod, in perhaps the most memorable trial in
her history, decided against Dr. Froeligh. Thereupon, he and the
ministers and elders of nine churches, signed their names to a document
declaring that they had formed themselves into a separate body by the
name and title of “The True Reformed Dutch Church in America.”
Those who recall Mrs. Stowe’s story, “The Minister’s Wooing,” need not
be told of the great controversy in New England caused by the sermons of
Dr. Hopkins of Newport. In the light of to-day, few if any in the
ministry accept his theology because of its narrowness. But a hundred
years ago men like Froeligh regarded Hopkins as a dangerous heretic, and
sought to cast out of the church as Pelagians those who sided with him.
So long as the dominie could rule the Classis of Paramus he was
reasonably content, but when Dr. Eltinge and a majority of its members
approved of the Hopkins position, the Dutch Church seemed without the
pale. Doubtless his greatest sorrow was that the old leaders he most
admired, like Dr. Livingston, refused to join in the controversy. The
younger men who were shaping the missionary activities of the church,
and planning the constitution that was adopted in 1832, ignored him. No
wonder he became embittered. But he had a large following of sincere,
earnest, though narrow men. They had been in their early years his
students and he was still their oracle. So the schism became formidable.
After taking this final step he made a proselyting tour among the
churches in the Hudson and Mohawk valleys. A score of these joined his
new communion. As many more were completely disrupted, and soon ceased
to exist. Side by side in fifty hitherto peaceful, united, and
prosperous villages rival congregations began a bitter warfare.
Accusations against the teaching character and morals of ministers and
laymen were published. In the church courts notable trials were held. In
some cases the peace of the State was broken, and the civil authorities
invoked. Indeed, the actions at law caused by this secession in New York
and New Jersey led to the establishment of principles as to the rights
of members in church property that are to-day the basis of the
ecclesiastical law in both States. Probably the most famous case was
that of the Church of the English Neighborhood in New Jersey. It was
argued before the Supreme Court by Messrs. Wood and Hornblower on one
side, and Van Arsdale and Theodore Frelinghuysen on the other. Chief
Justice Ewing delivered the opinion of the court. These five named
leaders are probably the most prominent in the history of the New Jersey
bar.
As I have gathered from many sources the facts herein set forth, the
most interesting and impressive feature of the controversy is the sane
and dignified manner with which the church met the issue. Every lawful
means was adopted to first reunite and then recover the seceding
churches, and, so far as the records show, this was ever in the spirit
of the Christian rule of kindness. When these efforts failed all loyal
members were urged to live in charity with their neighbors.
Until 1850 the “True Reformed Dutch Church” grew in strength. It
concentrated all its powers on the one aim of proselyting adherents from
the mother Church. Wherever possible it effected discord in
congregations and families. It took no part in the missionary or
philanthropic movements of the day. Its members gloried in being a
“peculiar people,” whose “good works” consisted in nursing pride and
standing apart from all others.
I have hardly touched on the pathetic side of this history. At the
beginning of the nineteenth century the Dutch Reformed Church in America
stood in a unique position. In the center of the country she was the
oldest Protestant communion, and relatively the strongest. More nearly
than any other her policy coincided with that of the United States. In
temper and trend she was highly irenic. Her liturgy and confessions were
simply Christian; and her genius made her one with true Christians of
every name. No wonder that the hopes of a great multitude, both within
and without her communion, for a homogeneous body that should do away
with the multitude of ecclesiastical divisions centered in her. It was
largely due to the schism Dr. Froeligh led that these hopes were
shattered. The natural growth of the Church was checked at the most
important period of the country’s development. Beginning at the close of
the Revolution, wise and devoted leaders had planted a large number of
Dutch churches on the then frontiers; these were everywhere prospering.
In Central and Western New York, in Upper Canada, in West New Jersey,
and Eastern Pennsylvania new congregations were constantly being
organized. Then came the disruption. Fully two-thirds of these newer
churches were broken up. In North Jersey, and Rockland County, New York,
an unwholesome emigration of embittered people began. Families were
broken up, neighbors estranged, and the material as well as moral growth
of the section was checked.
Possibly other communities as well as churches gained large accessions
through this secession. But people of this description are too selfish
and disputatious to foster the peace of any neighborhood. It is well
that their children should ignore and forget the ways of their fathers.
Now all that is left of the True Dutch Church are some ten dying
congregations. Each year or so one of these is disrupted. Civil and
sometimes criminal actions at law follow, and the costs of the
proceedings absorb the remainders of the property. But the remnant still
cling to their name and glory in their history; for they still invoke
the shades of Doctor Solomon Froeligh.
_Evening Post_, N. Y.
JOSEPH R. DURYEE.
* * * * *
[Dominie Freligh was an ardent patriot, as is shown by the letter
herewith, which presents an odd mixture of piety, patriotism and butter.
The original is in the possession of Mr. William Nelson, Secretary of
the N. J. Historical Society, to whom we are indebted for permission to
reproduce it.
The reference in its closing lines to “ladies’ headdress” is easily
understood by a glance at the Mischianza _coiffure_ of the period, as
sketched by Major André—who at the date of this letter had been dead
less than four months.—ED.]
N. Millstone (N. J.) Feb^r. 6th 1781
Rev^d. & very Dear Sir
I Acknowledge herewith the Recept of Yours by M^r. Braket. It Affords
me Singular Pleasure that a Protecting Providence has hitherto
favoured you in your Present Precarious Situation—_Hackinsack_ is
often to me a Subject of Admiration; a Vilage Contiguous to the
Enimies Lines & Accessible from all Quarters Abounding with Whigs,
warmly attached to their Country’s Interest, & a Larger Number
according to its Dimensions than Perhaps any town in the State Could
produce, to be Preserved, is indeed a Striking Instance of Divine
Protection and Seems to indicate, that Notwithstanding your Complaint
of religious Defection there is Still a Remnant—As far as I am Capable
I shall take pleasure in Satisfying Your Curiosity Respecting the
State of religion here—I Can Assure You Sir it wears a Pleasing
Aspect; Several Make Profession of their faith & Confidence in Christ
& Corroborate it with a Corresponding Practice, Several have been
Awakened Since my last & Some who had degenerated from their former
Exemplary piety, Seem to revive, & much regret their Backsliding: The
Exercises of one in particular are very remarkable; a man formerly of
a most Abandoned Profligate life; now Under the Severest Conviction.
Discourses on their own Experiences; Efforts to Obtain knowledge of
the Sacred truths, & family Devotion Prevails much Among them, and as
Little Enthusiasm I think as I ever knew at a Similar Juncture—I much
approve of Your Observation _that the End of a thing is better than
its beginning_ and when I add to this the Numerous Instances of
Dfection, I cannot fear that there will be a _Lot’s wife_ among them
however I fondly hope the Whole Will not proove to be Wild-fire. Such
is their taste for the Gospel, that they Would exact from me more
Preaching than is Consistent in itself or my Circumstances of body &
mind Would Admit of ——
I am Pleased with the mode in which the late Mutiny in the Jersey Line
was Suppressed & Could Wish the Same Steps had been taken with the
Pensylvanians—The Soldiers in Our Army have Doubtless many Causes of
Complaint, but a spirit of insurrection Should never be indulged in an
Army, They Marched thro this place in remarkable good Order; The fate
of _Sir Harry’s_ Wretched Emisaries Which, I presume you have heard
Prooves Your Conjecture Respecting the Enemy’s Joy on the Occasion to
have been Judicious—Recruiting Business we hear goes on in Pensylvania
With Unexpected Success—If M^r Bracket tarrys with us till Thursday I
shall Probably have it in my Power to Send you The paper;
I had Engaged a Quantity of butter, but from the bad Prospect of any
Conveyance this winter I declined, should a proper Conveyance Occur I
shall Endeavour to Procure Some for you: The Rev^d M^r. _Leydt_ is
recovered from his illness that had nearly Prooved the Cause of his
Death, & is hammering away at the Ladies’ headdress with as much
Vehemence As ever—M^r. Hardenbergh it is reported will move in the
Spring:
I have the honour to be With Sincere
Respect & Esteem
Your Fellowlabourer in C
& Truy humble Servt
SOLOMON FRELIGH
(Addressed:)
The Rev^d M^r D: Romeyn
fav^d M^r. Braket }
at Hackinsack. }
A DAY IN THE GREAT DISMAL SWAMP
[The stories and legends associated with the Swamp are many. The most
authentic and pathetic of all, and the one which Thomas Moore has made
the theme of a poem, is to this effect: a young man who lost his mind
on the death of the girl he loved, disappeared, and was never heard
from. As he had frequently said, in his delirium, that she was not
dead, but gone in a canoe to the Swamp, it is supposed that he
wandered there in search of her, and died from exposure.
CHARLES LANMAN, 1847.]
And all night long, by her fire-fly lamp
She paddles her light canoe.—MOORE.
It seemed as if we had hardly been asleep an hour when a knock resounded
on our door, and a voice from the outside said: “Six o’clock, ladies;
breakfast will be ready in fifteen minutes, and the carriage will be
here at half-past six.”
With half-shut eyes we made our toilet, and we were even too sleepy to
enjoy the well-cooked breakfast which was spread for us in the
dining-room of the little Suffolk inn where we had taken lodging for the
night on our arrival by train from Norfolk.
We were not thoroughly awake and interested in the adventure we were
about to undertake, until we found ourselves with guide books and lunch
box on the back seat of a springless carriage, the front seat of which
was occupied by a fat negro, with a good-natured grin, who answered to
the name of “Moses.” We had a three-mile drive before us to the entrance
of the Swamp, where we were to meet our guide and take the boat.
The first stage of our journey lay through the main street of a sleepy
little Virginia town. The sun had not yet dried the dewdrops, and the
old white, pillared houses on either side of the highway, where the
great elms overlapped their branches, were still wrapped in the quiet of
the early morning. Farther along the street, when we reached the shops,
there were more signs of life. Men, who looked like planters of
antebellum days, were taking possession of the chairs which occupied the
sidewalk and the porch of a small hotel. Negroes and mules and great
bunches of bananas were seen on every hand. But we soon left all these
behind and were out in the open country. Level, green fields lay on
either side of us. It was a lonely road, in spite of the greenness and
the sunshine round about us. Occasionally we passed a weather-beaten
negro cabin, and once we saw, looming in the distance, a white
plantation mansion, stately still, in spite of years of neglect.
It seemed to us that this monotonous road might run on indefinitely,
when, suddenly, Moses halted his horses, without apparent cause.
“He’ah we is, I reckon, missus,” said he.
“It can’t be,” returned my traveling companion. “I see nothing like a
swamp.” And then we both of us looked closely at the only object in the
landscape—a clump of willow bushes, seeming to cover the beginning of a
brook that led nowhere in particular.
“Yes’m, he’ah we be su’ah,” reiterated Moses. “An’ he’ah’s Massa
Alphonso now,” and he pointed to a light-haired, lank Virginian, who, at
that moment, appeared from behind the bushes, and stood leaning on an
oar.
The man combined the stateliness of a courtier with the roughness of a
hunter, and the grace of his attitude and his blonde beauty led the
Spinster to christen him “The Lohengrin of the Swamp.”
The object of this unspoken christening now came forward and introduced
himself as our guide. “An’ now, I reckon we might as well be a-startin’,
ladies,” said he. “Wait, ma’am, I’ll help you down the bank. It’s mighty
steep right here, but there wasn’t no other place nigh so good for
hitchin’ the boat. You, Mose, you be back to-night at six o’clock sharp
for the ladies. D’ye understand?”
“Yes, sah’, yes, sah’, su’ah,” and Moses clattered away.
Once settled in the boat, the scene changed. We seemed to have entered
the beginning of an indefinitely long arbor, covered with grapevines. Of
course, there were, in reality, no grapevines, but the willows and the
short, bushy trees which completely overhung the four-foot wide channel
in which our boat rode made the illusion perfect.
“This is beautiful,” said the Spinster, as she watched the sunshine
glinting through the pale-green leaves, still dew-covered, and falling
in bright reflections on the face of the dark water beneath.
“It’s fine!” I echoed; “but when do we enter the swamp, guide?”
“We’re in the swamp now, ma’am. It’ll be just like this for ten miles,
and then we’ll come to the lake.”
“Why—why,” I almost stammered in my amazement, “I thought the swamp was
dark and gloomy, with moss hanging from tall, mournful pine trees, and
not a sound to be heard in the wilderness. If it’s like this, with
bird-calls and sunshine and bright green leaves, why do they call it
‘dismal’?”
Alphonso smiled at my eagerness. “There’s more to it than shows just at
first, ma’am,” he answered. “There are more sad stories about this swamp
than all the sunshine can make bright. In the first place this channel
we’re riding in right now was dug by chain-gangs of slaves. They say the
poor creatures died here in heaps from swamp fever. But that didn’t make
any difference to their owners. They was made to dig right into the
heart of the swamp to get at the juniper trees. You see they are very
valuable—the most valuable wood, I guess, that grows; and they are only
to be found here in this swamp. I’ll show you some of them when we come
to them. They are tall and slim and straight. No, we shan’t get to any
until we are a good bit farther along. I told you the swamp was all
alike, but I didn’t mean that exactly. There’s a good bit of difference,
the deeper in we get, though you might not notice the difference unless
I pointed it out. The trees will be larger and taller, and the
bird-calls will be different—more wild, like, and there’ll be owls and
herons to be seen, and maybe a stork or two. I hope on account o’ you
ladies we shan’t meet no bears, but you see I’ve brought my gun along.
There’s always a chance.”
I was more interested in his story of the slave gangs than in the bears.
“Do you actually mean,” I asked, “that in former times slaves dug this
channel ten miles long to Lake Drummond?”
“Yes, ma’am, that’s an actual fact; but they got some advantages from
it, too, for while they was digging they got to know the swamp pretty
well, and they discovered there was islands hidden away in the center of
the swamp, though miles distant from this channel. The slaves kept their
discovery to themselves, and later on fugitive slaves made use of it. If
they could only reach these islands they were safe from their pursuers,
and it’s said that children and even grandchildren of the first runaways
were born, and lived, and died on these islands.”
“I don’t see what they had to eat,” suggested the prosaic Spinster.