New York as it appeared in 1673, following the city's recapture by the Dutch. The fort is at the left, with the church within its walls. From Stokes, Iconography of Manhattan Island. This content downloaded from 110.170.245.87 on Sun, 06 Jun 2021 03:06:22 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Traitors and Papists: The Religious Dimensions of Leisler's Rebellion By RANDALL BALMER The conflict between Jacob Leisler and certain leaders of the Dutch church is revealed as an element of particular significance in the whirl of ten sions that influenced Leisler's Rebellion. Randall Balmer is a member of the Department of Religion at Columbia University. THE ACCESSION OF William, the Dutch prince of Orange, to the English throne in November 1688 triggered a series of cataclysmic reactions in the New World, especially in the Domi nion of New England, which included New York and New Jersey. In Massachusetts the citizens of Boston arrested Governor Edmund Andros, while his lieutenant in New York, Francis Nicholson, fled to England after trying briefly to suppress news of the Glorious Revolution! Rumors abounded. Many people in New York pro fessed fears that the French in Canada—all of them papists, just like the deposed James II—were preparing to overrun the colony. To stave off an invasion, the militia, "having extraordinary appre hensions of danger," assumed control of the fort on May 31, 1689, and chose Jacob Leisler, one of the militia captains, "to command the fort and to uphold the rights of said royal government and its preservation."2Leisler promptly "allarmed the city and in one half houre there came aboute 500 men couragiously in armes." He dismissed the mayor and aldermen, organized a Committee of Safe ty, initiated "demonstrations of Joy and affection" toward William and Mary, and speedily demanded oaths of fidelity to the new English rulers? 1. See "Nicholson Keeps the News Secret, March 1, 1689," in Michael G. Hall, et al., eds., The Glorious Revolution in America: Documents on the Colonial Crisis of 1689 (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1964), 102. For Van Cortlandt's account of the Rebellion, see E. B. O'Callaghan, ed., Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New-York, 15 vols. (New York, 1853-1871), 3:590-597. The best secondary treatment of the American responses New York History OCTOBER 1989 341 This content downloaded from 110.170.245.87 on Sun, 06 Jun 2021 03:06:22 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms New York History Historians have assigned various interpretations to Leisler' Rebellion in New York. Jerome Reich's study, published in 1953, took a decidedly whiggish view of the revolt against English placemen. Leisler's partisans, Reich contended, were democrats protesting the arbitrary rule of James II, and the Rebellion of 1689 prefigured the American Revolution nearly a century later Lawrence Leder viewed the Rebellion against the background of the transition from Dutch to English rule after the English Con quest of 1664 and, in particular, within the context of the highly charged infighting that had dominated New York politics in th 1680s, a kind of tussle between the ruling oligarchy and the not so-loyal opposition. Those entrenched in political office had stoutly resisted challengers, and when the Rebellion erupted and threw them out of office in favor of the insurgents, the erstwhile mag trates became Anti-Leislerians. Patricia Bonomi also viewed Leisler's Rebellion as a consequence of the persistent factionalism that characterized colonial New York, and she discerned the long term repercussions of the Rebellion on the colony's politics. The sucession of English governors after 1691, who alternately oppos ed and supported the Leislerians, Bonomi argued, only exacer bated this factionalism? Thomas Archdeacon's study of New York in the late seventeenth and early eighteenth centuries uncovered an ethnic component to the alignment of Leislerians and Anti-Leislerians in 1689. Leisler and other rebels, Archdeacon contended, had difficulty adjusting to the new English order in New York after the Conquest, and the to the Glorious Revolution is David S. Lovejoy, The Glorious Revolution in America (New York, 1972). 2. "Documents Relating to the Administration of Leisler," New-York Historical Society, Collections, Publication Fund Ser., 1 (New York, 1868), 324; Edward T. Corwin, ed.. Ecclesiastical Records: State of New York, 7 vols. (Albany 1901-1916), II, 1027. On the composition of the militia, see Kenneth Scott, "Jacob Leisler's Fifty Militiamen," New York Genealogical and Biographical Record 94 (1963), 65-72. For a brief profile of Leisler, see Thomas J. Archdeacon, New York City, 1664-1710: Conquest and Change (Ithaca, N.Y., 1976), 108-112. Leisler earlier had served on a grand jury hearing charges of witchcraft against a man and his wife. E. B. O'Callaghan, ed., Documentary History of the State of New-York, 4 vols. (Albany, 1851), 4:133-138. 3. O'Callaghan, N.Y. Col. Docs., 3: 615-616, 738. 4. Jerome R. Reich, Leisler 's Rebellion: A Study of Democracy in New York, 1664-1720 (Chicago, 1953); Lawrence H. Leder, "Seeds of the Discontent," in Hall, Glorious Revolution Docs., 83-86; Leder, "The Politics of Upheaval in New York, 1689-1709," New-York Historical Society Quarterly 44 (1960), 413-427; Patricia U. Bonomi, A Factious People: Politics and Society in Colonial New York (New York, 1971), 75-78; quote on 78. This content downloaded from 110.170.245.87 on Sun, 06 Jun 2021 03:06:22 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Traitors and Papists Rebellion was a protest of displaced Dutchmen (and those who, like Leisler, identified themselves with Dutch interests) against English rule? Robert Ritchie characterized the Leisler insurgents as predominantly middle class and consisting of those "outside the group of families that had previously dominated the political and economic life of the city and province." While he acknowledged the importance of economic deprivation, anti-Catholicism, and of ficial ineptitude as impetuses behind the Rebellion, Ritchie at tributed the insurrection to general political instability in the col ony, for "whenever there was a crisis the people had no common trusted institutions to rely on, and the result was fragmentation of the province into its constituent parts."6 John Murrin has linked Leisler's Rebellion with the 1683 Charter of Liberties granted and then rescinded by James II, the Dutch Reconquest in 1673-74, and the English Conquest itself. Murrin demonstrated that those who backed the Charter in 1683 became virulent Anti-Leislerians in 1689 and denounced Leisler for abrogating traditional English rights. Leislerians, in turn, viewed the assertion of English rights as "ethnic aggression," and their participation in the revolt vented their resentment of the Anglicization that had steadily and systematically eclipsed the colony's Dutch character? Undeniably, Leisler's Rebellion shook colonial New York and reshaped its political landscape. While class and ethnicity figured prominently into the political alignments during the Leisler years, historians have underestimated the religious dimensions of the strug gle as well as the repercussions that convulsed the Dutch Reform ed Church for nearly a decade after Leisler's execution in 1691. Religious prejudice contributed to the pretext for rebellion, political loyalties during Leisler's rule divided Dutch Reformed congrega tions, and residual animosities disrupted Dutch religious life into the eighteenth century. 5. Thomas J. Archdeacon, New York City, 1664-1710: Conquest and Change (Ithaca, N.Y., 1976), chap. 5; idem, "The Age of Leisler—New York City, 1689-1710: A Social and Demographic Interpretation," in Aspects of Early New York Society and Politics, ed. Jacob Judd and Irwin H. Polishook (Tarrytown, N.Y., 1974), 63-82. 6. Robert C. Ritchie, The Duke's Province: A Study of New York Politics and Society, 1664-1691 (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1977), chap. 9; quotes on 216, 199-200. 7. John M. Murrin, "English Rights as Ethnic Aggression: The English Conquest, The Charter of Liberties of 1683, and Leisler's Rebellion in New York," in New Approaches to the History of Colonial New York, ed. William Pencak and Conrad Wright (New York, 1988), 56-94. This content downloaded from 110.170.245.87 on Sun, 06 Jun 2021 03:06:22 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms New York History No issue aroused the suspicions and ignited the passions of New York's Dutch inhabitants of the late seventeenth century more than the fear of Roman Catholicism. In 1672 the duke of York, the co ony's namesake and heir presumptive to the English throne, an nounced what everyone already had suspected—his conversion to Catholicism. The Popish Plot in 1678 unleashed a flurry of anti Catholic sentiment in London, all related to the succession, and the Dutch found the duke's accession to the throne in 1685 trebly opprobrious: first on account of his religion, but also because James had played a role in engineering England's naval victory ove Holland at the conclusion of the First Anglo-Dutch War, and because he had reneged on his promise of a representative assembly in New York. By 1689 many of the Dutch in the colony believe that Roman Catholicism posed an imminent threat to the colony and they seized the opportunity afforded by the Glorious Revolu tion to turn the Catholic monarch's appointees out of office. For Leisler's followers, the threat of Catholicism meant not on ly the specter of heresy but also the yoke of political tyranny. "I was with great dread known, that the late King James was boun in Conscience to indeavour to Damn the English Nation to Popery and Slavery," one Leislerian recalled in 1698, and his placemen "were the tools to inslave their Country, who pursuant to their Com mission did make Laws and Assessed Taxes accordingly, without any Representatives of the People." Leisler himself complained o the king's "illegal and arbitrary power" and the actions of James appointees who ruled "without having any regard to advice or con sent of ye representatives of ye people."8 Leisler's militia, moreover, consisted of older, first-generation immigrants, doubtless reared on stories of William the Silent's heroic struggle against Philip, the Catholic king of Spain—a struggle that culminated in the triumph of Protestant Calvinism and the esta lishment of the independent Dutch Republic in 1579. The Leislerians explicitly identified William of Orange's displacement of James I with William the Silent's victory over Philip II of Spain a century earlier. The new, Protestant king of England's "forefathers had liberated our ancestors from the Spanish yoke," they recalled i 8. "Leisler Documents," N.Y. Hist. Soc., Colls., 1:306; Charles M. Andrews, ed., Nar ratives of the Insurrections, 1675-1690 (New York, 1915), 375-376. This content downloaded from 110.170.245.87 on Sun, 06 Jun 2021 03:06:22 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Traitors and Papists 1698, "and his royal highness had now again come to deliver the kingdom of England from Popery and Tyranny." The procrastina tion of the colonial government in proclaiming "Gods deliverance from the two greatest plagues of mankind, Popery and Slavery," only confirmed Leislerian suspicions that the magistrates in New York favored papism? Though certainly exaggerated, fear of Catholic encroachment was not entirely unfounded and fed on periodic frontier skirmishes with the French and the Indians?0 On June 22, three weeks into Leisler's tenure, someone set fire to the fort in three different places. Con vinced that the arsonist was Catholic, Leisler attributed their "miraculous deliverance" from that "hellish designe" to God's mer cy 1 1 But for the Leislerians this event fit into a larger pattern of Catholic intrigue in the colony. At least three Jesuit missionaries were active in New York in the 1680s. The Society of Jesus, Leislerians charged, under the pretense of teaching Latin, had established a school and numbered children of the "most influen tial" among their students. In 1687 Thomas Dongan, the Catholic governor appointed by James, had promised to secure English Jesuit priests for Indians in the colony's northern reaches?2 Despite 9. Calendar of State Papers, Colonial Series: America and West Indies, 44 vols. (Lon don, 1860-1969), 8:177; "Leisler Documents," N.Y. Hist. Soc., Colls., 1:399, 380; cf. An drews, Narratives of Insurrections, 387-388. 10. See O'Callaghan, N.Y. Col. Docs., 9:411; Helen Broshar, "The hirst msti Westward of the Albany Traders," Mississippi Valley Historical Review 7 (1920-1921), 228-241, passim. Even the Catholic Thomas Dongan had feared a French invasion (O'Callaghan N. Y. Col. Docs., 3:511). Bernard Mason writes: "Within the colony an exaggerated fear of Catholics and Catholicism gave credence to wild rumors of papist plots to seize control of the col ony" ("Aspects of the New York Revolt of 1689," New York History 30 [1949], 165-166). After news of the Glorious Revolution reached New York, but before the Rebellion broke out, Jacob Leisler refused to pay duties on a shipment of wine because Matthew Plowman, Nicholson's collector, was Catholic (Lovejoy, Glorious Revolution in America, 255). Plowman, in fact, shortly after Leisler's takeover, wrote to the Marquis of Halifax with intelligence about how the colony might be taken from "these rebellious Dutchmen" ("Leisler Documents," N.Y. Hist. Soc., Colls., 1:290-291). Halifax, apparently unbeknownst to Plowman at the time, supported William. 11. O'Callaghan, N.Y. Col. Docs., 3:614-615. In 1691 Leisler refused to surrender the fort to Major Richard Ingoldesby, convinced that the "officers & Soldiers were King James Men & Papists" (quoted in Lawrence H. Leder, "Captain Kidd and the Leisler Rebellion," New-York Historical Society Quarterly 38 [1954], 51). Leisler doubtless derived great pleasure from appropriating a French ship, rechristening it Jacob, and sending it out as a privateer in 1689; see Jacob Judd, "Frederick Philipse and the Madagascar Trade," New-York Historical Society Quarterly 55 (1971), 356. 12. "Leisler Documents," N.Y. Hist. Soc., Colls., 1:398; Thomas F. O'Connor, "A Jesuit School in Seventeenth Century New York," Mid-America, N.S., 3 (1932), 265-268; This content downloaded from 110.170.245.87 on Sun, 06 Jun 2021 03:06:22 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms New York History Governor Thomas Dongan. From Cuyler Reynolds, Albany Chronicles (1906). popular suspicions of popery, the New York colonial government had openly honored James Π. On October 2, 1688, Dongan (by then retired and living on Long Island) launched extended celebra tions marking the birth of the Catholic Prince of Wales: "The Great Gunns of the fort were fired, volleys of small shot from his Ma jesty's two Companys answearing them. And then all the Shipps in the harbour firred off their Gunns," a contemporary observed. "The people every where drinking and crying out God Save the Prince of Wales. During this Entertainment in the fort a Very larg O'Callaghan, Doc. Hist. N.Y. (1850) 3:73; Joel Munsell, ed., The Annals of Albany, 10 vols. (Albany,, 1849-1859), 7:271. This content downloaded from 110.170.245.87 on Sun, 06 Jun 2021 03:06:22 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Traitors and Papists Bonfire was made before the fort gate where his Excellence and all the Councill dranke the princes health." A similar fete follow ed in Albany, where "barrells of very stout beere Stood every wheare ready broachd at the head for men, women, and children to drink or drown as they pleased." Leislerians greeted the Prince of Wales's birth far less enthusiastically—as nothing less than "a mortal stab for the Protestant Religion in England, and consequently for ours."13 In addition to the general toleration of papists on the part of the colony's ruling elite, Dutch congregants also found evidence that their own clergy, the Dutch Reformed dominies, did not oppose Catholicism with sufficient vigilance. The dominies' general posture of accommodation to the English after the 1664 Conquest already had identified them with the English colonial government and, by extension, with James II. But the Leislerians also cited other evidence of the clergy's collusion with papists. Dominie Henricus Selyns of New York, who openly admired Thomas Dongan, en joyed free access to the Catholic governor!4 Godfridus Dellius of Albany faced charges from Leisler that he corresponded with a Jesuit missionary, "according to what we have long had reason to suspect him." Leislerians alleged a kind of conspiracy among the three Dutch dominies in the colony, charging that they secretly sym pathized with France. They also claimed that Dominie Rudolphus Varick of Long Island "said he would go out and meet them with a glass of wine and bid them welcome" and that Selyns sought "on every occasion to enlarge the power of France." The dominies' refusal to sanction Leisler's action, undertaken "for the Glory of the Protestant interest" to throw off the bonds of "popery and slavery," served only to reinforce popular suspicions of the Dutch clergy!5 But not everyone in the Dutch churches shared these suspicions. The upper classes, by and large, refused to participate in what they stigmatized as a preponderantly lower-class movement led, in the 13. Hall, Glorious Revolution Docs., 98; "Leisler Documents," N.Y. Hist. Soc., Colls., 1:399. Leislerians charged that "the heads of our church" participated in the celebrations honoring the Prince of Wales (ibid.). 14. Selyns wrote: "I have had the pleasure of receiving a call from him, and I have the privilege of calling on him whenever I desire" (Eccl. Rees. N.Y., 2:867). 15. Ibid., 2:1000; N.Y. Col. Docs., 3:731-733; "Leisler Documents," N.Y. Hist. Soc., Colls., 1:409; O'Callaghan, Doc. Hist. N.Y. (1849), 2:213; O'Callaghan, N.Y. Col. Docs., 3:583. This content downloaded from 110.170.245.87 on Sun, 06 Jun 2021 03:06:22 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms New York History words of one antagonist, by "Boors and butterboxes."16 Leisler' rise to political power had displaced not only Lieutenant-Governor Nicholson but also the three members of his Council, all promi nent merchants and members of the Dutch Reformed church: Frederick Philipse, Nicholas Bayard, and Stephanus Van Cortlandt, the mayor of New York. After Leisler had seized control of the fort and the city, his followers vented their anger against these English sympathizers. When Van Cortlandt refused Leisler's order to proclaim William the king of England, Leisler called him a traitor and a papist and, in Van Cortlandt's words, "made the people just ready to knock me in the head." Leislerians armed with swords ambushed Bayard at the customs house, "severall cutting at Coll Bayard but the croud being so thick cutt only his hatt"; he escaped the mob, went into hiding, and quit the city. Leisler warned Philipse that "if he should meet again the Divell should take him."17 Leislerians identified the Dutch elite not only with the English but also with the Dutch church, whose leadership they distrusted. "Now it is to be known that most of the magistrates or those who were their friends," angry Leislerians complained, "were also elders and deacons and therefore heads of our church."18 A series of events in June 1690 further illustrates the growing acrimony between the Leislerians and their wealthier adversaries 16. One contemporary asserted that "almost every man of Sence, Reputation or Estate" opposed the Rebellion, and another characaterized Leisler's following as "the meanest and most abject Common people." Hall, Glorious Revolution Docs., 132; Andrews, Narratives of Insurrections, 364; O'Callaghan, Doc. Hist. N.Y. (1849), 2:391. The characterization "Boors and butterboxes," from a poem by Robert Livingston, may have been a play on words: The Dutch term for farmer is boer, the Oxford English Dictionary defines butter box as a "Contemptuous designation for a Dutchman" ([1971 ed.] s.v. "Butter-box"). Another Anti-Leislerian characterized Leisler and Milborne as "base villains" who had "gathered together a rabble of the worst men" (Cal. State Papers, 8:344). Leder writes that "Leisler's government was composed of members of the middle and lower economic classes" ("Cap tain Kidd and the Leisler Rebellion," 50). Albany, too, was divided by the Leisler troubles; see Alice R Kenney, The Gansevoorts of Albany: Dutch Patricians in the Upper Hudson Valley (Syracuse, N.Y., 1969), 16-20. 17. O'Callaghan, N.Y. Col. Docs., 3:595-596. 18. "Leisler Documents," N.Y. Hist. Soc., Colls., 1:402. One Leislerian characterized Bayard thus: "as inveterate as any Papist against the Revolution" (ibid., 376). For a member ship list of the Dutch church, recording the names of the three councillors, see Henricus Selyns, Records of Dominie Henricus Selyns of New York, 1686-7, Holland Society of New York, Collections 5 (New York, 1916). Two of Nicholson's three Council members had just recently served as elders in the New York City Dutch church. Bayard was last chosen elder in 1688 (one year before the Rebellion), and Van Cortlandt in 1686; see "The First Book of the List of the Ministers, Elders and Deacons of the Low Dutch Church, New York," ms. at Collegiate Church, New York City. This content downloaded from 110.170.245.87 on Sun, 06 Jun 2021 03:06:22 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Traitors and Papists Edmund Andres. From Winsor, Memorial History of Boston (1881). and the ways in which those tensions spilled into Dutch religious life. At City Hall on June 6, as the Leisler government prepared to announce additional measures to fortify the city and defend the colony against the French, about fifty Anti-Leislerians protested that they would pay no further taxes. They demanded the release of prisoners from the fort and vowed to free them by force. "Where upon severall threatening & seditious words were uttered by the said disturbers," according to witnesses, "and when those opposers had spoken that they would rise, they gave three huzaas and went away." On the way to the fort, armed with swords, carbines, and pistols, they encountered Leisler. They surrounded him, tried to wrest his sword (and succeeded in removing it "about half a foot" before he resisted), shouting all the while "kill him, kill him, and This content downloaded from 110.170.245.87 on Sun, 06 Jun 2021 03:06:22 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms New York History knock him down," and taunting him "with ill language & Threats Leisler's son, according to one account, "seeing so many people crowding in upon his father, drew his sword and began to hack right and left, but the people got hold of him and took the swor out of his hand and broke it in two." Leisler himself, smitten severa times with a cane, barely dodged a "powerfull blow" to his head with a cooper's adze, which struck him instead on the chest. Wit the help of some partisans now on the scene, he struggled free brandished his sword, and walked to safety?9 Confronted again several blocks away, Leisler and three com rades held their antagonists at bay until the alarm could be sound ed "and a cannon fired to call the farmers to arms." As word spread of the attack on Leisler "the Country People upon a Rumour tha the Government was in danger, by a rising of the disaffected Pa ty, Flockt to the City Armed in Great Numbers." Leisler's par tisans thereby rallied to his defense. They threatened revenge, and, "with naked swords in their hands, ran like madmen through th streets and those who happened to be about and were not of thei party were taken at once to the fort, thrown in chains and put o bread and water." Over the objections of the magistrates, the "enrag ed Multitude" forcibly confined other miscreants to their house for two days until the Leisler government could convince them that order would be restored and several of the attackers imprisoned? At the conclusion 01 the Sunday morning sermon two days later, Leisler, who had appropriated the governor's bench in the Dutch church, passed a note to Dominie Selyns for inclusion with the other announcements. Selyns, according to a contemporary, refused to read the missive, whereupon Leisler, "standing up, motioned with his fist and told him to read it." Calling the minister a rascal, Leisler bellowed: "I want you to do it at once." Selyns grudgingl read Leisler's note, which proclaimed public thanks for his own deliverance from his enemies. Addressed to "all preachers of th Reformed Church," the proclamation read: "Whereas there are those who tried to murder the Lieutenant Governor, public thank 19. O'Callaghan, N.Y. Col. Docs., 3:738-747; Lawrence Η. Leder, " ' . . . Like Mad men through the Streets': The New York City Riot of June 1690," New-York Historical Societ Quarterly 39 (1955), 405-415; quote regarding Leisler's son on 410. Another account pu the number of rioters at "thirty odd" and attributed the uprising to "news that King James's party in Ireland hold power" (Cal. State Papers, 8:286). 20. O'Callaghan N.Y. Col. Docs., 3:739; Leder, " 'Madmen through the Streets,' " 412 This content downloaded from 110.170.245.87 on Sun, 06 Jun 2021 03:06:22 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Traitors and Papists are offered to God for his deliverance, etc." After the service Leisler walked to the front of the church and engaged Selyns in some ver bal sparring. He called the Dutch minister "a seditious man," to which Selyns replied that if he was so bad then he "was not wor thy to occupy the pulpit" and that he would not preach any more. Leisler ordered him to continue his responsibilities "and threatened, if he refused, to throw him into irons and to quarter soldiers in his house." That same morning Dominie Varick on Long Island had received a similar note to read to his congregation, "but in delivering the paper they got into an altercation, so that Dominie Varick did not preach."21 During the Rebellion, Dutch clergy and merchants alike felt the Leislerians' wrath. "The furor of the common people ran very high, so that every body who did not escape, was taken by the throat, or, on feigned pretexts, thrown into prison," Varick recounted in 1693. "Merchants were forcibly stripped of their goods in the name of the King," and on Long Island "many Englishmen, especially, were robbed." When the Dutch clergy attempted to defend the deposed authorities, "they only drew forth the same vituperative expressions upon themselves."22 What accounts for these tensions? New York had witnessed an increased social bifurcation in the years following the English Con quest, a cleavage felt nowhere more strongly than in the Dutch com munity. At the top sat a wealthy group of merchants who enjoyed commercial monopolies and political privileges granted by the English magistrates at the expense of small traders, artisans, and city dwellers?3 The control of the colonial government rested secure ly in the hands of the wealthy?4 Though English merchants were the most apparent beneficiaries of the 1664 Conquest, many of the Dutch traders had retained old privileges and even expanded their 21. Leder, " 'Madmen through the Streets,' " 414. Recounting the incident some years later, a prominent Anti-Leislerian recalled that Selyns "was most grosly abused by Leysler himself in the Church at the time of Divine Service, and threatened to be silenced" (An drews, Narratives of Insurrections, 367). On Leisler's appropriation of the governor's pew, see Ritchie, Duke's Province, 211. 22. Eccl. Rees. N.Y., 2:1048-1049. 23. Lovejoy, Glorious Revolution in America, 104. On the economic divisions during this period, see Bonomi, A Factious People, 56-81. 24. Mason, "Aspects of New York Revolt," 168. New York City's three councillors at the time of the Rebellion were Nicholas Bayard, Stephen Van Cortlandt, and Frederick Philipse, all of whom ranked among the colony's wealthiest denizens; see O'Callaghan, Col. Docs. N Y.. 2:699-700. This content downloaded from 110.170.245.87 on Sun, 06 Jun 2021 03:06:22 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms New York History commerce with new access to England and its colonies. By one reckoning, New York harbored three ships, seven boats, and eight sloops in 1678, but by 1694 that fleet had increased to forty ships, sixty-two boats, and sixty-two sloops?5 The incursion of the English had effectively denied the Dutch lower classes any chance of economic advancement in New York City. To a considerable degree, Leisler's Rebellion allied artisans and small traders against the merchant class, the less privileged against the urban traders, a generalization shared by contemporaries. During the contretemps between Leisler and his adversaries at City Hall on June 6, 1690, his loyalists summoned "the Country Peo ple" who "Flockt to the City Armed in Great Numbers." Michael Hanse, for example, captain of a foot company at Brooklyn, later testified that "he was commanded by Jacob Leisler to come over to New Yorke with his company who by order of said Leisler were quarter'd in the houses of divers of the Inhabitants of the town during the stay of his said company there, for the space of one day." One Anti-Leislerian, disgusted by the "insolence of the Country Peo ple in the Citty of New Yorke" during the Rebellion, asserted that "they were all called in by Leisler's Command."26 Leisler's following, however, did not consist entirely of the com monalty. Samuel Staats, a physician and native of New Netherland, "rather than endeavor to make himself an Englishman, he left this Province and went to Holland, where he remained till a very little time before the Revolution; then he came hither, and joyned with Mr. Leisler." Leisler himself had been a merchant of some means, and he attracted such prominent figures as Abraham Gouverneur and Gerardus Beekman, another physician. But by and large, Leisler failed to rally the better sort to his cause. "We cannot yet learn that hardly one person of sense and Estate within this City and Parts adjacent do countenance any of these ill and rash proceedings," the three Dutch Councillors wrote in 1689, "except some who are deluded and drawn in by meer fear." Indeed, many of those in itially inclined to support the Rebellion quickly became disillu 25. Archdeacon, New York City, 98; "NYK—1664—Notes," fol. 5, in "Papers Relating to New York 1608-1792," Chalmers Collection, New York Public Library. 26. O'Callaghan, N.Y. Col. Docs., 3:739; Affidavit of Michael Hanse before John Lawrence, Mayor, April 22, 1691, ms. in Emmet Collection [#10579], New York Public Library; O'Callaghan Doc. Hist. N.-Y. (1849) 2:390. This content downloaded from 110.170.245.87 on Sun, 06 Jun 2021 03:06:22 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Traitors and Papists sioned with Leisler and his obstreperous following. They condemn ed Leisler's arbitrary rule and branded him a usurper. "The mem bers of the former Government," a Leislerian complained, "gave all the opposition they could to this Reformation, and have created a Faction in the said province."27 Leisler's appeal lay in his strident opposition to the wealthy, Anglicized elite and in his exploitation of popular fears of Catholicism; when the Leislerians came to power, for example, they released those imprisoned for debt?8 The opposition of the Dutch merchants, who were at least moderately wealthy by con temporary standards, is therefore understandable. Surely they had much to lose during the Leisler uncertainties. The reactions of the clergy seem, at first glance, a bit more enigmatic. The Dutch dominies, however, all of them bilingual, had clearly identified themselves with the colony's elite. Many, in fact, possessed sizable personal fortunes which were imperiled by the popular uprising?9 But the clergy also had other, less avaricious reasons for opposing Leisler. Since the English Conquest of 1664, they had manifested a resignation to English rule, a posture that frequently approach ed overt Anglicization. Although they remained subject to the Classis of Amsterdam in matters ecclesiastical, they recognized at the same time the dangers of misusing the political privileges granted them after the Treaty of Westminster. "As to the Church Rules observed in the Fatherland, and subscribed by us when there—they are observed by us in our services and churches here as carefully as possible," the clergy had written to Amsterdam in 1680. "It would be a great folly in us, and an unchristian act of discourtesy," however, "should we either misuse or neglect the privileges granted us by treaty by the English at the surrender of the country." The realties of the colony's political situation demand ed caution. "We are in a foreign country, and also governed by the English nation," the dominies noted pointedly. "We must ex 27. O'Callaghan, N.Y. Col. Docs., 4:111; 3:585, 738-39; on Beekman, see Philip L. White, The Beekmans of New York in Politics and Commerce, 1647-1877 (New York, 1956), chap. 4. 28. Cal. State Papers, Vili, 117. When Jacob Milborne marched to Albany to secure the town's submission, he spoke directly to the "Common People" to enlist their support. Quoted in Lawrence H. Leder, Robert Livingston, 1654-1728, and the Politics of Colonial New York (Chapel Hill, N.C., 1961), 62. 29. For a discussion of clerical wealth, see Randall Balmer, A Perfect Babel of Confu sion: Dutch Religion and English Culture in the Middle Colonies (New York and Oxford, 1989), chap. 1. This content downloaded from 110.170.245.87 on Sun, 06 Jun 2021 03:06:22 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms New York History ercise much prudence in order to preserve the liberties granted us. Such a stance also corresponded with the Calvinist notion of s mission to temporal authorities. Indeed, the Dutch clergy had f ed a real dilemma when Jacob Leisler seized the fort and expel Nicholson in 1689. In light of Leisler's evident popularity amon their communicants, the path of least resistance lay in recogniz Leisler as the legitimate magistrate and thereby avoiding the wrath of his considerable following. If they chose this route, then th convictions as Calvinists mandated obedience to Leisler, for in Reformed theology only outright tyranny warranted resistance a duly constituted government. In his public showdown with Selyn in the Dutch church over the reading of the proclamation conc ning his deliverance from his adversaries, Leisler had forced t dominie to take this very step. If Selyns had read the official p clamation of his own volition, he would have thereby acknowledged Leisler's legitimacy, and by his own theological scruples he wou have owed Leisler his obedience. Given the generally amica relations between the Dutch clergy and the English magistrate however, Selyns and the other dominies elected instead to vie Leisler as a usurper and thereby deny him their loyalty. And, c cidentally, or not, many of the wealthier Dutch concurred?1 The clergy's decision to remain solicitious toward the Englis however, exacted a price. Writing to a colleague on November 1689, a scant six months into the Rebellion, Dominie Varick o Long Island called urgently for a meeting of the clergy "conce ing these dangerous times." In 1690 the Dutch consistory at Kingst found among them "too many unruly spirits, who are pleased fish in the presently troubled waters." "Pray for the peace o 30. Ecet. Rees. N.Y., 2:754-755. Robert Ritchie writes: "The new clergy who emigrate during the 1680s accepted English domination. Henricus Selyns, Rudolphus Varick, Godfridius Dellius cooperated with the English rather than fight them" (The Duke's P vince, 148). 31. John Calvin had taught that the magistrates—both godly and ungodly—were ord ed of God and must be obeyed. See [John] Calvin, Institutes of the Christian Relig ed. John T. McNeill, trans. Fbrd Lewis Battles, 2 vols. (Philadelphia, 1960), 2:1151-1152, 1 -1184. Calvin had written that "if the correction of unbridled despotism is the Lord's avenge, let us not at once think that it is entrusted to us, to whom no command has b given except to obey and suffer" (ibid., 1518). Given the generally amicable relations ween the Dutch clergy and the English magistrates, it is unlikely that they regarded English colonial government as despotic; nor were the ministers convinced that Le and Milborne composed a "constituted magistracy" which had risen "to protect the lib ties of the people" (ibid., η. 54). This content downloaded from 110.170.245.87 on Sun, 06 Jun 2021 03:06:22 UTC All use subject to https://about.jstor.org/terms Traitors and Papists Jerusalem," Dominie Selyns wrote in 1690, referring to the troubles facing the church during Leisler's tenure. Selyns fervently hoped that William and Mary would "send over some one to take charge of this government who can heal the ruptures, remove the cause of dissension, and tranquilize the community."32 The political chaos of the Leisler years, the dominies feared, threatened to undermine the advances and legal perquisites that the clergy had secured for themselves and for the Dutch Reformed Church in the previous decades. Surely such insubordination to the established order would bring stricter controls once English power was reestablished33 If economic self-interest, political pragmatism, and theological constraints determined the alignment of the Dutch clergy against leaders of the Rebellion, a history of personal suspicions and animosities contributed to the acrimony that animated their ex changes. Leisler had already run afoul of both the Dutch clergy and provincial officials in a dispute involving Nicholas Van Rensselaer in the 1670s. In October 1674, Van Rensselaer, a younger son of the first patroon of Rensselaerswyck, arrived in New York and presented Andros with a letter from the duke of York asking the governor to appoint Van Rensselaer to one of the colony's Dutch churches. Andros complied, assigning Van Rensselaer to the Albany church as an assistant to Dominie Gideon Schaats. Very soon, however, Schaats and some of the other Dutch clergy objected to Van Rensselaer's placement at Albany because of the newcomer's "disorderly preaching" and because the appointment violated the autonomy of the Dutch Reformed Church guaranteed by the 1664 Articles of Capitulation. The dominies, particularly Wilhelmus Van Nieuwenhuysen of New York City, challenged the propriety of an English governor appointing a minister to a Dutch church?4 Nicholas Van Rensselaer's peculiarities compounded the predica ment. One of his brothers thought he was "half crazy" and noted 32. Kingston consistory to [New York ministers], Aug. 30, 1690, and Varick to Selens, Nov. 30, 1689, "Translations of Letters about Dominie Van den Bosch, 1689," Frederick Ashton De Peyster mss., New-York Historical Society; Eccl. Rees. N.Y., 2:1007-1008. 33. Charles H. McCormick believes that the delay in reestablishing English rule in the colony exacerbated the pro- and Anti-Leislerian tensions ("Governor Sloughter's Delay and Leisler's Rebellion, 1689-1691," New-York Historical Society Quarterly 62 [1978], 238-252). 34. Joel Mur