|  |
The American Revolution: Defeat and Victory in New York
|
|
The Battle of Brooklyn was a crushing defeat for General Washington, and the occupation of New York was a disaster for the city. As a center of loyalist support and transatlantic trade, even the victory of the colonists in the Revolutionary War was a defeat for New York. Yet, in the end, the battle, the occupation, and the end of the war were all turned into victories and established New York on a path toward national (and global) prominence.
|
Respond to the statement above, specifying whether you partly or entirely agree or disagree. Use the documents provided and your knowledge of the time period to support your arguments.
Whatever position you take, be sure to explain the how and to address the who, what, when, and especially the why in your response. Be sure to address the counterargument, what historians might say in opposition to your thesis, and to support your argument with historical evidence. Remember that "victory" is a relative term, so be sure to define your terms carefully. Do not forget to consider the point of view of the sources you employ.
Please address the question of defeat and victory for at least three of the following:
1. George Washington
2. the American Revolution
3. loyalist or patriot New Yorkers
4. African Americans
5. federalists and anti-federalists
6. the place of New York City in the new nation
7. the place of New York City in the world
Primary source: "The Journal of the [Stamp Act] Congress, 1765."
Background information: After the conclusion of the Seven Years War (1756–63) between England and France, the British Parliament approved the Stamp Act, a measure to raise revenue to pay for British troops in the American colonies. The following are excerpts from the proceedings of the Stamp Act Congress on October 19, 1765.
[. . . ]
The Members of this Congress sincerely devoted with the warmest Sentiments, of Affection and Duty to his Majesty's Person & Government inviolably attached to the present happy Establishment of the Protestant Succession, and with Minds deeply impressed by a Sense of the present, and impending Misfortunes of the British Colonies on this Continent, having Considered as Maturely as time will permit, the Circumstances of the said Colonies esteem it our indispensable Duty to make the following Declarations of Our Humble Opinion respecting the most essential Rights, and Liberties of the Colonists, and of the Grievances, under which they labour, by Reason of Several late Acts of Parliament.
1st That his Majesty's Subjects in these Colonies Owe the same Allegiance to the Crown of Great Britain, that is Owing from his Subjects born within the Realm, and all due Subordination to that August Body the Parliament of Great Britain.
2d That his Majesty's liege Subjects in these Colonies are entitled to all the Inherent Rights and liberties of his Natural Born Subjects, within the Kingdom of Great Britain.
3d That it is inseparably essential to the Freedom of a People, and the Undoubted Right of Englishmen, that no Taxes be imposed on them, but with their own Consent, given personally or by their Representatives.
[. . . ]
7th That Trial by Jury is the inherent and invaluable Right of every British Subject, in these Colonies.
8th That the late Act of Parliament, entitled, "An Act for Granting and applying certain Stamp Duties, and other Duties in the British Colonies and Plantations in America &c by imposing Taxes on the Inhabitants of these Colonies, and the said Act, and several other Acts, by extending the Jurisdiction of the Courts of Admiralty, beyond its Ancient limits, have a Manifest tendency to Subvert the Rights, and liberties of the Colonists....
11th That the Restrictions imposed by several late Acts of Parliament on the Trade of these Colonies, will render them unable to purchase the Manufactures of Great Britain.
12th That the Increase Prosperity and happiness of these Colonies, depend on the full and free Enjoyment of their Rights and Liberties, and an Intercourse with Great Britain mutually Affectionate and Advantageous.
13th That it is the Right of the British Subjects in these Colonies to Petition the King, or either House of Parliament.
Lastly That it is the indispensable duty of these Colonies to the best of Sovereigns, to the Mother Country, and to themselves, to endeavor by a loyal and dutiful Address to his Majesty, and humble Applications to both Houses of Parliament, to procure the Repeal of the Act for Granting and applying certain Stamp Duties, of all Clauses of any other Acts of Parliament, whereby the Jurisdiction of the Admiralty is extended as aforesaid, and of the other late Acts for the Restriction of American Commerce.
[. . . ]
Modernized spelling is provided by Columbia University Digital Knowledge Ventures.
|
"The Journal of the [Stamp Act] Congress," in C. A. Weslager, The Stamp Act Congress: With an Exact Copy of the Complete Journal (Newark: University of Delaware Press, 1976), 200–202.
back to top
Primary source: “Howe’s Map of the Battle of Brooklyn, October 1776."
Background information: New York City was one of the first military theaters of the American Revolution (1775–83), in the present-day borough of Brooklyn. During the summer of 1776, 32,000 British troops and 88 frigates of the British navy faced down George Washington (1732–99) and his unruly band of 20,000 colonials. By early September, Washington had abandoned New York and retreated across the Hudson River to New Jersey. This map illustrates Washington's path of retreat (represented by the blue lines) in the face of a superior British force (represented by the red lines).
Courtesy of the New York Public Library.
back to top
Primary source: Pennsylvania officer, letter from New York, 1776.
Background information: An officer who fought with George Washington (1732–99) at the Battle of Brooklyn describes the colonials' defeat in late August 1776 and retreat to New Jersey.
[. . . ]
You are no doubt surprised to hear of our sudden retreat from Long Island, but it was thought absolutely essential from our situation: We were under a necessity of marching out and attacking them upon their own ground, or suffering ourselves to have been starved into a surrender. First, because they were entrenching within 500 yards of our lines, which were very weak and incapable of withstanding their heavy cannon, and our men, from their situation, began to grow very uneasy; and secondly, because their shipping might have run up the East River, and cut off our resources of provisions and every other necessary. The retreat was conducted with the greatest secrecy, and by six o'clock in the morning we had every thing embarked. There never was a man that behaved better upon the occasion than General Washington; he was on horse back the whole night, and never left the ferry stairs till he had seen the whole of his troops embarked.
[. . . ]
|
Pennsylvania Officer, “Letter,” (New York, 31 August 1775) in The Pennsylvania Gazette, (4 September 1776).
back to top
Primary source: David Humphreys, "An Essay on the Life of General Putnam, originally published in 1788."
Background information: David Humphreys, an aide-de-camp to George Washington (1732–99), describes the Battle of Harlem Heights, one of several skirmishes that took place in August 1776, before the Americans abandoned New York for New Jersey.
|
. . . [The] next morning several parties of the enemy appeared upon the plains in our front. On receiving this intelligence, General Washington rode quickly to the out-posts, for the purpose of preparing against an attack, if the enemy should advance with that design. Lieutenant-Colonel Knowlton's rangers, a fine selection from the eastern regiments. . . came in, and informed the General that a body of British were. . . at no considerable distance. His Excellency [Washington], willing to raise our men from their dejection by the splendour of some little success, ordered Lieutenant-Colonel Knowlton, with his rangers. . . to gain their rear; while appearances should be made of an attack in front. As soon as the enemy saw the party sent to decoy them, they ran precipately down the hill, took possession of some fences and bushes, and commenced a brisk firing at long shot. . . Colonel Knowlton, who had distinguished himself so gallantly at the battle of Bunker-Hill, was mortally wounded immediately after. Their men,. . . stimulated with the thirst of revenge for the loss of their leaders, and, conscious of acting under the eye of the Commander in Chief, maintained the conflict with uncommon spirit and perseverance. . .
|
David Humphreys, "An Essay on the Life of General Putnam, originally published in 1788," reprint, The Miscellaneous Works of David Humphreys, 1804, A Facsimile Reproduction with an Introduction by William K. Bottorff William K. Bottorff, ed. (Gainsville, Fla.: Scholars' Facsimiles & Reprints, 1968), 307–8.
back to top
Primary source: Petition of 547 Loyalists, 1776.
Background information: In November 1776, following the occupation of New York by the British, more than 500 residents drew up the following petition, pledging their loyalty to the Crown, and asking that General Howe suspend martial law.
To The Right Honorable Richard Viscount Howe, of the Kingdom of Ireland, and His Excellency The Honorable William Howe, Esquire, General of His Majesty's Forces in America, the King's Commissioners for restoring Peace in His Majesty's Colonies and Plantations in North America, &c. &c. &.
May it please your Excellencies.
Impressed with the most grateful sense of the Royal Clemency, manifested in your Proclamation of the 14th. of July last, whereby His Majesty hath been graciously pleased to declare, "That he is desirous to deliver His American subjects from the calamities of War, and other oppressions, which they now undergo:" and equally affected with sentiments of gratitude for that generous and humane attention to the happiness of these Colonies, which distinguishes your Excellencies subsequent Declaration, evincing your disposition "to confer with His Majesty's well affected subjects, upon the means of restoring the public Tranquility, and establishing a permanent union with every Colony as a part of the British Empire."
[. . . ]
We cannot help lamenting that the number of Subscribers to this Address is necessarily lessened, by the unhappy circumstance that many of our Fellow-Citizens, who have firmly adhered to their loyalty, have been driven from their Habitations, and others sent Prisoners into some of the neighbouring Colonies: and tho' it would have afforded us the highest satisfaction, could they have been present upon this occasion: yet we conceive it to be a duty we owe to ourselves and our posterity, whilst this testimony of our Allegiance can be supported by known and recent facts, to declare to your Excellencies; that so far from having given the least countenance or encouragement, to the most unnatural, unprovoked Rebellion, that ever disgraced the annals of Time; we have on the contrary, steadily and uniformly opposed it, in every stage of its rise and progress at the risque of our Lives and Fortunes.
[. . . ]
|
[Petition of 547 Loyalists], 28 November 1776, The New-York Historical Society.
Courtesy of Independence and Its Enemies in New York, in The New-York Historical Society.
back to top
Primary source: Alexander Hamilton, "A Second Letter from Phocion," open letter, 1784.
Background information: Alexander Hamilton (c. 1755–1804)—who would become a leading political theorist and delegate to the Constitutional Convention—after American independence, as a New York City attorney, defended the property rights of New Yorkers who had remained loyal to the Crown during the War for Independence, arguing that America's fiscal health depended on the fair and equal enforcement of the law.
[ . . . ]
By the declaration of Independence on the 4th of July, in the year 1776, acceded to by our Convention on the ninth, the late colony of New-York became an independent state. All the inhabitants, who were subjects under the former government, and who did not withdraw themselves upon the change which took place, were to be considered as citizens, owing allegiance to the new government . . . .
[ . . . ]
. . . for how shall we ascertain who are aliens or traitors, let us call them which we will. It has been seen that the boundaries of the British lines cannot determine the question; for this would be to say, that the merely falling under the power of the British army, constituted every man a traitor or an alien. It would be to confound one third of the citizens of the state in promiscuous guilt and degradation, without evidence, or enquiry . . . Shall we go into an enquiry to ascertain the crime of each person? This would be a prosecution; and the treaty forbids all future prosecutions. Shall the Legislature take the map and make a geographical delineation of the rights and disqualifications of its citizens? This would be to measure innocence and guilt, by latitude and longitude. It would be to condemn and punish, not one man, but thousands for supposed offences, without giving them an opportunity of making their defence. God forbid that such an act of barefaced tyranny should ever disgrace our history! God forbid that the body of the people should be corrupt enough to wish it, or even to submit to it!
[ . . . ]
|
Alexander Hamilton, "A Second Letter from Phocion" (April 1784) in The Papers of Alexander Hamilton, ed. Harold C. Syrett et al. (New York: Columbia University Press, 1962), 3:533, 535.
back to top
Primary source: Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist, essays, 1788.
Background information: As a New York delegate to the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Alexander Hamilton (c. 1755–1804) wrote, along with fellow New Yorker John Jay (1745–1829) and Virginia's James Madison (1751–1836), a series of 85 essays to promote the ratification of the Constitution—many of which were published in the newspapers of New York and other states. Published as a book in 1788, The Federalist defended the establishment of a strong central government, as designed by the Constitution. The following letters were written by Alexander Hamilton in 1787 and 1788.
|
From the Federalist No. 9, first published in the newspaper The Independent Journal
To the People of the State of New York:
A FIRM Union will be of the utmost moment to the peace and liberty of the States, as a barrier against domestic faction and insurrection. It is impossible to read the history of the petty republics of Greece and Italy without feeling sensations of horror and disgust at the distractions with which they were continually agitated, and at the rapid succession of revolutions by which they were kept in a state of perpetual vibration between the extremes of tyranny and anarchy. . .
From the Federalist No. 11, first published in the newspaper The Independent Journal
[. . . ]
Under a vigorous national government, the natural strength and resources of the country, directed to a common interest, would baffle all the combinations of European jealousy to restrain our growth. This situation would even take away the motive to such combinations, by inducing an impracticability of success. An active commerce, an extensive navigation, and a flourishing marine would then be the offspring of moral and physical necessity. We might defy the little arts of the little politicians to control or vary the irresistible and unchangeable course of nature.
From the Federalist No. 84, first published in the newspaper, McLean's Edition
[. . . ]
The most considerable of the remaining objections is that the plan of the convention contains no bill of rights. Among other answers given to this, it has been upon different occasions remarked that the constitutions of several of the States are in a similar predicament. I add that New York is of the number. And yet the opposers of the new system, in this State, who profess an unlimited admiration for its constitution, are among the most intemperate partisans of a bill of rights. . .
The truth is, after all the declamations we have heard, that the Constitution is itself, in every rational sense, and to every useful purpose, A BILL OF RIGHTS. The several bills of rights in Great Britain form its Constitution, and conversely the constitution of each State is its bill of rights. And the proposed Constitution, if adopted, will be the bill of rights of the Union. . .
|
Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist, no. 9 (21 November 1787), 50–53; Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist, no. 11 (24 November 1787), 65–73; Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist, no. 84 (28 May 1788), 575–81; rerprinted in Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Jay, The Federalist (New York: Prometheus Books, 2000), 47, 65, 555, 560–61.
back to top
Primary source: Painting reproduced at American Originals, in U.S. National Archives and Records Administration.
Background information: This painting captures the momentous occasion of George Washington's (1732-99) inauguration as the first President of the United States. The swearing-in ceremony took place on the balcony of Federal Hall in lower Manhattan on April 30, 1789. New York City remained the nation's capital until 1790.
Painting reproduced at American Originals, in U.S. National Archives and Records Administration.
Courtesy of the National Archives and Records Administration, Still Picture Branch, 148-CCD-92C.
back to top
Primary source: "The Bank of New York, 1798," illustration, c. 1880.
Background information: As George Washington's secretary of the treasury, Alexander Hamilton (c.1755–1804) secured the first loan for the United States government from the Bank of New York, still the oldest bank in the country. With the princely sum of $200,000, Hamilton oversaw payment of the war debts accrued by the various states and the redemption of all war-era notes at face value.
back to top
Primary source: "Buttonwood Agreement," 1792.
Background information: According to legend, 24 financiers met under a buttonwood tree on Wall Street and agreed to charge a commission no less than 0.25%. This agreement was the basis for the New York Stock Exchange.
|
We the Subscribers, Brokers for the Purchase and Sale of Public Stock, do hereby solemnly promise and pledge ourselves to each other, that we will not buy or sell from this day for any person whatsoever, any kind of Public Stock, at a less rate than one quarter per cent Commission on the Specie value and that we will give a preference to each other in our Negotiations. In Testimony whereof we have set our hands this 17th day of May at New York. 1792.
|
“Buttonwood Agreement” (May 17, 1792).
Courtesy of the New York Stock Exchange Archives.
back to top
Primary source: Vincent Maragliotti, "Signing of the Buttonwood Agreement, 1792," illustration.
Background information: Beginning in 1793, the Tontine Coffee House on Wall Street served as the headquarters of New York's first stock exchange, following the exchange's organization by the Buttonwood Agreement in 1792.
Vincent Maragliotti, "Signing of the Buttonwood Agreement, 1792," New York Stock Exchange Archives.
Courtesy of the New York Stock Exchange.
back to top
|
| |
