White Plains Has Fallen

On 28 Oct 1776, 250 years ago today, the Continental Army had another face-off against the Crown. This time the action happened north of Manhattan Island near a town called White Plains.

On 6 Nov 1776, the Connecticut Journal of New Haven published a long “Extract if a letter from a Gentleman in the army, dated Camp near the Mills, about three miles North of White-Plains, Nov. 1.”

That dispatch described events since the middle of October. In copying this news into his diary, the Rev. Ezra Stiles guessed that the writer was the Rev. Benjamin Trumbull (1735–1820), a chaplain with the Connecticut troops, reporting to his relative, Gov. Jonathan Trumbull. This account certainly focused on Connecticut units and officers.

For the action on 28 October the letter said:

We had intelligence that the enemy with their whole body were advancing towards us; the army were immediately alarmed, and part of Gen. [James] Wadsworth’s brigade, with some other regiments under the command of Gen. [Joseph] Spencer, consisting in the whole of 5 or 600 men were sent out as an advanced party to skirmish with the enemy, and harass them in their march.

We marched on to a hill about one mile & a half from our lines, with an artillery company and two field pieces, and placed ourselves behind walls and fences, in the best manner we could to give the enemy trouble.

About half after nine o’clock our advanced parties all came retreating in before the enemy, and the light parties of the enemy, with their advanced guard, consisting of 2 or 3000 come in sight, and marched on briskly towards us, keeping the high grounds; and the light-horse pranced on a little, in the rear, making a very martial appearance; as our light parties came on to the hills and discovered [i.e., revealed] where we were, the enemy began to cannonade us, and to fling shells from their hobits, and small mortars.

Their light parties soon came on and we fired upon them from the walls and fences, broke and scattered them at once; but they would run from our front and get round upon our wings to flank us, and as soon as our fire discovered where we were, the enemy’s artillery would at once begin to play upon us in the most furious manner.

We kept the walls until the enemy were just ready to surround us, and then we would retreat from one wall and hill to another, and maintain our ground there in the same manner, till numbers were just ready to surround us.

Once the Hessian grenadiers came up in the front of Col. [William] Douglass’s regiment, and we fired a general volley upon them, at about 20 rods distance, and scattered them like leaves in a whirlwind; and they ran off so far, that some of the regiment ran out to the ground where they were, when we fired upon them, and bro’t off their arms and accoutrements, and rum that the men who fell, had with them, which we had time to drink round with, before they came on again.

They formed at a distance, and waited till their artillery and main body came on, when they advanced in solid columns upon us, and were gathering all around us, ten to our one; col. Douglas’s and [Gold Selleck] Silliman’s regiments fired 4 or 5 times on them as they were advancing, and then retreated, but not till the enemy began to fire on their flanks.

Colonels Silliman, Douglas and [James] Arnold behaved nobly, and the men gained much applause. Colonels [Charles] Webb’s, Silliman’s, and Douglas’s regiments had the principal share in the action.

This report estimated that the American forces had lost “may be 70 or 80 killed and wounded” compared to 300 of the enemy. As usual, those figures skewed toward the author’s side; historians now think both sides suffered between 200 and 300 casualties.

Supporters of the Continental cause emphasized how its army had kept up the fight for a while and withdrawn in order instead of running away. But they couldn’t deny that Gen. George Washington’s forces had lost more territory to the king.

“Stifle every private resentment”

As I quoted yesterday, Continental Congress delegate Robert Treat Paine felt insulted about what James Warren had written about him in December 1775—and with good reason.

Paine spent New Year’s Day complaining about Warren’s remark to political colleagues back home in Massachusetts, and to Warren himself.

One of those men, Joseph Palmer, wrote back on 28 January:

I don’t intend to meddle in this matter, any farther than to urge you both, as you regard the good of your distressed Country, to Stifle every private resentment, incompatable with the public good, & conduct yourselves in every respect as your Christian profession requires.

Palmer was from Braintree, a neighbor of and related by a chain of marriages to John Adams, the recipient of Warren’s letter. He had both personal and political reasons for hoping this dispute between friends and colleagues would blow over.

Another Massachusetts legislator whom Paine complained to, Joseph Hawley of Northampton, doesn’t appear to have responded in writing at all.

Warren himself was dismissive, sending Adams a copy of Paine’s response on 31 January with the comment:

a Copy of a Letter, from your Brother Paine, a very Curious one indeed. A model of Invective and dulness. My next may give you the Answer to it.

No “Answer” from Warren survives, so people may have convinced him not to poke Paine further.

Abigail Adams was firmly on the side of her husband’s crowd, writing to John on 21 February:

I have been uneasy upon your account. I know your delicacy must be wounded by the unjust and malicious censures of an unworthy associate, whose self conceit and vanity really makes him an object of contempt and commisiration. He has not only treated your character in a very abusive and ungentlemanlike manner, but descended to low vulgar attacks and Language upon our Worthy Friend.

That seems unfair since Warren had started the trouble by sneering that Paine’s work in the Congress was useless.

Paine remained in Philadelphia as the Congress debated independence, and he signed the Declaration. He also declined a seat on Massachusetts’s highest court, disliking how the legislature had ranked him below Adams.

At the end of 1776 Paine returned to Massachusetts, and Massachusetts politics. Taunton sent him to the General Court, where Warren was speaker. For a brief time at the start of the 1777 session Warren was absent and Paine’s fellow legislators named him speaker pro tempore.

Later the General Court selected Paine to be the the state’s attorney general, and he held that job for more than a decade. He ended his career with an even longer time on the state’s high court at last.

COMING UP: Change for Cushing.

“I cannot describe the Astonishment, Greif & vexation I felt”

In December 1775, a courier brought Continental Congress delegate Thomas Cushing a letter from James Warren, his successor as speaker of the Massachusetts assembly.

Warren addressed that letter to John Adams, and probably expected him to share it with his cousin Samuel Adams. At first Cushing assumed it was meant for the colony’s whole delegation.

But Warren had dropped caustic comments about Cushing (“A certain Collegue of yours has lost or I am mistaken A great part of the Interest he Undeservedly had”) and another delegate, Robert Treat Paine (“Paine I hear is gone to Gratify his Curiosity in Canada. . . . He may possibly do as much good there as at Philadelphia…”).

Paine had just returned from Fort Ticonderoga when Cushing presented him with a copy of Warren’s letter, or at least those lines about the two of them.

There was other news to upset Paine: The Massachusetts General Court was ready to make John Adams the new chief justice of Massachusetts. Paine himself, older and with more years as a barrister, was way down the list of justices.

And now Warren, Adams’s friend and ally, was suggesting the long trip to he’d just returned from was a junket rather than a mission for the Congress.

Paine spent New Year’s Day complaining about Warren’s remarks to Massachusetts legislators Joseph Hawley and Joseph Palmer: “a malicious and Slanderous Correspondence between James Warren & John Adams respecting Mr. Cushing & my self.”

Then Paine drafted a response to Warren, telling him exactly how he felt about that letter:

I cannot describe the Astonishment, Greif & vexation I felt when I read it—if possible explain to me wherein I deserve such Treatment from you—in the close acquaintance of 15 yrs. & more did yo. ever find me unfaithful. Was I not watchfully observant of yr. Interest Reputation & happiness. Has any person been more attentive to the Interest & Welfare of the Family with wch. you are Connected your dulce Domus & presidium [sweet home and protection] & that at a time when my Interest & promotion would have been much promoted advanced by Contrary Conduct.

I mention not these matters to upbraid, but to give you an Idea of the Reasons Reflections with wch. yr. Conduct agitate my mind; I know not what principle to derive yr. Treatment of me from, unless it be that to the opposing of which in Other Persons you owe all yr. Glory, could you not have “perticular freinds” witht. Calumniating ridiculing & degrading your other Freinds.

And that’s just a sample of what Paine had to say.

When Warren later copied the letter he received, he dated it 5 January. That suggests that Paine wrote his draft on the first, stewed for four more days, and finally mailed it.

TOMORROW: Reactions from Massachusetts.

“Taking a great deal of Pains with my Colleague your Friend Mr. Cushing”

When Massachusetts’s delegation arrived at the First Continental Congress in 1774, Thomas Cushing was at its head.

Cushing had served as the speaker of the Massachusetts assembly for several years, putting his name on many of that body’s protests against royal measures. A Boston merchant, he was also the province’s commissary general, purchasing militia supplies.

All the Massachusetts Whigs had worked with Cushing. He also appears to have mentored Samuel Adams during the man’s brief, unhappy try at a mercantile career. By business and temperament, Cushing was close to John Hancock.

(The Massachusetts Provincial Congress had actually named James Bowdoin, a leader on the Council, to the delegation ahead of the speaker, but Bowdoin declined to go to Philadelphia because of illness.)

While Cushing was in Pennsylvania, people back home learned he had failed to carry out an important task. On 26 October, Josiah Quincy, Sr., wrote to his son:

The Reputation of our Friend Mr. C——g is greatly, and I fear deservedly suffering, on Account of his applying the money he received out of the Treasury, to be remitted for the brass Cannon, to the Discharge of his private Obligations.

That came in the middle of the Patriots’ effort to build an artillery force, as I described in The Road to Concord. The royal government would have stopped any cannon that Cushing ordered from Britain from being delivered, but that omission was one strike against the man.

On 2 December, the provincial congress chose delegates for the Second Continental Congress, to convene in May 1775. This time the record listed John Hancock first, followed by Cushing, Samuel Adams, John Adams, and Robert Treat Paine.

After that Congress made Hancock its chairman, Cushing was back at the top of the Massachusetts delegation, at least in how their signatures appeared on such documents as the Olive Branch Petition.

At this stage, Cushing proved more cautious than the Adams cousins. According to James Warren, in June 1775 Cushing sent a letter to another legislator downplaying news of the British reinforcing their Boston garrison and asking “whether we had not better discharge part of our Army to prevent Involving ourselves in an Immense Debt.”

As discussed yesterday, Cushing, along with Hancock and Paine, was reluctant to make Charles Lee one of the generals of the Continental Army.

When a new Massachusetts General Court convened without approval from a governor in July 1775, it moved Cushing from the assembly to the Council—“kickd up Stairs,” Samuel Adams wrote. His successor as speaker was James Warren.

On 25 November John Adams sent a long letter about deliberations in the Congress to Joseph Hawley of Northampton. Among his comments was:

But my dear Friend I must, take the Freedom to tell you that the same has happened upon this occasion which has happened on a thousand others, after taking a great deal of Pains with my Colleague your Friend Mr. Cushing, I could not get him to agree with the rest of us in Writing a joint Letter, nor could I get him to say what opinion he would give if it was moved in Congress.

Back in Massachusetts, Warren was growing even more sour about his predecessor. On 3 December, he wrote to John Adams:

It gives me great pleasure to see the Credit, and reputation of my two perticular friends [i.e., the Adams cousins], Increasing here. Their late disinterested Conduct, as it is reported here does them much Honour. A certain Collegue of yours has lost or I am mistaken A great part of the Interest he Undeservedly had. . . .

Paine I hear is gone to Gratify his Curiosity in Canada. A good Journey to him. He may possibly do as much good there as at Philadelphia tho’ I find some People here would not have pitched on him for the Business we suppose he is gone on, and perhaps there are some who would not have done it for any. Many men you know are of many Minds.

John Adams was on his way home to Massachusetts when he met the man carrying that letter. He read it and asked the rider to carry it on to Philadelphia, presumably to Samuel Adams.

The courier didn’t find Adams, so instead he handed the letter to Thomas Cushing.

TOMORROW: Falling out, voting out.

“Mr. Randolph, our former President is here, and Sits very humbly”

In April 1775, John Hancock and Samuel Adams were staying together at the parsonage in Lexington, where Hancock had spent some of his childhood.

The next month, they arrived together at the Second Continental Congress.

On 12 June, Gen. Thomas Gage proclaimed the king’s

most gracious Pardon to all Persons who shall forthwith lay down their Arms and return to the Duties of peaceable Subjects, excepting only from the Benefit of such Pardon, Samuel Adams, and John Hancock, whose Offences are of too flagitious a Nature to admit of any other Consideration than that of condign Punishment.

At that point, Adams and Hancock were still seen as a pair (with Adams first). But by the end of the year the two men had moved into different parties within the Congress.

The First Continental Congress had chosen Peyton Randolph, speaker of the Virginia House of Burgesses, as its chair until he fell ill in October 1774. The Second unanimously put him back in the chair in May 1775.

Then came news that the royal governor of Virginia, Lord Dunmore, was calling that colony’s legislature into session. Randolph headed home early on 24 May. As their first business that day, the Congress had to choose a new chair. Everyone voted for Hancock.

In mid-June, the Massachusetts delegation split over the appointment of Charles Lee as a general in the Continental Army. John Adams wrote to James Warren of Plymouth: “C. and H. and P. have given us a great deal of Trouble, in the Election of Lee.” The Adams cousins favored hiring Lee, the experienced and renegade British general; Hancock, Thomas Cushing, and Robert Treat Paine were dubious.

(As I’ve written before, I don’t believe John Adams’s much later story about how in this period he nominated George Washington as commander-in-chief, angering Hancock, who wanted to be nominated himself, and provoking opposition in the Massachusetts delegation and the whole Congress. Paul Longmore’s analysis convinced me that Adams was probably remembering the argument over Lee, the only personnel dispute he wrote about at the time.)

On 27 June, after news of the Battle of Bunker Hill arrived in Philadelphia, Hancock and the two Adams cousins “went out to enquire after the Committee of this City, in order to beg some Powder” for the army in New England. But cracks were forming in their alliance.

As fall approached, John Adams soured a little on Hancock—first over etiquette, not policy. On 19 September, Adams told Warren:

Mr. Randolph, our former President is here, and Sits very humbly in his Seat, while our new one, continues in the Chair, without Seeming to feel the Impropriety.

A little over a month later, on 22 October, Randolph died of a stroke suffered while dining with Thomas Jefferson. Adams then told Warren:

the Congress have determined to show his Memory and Remains all possible Demonstrations of Respect. The whole Body is to attend the Funeral, in as much Mourning as our Laws will admit. The Funeral is to be tomorrow. I am the more pleased with this Respect on account of an Impropriety, which you know was unfelt.

Abigail Adams picked up that strain, telling Mercy Warren in November:

Mr. Randolphs character has secured him Esteem. How well might some folks have saved their credit, and their Bacon too (as the phraze is) by a resignation of a certain place.

Hancock could have pointed out that he was providing the Congress with stable leadership, not suddenly heading home or falling over dead.

TOMORROW: A change in the delegation.

“He declin’d taking a Seat at the honorable Board”

Yesterday I described how in May 1772 Gov. Thomas Hutchinson reversed the pattern of previous years and accepted John Hancock’s election to the Council, the upper house of the Massachusetts General Court.

The governor hoped that would help to pull Hancock away from the influence of Samuel Adams, a fellow member and clerk of the lower house.

On 28 May provincial secretary Thomas Flucker delivered Gov. Hutchinson’s approval of the list of Council members and a message

desiring that the House would send up John Hancock and Samuel Phillips, Esq’rs; Members of this House, and chosen Yesterday to the Members of his Majesty’s Council, that they may take their Seats at the Board.

Hancock’s response appears in the record of the Massachusetts House:

John Hancock, Esq; acquainted the House that he declin’d taking a Seat at the honorable Board to which he was elected, and gave his Reasons in the House.

Unfortunately, the record doesn’t preserve those reasons, and I haven’t seen any source that states them. Quite possibly Hancock never wanted to be on the Council—he just wanted to be asked.

Hutchinson was still optimistic about converting Hancock to the side of the Crown, or at least convincing him not to fund the Whigs, with such signs of favor. In response to what he perceived as cooperation, the governor brought the General Court back to Boston’s Town House later in 1772.

Gov. Hutchinson’s reports about wooing Hancock reached London. In early 1773 John Wilkes reportedly said he’d heard that “Mr. H. had deserted the Cause of Liberty.” As quoted back here, Adams sent corrective letters to Arthur Lee, declaring such reports were “a scurvy Trick of lying.” As Adams framed it, Colonial Secretary Lord Hillsborough had told Hutchinson to “to promote Mr. H. …But he had Spirit enough to refuse a Seat at the Board, & continue a Member of the House.” (In fact, that strategy was always Hutchinson’s idea.)

I doubt Hancock ever turned against Samuel Adams in the pre-war period. I think he just sensed that with most of the Townshend duties repealed, no troops patrolling the streets, and no new measures from Parliament, Bostonians were ready for a less confrontational political approach. Hancock followed the public mood while Adams continued to push.

Hancock’s real allegiance was to the voters and his reelection prospects. He continued to spend his money in ways that conspicuously benefited Boston: cloth for Dr. Joseph Warren’s suit at that year’s Massacre memorial oration, cloth to drape on the pulpit, a new fire engine. He continued to serve as both a selectman and a representative. And now he was “Colonel Hancock.”

On imperial politics, Hancock continued to side with the Whigs. Though in the next year and a half he wouldn’t take part in Adams’s most radical measures, such as joining the new standing committee of correspondence, he also didn’t block those.

Then came the tea crisis. Both the public mood and Hancock shifted. The merchant joined Boston’s radical leaders at the front of the crowd in the protest meetings in Old South. He delivered the Massacre oration himself in 1774. That fall, he chaired the Massachusetts Provincial Congress. In 1775 he joined the Continental Congress and soon became its president—rising higher in politics than Adams.

TOMORROW: Tensions in the Congress.

(Photo above by Axel R-D, courtesy of Flickr.))

“I had settled it some months ago to accept Hancock”

John Hancock was elected to three important positions in the spring of 1772.

In April, fellow members of the Company of Cadets unanimously chose Hancock to lead that upper-class militia company, which served as the governor’s honor guard.

Though the top officer in ordinary companies was a captain, the Cadets commander had the rank of colonel. Because they were fancy, and rich, and well connected.

Knowing Hancock would like that status, Gov. Thomas Hutchinson approved the company’s choice. 

In May 1772, Boston held a town meeting to choose the town’s four representatives in the lower house of the Massachusetts General Court.

Back in May 1771, the four men elected had been:

• Thomas Cushing, 410 votes
• John Hancock, 410
• Samuel Adams, 403
• James Otis, 399

(Adams was listed in the town records as “Mr. Samuel Adams” while the other three men were given the honorifics “Honorable” and “Esquire.” All four had been elected to the house before, so those designations must have been based on perceived wealth, not formal rank in government.)

In May 1772, many more voters came to Faneuil Hall for the representatives’ election. This time the results were:

• Cushing, 699 votes
• Hancock, 690
• William Phillips, 668
• Adams, 505

Town clerk William Cooper didn’t list any other candidates, but there probably were some.

Adams won reelection with support from about 70% of the voters, but that was still a marked tumble from previous years. The March meeting highlighting his deficits as a tax collector might have hurt him. It’s also seems likely that the electorate had cooled on Adams’s militancy given that the Crown hadn’t forced any new measures for many months.

Those four representatives went out to Cambridge for the General Court session starting on 27 May. On the first day, Cushing was reelected as speaker of the assembly, Adams as its clerk. Then came the choice of the Council for the new legislative year.

The legislators produced a list of twenty-six men, including Hancock. That choice wasn’t a surprise. He had been named every year since 1768. And every year the royal governors exercised their prerogative to veto his selection.

This spring, however, Gov. Hutchinson had a new idea. He accepted all the proposed Councilors except Jerathmeel Bowers of Swansea. (Privately, Hutchinson wrote that the legislators had nearly chosen Phillips and Adams for the Council, and he would have vetoed them, too.)

As the governor told his predecessor, Sir Francis Bernard, in a letter the next day:

I had settled it some months ago to accept Hancock & have seen the good effects of it not that I can depend upon his being for any time of the same mind but it breaks the connexion & they are all jealous of him and in the greatest part of their measures he forsakes them. . . .

Han. carries Ad. in his chariot but when they come to Court they seldom vote the same way. If the former exerts himself as he promised me will do I think it not improbable that before the end of the year if not before the end of the Session they will apply to me in such a manner as that I may bring [the General Court] to Boston consistent with my Instruction. I wish to do it chiefly that I may have the Members every day at my table and provide an Antidote for the poison of that white liverd fellow that you usd so much to detest.

Convinced that Hancock wished to distance himself from Adams, and felt grateful about his colonelcy and rising onto the Council, Hutchinson was optimistic he could break up the political partnership that had roiled Boston for years.

TOMORROW: Hancock’s choice.

“Subscribers towards Mr. Adams’s debt”

In 1860 the New England Historical and Genealogical Register published the text of an undated document headed “Copy of original list of subscribers toward Mr. Adams’s debt.”

The author of the surrounding article, Andrew H. Ward, believed that debt was one Samuel Adams had inherited from his father’s investment in the Massachusetts Land Bank.

The journal’s editor cast doubt on that idea in a footnote, noting that the presence of “Rev Mr Bowen” on the list must mean it dated between 1766, when Penuel Bowen was ordained at the New South Meeting-House, and 1772, when he left the pulpit and opened a provisions store. That period was long after the estate of Adams’s father was settled.

Another subscriber on the list was “A gentleman of distinction,” and Ward’s footnote said someone had inserted “Mr. T——e” above that. That probably meant Customs Commissioner John Temple. He left Boston in late 1770, further narrowing the span of possible dates.

Kay Menand’s Massachusetts Historical Review article “The Things That Were Caesar’s: Tax Collecting in Eighteenth-Century Boston” reports that in March 1768 the appeals court ordered Adams to pay the town £1,463, and that judgement was satisfied. However, as noted yesterday, in 1772 a Boston town committee found that Adams still owed £1,149.10.0.1/4 of uncollected taxes, money that the town was unlikely ever to see.

Putting all the clues together, I think this list probably dates from the late 1760s. We don’t know if all the subscribers paid what they promised, so we can’t make the sums add up. Even so, it’s an interesting snapshot of people willing to help out Adams and/or Boston.

The top subscriber by far, pledging more than four times as much as any other individual, was John Hancock. At this point he was still firmly at Adams’s side.

The next tier of donors (£60+) consisted of John Erving, James Pitts, and James Bowdoin, wealthy merchants who often served on the Council. Erving was close to the royal establishment, but unlike his sons (including George, pledging £12), he stayed in America after the siege.

Likewise, John Gray the ropemaker (£40), Nathaniel Sparhawk the Maine landowner (£40), and Harrison Gray the provincial treasurer (£20) all leaned toward the Crown in the 1760s while maintaining friendships among the Whigs. Moses Gill (£26.13) was a solid Whig.

Among the smaller donors, Dr. Joseph Warren (£13.6) stands out as a young professional among older, established, and wealthier merchants. William Whitwell (£6) is notable because he led the 1772 inquiry into Adams’s outstanding debt with Thomas Dawes (£13) on his committee. Future Loyalist Isaac Royall offered the smallest amount of any name on the list, a mere £1.8.

This list appears to date from a period before the province’s political dividing lines hardened. Men who opposed Samuel Adams’s tactics were nonetheless willing to help bleach a blot on his reputation—with the knowledge that their money wasn’t going to him personally but to their town.

TOMORROW: The elections of 1772.

“Remaining unpaid of Mr. Adams Debt to the Town”

A couple of days ago I recounted how in March 1771 the Boston town meeting appointed the merchant William Whitwell and four other men to look into the town’s finances.

That committee finally reported on its inquiry on 9 Mar 1772. Among its conclusions was:

We also find that there still remains to be paid into the Province Treasury on Account of Mr. Samuel Adams the Sum of Fifty Pounds and from the information given us by Mr. Robert Peirpoint it appears that there is no probability of any part of the Sum of £1149 10 0 1/4 remaining unpaid of Mr. Adams Debt to the Town, will ever be received and paid into the Treasury——

Adams had been one of Boston’s tax collectors from 1756 to 1765. He turned over a lot less money than he was supposed to collect. No one believed Adams had kept funds for himself, however. Rather, he hadn’t pressed citizens for everything they legally owed. If the townspeople pressured him for more money, they knew he’d have little choice but to squeeze them back, and no one wanted that.

According to Gov. Thomas Hutchinson, John Hancock had spurred that inquiry while knowing it could harm Adams. The finding that Adams owed more than £1,000 might indeed have been embarrassing except that the town meeting had already voted to sue him for uncollected taxes back in 1767. Hutchinson had presided over an appeal of that suit. Boston had granted Pierpont, one of Adams’s bondsmen, authority to collect back taxes on his behalf. In sum, the outstanding sum was old news.

Whitwell and his committee also found that a couple of more recent tax collectors owed £148 and £432, minus their premiums. The town was in legal negotiations with another former tax collector, Jonathan Payson. Such disputes weren’t uncommon, though Adams’s deficit was much bigger than others.

In addition, the committee found that Thomas Cushing owed £155 and John Ruddock £82 from selling lottery tickets for the town. Both those men were politically active Whigs. Hutchinson suspected Cushing had been another of Hancock’s targets.

Yet later in the same afternoon, the meeting considered the even older debt of “the Linnen Manufacturing Company” that had built the Manufactory building beside the Common. Three “Surviving Members” of that company—Lt. Gov. Andrew Oliver, commissary general Thomas Hubbard, and Dr. Silvester Gardiner—asked the town to write off the remaining amount. The meeting refused. Those gentlemen were on Hutchinson’s side in the political disputes.

One more financial question remained: William Molineux petitioned the town for more money for his spinning enterprise, which provided employment for poor women and children. Or at least to forgive the £300 it had loaned him years before. Molineux was among the Boston Whigs’ most radical leaders.

That question was so involved that the discussion was adjourned to the next day. A “printed Paper” criticizing Molineux was spread around by persons unknown. “After considerable debate,” the meeting heard justice Richard Dana’s judgment that the law wouldn’t let the town forgive Molineux’s debt. So the men at the meeting voted to take no action at all beyond rejecting “unjust Reflections on Mr. Mollineuxs Character” and thanking the man for “his faithful discharge of a Contract.”

Meanwhile, Massachusetts’s royal judges took advantage of how Molineux and his supporters were busy in Faneuil Hall on that 10 March to deliver a royal pardon to convicted murderer Ebenezer Richardson so he could slip out of town unnoticed.

All in all, I see the 1772 inquiry into debts owed the town as fairly ordinary business. I’m sure Hutchinson was pleased that people had to pay attention to Samuel Adams’s “defalcation.” But I doubt the governor was accurate in believing Hancock was secretly, deliberately poking at Adams’s sensitive spot.

TOMORROW: Mr. Adams’s debt.

“An inquiry into the state of the finances of the town”

Even as he served as royal governor of Massachusetts, Thomas Hutchinson was writing the third volume of his history of the colony.

Before he died in 1780, Hutchinson cut down that manuscript. Interestingly, he removed some passages defending his own conduct, though of course what survived presented his view of events.

Hutchinson’s grandson published the edited text in 1828. In 1936 the Harvard College administrator Lawrence Shaw Mayo (shown here) republished all three volumes in a scholarly edition.

In 1947, Mayo married Catherine Barton, a “friend and companion of long standing who shared his scholarly interests,” according to Clifford K. Shipton. Six weeks later, Mayo took his own life, to his friends’ shock.

Meanwhile, Shipton was tracking down a collector who had bought Hutchinson’s earlier manuscript. He asked Catherine Barton Mayo to study it, and she published the excised passages in the American Antiquarian Society Proceedings in 1949.

One of those passages stated about the spring of 1772:

The breach between [Samuel] Adams & [John] Hancock was apparently about this time greater than ever. The latter in a town meeting, a few weeks before, had intimated his design to move for an inquiry into the state of the finances of the town, in which the former had occasioned a great deficiency, and also into the state of monies raised by lottery for the benefit of the town of which lottery Mr. [Thomas] Cushing, the speaker of the House and a kinsman and fast friend of Mr. Adams, was one of the Trustees, and reported to be deficient.

As a town selectman, Hancock had a solid reason to push for an audit of Boston’s finances. The governor hinted that this concern was actually a clever way to distance himself from Adams and Cushing.

I’m not convinced Hutchinson’s presentation of events was accurate. To start with, although Adams and Cushing were personally close, Cushing’s politics were closer to Hancock’s, especially as the 1770s went on. On the question of how much to protest the Massachusetts General Court being convened outside of Boston, the issue that reportedly first divided Adams and Hancock in the spring of 1772, Cushing was on Hancock’s side.

Then there’s a matter of timing. Boston’s town records show that the meeting created its committee to look into financial matters on 27 May 1771. (Those records don’t say who proposed that measure.) The committee chairman was the merchant William Whitwell, and the other members were Thomas Dawes, Melatiah Bourn, Alexander Hill, and Ezekiel Price, political and business insiders.

That committee offered an interim report in June but didn’t deliver its full findings until 9 Mar 1772. Even that was, as Hutchinson’s own account says, “a few weeks before” the disagreement in the General Court led to Hancock’s first noted resentment of Adams.

Now according to Hutchinson’s unnamed sources, all the way back in June 1771 Hancock “wished to be seperated from Mr Adams.” And in December Adams sensed it necessary to assure Hancock that he hadn’t said certain things about him in a conversation about James Otis. So it’s possible that Hancock was chafing under Adams’s influence, set up the financial inquiry in May 1771, and finally openly objected to something Adams said the following April.

If so, Hancock was playing a really long game.

TOMORROW: Following the money, counting the votes.

The Chevalier in Boston, 24–25 Oct.

Back in 2017, Boston 1775 shared a couple of postings about Joseph Bologne, the Chevalier de Saint-Georges, a celebrated swordsman and musician of French and African ancestry. At the time his compositions were being rediscovered in concert halls.

On the evenings of 24 and 25 October, Concert Theatre Works will present The Chevalier: The Life and Music of Joseph Bologne, Chevalier de Saint-Georges at Emmanuel Church on Newbury Street in Boston.

More on this production:

Bologne was a contemporary of the Revolutionary generation with an extraordinary story of his own: born in Guadeloupe to an enslaved mother, he became a virtuoso violinist, composer, and champion fencer in 18th-century France, and later led a regiment during the French Revolution. Despite all of that, his music was largely written out of the canon after his death.

The show tells his story through the words of his contemporaries and the music he composed, performed live by The Chamber Orchestra of Boston alongside young musicians from Project STEP and actors from Concert Theatre Works.

The production was conceived, written, and directed by Bill Barclay, former Director of Music at Shakespeare’s Globe in London. It was commissioned by the Tanglewood Music Festival, premiered there in 2019, and has toured the U.S. and U.K. for seven years. This is its first time in Boston.

Scroll down on this page for a two-minute trailer about the show. To purchase tickets for the upcoming performances, go to this site.

“It was one cause of the alienation between them”

Gov. Thomas Hutchinson wasn’t the only chronicler to say Samuel Adams and John Hancock fell out over the question of how adamantly to protest against Hutchinson convening the Massachusetts General Court in Cambridge.

In 1809, the Rev. John Eliot (1754–1813, shown here) published A Biographical Dictionary, Containing a Brief Account of the First Settlers, and Other Eminent Characters among the Magistrates, Ministers, Literary and Worthy Men, in New-England.

Eliot was a son and successor of the Rev. Andrew Eliot (1718–1778), minister at the New North Meeting-House during the Revolution. He had thus met all the leading politicians of pre-Revolutionary Boston before coming of age and had heard plenty of gossip about them.

In his book’s short biography of Samuel Adams, Eliot wrote:

During these [legislative] sessions at Cambridge, a difference of opinion arose, upon some secondary matters, between Adams and Hancock, which cooled their friendship, and was succeeded by an antipathy, that had an effect upon the minds of the people, many of whom took a warm interest in this personal animosity, though they agreed in political sentiments; and acted together in the great affairs which arrested the attention of all the whigs.

Eliot went into more detail in his profile of Hancock:

There was a collision of sentiment among the leading whigs about the removal of the court to Boston. Hutchinson offered this upon certain conditions, which the majority of members saw fit to comply with.

Adams was against the measure, and expressed his sentiments in opposition to his friend and colleague. Mr. Hancock was a man impatient of contradiction, and, upon some occasions, indulged a petulant humour. He could not bear the opposition of Mr. Adams on this question. It was one cause of the alienation between them.

That gentleman [Adams] was cool and determined, hard and unyielding, as well as bold in his argument. He sometimes was sarcastick in his replies; but upon the subject which then divided the house, he observed the utmost delicacy, and seemed to dread the consequence of this political difference.

These gentlemen had different views, though equally zealous in their opposition to the mother country. Or else one looked further than the other. . . . The division of these two leading characters made parties among the whigs, especially in the town of Boston.

The relationship of Hancock and Adams was still sensitive years after both men had died, Eliot told the Rev. William Bentley in 1810, in a letter published in the New England Historic and Genealogical Register.

Eliot listed his entries about Adams, Hancock, and Hutchinson among his “best drawn.” However, “Several Gentlemen in Boston, estimable for Talents & worth, tho’ federalists (which may lower them with you), say they would not have subscribed for the book had they seen what I have said of S.A. & John Hancock.”

Eliot was looking back through years in which Hancock and Adams were much further apart than they were in 1772, so that could have magnified the importance of this moment. Nonetheless, he offers more testimony that Hancock’s response to Adams’s disagreement was the first crack in their partnership.

COMING UP: Town finances.

“The Right of the Governor to carry them to Houssatonick”

John Hancock and Samuel Adams split in early 1772 over a few small issues—at least according to Gov. Thomas Hutchinson.

The first involved where the Massachusetts General Court was meeting.

Under orders from London, Hutchinson had summoned the legislature to meet in Cambridge instead of in Boston. His predecessor, Gov. Francis Bernard, had done the same. The General Court had also gone to Cambridge during a smallpox outbreak.

In the eighteenth-century British Empire it was widely accepted that colonial legislatures would be elected once a year, but then the royal governors could convene those legislatures where and when they chose. This power derived from their being representatives of the monarch in Britain.

According to Hutchinson in June 1771:

Mr [James] Otis in a Speech the first day after the Election gave his opinion to the house that we had a very good Governour and he was sure the People in all parts of the Province thought so, he condemned the proceedings of the House the last year & acknowledged the Right of the Governor to carry them to Houssatonick, the Western extreme part of the Province, was sensible that it would be inconvenient and that he would not do it and hoped he would carry them back to Boston. This gave a shock to the party and the House voted to go on with their business as usual without a division or opposition.

This speech immediately made Otis’s colleagues and constituents worry about which side he was on.

Soon Adams as assembly clerk rallied the legislators to complain bitterly about being summoned to an inconvenient meeting place and refuse to do any business until they were back in Boston. Hutchinson tried to bring up issues that the representatives, especially those from western towns, couldn’t resist acting on.

As the spring of 1772 came around, Hutchinson let it be known that as long as the house petitioned him to convene the General Court in Boston for practical reasons, with no challenge to his chartered power to summon them elsewhere, he would accede to that preference. (After all, as house speaker decades earlier, he had maneuvered to keep the legislative seat in Boston.) 

Adams wanted to stick to the principled, no-compromise confrontation. Hancock, along with speaker Thomas Cushing, was willing to couch their complaint on practical grounds. Ultimately, so did the majority of legislators.

The difference between Adams’s and Hancock’s positions was not that big, and Hancock may have had a better sense of what his fellow lawmakers and voters were up for. Still, this disagreement over wording or tactics was enough to give Hutchinson hope that two of his biggest opponents were splitting.

One of the grievances in the Declaration of Independence would be:

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

That referred to this dispute over where the General Court should gather, which became an even bigger deal in 1774 when Gen. Thomas Gage summoned the legislature to Salem.

The Revolutionary War ended up changing the norm about where and when American legislatures met. The U.S. Constitution gave Congress authority over “the Seat of the Government of the United States” and provided for regular meetings there. Only “on extraordinary Occasions” can the President convene Congress, and only “in Case of Disagreement between” the two houses can the President adjourn them.

TOMORROW: Another chronicler.

“Told John Hancock Esqr. that he heard me say in a threatning manner”

The newly released first volume of The Papers of John Hancock, covering the years 1754–1769, doesn’t even have an index entry for Samuel Adams. Hancock was politically active in that time, as a Boston selectman and representative in the Massachusetts General Court. But he did his politicking in person, not in (preserved) letters or newspaper essays.

In contrast, the first volume of the Writings of Samuel Adams, covering 1764–1769, includes a couple of items defending Hancock from charges of fomenting riots: a 1768 letter written for the signature of House speaker Thomas Cushing and a 1769 newspaper essay signed “Candidus.” Hancock also served on several committees with Adams, but Adams gets the credit (via a descendant’s biography) for creating those committees’ documents.

In those corpuses, the first sign of a rift between Hancock and Adams appears in a 15 Dec 1771 “Memorandum” that Adams wrote for himself after a conversation with the colony’s deputy treasurer:

This day I waited on Mr. Harrison Gray junr. to acquaint him that I had been informd that he had told John Hancock Esqr. that he heard me say in a threatning manner that Mr. Hancock might think as he pleasd, Mr. [James] Otis had friends & his (Mr. Hancocks) treatment of Mr. Otis would prejudice his (Mr. Hancocks) Election.

Mr. Gray declard to me that he did not hear me mention a Word of Mr. Hancocks Election—that a conversation happend between Mr. John Cotton [deputy secretary of Massachusetts] & myself (Mr. Gray being present) relative to Mr. Otis—that Mr. Cotton said Mr. Otis’ Conduct must be the Effect of Distraction or Drunkeness—that I said I did not think so—but that it rather proceeded from Irritation—that he (Mr. Gray) said if Mr. Otis is distracted why should Mr. Hancock pursue him—& that I answerd that Mr. Hancock might be stirred up by others to do it, but I thought he had better not or it was a pity he should.

This Mr. Gray declared was all that I said relative to Mr. Hancock, in answer to his Question as is before mentiond & that it did not appear to him that I discoverd the least Unfriendliness towards Mr. Hancock. He further said he was willing to give his oath to the truth of this his declaration.

Upon which I told Mr. Gray that it was far from my Intention to make Mr. Hancock displeasd with him, that I was satisfied that Mr. Hancock understood him differently & I should let Mr. Hancock know what he now said, & asked him to repeat it which he did precisely as before—& told me he was freely willing that I should repeat it to Mr. Hancock that if Mr. Hancock & myself desired it he would thus explain it in presense of us both.

Here’s the scan of that document from the New York Public Library.

At this time, Boston had reelected James Otis, Jr., to the House after a year off, hoping he would regain his sanity and efficacy as a legislative leader. Instead, Otis became more inclined to support royal policy and then more irrational, as I discussed back here.

In November, acting in his capacity as a probate judge after a request from the Otis family, Gov. Thomas Hutchinson asked the Boston selectmen to assess whether Otis was “a Non Compos Distracted or Lunatick Person.” The selectmen, including Hancock, decided he needed a guardian. On 3 December, Otis was “carried off…in a post chaise, bound hand and foot,” for treatment.

Samuel Adams’s memorandum doesn’t say when he discussed Otis with Cotton and Gray. Adams had tried to gloss over the situation: Otis was acting from “Irritation,” he insisted, not “Distraction or Drunkeness.” As to why Hancock thought otherwise, he “might be stirred up by others.”

This episode belies the common picture, pushed by Loyalists and adopted by many authors since, that Adams was the savvy politician pulling Hancock’s strings. Not only was Hancock breaking from Adams, but the merchant had a better sense of the situation. Otis needed help, and he was losing popular support. In the spring of 1772, the North End Caucus (in my reading) and then the Boston town meeting chose never to vote for him again.

The memorandum does show Adams’s keen judgment about what could annoy Hancock, however. Adams had heard, quite possibly from Hancock himself, that Gray had described him as speaking “in a threatning manner.” And what was Adams supposedly threatening? Hancock’s popularity and prospects for reelection. Adams recorded this evidence to show Hancock that he’d said no such thing.

Without this memorandum in writing, we’d have no evidence of Adams worrying that Hancock thought he’d revealed “Unfriendliness” in the fall of 1771.

TOMORROW: Matters come to a head.