THE NEW YORK STATE MILITARY MUSEUM
Victory...Impossible Without Schuyler’s Direction
By Abigail and Paul Stambach
Two hundred and thirty years ago this summer, one of the most important campaigns of the American Revolution was fought in upstate New York and Vermont.
The action took place at Fort Ticonderoga, Whitehall, Fort Anne, Hubbarton, Fort Stanwix, Bennington and Schuylerville.
The campaign culminated in the American victories at the battles of Saratoga in September and October 1777 when a mighty British army was defeated.
As a result, France with its treasury, army and, more importantly, its naval fleet joined the American cause.
Most historians believe that this French aid resulted in final victory for independence.
The American commander at the time of the climatic Saratoga battles was General Horatio Gates.
Due to a combination of sectionalism amongst the states, class conflict, political intrigue and personal ambition, Gates received credit for the stunning victory.
Major General Philip Schuyler, the architect of the victorious campaign, was condemned as a military incompetent, and possibly even a traitor, despite his acquittal from a court martial in 1778.
In the last 30 years, however, historians such as Don Gerlach, Martin Bush and Richard Ketchum have begun to question the usual beliefs regarding Schuyler’s generalship.
Schuyler’s contributions were vital to the American war effort during the campaign leading up to the critical battles of Saratoga, which took place on September 19 and October 7, 1777.
Although Schuyler was no longer in command when the actual battles took place, nevertheless, his uses of the Fabian tactics of delay and evasion rather than direct confrontation were successful in stalling Burgoyne’s troops as they marched from Canada into northern New York.
Also, Schuyler audaciously split his forces in the face of the enemy’s main onslaught from the north to counter a British feint from the west along the Mohawk River valley.
Without Schuyler’s daring improvisations prior to the Saratoga battles, it is very possible that the campaign of 1777 would have turned out badly for the Americans.
Philip Schuyler was born in 1733 in Albany, New York, to a wealthy and influential Dutch family. [2]
His father, John Schuyler Jr., died when Philip was young, and his mother was Cornelia Van Cortlandt, the daughter of the first lord of Cortlandt Manor.
The Van Cortlandt family was another influential land-owning family of New York and as a result, Schuyler inherited a considerable amount of property when he came of age in 1754. [3]
It has been estimated that Schuyler held between ten to twenty thousand acres of land in and around Albany, with the vast majority of his landholdings in the Saratoga area on the upper Hudson River. [4]
Philip Schuyler settled tenants on his lands, built and operated grist and saw mills, and raised cash crops such as wheat and lumber.
In 1755, he married Catharine Van Rensselaer, the daughter of John Van Rensselaer, proprietor of Crailo and the Claverack estates of about 60,000 acres, and first cousin to the Lord of the Manor of Rensselaerswyck. [5]
Schuyler attained even more status in New York society via his marriage to Catharine, and the Van Rensselaer connections would assist him throughout his military and political career.
Schuyler’s military experience began at the onset of the French and Indian War, when he was just twenty-two years old.
In May of 1755, New York granted him a commission as captain of militia and he raised a company of men by July of that year.
His company was sent to join Colonel William Cockcroft at Lake George but Schuyler was only present for a short period of time because he was called back to Albany in September in order to marry Catharine, who was pregnant at the time.
As a result, Schuyler was not present during the Battle of Lake George, which took place a few days prior to his wedding. [6]
Eventually, Schuyler returned to duty to serve as a Major under Colonel John Bradstreet who was the British Deputy Quartermaster General for the colony of New York.
In this position he learned logistics i.e. the equipping, supplying and transporting of troops.
With his talent for business and family connections, Schuyler excelled at organizing military supplies, and “throughout 1759 and1760...worked out of Albany collecting and forwarding provisions to Lord Jeffrey Amherst’s forces." [7]
When Schuyler was appointed by the Second Continental Congress on June 19, 1775 to command the Northern Department of the Continental army, [8] he “literally had to create and supply an entire army, and a navy to move it.” [9]
Schuyler’s first orders from Congress were to organize an invasion of Canada.
Schuyler handled this formidable challenge efficiently, and the invasion of Canada commenced near the end of 1775.
Montreal fell quickly and the Canadian campaign was initially a success, but the army began to break down as it approached Quebec.
Schuyler was not in direct command because he fell ill and was brought back to Fort Ticonderoga before the troops had reached Canada.
He relinquished field command to his second, General Richard Montgomery, who was killed during the abortive attack on Quebec on December 31, 1775. [10]
TO BE CONTINUED ...
ON PHILIP SCHUYLER
Re: ON PHILIP SCHUYLER
THE NEW YORK STATE MILITARY MUSEUM
Victory...Impossible Without Schuyler’s Direction, continued ...
By Abigail and Paul Stambach
General Schuyler spent 1776 reorganizing his army and battling Horatio Gates and New England politicians in order to hold on to his position as Major General.
He also had to contend with the British advance down Lake Champlain.
Due to Schuyler’s efforts to create a makeshift navy, his subordinate Benedict Arnold, was able to check the British fleet under the command of Sir Guy Carleton at the battle of Valcour Island on October 11, 1776.
The American fleet consisted of 17 vessels “armed with a total of 102 guns, 176 Swivel guns and 900 men." [11]
The men, materials, and guns used to build this fleet at Skenesbourgh were procured through the efforts of Schuyler and his staff.
Although the American fleet was destroyed, the British invasion plans were postponed until the spring of 1777.
Schuyler and Arnold had bought the “rebels time to gather strength and resources that would be used at the Battle of Saratoga." [12]
The campaign of 1777 began when General John Burgoyne and 8,000 British regulars and German soldiers arrived in Canada from England in May. [13]
Burgoyne’s mission “was to drive the rebels from Lake Champlain and Lake George and open communications with Sir William Howe...St. Leger would be moving...from the west to cut their supply line.." [14]
This three-pronged strategy was meant to invest the Albany area and take control of the Hudson River, thus separating New England from the rest of the colonies, with each section of the country then conquered in turn.
General Burgoyne began his part of the campaign on June 20th when he started descending Lake Champlain to Crown Point on the west bank of the lake.
From there, he marched to Fort Ticonderoga located at the juncture of Lake Champlain and Lake George. [15]
Roughly 3,000 Continental soldiers under the command of General Arthur St. Clair garrisoned Fort Ticonderoga. [16]
Most Americans regarded Ticonderoga as the gateway to Albany and saw the fort as key to the protection of the colonies against an invasion from Canada.
“Fort Ticonderoga was regarded by the Americans as impregnable." [17]
Schuyler, however, had long realized the fallacy of that belief.
First off, the fort was poorly situated to resist an attack from the north, as it had originally been constructed by the French to resist an attack from the south (which it did gloriously in 1758.) [18]
Secondly, the fort was in dire need of repair.
Upon inspection in 1775, Schuyler was shocked at its condition and reported the garrison so lacking in alertness he could take it with just a “pen knife." [19]
Thanks to Schuyler’s efforts at rehabilitation, the fort was in better shape than it was in the beginning of the Revolutionary War, but still, Schuyler always planned to abandon the post if necessary and informed Congress the same as early as June 1775.
[20]
Despite Schuyler’s efforts, the fort’s defenses remained inadequate in 1777.
The powder magazine was rotted, and due to a lack of funds the majority of the garrison was either sick or lacked basic equipment, including guns. [21]
But perhaps most disastrously, to the southwest of Ticonderoga is a hill called Mt. Defiance that provided high ground that could be used to bombard the fort. [22]
Lt. Colonel John Trumbull, the future portraitist, had seen this flaw in the fort’s defenses and drew up a report with a recommendation to fortify the position.
He sent copies to Gates, Schuyler and the Continental Congress.
Gates, perhaps disingenuously, said afterward that he was persuaded.
Schuyler, however, “thought it wrong to throw away labor in preventing an evil that could never happen."[/b][/color] [23]
As a result, Mt. Defiance was not fortified.
When the British reached the area, they immediately placed two 12-pound cannons at the top of the hill and had “‘the entire command of the works and buildings both of Ticonderoga and Mt. Independence...’”[24]
St. Clair had no choice but to evacuate Fort Ticonderoga and retreat.
The British had an excellent start to their campaign, and after the fall of Fort Ticonderoga they continued to move southwards towards Albany via Lake Champlain.
In three weeks after leaving Canada, the British had covered over one hundred miles and captured the most important American post, with its nearly irreplaceable 128 guns.
The British were only forty miles from Albany and were in far stronger shape than the Americans. [25]
The evacuation of Fort Ticonderoga without a fight was a bitter disappointment to Schuyler and he knew his reputation would be sullied.
At this point, the Northern Department was in desperate straits.
St. Clair and his forces had gone missing after the retreat from Fort Ticonderoga, all of their artillery from Ticonderoga was gone, supplies were minimal and manpower was low.
In one of the many letters sent to his superiors, Schuyler described his troops as, “boys and men to aged for Field.”
Many had taken the field poorly armed, inadequately accoutered, naked and without blankets, yet these were the only men raised for continental service. [26]
Schuyler simultaneously needed to stall Burgoyne’s advance and improve the state of the department.
Richard Ketchum states, “If ever a man had a full plate, laden with ingredients for indigestion, it was Major General Philip Schuyler." [27]
It looked as if the British were going to sweep through to Albany in a matter of days, and at this point, Schuyler and the Americans could only hope that Burgoyne would make a mistake that would buy them time.
Incredibly, Burgoyne obliged.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Victory...Impossible Without Schuyler’s Direction, continued ...
By Abigail and Paul Stambach
General Schuyler spent 1776 reorganizing his army and battling Horatio Gates and New England politicians in order to hold on to his position as Major General.
He also had to contend with the British advance down Lake Champlain.
Due to Schuyler’s efforts to create a makeshift navy, his subordinate Benedict Arnold, was able to check the British fleet under the command of Sir Guy Carleton at the battle of Valcour Island on October 11, 1776.
The American fleet consisted of 17 vessels “armed with a total of 102 guns, 176 Swivel guns and 900 men." [11]
The men, materials, and guns used to build this fleet at Skenesbourgh were procured through the efforts of Schuyler and his staff.
Although the American fleet was destroyed, the British invasion plans were postponed until the spring of 1777.
Schuyler and Arnold had bought the “rebels time to gather strength and resources that would be used at the Battle of Saratoga." [12]
The campaign of 1777 began when General John Burgoyne and 8,000 British regulars and German soldiers arrived in Canada from England in May. [13]
Burgoyne’s mission “was to drive the rebels from Lake Champlain and Lake George and open communications with Sir William Howe...St. Leger would be moving...from the west to cut their supply line.." [14]
This three-pronged strategy was meant to invest the Albany area and take control of the Hudson River, thus separating New England from the rest of the colonies, with each section of the country then conquered in turn.
General Burgoyne began his part of the campaign on June 20th when he started descending Lake Champlain to Crown Point on the west bank of the lake.
From there, he marched to Fort Ticonderoga located at the juncture of Lake Champlain and Lake George. [15]
Roughly 3,000 Continental soldiers under the command of General Arthur St. Clair garrisoned Fort Ticonderoga. [16]
Most Americans regarded Ticonderoga as the gateway to Albany and saw the fort as key to the protection of the colonies against an invasion from Canada.
“Fort Ticonderoga was regarded by the Americans as impregnable." [17]
Schuyler, however, had long realized the fallacy of that belief.
First off, the fort was poorly situated to resist an attack from the north, as it had originally been constructed by the French to resist an attack from the south (which it did gloriously in 1758.) [18]
Secondly, the fort was in dire need of repair.
Upon inspection in 1775, Schuyler was shocked at its condition and reported the garrison so lacking in alertness he could take it with just a “pen knife." [19]
Thanks to Schuyler’s efforts at rehabilitation, the fort was in better shape than it was in the beginning of the Revolutionary War, but still, Schuyler always planned to abandon the post if necessary and informed Congress the same as early as June 1775.
[20]
Despite Schuyler’s efforts, the fort’s defenses remained inadequate in 1777.
The powder magazine was rotted, and due to a lack of funds the majority of the garrison was either sick or lacked basic equipment, including guns. [21]
But perhaps most disastrously, to the southwest of Ticonderoga is a hill called Mt. Defiance that provided high ground that could be used to bombard the fort. [22]
Lt. Colonel John Trumbull, the future portraitist, had seen this flaw in the fort’s defenses and drew up a report with a recommendation to fortify the position.
He sent copies to Gates, Schuyler and the Continental Congress.
Gates, perhaps disingenuously, said afterward that he was persuaded.
Schuyler, however, “thought it wrong to throw away labor in preventing an evil that could never happen."[/b][/color] [23]
As a result, Mt. Defiance was not fortified.
When the British reached the area, they immediately placed two 12-pound cannons at the top of the hill and had “‘the entire command of the works and buildings both of Ticonderoga and Mt. Independence...’”[24]
St. Clair had no choice but to evacuate Fort Ticonderoga and retreat.
The British had an excellent start to their campaign, and after the fall of Fort Ticonderoga they continued to move southwards towards Albany via Lake Champlain.
In three weeks after leaving Canada, the British had covered over one hundred miles and captured the most important American post, with its nearly irreplaceable 128 guns.
The British were only forty miles from Albany and were in far stronger shape than the Americans. [25]
The evacuation of Fort Ticonderoga without a fight was a bitter disappointment to Schuyler and he knew his reputation would be sullied.
At this point, the Northern Department was in desperate straits.
St. Clair and his forces had gone missing after the retreat from Fort Ticonderoga, all of their artillery from Ticonderoga was gone, supplies were minimal and manpower was low.
In one of the many letters sent to his superiors, Schuyler described his troops as, “boys and men to aged for Field.”
Many had taken the field poorly armed, inadequately accoutered, naked and without blankets, yet these were the only men raised for continental service. [26]
Schuyler simultaneously needed to stall Burgoyne’s advance and improve the state of the department.
Richard Ketchum states, “If ever a man had a full plate, laden with ingredients for indigestion, it was Major General Philip Schuyler." [27]
It looked as if the British were going to sweep through to Albany in a matter of days, and at this point, Schuyler and the Americans could only hope that Burgoyne would make a mistake that would buy them time.
Incredibly, Burgoyne obliged.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: ON PHILIP SCHUYLER
THE NEW YORK STATE MILITARY MUSEUM
Victory...Impossible Without Schuyler’s Direction, continued ...
By Abigail and Paul Stambach
General Burgoyne was faced with a decision of what route to take from Fort Ticonderoga to Albany.
His choices were either by land or by water.
The route that he chose was very important because it “would determine the direction and organization of his supply line, on which everything depended.”
Prior to this point, the British troops were moving so rapidly that they had started to outrun their provisions and artillery.
Therefore, they had to choose their route carefully. [28]
Burgoyne eventually chose to go by land, which meant that they would march from Skenesborough to Fort Anne and another sixteen miles from Fort Anne to Fort Edward.
When Burgoyne made the critical mistake of advancing towards Fort Anne rather than backtracking to the northern end of Lake George and using that water route, General Schuyler made the decision to start destroying the roads and trails turning his route “into a nightmarish jungle." [29]
Burgoyne would be marching through the wilderlands of northern New York, an area described as “an unforgiving country, no place for an army to travel — gloomy, forbidding, the swamps throbbing with the sounds of insects, the air stifling, dark little streams and meander that seemed to go nowhere." [30]
This route would be difficult but Schuyler and his men made it even more so.
Using Fabian tactics and putting numerous obstacles in Burgoyne’s way, Schuyler and the Continentals “sent trees crashing down in tangles across the roadways, broke up bridges, diverted streams and impeded the invader’s path with water and boulders." [31]
The British had to drag trees away from the middle of the road and build wagons, reconstruct bridges and causeways in order to cross creeks and marshes.
As Burgoyne reported, “‘The country was a wilderness, in almost every part of the passage the enemy took the means of cutting large timber trees on both sides of the road so as to lay across and lengthwise with the branches interwoven.'"
"'The troops had not only layers of them to remove in places where it was impossible to take any other direction, but also they had above forty bridges to construct and others to repair, one of which was logwood over a morass, two miles in extent.’”[32]
It should also be kept in mind that most of the men under Schuyler’s control were militiamen.
Even the Continental soldiers were not professional soldiers such as the experienced British and German regiments.
Schuyler made perfect use of men far more suited to hard labor than to combat.
Richard Ketchum captures this idea perfectly when he states “A man who had cleared acres of forest to create a farmstead, who had built his own home out of timber he cut and hewed, and whose sole source of heat in winter comes from his stack of firewood gets to be uncommonly handy with an axe."
"And when hundreds of such fellows are put to work at what they do best, the results are likely to be prodigious, as the British and Germans were about to learn." [33]
By utilizing the strengths of his inexperienced troops, Schuyler’s scheme for slowing down the British was very successful.
It took Burgoyne twenty-four days to cover just twenty-three miles in order to reach Fort Edward. [34]
On top of the delaying tactics, Schuyler also ordered a scorched earth policy.
Crops were destroyed and any livestock was scared away by the Continental soldiers.
In the eighteenth century, it was a common practice for an army to live off the land, so the scorched earth policy meant that Burgoyne had to rely solely on his lengthy supply lines for provisions.
Burgoyne’s lines were already very long, and as one German general pointed out “The best way to supply the army on the march...was to collect cattle from abandoned homesteads, as his fellows had been doing around Castle Town, and to buy beef animals from friendly farmers, at the same time acquiring draft animals by the same methods." [35]
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Victory...Impossible Without Schuyler’s Direction, continued ...
By Abigail and Paul Stambach
General Burgoyne was faced with a decision of what route to take from Fort Ticonderoga to Albany.
His choices were either by land or by water.
The route that he chose was very important because it “would determine the direction and organization of his supply line, on which everything depended.”
Prior to this point, the British troops were moving so rapidly that they had started to outrun their provisions and artillery.
Therefore, they had to choose their route carefully. [28]
Burgoyne eventually chose to go by land, which meant that they would march from Skenesborough to Fort Anne and another sixteen miles from Fort Anne to Fort Edward.
When Burgoyne made the critical mistake of advancing towards Fort Anne rather than backtracking to the northern end of Lake George and using that water route, General Schuyler made the decision to start destroying the roads and trails turning his route “into a nightmarish jungle." [29]
Burgoyne would be marching through the wilderlands of northern New York, an area described as “an unforgiving country, no place for an army to travel — gloomy, forbidding, the swamps throbbing with the sounds of insects, the air stifling, dark little streams and meander that seemed to go nowhere." [30]
This route would be difficult but Schuyler and his men made it even more so.
Using Fabian tactics and putting numerous obstacles in Burgoyne’s way, Schuyler and the Continentals “sent trees crashing down in tangles across the roadways, broke up bridges, diverted streams and impeded the invader’s path with water and boulders." [31]
The British had to drag trees away from the middle of the road and build wagons, reconstruct bridges and causeways in order to cross creeks and marshes.
As Burgoyne reported, “‘The country was a wilderness, in almost every part of the passage the enemy took the means of cutting large timber trees on both sides of the road so as to lay across and lengthwise with the branches interwoven.'"
"'The troops had not only layers of them to remove in places where it was impossible to take any other direction, but also they had above forty bridges to construct and others to repair, one of which was logwood over a morass, two miles in extent.’”[32]
It should also be kept in mind that most of the men under Schuyler’s control were militiamen.
Even the Continental soldiers were not professional soldiers such as the experienced British and German regiments.
Schuyler made perfect use of men far more suited to hard labor than to combat.
Richard Ketchum captures this idea perfectly when he states “A man who had cleared acres of forest to create a farmstead, who had built his own home out of timber he cut and hewed, and whose sole source of heat in winter comes from his stack of firewood gets to be uncommonly handy with an axe."
"And when hundreds of such fellows are put to work at what they do best, the results are likely to be prodigious, as the British and Germans were about to learn." [33]
By utilizing the strengths of his inexperienced troops, Schuyler’s scheme for slowing down the British was very successful.
It took Burgoyne twenty-four days to cover just twenty-three miles in order to reach Fort Edward. [34]
On top of the delaying tactics, Schuyler also ordered a scorched earth policy.
Crops were destroyed and any livestock was scared away by the Continental soldiers.
In the eighteenth century, it was a common practice for an army to live off the land, so the scorched earth policy meant that Burgoyne had to rely solely on his lengthy supply lines for provisions.
Burgoyne’s lines were already very long, and as one German general pointed out “The best way to supply the army on the march...was to collect cattle from abandoned homesteads, as his fellows had been doing around Castle Town, and to buy beef animals from friendly farmers, at the same time acquiring draft animals by the same methods." [35]
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: ON PHILIP SCHUYLER
THE NEW YORK STATE MILITARY MUSEUM
Victory...Impossible Without Schuyler’s Direction, continued ...
By Abigail and Paul Stambach
Schuyler had seriously weakened Burgoyne’s army.
With his troops exhausted from the backbreaking work required to clear roads, and half starved due to the beleaguered supply lines, Burgoyne knew the stripped and burned land couldn’t sustain his army.
Receiving reports that there was a sizable store of unprotected flour and livestock in Bennington, Burgoyne sent a column of troops to retrieve these supplies.
However, General John Stark and the New Hampshire/Vermont militia (reinforced with troops sent by Schuyler) [36] were in Bennington guarding the stores, and a fierce engagement took place outside Bennington that resulted in two hundred British killed and six hundred and ninety-six captured.
The Americans, on the other hand, only suffered thirty dead and about fifty wounded.
[37]
This victory, viewed on the American side as a riposte to the fall of Ticonderoga, was important because not only did it reduce the size of Burgoyne’s army, it also forced the British back on their tenuous supply lines.
The Battle of Bennington was the first significant setback to Burgoyne’s advancement except for the major difficulty Schuyler had created by forcing his slow movement of provisions, troops and artillery. [38]
Another blow to the British cause came when St. Leger was stopped at Fort Schuyler (formerly named Fort Stanwix.)
Located on the important portage connecting Wood Creek and the Mohawk River, the fort had been besieged by St. Leger and his Indian allies since August 3rd.
On August 13, Schuyler sent nine hundred men under Benedict Arnold to lift the siege.
St. Leger was relying on Indians to wreak havoc in the area, but Arnold succeeded in freeing Fort Schuyler because he was able to get the Indians to abandon their British allies.
Like Schuyler, Arnold’s success relied more on wiles than firepower: by spreading a rumor about the great size of his army through Hon-Yost, a mentally defective man viewed as a prophet by the Indians, [39] Arnold got the Indians to desert in large numbers.
The Indians broke into the British rum stores and abandoned St. Leger’s works before Arnold ever reached Fort Schuyler, and the siege was lifted on August 23, 1777. [40]
Stopping St. Leger was crucial to the Americans; had St. Leger been able to continue down the Mohawk River to join Burgoyne, the British would have had troops in the rear of the main American force. [41]
As the summer of 1777 went on, the situation for the Americans was getting better.
Schuyler had succeeded in buying time to reorganize and prepare his army for an engagement, while Burgoyne’s troops had become significantly weakened during their arduous advance.
All the while, Schuyler was also working hard to increase the size of his army by requesting more troops from Washington and trying to convince New England leaders that their militia was needed. [42]
By the time the first battle of Saratoga took place on September 19, 1777, Schuyler had procured thousands of troops and dozens of artillery pieces for the Northern Army.
General Schuyler’s strategy of not risking his army in a decisive action but working to weaken the invaders through the use of “scorched earth,” delay and harassment was successful.
In September 1777, neither the British nor the American armies were the same instruments of war as they were in July 1777.
Schuyler, however, was unable to enjoy the fruits of his ingenuous tactics.
Even though he hadn’t been in command of Fort Ticonderoga when it fell, he was blamed for the fort’s uninspired defense and subsequent capture.
General Gates, one of the most political generals in the American army, and New England representatives to Congress such as Sam Adams, had been working diligently all summer long to remove Schuyler from his position after the events at Fort Ticonderoga.
Finally on August 4, 1777, Congress officially relieved Schuyler from command.
Washington was originally asked to choose a successor but he declined, so Congress appointed General Gates as the new Major General of the Northern Department.
Schuyler’s removal wasn’t just about his military record; it was also because of intersectional politics.
There was long-standing enmity between the Dutch in New York and New Englanders stemming from the French and Indian wars, and New Englanders did not favor Schuyler because he was of Dutch ancestry.
Also, as one of the largest and most successful landowners in the colonies, the so-called yeoman farmers of New England supposedly distrusted Schuyler and were reluctant to serve under his command.
Finally, “his support for New York’s claim to the disputed area of the New Hampshire Grants (now Vermont) against the powerful New Englanders had made him important enemies in Congress." [43]
Even though he was discharged in early August, Schuyler remained at his post until Gates reached headquarters to replace him, which was not until August 19. [44]
One month later the British and Americans met at the battle of Freeman’s Farm.
During the battle, the British were again heavily bled; Burgoyne lost about six hundred men while the American casualties only totaled about four hundred.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Victory...Impossible Without Schuyler’s Direction, continued ...
By Abigail and Paul Stambach
Schuyler had seriously weakened Burgoyne’s army.
With his troops exhausted from the backbreaking work required to clear roads, and half starved due to the beleaguered supply lines, Burgoyne knew the stripped and burned land couldn’t sustain his army.
Receiving reports that there was a sizable store of unprotected flour and livestock in Bennington, Burgoyne sent a column of troops to retrieve these supplies.
However, General John Stark and the New Hampshire/Vermont militia (reinforced with troops sent by Schuyler) [36] were in Bennington guarding the stores, and a fierce engagement took place outside Bennington that resulted in two hundred British killed and six hundred and ninety-six captured.
The Americans, on the other hand, only suffered thirty dead and about fifty wounded.
[37]
This victory, viewed on the American side as a riposte to the fall of Ticonderoga, was important because not only did it reduce the size of Burgoyne’s army, it also forced the British back on their tenuous supply lines.
The Battle of Bennington was the first significant setback to Burgoyne’s advancement except for the major difficulty Schuyler had created by forcing his slow movement of provisions, troops and artillery. [38]
Another blow to the British cause came when St. Leger was stopped at Fort Schuyler (formerly named Fort Stanwix.)
Located on the important portage connecting Wood Creek and the Mohawk River, the fort had been besieged by St. Leger and his Indian allies since August 3rd.
On August 13, Schuyler sent nine hundred men under Benedict Arnold to lift the siege.
St. Leger was relying on Indians to wreak havoc in the area, but Arnold succeeded in freeing Fort Schuyler because he was able to get the Indians to abandon their British allies.
Like Schuyler, Arnold’s success relied more on wiles than firepower: by spreading a rumor about the great size of his army through Hon-Yost, a mentally defective man viewed as a prophet by the Indians, [39] Arnold got the Indians to desert in large numbers.
The Indians broke into the British rum stores and abandoned St. Leger’s works before Arnold ever reached Fort Schuyler, and the siege was lifted on August 23, 1777. [40]
Stopping St. Leger was crucial to the Americans; had St. Leger been able to continue down the Mohawk River to join Burgoyne, the British would have had troops in the rear of the main American force. [41]
As the summer of 1777 went on, the situation for the Americans was getting better.
Schuyler had succeeded in buying time to reorganize and prepare his army for an engagement, while Burgoyne’s troops had become significantly weakened during their arduous advance.
All the while, Schuyler was also working hard to increase the size of his army by requesting more troops from Washington and trying to convince New England leaders that their militia was needed. [42]
By the time the first battle of Saratoga took place on September 19, 1777, Schuyler had procured thousands of troops and dozens of artillery pieces for the Northern Army.
General Schuyler’s strategy of not risking his army in a decisive action but working to weaken the invaders through the use of “scorched earth,” delay and harassment was successful.
In September 1777, neither the British nor the American armies were the same instruments of war as they were in July 1777.
Schuyler, however, was unable to enjoy the fruits of his ingenuous tactics.
Even though he hadn’t been in command of Fort Ticonderoga when it fell, he was blamed for the fort’s uninspired defense and subsequent capture.
General Gates, one of the most political generals in the American army, and New England representatives to Congress such as Sam Adams, had been working diligently all summer long to remove Schuyler from his position after the events at Fort Ticonderoga.
Finally on August 4, 1777, Congress officially relieved Schuyler from command.
Washington was originally asked to choose a successor but he declined, so Congress appointed General Gates as the new Major General of the Northern Department.
Schuyler’s removal wasn’t just about his military record; it was also because of intersectional politics.
There was long-standing enmity between the Dutch in New York and New Englanders stemming from the French and Indian wars, and New Englanders did not favor Schuyler because he was of Dutch ancestry.
Also, as one of the largest and most successful landowners in the colonies, the so-called yeoman farmers of New England supposedly distrusted Schuyler and were reluctant to serve under his command.
Finally, “his support for New York’s claim to the disputed area of the New Hampshire Grants (now Vermont) against the powerful New Englanders had made him important enemies in Congress." [43]
Even though he was discharged in early August, Schuyler remained at his post until Gates reached headquarters to replace him, which was not until August 19. [44]
One month later the British and Americans met at the battle of Freeman’s Farm.
During the battle, the British were again heavily bled; Burgoyne lost about six hundred men while the American casualties only totaled about four hundred.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: ON PHILIP SCHUYLER
THE NEW YORK STATE MILITARY MUSEUM
Victory...Impossible Without Schuyler’s Direction, continued ...
By Abigail and Paul Stambach
For the next three weeks, the Americans and British strengthened their positions until the second battle of Saratoga took place on October 7.
During this interval, the British were quite simply miserable.
Their camp “stank of rotting corpses...about eight hundred sick and wounded lay in tents and roughly constructed huts, while the cries of the unrecovered others filled the darkness and mingled hideously with the cries of wolves who gathered to feed upon them or to scratch up the freshly buried dead." [45]
Supplies were running low and the battle on October 7 was a last ditch attempt on Burgoyne’s part to break through the American lines.
Once again, the action was a disaster for the British, and Burgoyne had no other option but to surrender.
Burgoyne’s army had been on the march since May of that year and his troops were surrounded and spent.
The question that needs to be asked is, who should be given credit for the victory at Saratoga, Philip Schuyler, Horatio Gates or Benedict Arnold?
The answer is that all three deserve a fair share of the credit.
Even though Schuyler was not the commander when the actual victory took place, he was responsible for a string of successes that eventually led to Burgoyne’s shattering defeat.
Schuyler’s Fabian tactics broke the British army down during their overly long and miserable march from Fort Ticonderoga to Saratoga.
Also, this delay contributed greatly to the outcome of the campaign because it gave the Americans time to gather their forces.
The Northern Department was in chaos before Schuyler took charge of the summer campaign; there were few soldiers, practically no supplies, and Fort Ticonderoga, mistakenly believed to be an impregnable cornerstone of the American defenses, was in shambles.
The army could not have successfully met any British engagement in June of 1777, but by the time Gates took command of the troops, the Continentals were much better equipped, experienced, and more numerous.
All through the summer, Schuyler did “...everything in his power to strengthen the Northern Department with almost inexhaustible energy." [46]
By wielding all the resources at hand and playing to the strengths of his men, Schuyler completely altered the course of the campaign by engineering the twin British defeats at Bennington and Fort Schuyler, thus setting the stage for Burgoyne’s dramatic surrender.
As General Nathanael Greene wrote of Saratoga, “The victory would have been impossible without [Schuyler’s] direction...General Gates came in just time to reap the laurels and rewards." [47]
This article started out as a term paper by Abigail, a senior at Gettysburg College majoring in History.
She works summers as an interpreter at the Schuyler Mansion State Historic Site in Albany, NY.
Her father, Paul, enhanced the paper into this article.
Paul was the manager of Schuyler Mansion and the Crailo State Historic Site in Rensselaer, NY during the 1970s.
They encourage the reader to visit these sites to gain an understanding of what men like Philip Schuyler and John Van Rensselaer put at risk with their support of the war for independence.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Victory...Impossible Without Schuyler’s Direction, continued ...
By Abigail and Paul Stambach
For the next three weeks, the Americans and British strengthened their positions until the second battle of Saratoga took place on October 7.
During this interval, the British were quite simply miserable.
Their camp “stank of rotting corpses...about eight hundred sick and wounded lay in tents and roughly constructed huts, while the cries of the unrecovered others filled the darkness and mingled hideously with the cries of wolves who gathered to feed upon them or to scratch up the freshly buried dead." [45]
Supplies were running low and the battle on October 7 was a last ditch attempt on Burgoyne’s part to break through the American lines.
Once again, the action was a disaster for the British, and Burgoyne had no other option but to surrender.
Burgoyne’s army had been on the march since May of that year and his troops were surrounded and spent.
The question that needs to be asked is, who should be given credit for the victory at Saratoga, Philip Schuyler, Horatio Gates or Benedict Arnold?
The answer is that all three deserve a fair share of the credit.
Even though Schuyler was not the commander when the actual victory took place, he was responsible for a string of successes that eventually led to Burgoyne’s shattering defeat.
Schuyler’s Fabian tactics broke the British army down during their overly long and miserable march from Fort Ticonderoga to Saratoga.
Also, this delay contributed greatly to the outcome of the campaign because it gave the Americans time to gather their forces.
The Northern Department was in chaos before Schuyler took charge of the summer campaign; there were few soldiers, practically no supplies, and Fort Ticonderoga, mistakenly believed to be an impregnable cornerstone of the American defenses, was in shambles.
The army could not have successfully met any British engagement in June of 1777, but by the time Gates took command of the troops, the Continentals were much better equipped, experienced, and more numerous.
All through the summer, Schuyler did “...everything in his power to strengthen the Northern Department with almost inexhaustible energy." [46]
By wielding all the resources at hand and playing to the strengths of his men, Schuyler completely altered the course of the campaign by engineering the twin British defeats at Bennington and Fort Schuyler, thus setting the stage for Burgoyne’s dramatic surrender.
As General Nathanael Greene wrote of Saratoga, “The victory would have been impossible without [Schuyler’s] direction...General Gates came in just time to reap the laurels and rewards." [47]
This article started out as a term paper by Abigail, a senior at Gettysburg College majoring in History.
She works summers as an interpreter at the Schuyler Mansion State Historic Site in Albany, NY.
Her father, Paul, enhanced the paper into this article.
Paul was the manager of Schuyler Mansion and the Crailo State Historic Site in Rensselaer, NY during the 1970s.
They encourage the reader to visit these sites to gain an understanding of what men like Philip Schuyler and John Van Rensselaer put at risk with their support of the war for independence.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: ON PHILIP SCHUYLER
THE NEW YORK STATE MILITARY MUSEUM
Victory...Impossible Without Schuyler’s Direction, concluded ...
By Abigail and Paul Stambach
Footnotes
1 Bartleby.com, www.bartelby.com/59/4/fabiantactic.html.
2 Martin H. Bush, Revolutionary Enigma (Port Washington, NY, Ira J. Friedman, Inc., 1969) 4; and Don R, Gerlach, Philip Schuyler and the American Revolution 1775-1777 (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1964), 1.
3 Bush, Revolutionary Enigma, 6.
4 Gerlach, Proud Patriot, 2-3.
5 Gerlach, Proud Patriot, 3; Ellen Miller and Paul Stambach, “Historic Structures Report on Crailo, 1977,” 5. Copy on file at the Crailo State Historic Site, Rensselaer, NY.
6 Bush, Revolutionary Enigma, 7.
7 Bush, Revolutionary Enigma, 7-8.
8 Stuart R. Lehman, “This Patriot and Soldier: The Military Career of Philip Schuyler,” (paper written for Schuyler Mansion State Historic Site, Albany, NY, 1987), 23; Journals of the Continental Congress, Vol. 2, Library of Congress, 99.
9 Lehman, “This Patriot and Soldier,” 23.
10 Lehman, “This Patriot and Soldier,” 25-26.
11 Gerlach, Proud Patriot, 179.
12 Matthew Seelinger, “Buying Time: The Battle of Valcour Island,” Army History Research Center.
13 Christopher Hibbert, Redcoats and Rebels (New York; W. W. Norton and Company, 1990), 163.
14 Richard M. Ketchum, Saratoga (New York; Henry Holt and Company, 1997), 127.
15 Hibbert, Redcoats and Rebels, 167.
16 Hibbert, Redcoats and Rebels, 169.
17 Don R. Gerlach, “Philip Schuyler and the ‘Road to Glory,’” New York Historical Quarterly 49:4 (October 1965), 374.
18 Ketchum, Saratoga, 116.
19 Gerlach, Proud Patriot, 28.
20 Schuyler letter to Continental Congress, June 29, 1775, on file at the Schuyler Mansion State Historic Site, Albany, NY.
21 Benson, Bobrick, Angel in the Whirlwind: The Triumph of the American Revolution (New York; Simon and Schuster, 1997), 250.
22 Ketchum, Saratoga, 116-117.
23 Max M. Mintz, The Generals of Saratoga: John Burgoyne and Horatio Gates (New Haven & London; Yale University Press, 1990), 107.
24 Robert Harvey, A Few Bloody Noses: The Realities and Mythologies of the American Revolution (The Overlook Press, New York, 2002), 246.
25 Hibbert, Redcoats and Rebels, 171.
26 Gerlach, Proud Patriot, 290.
27 Ketchum, Saratoga, 245.
28 Ketchum, Saratoga, 239.
29 Ketchum, Saratoga, 248.
30 Ketchum, Saratoga, 250.
31 Gerlach, Proud Patriot, 260.
32 Harvey, A Few Bloody Noses, 248.
33 Ketchum, Saratoga, 248.
34 Gerlach, Proud Patriot, 260.
35 Ketchum, Saratoga, 241.
36 Gerlach, Proud Patriot, 268-272; Copy of Orders to Colonel Warner, Ft. Edward, dated July 15, 1777, Proceedings of a Court Martial...of Major General Philip Schuyler (Philadelphia, 1778), 50.
37 Gerlach, Proud Patriot, 294.
38 Gerlach, Proud Patriot, 294.
39 Ketchum, Saratoga, 334; Harvey, A Few Bloody Noses, 253.
40 Bobrick, Angel in the Whirlwind, 262; Robert Harvey, A Few Bloody Noses, 253.
41 Bush, Revolutionary Enigma, 131.
42 Gerlach, Proud Patriot, 277, 289-290.
43 Harvey, A Few Bloody Noses, 261.
44 Gerlach, Proud Patriot, 303.
45 Bobrick, Angel in the Whirlwind, 274-275.
46 Bush, Revolutionary Enigma, 131.
47 Gerlach, Proud Patriot, 304.
New York State Division of Military and Naval Affairs: Military History
Last modified: September 19, 2007
https://dmna.ny.gov/historic/articles/v ... huyler.htm
Victory...Impossible Without Schuyler’s Direction, concluded ...
By Abigail and Paul Stambach
Footnotes
1 Bartleby.com, www.bartelby.com/59/4/fabiantactic.html.
2 Martin H. Bush, Revolutionary Enigma (Port Washington, NY, Ira J. Friedman, Inc., 1969) 4; and Don R, Gerlach, Philip Schuyler and the American Revolution 1775-1777 (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1964), 1.
3 Bush, Revolutionary Enigma, 6.
4 Gerlach, Proud Patriot, 2-3.
5 Gerlach, Proud Patriot, 3; Ellen Miller and Paul Stambach, “Historic Structures Report on Crailo, 1977,” 5. Copy on file at the Crailo State Historic Site, Rensselaer, NY.
6 Bush, Revolutionary Enigma, 7.
7 Bush, Revolutionary Enigma, 7-8.
8 Stuart R. Lehman, “This Patriot and Soldier: The Military Career of Philip Schuyler,” (paper written for Schuyler Mansion State Historic Site, Albany, NY, 1987), 23; Journals of the Continental Congress, Vol. 2, Library of Congress, 99.
9 Lehman, “This Patriot and Soldier,” 23.
10 Lehman, “This Patriot and Soldier,” 25-26.
11 Gerlach, Proud Patriot, 179.
12 Matthew Seelinger, “Buying Time: The Battle of Valcour Island,” Army History Research Center.
13 Christopher Hibbert, Redcoats and Rebels (New York; W. W. Norton and Company, 1990), 163.
14 Richard M. Ketchum, Saratoga (New York; Henry Holt and Company, 1997), 127.
15 Hibbert, Redcoats and Rebels, 167.
16 Hibbert, Redcoats and Rebels, 169.
17 Don R. Gerlach, “Philip Schuyler and the ‘Road to Glory,’” New York Historical Quarterly 49:4 (October 1965), 374.
18 Ketchum, Saratoga, 116.
19 Gerlach, Proud Patriot, 28.
20 Schuyler letter to Continental Congress, June 29, 1775, on file at the Schuyler Mansion State Historic Site, Albany, NY.
21 Benson, Bobrick, Angel in the Whirlwind: The Triumph of the American Revolution (New York; Simon and Schuster, 1997), 250.
22 Ketchum, Saratoga, 116-117.
23 Max M. Mintz, The Generals of Saratoga: John Burgoyne and Horatio Gates (New Haven & London; Yale University Press, 1990), 107.
24 Robert Harvey, A Few Bloody Noses: The Realities and Mythologies of the American Revolution (The Overlook Press, New York, 2002), 246.
25 Hibbert, Redcoats and Rebels, 171.
26 Gerlach, Proud Patriot, 290.
27 Ketchum, Saratoga, 245.
28 Ketchum, Saratoga, 239.
29 Ketchum, Saratoga, 248.
30 Ketchum, Saratoga, 250.
31 Gerlach, Proud Patriot, 260.
32 Harvey, A Few Bloody Noses, 248.
33 Ketchum, Saratoga, 248.
34 Gerlach, Proud Patriot, 260.
35 Ketchum, Saratoga, 241.
36 Gerlach, Proud Patriot, 268-272; Copy of Orders to Colonel Warner, Ft. Edward, dated July 15, 1777, Proceedings of a Court Martial...of Major General Philip Schuyler (Philadelphia, 1778), 50.
37 Gerlach, Proud Patriot, 294.
38 Gerlach, Proud Patriot, 294.
39 Ketchum, Saratoga, 334; Harvey, A Few Bloody Noses, 253.
40 Bobrick, Angel in the Whirlwind, 262; Robert Harvey, A Few Bloody Noses, 253.
41 Bush, Revolutionary Enigma, 131.
42 Gerlach, Proud Patriot, 277, 289-290.
43 Harvey, A Few Bloody Noses, 261.
44 Gerlach, Proud Patriot, 303.
45 Bobrick, Angel in the Whirlwind, 274-275.
46 Bush, Revolutionary Enigma, 131.
47 Gerlach, Proud Patriot, 304.
New York State Division of Military and Naval Affairs: Military History
Last modified: September 19, 2007
https://dmna.ny.gov/historic/articles/v ... huyler.htm
Re: ON PHILIP SCHUYLER
Hudson River Maritime Museum
History Blog
Guest Blog: The Women of Schuyler Mansion
Danielle Funiciello has been a historic interpreter at Schuyler Mansion since 2012. She earned her MA in Public History from the University at Albany in 2013 and has been accepted into the PhD Program in History for Fall 2017. She will be writing her dissertation on Angelica Schuyler Church.
On March 13, she gave a special lecture, "The Women of Schuyler Mansion" at the Hudson River Maritime Museum in honor of Women's History Month.
4/14/2017
Schuyler Mansion State Historic Site has been open to the public since October 17, 1917 and will be celebrating its 100th anniversary this season.
The home was built between 1761 and 1765 by Philip Schuyler of Albany who, after serving in the French and Indian War, went on to become one of four Major Generals who served under George Washington during the American Revolution.
Prominent for his military career, as a businessman, farmer, and politician, Philip was the main focus of the museum when it opened in 1917.
Over the last hundred years, however, the narrative told by historians at the site has expanded to emphasize the roles of Philip’s wife Catharine Van Rensselaer Schuyler, their eight children (five daughters; three sons), and nearly twenty enslaved men, women, and children owned by the Schuylers at their Albany estate.
Since March was Women’s History Month, I am pleased to set aside Philip Schuyler, and instead bring you the history of the women of Schuyler Mansion – Catharine Schuyler and her five daughters Angelica, Elizabeth, Margaret, Cornelia, and Catharine (henceforth Caty to avoid confusion with her mother).
Some of those names will sound familiar to fans of the Broadway show Hamilton: An American Musical.
The oldest daughters, Angelica, Elizabeth, and Margaret “Peggy” Schuyler, born in 1756, ‘57, and ‘58, feature heavily in the plot because second daughter Elizabeth married Alexander Hamilton, America’s first Secretary of the Treasury, in 1780.
It is largely through Elizabeth’s efforts that so much information exists about Alexander Hamilton, Philip Schuyler, and the rest of the family.
Women were often the family historians of their time, collecting letters and documents.
Elizabeth was particularly tenacious in this role.
Unfortunately, since women’s actions were not considered relevant to the historical narrative (and perhaps due to some degree of modesty from the female collectors), sources by and about women were not always preserved.
Through careful inspection of the documents that remain, however, we can piece together quite a lot about these six women.
For the Schuylers, documentation started young, with receipts and letters describing the girls’ education.
In the period, core literacy was most often taught at churches where basic reading and writing were a means to an end in teaching scripture.
This holds true for the Schuylers.
In 1764, when Angelica was 8 years old, Philip purchased “cathecism books more for Miss Ann”.
Philip additionally paid for lessons in French, dancing, geography, history, writing, and arithmetic.
In combination with references to music, ornamental embroidery, and the “women’s work” which the girls most likely learned from Catharine, these lessons constituted every subject deemed appropriate for women by contemporary educational philosopher Benjamin Rush, and more.
This family was well educated even amongst their peers.
Catharine’s education, however, remains mysterious as no letters in her handwriting exist.
Given her social status, it is unlikely that she was illiterate.
However, it is possible that she was literate only in Dutch, as approximately half of Albany still spoke Dutch as their first language.
Anne Grant (a contemporary of Catharine’s) described in A. Kenney’s Gansevoorts of Albany:
“In the 1750s girls learned to read the Bible and religious works in Dutch and to speak English more or less, but a girl who could read English was accomplished; only a few learned much writing.”
Knowing women’s childhood education is critical to our understanding of their adult lives.
Even today, education molds children to fit the ideals of the culture they live in and therefore shows parents’ aspirations for their children.
In the 18th Century, the ideal for women of this social class can be defined by four main roles: wife, mother, household manager, and social manager.
By educating his daughters in dance, music and etiquette, Philip Schuyler prepared them for the wealthy social scene where they would meet potential suitors.
By having them learn French, they could read philosophies and poetry and other refined subjects that would be impressive to the educated elite that Schuyler hoped those suitors would be.
Meanwhile, Catharine taught them the household work that would be required of them once married.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
History Blog
Guest Blog: The Women of Schuyler Mansion
Danielle Funiciello has been a historic interpreter at Schuyler Mansion since 2012. She earned her MA in Public History from the University at Albany in 2013 and has been accepted into the PhD Program in History for Fall 2017. She will be writing her dissertation on Angelica Schuyler Church.
On March 13, she gave a special lecture, "The Women of Schuyler Mansion" at the Hudson River Maritime Museum in honor of Women's History Month.
4/14/2017
Schuyler Mansion State Historic Site has been open to the public since October 17, 1917 and will be celebrating its 100th anniversary this season.
The home was built between 1761 and 1765 by Philip Schuyler of Albany who, after serving in the French and Indian War, went on to become one of four Major Generals who served under George Washington during the American Revolution.
Prominent for his military career, as a businessman, farmer, and politician, Philip was the main focus of the museum when it opened in 1917.
Over the last hundred years, however, the narrative told by historians at the site has expanded to emphasize the roles of Philip’s wife Catharine Van Rensselaer Schuyler, their eight children (five daughters; three sons), and nearly twenty enslaved men, women, and children owned by the Schuylers at their Albany estate.
Since March was Women’s History Month, I am pleased to set aside Philip Schuyler, and instead bring you the history of the women of Schuyler Mansion – Catharine Schuyler and her five daughters Angelica, Elizabeth, Margaret, Cornelia, and Catharine (henceforth Caty to avoid confusion with her mother).
Some of those names will sound familiar to fans of the Broadway show Hamilton: An American Musical.
The oldest daughters, Angelica, Elizabeth, and Margaret “Peggy” Schuyler, born in 1756, ‘57, and ‘58, feature heavily in the plot because second daughter Elizabeth married Alexander Hamilton, America’s first Secretary of the Treasury, in 1780.
It is largely through Elizabeth’s efforts that so much information exists about Alexander Hamilton, Philip Schuyler, and the rest of the family.
Women were often the family historians of their time, collecting letters and documents.
Elizabeth was particularly tenacious in this role.
Unfortunately, since women’s actions were not considered relevant to the historical narrative (and perhaps due to some degree of modesty from the female collectors), sources by and about women were not always preserved.
Through careful inspection of the documents that remain, however, we can piece together quite a lot about these six women.
For the Schuylers, documentation started young, with receipts and letters describing the girls’ education.
In the period, core literacy was most often taught at churches where basic reading and writing were a means to an end in teaching scripture.
This holds true for the Schuylers.
In 1764, when Angelica was 8 years old, Philip purchased “cathecism books more for Miss Ann”.
Philip additionally paid for lessons in French, dancing, geography, history, writing, and arithmetic.
In combination with references to music, ornamental embroidery, and the “women’s work” which the girls most likely learned from Catharine, these lessons constituted every subject deemed appropriate for women by contemporary educational philosopher Benjamin Rush, and more.
This family was well educated even amongst their peers.
Catharine’s education, however, remains mysterious as no letters in her handwriting exist.
Given her social status, it is unlikely that she was illiterate.
However, it is possible that she was literate only in Dutch, as approximately half of Albany still spoke Dutch as their first language.
Anne Grant (a contemporary of Catharine’s) described in A. Kenney’s Gansevoorts of Albany:
“In the 1750s girls learned to read the Bible and religious works in Dutch and to speak English more or less, but a girl who could read English was accomplished; only a few learned much writing.”
Knowing women’s childhood education is critical to our understanding of their adult lives.
Even today, education molds children to fit the ideals of the culture they live in and therefore shows parents’ aspirations for their children.
In the 18th Century, the ideal for women of this social class can be defined by four main roles: wife, mother, household manager, and social manager.
By educating his daughters in dance, music and etiquette, Philip Schuyler prepared them for the wealthy social scene where they would meet potential suitors.
By having them learn French, they could read philosophies and poetry and other refined subjects that would be impressive to the educated elite that Schuyler hoped those suitors would be.
Meanwhile, Catharine taught them the household work that would be required of them once married.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: ON PHILIP SCHUYLER
Hudson River Maritime Museum
History Blog
Guest Blog: The Women of Schuyler Mansion, continued
Historically, women have been defined primarily by their spouses.
It is a mistake to do so, however, marriage was exceptionally important for women in the 18th-Century.
Under English government, women had no political rights and very limited legal, economic, or property rights.
An adult woman’s power came from the influence she had over her spouse, and the influence she had over the next generation through the training of her sons.
As such, at the start of the 1700s, 93% of women in the Northeast were married.
This declined to 78% by century’s end, which likely correlated with a growing population of women, rather than declined need or desire to marry.
While arranged marriages were fading out of style with non-nobility by the mid-18th-Century, wedding arrangements still looked quite different from today.
In more liberal households, as the Dutch tended to be, a woman had a fair amount of say in who she was to marry, but only so long as she was marrying from within an appropriate social circle.
Parental permission was still required and a suitor who brought in political or property assets was preferred.
Romantic love (or attraction - the term “romantic” was not yet used as we think of it today) as a prerequisite for marriage was gaining popularity, but was not considered necessary.
Marriage was often treated as an economic pact.
If love existed or developed, it was a bonus.
There are two marriages in the Schuyler family that are key to understanding this family’s dynamics - Philip Schuyler’s marriage to Catharine Van Rensselaer in 1755, and eldest daughter Angelica’s marriage to John Barker Church in 1777.
Philip and Catharine’s marriage mostly fit the cultural ideal described above.
Both were fourth generation Dutch, meaning that their great-grandparents were the first to come from the Netherlands in the mid- 1600’s.
Philip’s family made its fortune in the beaver fur trade and supplemented their income through land speculation and marriage.
Meanwhile, Catharine’s family came over as part of the Dutch Patroon system.
Akin to a feudal system in some ways, Patroonships gifted land to wealthy Dutch families in order to colonize New Netherland, which later became New York.
By the time of Catharine’s birth, her father owned more than one hundred and fifty thousand acres of land throughout the colony.
Not only was the couple from the same wealthy elite social circle and approved of by both families, they had a seemingly romantic courtship.
In letters before their marriage, Schuyler asked his friend Abraham Ten Broeck to pay his regards to “Sweet Kitty VR” if he should see her.
Philip and Catharine likely expected their children would also marry with wealth, education, and family approval in mind.
Angelica’s marriage broke those expectations when, in 1777, she married an elegant young commissar who called himself John Carter.
Carter came to the home to settle military accounts with Philip Schuyler.
While Carter looked the part of the wealthy, well-educated man, Philip knew nothing of Carter’s family and worried about his connection with Angelica.
No one could tell Philip more about “Carter”, because this was an assumed identity.
The man was actually John Barker Church, a broker from a prominent family in England.
Church fled to the colonies to escape gambling debt, and possibly fallout from a duel.
Either unconcerned with her suitor’s background, or uninformed of it, Angelica married John Barker Church without parental permission.
As a result, she was disowned and forced to take up residence with her maternal grandparents in Greenbush.
She stayed with them only two weeks before her grandfather coaxed Philip and Catharine to meet with the couple and forgive them.
It is unclear if Church revealed his identity to the Schuylers at that time, as the couple continued to be known as the “Carters” until the end of the war.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
History Blog
Guest Blog: The Women of Schuyler Mansion, continued
Historically, women have been defined primarily by their spouses.
It is a mistake to do so, however, marriage was exceptionally important for women in the 18th-Century.
Under English government, women had no political rights and very limited legal, economic, or property rights.
An adult woman’s power came from the influence she had over her spouse, and the influence she had over the next generation through the training of her sons.
As such, at the start of the 1700s, 93% of women in the Northeast were married.
This declined to 78% by century’s end, which likely correlated with a growing population of women, rather than declined need or desire to marry.
While arranged marriages were fading out of style with non-nobility by the mid-18th-Century, wedding arrangements still looked quite different from today.
In more liberal households, as the Dutch tended to be, a woman had a fair amount of say in who she was to marry, but only so long as she was marrying from within an appropriate social circle.
Parental permission was still required and a suitor who brought in political or property assets was preferred.
Romantic love (or attraction - the term “romantic” was not yet used as we think of it today) as a prerequisite for marriage was gaining popularity, but was not considered necessary.
Marriage was often treated as an economic pact.
If love existed or developed, it was a bonus.
There are two marriages in the Schuyler family that are key to understanding this family’s dynamics - Philip Schuyler’s marriage to Catharine Van Rensselaer in 1755, and eldest daughter Angelica’s marriage to John Barker Church in 1777.
Philip and Catharine’s marriage mostly fit the cultural ideal described above.
Both were fourth generation Dutch, meaning that their great-grandparents were the first to come from the Netherlands in the mid- 1600’s.
Philip’s family made its fortune in the beaver fur trade and supplemented their income through land speculation and marriage.
Meanwhile, Catharine’s family came over as part of the Dutch Patroon system.
Akin to a feudal system in some ways, Patroonships gifted land to wealthy Dutch families in order to colonize New Netherland, which later became New York.
By the time of Catharine’s birth, her father owned more than one hundred and fifty thousand acres of land throughout the colony.
Not only was the couple from the same wealthy elite social circle and approved of by both families, they had a seemingly romantic courtship.
In letters before their marriage, Schuyler asked his friend Abraham Ten Broeck to pay his regards to “Sweet Kitty VR” if he should see her.
Philip and Catharine likely expected their children would also marry with wealth, education, and family approval in mind.
Angelica’s marriage broke those expectations when, in 1777, she married an elegant young commissar who called himself John Carter.
Carter came to the home to settle military accounts with Philip Schuyler.
While Carter looked the part of the wealthy, well-educated man, Philip knew nothing of Carter’s family and worried about his connection with Angelica.
No one could tell Philip more about “Carter”, because this was an assumed identity.
The man was actually John Barker Church, a broker from a prominent family in England.
Church fled to the colonies to escape gambling debt, and possibly fallout from a duel.
Either unconcerned with her suitor’s background, or uninformed of it, Angelica married John Barker Church without parental permission.
As a result, she was disowned and forced to take up residence with her maternal grandparents in Greenbush.
She stayed with them only two weeks before her grandfather coaxed Philip and Catharine to meet with the couple and forgive them.
It is unclear if Church revealed his identity to the Schuylers at that time, as the couple continued to be known as the “Carters” until the end of the war.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: ON PHILIP SCHUYLER
Hudson River Maritime Museum
History Blog
Guest Blog: The Women of Schuyler Mansion, continued
After this marriage, Philip no longer had the confidence that his children would marry under the ideals of the time, and because he was so quick to forgive Angelica, his children saw this as precedence.
At least three more of the eight children eloped.
Second daughter Elizabeth married with permission, but Angelica’s elopement clearly still weighed heavily on Philip’s mind when he responded to Alexander Hamilton’s request for Elizabeth’s hand in February of 1780:
“Mrs. Schuyler[...] consents to comply with your and her daughter’s wishes."
"You will see the impropriety of taking the dernier pas [fr: last step] where you are."
"Mrs. Schuyler did not see her eldest daughter married."
"That gave me also pain, and we wish not to experience it a second time.”
Hamilton was far from Schuyler’s ideal.
He was an orphan raised in poverty in the Caribbean with no land, money, or family ties.
And yet, Schuyler hesitantly said yes.
Perhaps it was only Hamilton’s military career under George Washington that earned Philip’s approval.
Or, perhaps the question lurked at the back of Philip’s mind: “if I say ‘no’… will they marry anyway?”
Philip maintained control over the situation by asking the pair to marry at Schuyler Mansion, forcing them to wait until Hamilton could take military leave.
The couple married in the formal parlor of Schuyler Mansion on December 14, 1780.
The next in line was Margaret, nicknamed Peggy.
Unlike her sisters, Peggy married close to home in 1783.
Stephen Van Rensselaer was a cousin on her mother’s side.
The relationship was very near the ideal set forth by their parents.
It strengthened the family’s connection with one of the wealthiest Dutch families in Albany.
In fact, after inheriting the bulk of the Van Rensselaer estate at 21 years old, including his land holdings - approximately 1/40th of New York State – and accounting for inflation, Stephen ranks 10th on Business Insider’s list of the wealthiest Americans of all time.
There are rumors that Peggy and Stephen eloped, but very little evidence to support it.
A relative of Stephen’s reacted with surprise that Stephen, then 19, married so young, especially since his bride was 25, but there was no surprise or outrage from either parents.
There was no question that this was a powerful match.
The next Schuyler daughter, Cornelia, was 17 years younger than Peggy, but despite the age gap, the influence of Angelica’s marriage still held power.
Cornelia eloped in 1797 with Washington Morton, an attorney from New York who appears to have attempted to gain parental permission but, in his own words:
"Her mother and myself had a difference which extended to the father and I had got my wife in opposition to them both."
"She leapt from a Two Story Window into my arms and abandoning every thing [sic] for me gave the most convincing proof of what a husband most Desire [sic] to Know that his wife Loves him."
This description is hyperbole, since Cornelia more likely snuck out a door than leapt out a window.
It is possible that Angelica gave her young sister advice or even direct aid with her elopement.
Angelica had recently returned from Europe and Morton wrote that they were married by the same Judge Sedgwick who had married Angelica to John Barker Church.
Philip forgave Cornelia quite quickly, but never really found a place in his heart for Morton, who became Schuyler’s least favorite in-law.
Philip wrote to his son of Morton: "his conduct, whilst here has been as usual, most preposterous."
"Seldom an evening at home, and seldom even at dinner - I have not thought it prudent to say the least word to him[...]as advice on such an irregular character is thrown away."
Young Caty did better in Schuyler’s estimation, but her marriage was also an elopement.
She married attorney Samuel Bayard Malcolm not long after her mother’s death in March of 1803.
However, given descriptions of the big reveal, it is likely that the couple has already married, but Catharine’s death prevented Caty from being able to tell her father.
Schuyler accepted Malcolm soon after, so when Schuyler died the next year, Caty would have had a clean conscience.
Unfortunately, Malcolm died in 1817.
So as not to remain a powerless widow, Caty remarried in 1822 to James Cochran, a prominent attorney and politician who was the son of Washington’s personal physician.
Cochran was also her first cousin.
Marrying a cousin was seen as a safe match, particularly for widows and widowers, as it consolidated wealth amongst family and one could trust that one’s children would be accepted since the new spouse was kin.
The Schuyler women had birthing rates similar to the averages for their time period.
Margaret and Cornelia Schuyler died young (42, and 32 respectively).
Caty's reflect two marriages, as her first husband died while she was still of child-birthing age.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
History Blog
Guest Blog: The Women of Schuyler Mansion, continued
After this marriage, Philip no longer had the confidence that his children would marry under the ideals of the time, and because he was so quick to forgive Angelica, his children saw this as precedence.
At least three more of the eight children eloped.
Second daughter Elizabeth married with permission, but Angelica’s elopement clearly still weighed heavily on Philip’s mind when he responded to Alexander Hamilton’s request for Elizabeth’s hand in February of 1780:
“Mrs. Schuyler[...] consents to comply with your and her daughter’s wishes."
"You will see the impropriety of taking the dernier pas [fr: last step] where you are."
"Mrs. Schuyler did not see her eldest daughter married."
"That gave me also pain, and we wish not to experience it a second time.”
Hamilton was far from Schuyler’s ideal.
He was an orphan raised in poverty in the Caribbean with no land, money, or family ties.
And yet, Schuyler hesitantly said yes.
Perhaps it was only Hamilton’s military career under George Washington that earned Philip’s approval.
Or, perhaps the question lurked at the back of Philip’s mind: “if I say ‘no’… will they marry anyway?”
Philip maintained control over the situation by asking the pair to marry at Schuyler Mansion, forcing them to wait until Hamilton could take military leave.
The couple married in the formal parlor of Schuyler Mansion on December 14, 1780.
The next in line was Margaret, nicknamed Peggy.
Unlike her sisters, Peggy married close to home in 1783.
Stephen Van Rensselaer was a cousin on her mother’s side.
The relationship was very near the ideal set forth by their parents.
It strengthened the family’s connection with one of the wealthiest Dutch families in Albany.
In fact, after inheriting the bulk of the Van Rensselaer estate at 21 years old, including his land holdings - approximately 1/40th of New York State – and accounting for inflation, Stephen ranks 10th on Business Insider’s list of the wealthiest Americans of all time.
There are rumors that Peggy and Stephen eloped, but very little evidence to support it.
A relative of Stephen’s reacted with surprise that Stephen, then 19, married so young, especially since his bride was 25, but there was no surprise or outrage from either parents.
There was no question that this was a powerful match.
The next Schuyler daughter, Cornelia, was 17 years younger than Peggy, but despite the age gap, the influence of Angelica’s marriage still held power.
Cornelia eloped in 1797 with Washington Morton, an attorney from New York who appears to have attempted to gain parental permission but, in his own words:
"Her mother and myself had a difference which extended to the father and I had got my wife in opposition to them both."
"She leapt from a Two Story Window into my arms and abandoning every thing [sic] for me gave the most convincing proof of what a husband most Desire [sic] to Know that his wife Loves him."
This description is hyperbole, since Cornelia more likely snuck out a door than leapt out a window.
It is possible that Angelica gave her young sister advice or even direct aid with her elopement.
Angelica had recently returned from Europe and Morton wrote that they were married by the same Judge Sedgwick who had married Angelica to John Barker Church.
Philip forgave Cornelia quite quickly, but never really found a place in his heart for Morton, who became Schuyler’s least favorite in-law.
Philip wrote to his son of Morton: "his conduct, whilst here has been as usual, most preposterous."
"Seldom an evening at home, and seldom even at dinner - I have not thought it prudent to say the least word to him[...]as advice on such an irregular character is thrown away."
Young Caty did better in Schuyler’s estimation, but her marriage was also an elopement.
She married attorney Samuel Bayard Malcolm not long after her mother’s death in March of 1803.
However, given descriptions of the big reveal, it is likely that the couple has already married, but Catharine’s death prevented Caty from being able to tell her father.
Schuyler accepted Malcolm soon after, so when Schuyler died the next year, Caty would have had a clean conscience.
Unfortunately, Malcolm died in 1817.
So as not to remain a powerless widow, Caty remarried in 1822 to James Cochran, a prominent attorney and politician who was the son of Washington’s personal physician.
Cochran was also her first cousin.
Marrying a cousin was seen as a safe match, particularly for widows and widowers, as it consolidated wealth amongst family and one could trust that one’s children would be accepted since the new spouse was kin.
The Schuyler women had birthing rates similar to the averages for their time period.
Margaret and Cornelia Schuyler died young (42, and 32 respectively).
Caty's reflect two marriages, as her first husband died while she was still of child-birthing age.
TO BE CONTINUED ...
Re: ON PHILIP SCHUYLER
Hudson River Maritime Museum
History Blog
Guest Blog: The Women of Schuyler Mansion, concluded ...
For women, a marriage contract provided necessary economic stability.
Spending too long outside of the contract resulted in a lack of security for oneself and one’s family.
By marrying well, men could also gain economic ground and benefit from the production of heirs.
A woman could have a lot of influence on the early education of these heirs since she was the main caretaker until a child was old enough to go outside the home.
For women, child-rearing was an all-consuming part of their life after marriage.
On average, women in the mid to late 18th century gave birth once every other year from her marriage until death or menopause, whichever came first.
Infant mortality rates were high, with approximately half of children dying before reaching the age of 3.
Even with this mortality rate, birthrates still averaged eight surviving children per mother!
Towards the end of the century, women began having fewer births with slightly lower infant mortality rates – averaging 6 surviving children per mother.
Catharine Schuyler fit these averages.
According to the family bible, Catharine gave birth to fifteen children.
Eight survived to adulthood.
Her last child came when she was 47 years old.
In other ways, Catharine was unusual - among the seven children who didn’t survive infancy, there was one set of twins and one set of triplets.
Multiple births were rare, and the fact that Catharine survived those dangerous births was a testament to her health.
As one can imagine this pattern was both physically and emotionally devastating for women.
The majority of their lives were spent being pregnant, recovering from pregnancy, and taking care of young children, many of whom did not survive.
Throughout this cycle, the Schuyler women were also managing the household and the social affairs of the family.
Catharine thrived as a manager and Philip seemed to put a great deal of trust in her logistic abilities.
She made purchases for the home, received orders, and was responsible for decisions concerning the estate in Schuyler’s absence.
Aided by Schuyler’s military mentor John Bradstreet, she also acted as overseer for the initial construction of Schuyler Mansion while her husband was on business in England.
Schuyler Mansion once had 125 total acres with 80 acres of farmland and a series of back working buildings.
Catharine was often placed in charge of the property in Schuyler's absence and managed the slaves who worked in the household.
While attending to business, political, and military affairs, men were not home to prepare for or entertain high caliber guests whose support was often needed to maintain said business, political and military affairs.
It fell on Catharine and the girls to foster a social atmosphere for their home.
They threw parties, called on other households, and were ready to receive unexpected visitors at any time – including, for instance, the more than twenty military visitors sent to the home when Burgoyne was taken “prisoner guest” after his surrender to General Gates at the Battle of Saratoga.
Catharine also acted as an overseer for the unsung women of Schuyler Mansion – the enslaved servants.
The head servant Prince, the enslaved women including Sylvia, Bess and Mary, and the children like Sylvia’s children Tom, Tally-ho, and Hanover, who helped serve within the home, all reported directly to Catharine.
These women did the majority of labor within the home – cooking, cleaning, mending, laundry, acting as nannies when the girls travelled, and perhaps even producing the materials used for these tasks – like rendering soap and dipping candles.
All this was done while raising their own families.
Sources on the enslaved women of the Schuyler household are even sparser, of course, but we tell the stories we have and hope that we will someday know more.
Documents do not always allow us to tell the full range of stories we would like to tell.
Thankfully, the Schuyler women were accomplished.
Though they did not always fit the ideals of their society perfectly, they made themselves a prominent part of it.
They married well, managed their family’s social connections and households, and very importantly, raised children who valued history and valued preserving their family’s legacy.
While there are many questions that we at Schuyler Mansion still wish to answer about these women, we are fortunate to have the sources to interpret their lives, not just during Women’s History Month, but year round.
To get more stories about these women, visit Schuyler Mansion’s blog or visit Facebook for information on our upcoming “Women of Schuyler Mansion” focus tour.
Hudson River Maritime Museum
50 Rondout Landing
Kingston, NY 12401
845-338-0071
fax: 845-338-0583
info@hrmm.org
The Hudson River Maritime Museum is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization dedicated to the preservation and interpretation of the maritime history of the Hudson River, its tributaries, and related industries.
http://www.hrmm.org/history-blog/guest- ... er-mansion
History Blog
Guest Blog: The Women of Schuyler Mansion, concluded ...
For women, a marriage contract provided necessary economic stability.
Spending too long outside of the contract resulted in a lack of security for oneself and one’s family.
By marrying well, men could also gain economic ground and benefit from the production of heirs.
A woman could have a lot of influence on the early education of these heirs since she was the main caretaker until a child was old enough to go outside the home.
For women, child-rearing was an all-consuming part of their life after marriage.
On average, women in the mid to late 18th century gave birth once every other year from her marriage until death or menopause, whichever came first.
Infant mortality rates were high, with approximately half of children dying before reaching the age of 3.
Even with this mortality rate, birthrates still averaged eight surviving children per mother!
Towards the end of the century, women began having fewer births with slightly lower infant mortality rates – averaging 6 surviving children per mother.
Catharine Schuyler fit these averages.
According to the family bible, Catharine gave birth to fifteen children.
Eight survived to adulthood.
Her last child came when she was 47 years old.
In other ways, Catharine was unusual - among the seven children who didn’t survive infancy, there was one set of twins and one set of triplets.
Multiple births were rare, and the fact that Catharine survived those dangerous births was a testament to her health.
As one can imagine this pattern was both physically and emotionally devastating for women.
The majority of their lives were spent being pregnant, recovering from pregnancy, and taking care of young children, many of whom did not survive.
Throughout this cycle, the Schuyler women were also managing the household and the social affairs of the family.
Catharine thrived as a manager and Philip seemed to put a great deal of trust in her logistic abilities.
She made purchases for the home, received orders, and was responsible for decisions concerning the estate in Schuyler’s absence.
Aided by Schuyler’s military mentor John Bradstreet, she also acted as overseer for the initial construction of Schuyler Mansion while her husband was on business in England.
Schuyler Mansion once had 125 total acres with 80 acres of farmland and a series of back working buildings.
Catharine was often placed in charge of the property in Schuyler's absence and managed the slaves who worked in the household.
While attending to business, political, and military affairs, men were not home to prepare for or entertain high caliber guests whose support was often needed to maintain said business, political and military affairs.
It fell on Catharine and the girls to foster a social atmosphere for their home.
They threw parties, called on other households, and were ready to receive unexpected visitors at any time – including, for instance, the more than twenty military visitors sent to the home when Burgoyne was taken “prisoner guest” after his surrender to General Gates at the Battle of Saratoga.
Catharine also acted as an overseer for the unsung women of Schuyler Mansion – the enslaved servants.
The head servant Prince, the enslaved women including Sylvia, Bess and Mary, and the children like Sylvia’s children Tom, Tally-ho, and Hanover, who helped serve within the home, all reported directly to Catharine.
These women did the majority of labor within the home – cooking, cleaning, mending, laundry, acting as nannies when the girls travelled, and perhaps even producing the materials used for these tasks – like rendering soap and dipping candles.
All this was done while raising their own families.
Sources on the enslaved women of the Schuyler household are even sparser, of course, but we tell the stories we have and hope that we will someday know more.
Documents do not always allow us to tell the full range of stories we would like to tell.
Thankfully, the Schuyler women were accomplished.
Though they did not always fit the ideals of their society perfectly, they made themselves a prominent part of it.
They married well, managed their family’s social connections and households, and very importantly, raised children who valued history and valued preserving their family’s legacy.
While there are many questions that we at Schuyler Mansion still wish to answer about these women, we are fortunate to have the sources to interpret their lives, not just during Women’s History Month, but year round.
To get more stories about these women, visit Schuyler Mansion’s blog or visit Facebook for information on our upcoming “Women of Schuyler Mansion” focus tour.
Hudson River Maritime Museum
50 Rondout Landing
Kingston, NY 12401
845-338-0071
fax: 845-338-0583
info@hrmm.org
The Hudson River Maritime Museum is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization dedicated to the preservation and interpretation of the maritime history of the Hudson River, its tributaries, and related industries.
http://www.hrmm.org/history-blog/guest- ... er-mansion