John R. Livingston |
John
was born in 1754. He was the third son of Judge Robert R. Livingston and
Margaret Beekman Livingston, and their seventh child overall. When the
Revolutionary War broke out John served briefly under his brother-in-law,
Richard Montgomery’s command during the expedition against Canada in 1775. He
also served briefly at Fort Edward during the summer of 1777.
Most
of John’s time during the war was spent as a merchant. In 1776 he took over his
father’s gun powder mill and soon built a second to supply gunpowder to the
army. He spent a great deal of time in Boston during the war, buying and
selling various war materials.
But
what if there was more to young John? What if he had a cruel streak like his
brother Henry?
In 1879 a nearly century old manuscript was
published by the New-York Historical Society as A History of New York during the Revolutionary War, and of Leading
Events in Other Colonies at That Period. It contained the following
disturbing passage:
When the news of the unlucky affair at Trenton
arrived at New York, Erasmus Phillips, Esq., Captain of Grenadiers in the 45th
Regiment, was there. He immediately set off to join his regiment in Jersey. He
was attended by a servant only. As he passed through Princeton he was observed
by three persons who were concealed in a house at that place. The house stood
upon the road. The Captain was to pass the door. When he came directly
opposite, the three assassins fired, and lodged three bullets in his body. He
instantly fell from his horse dead. The servant escaped. One of the party who
committed the murder, his name shall be mentioned, was a John Livingston, one
of the sons of Robert R. Livingston, late one of the Judges of the Supreme
Court of the province of New York. This barbarian, in public company, in
Middletown, in Connecticut, boasted of this murder as an act of heroism, a
noble achievement; and so little remorse had he for his cruel act in which he
had taken a principal part that he declared “That Captain Phillips made one of
the handsomest corpses he had ever beheld. We stripped him “says he “of all of
his clothes and left him naked in the street. I thought” added he “that I
should have been obliged to have cut his head off, to get at his diamond stock
buckle, but I effected my purpose by breaking his neck, and turning his head
topsy-turvy.” This he concluded with a broad laugh, taking off his own stock,
and saying, “Behold the buckle, it was worth the pains of breaking a dead man’s
neck for.”
Whoa.
Let’s look first at
the dead man. Captain Phillips was a captain in the 35th Regiment of
Foot, not the 45th. In a history of the regiment compiled in 1873 he
is listed as murdered on January 2, 1777 “by some of the country people
apparently” although other sources list him as having died the next day at the
Battle of Princeton. His will was executed in July of that year and is in the
collection of New York Historical. So he definitely existed and died although
the how is still in the air.
As
for John, while he would certainly not be called scrupulous, he does not seem
to have been a killer. His business deals often trended toward shady but I
could not find any contemporary evidence that he was accused of murder in 1777.
He traveled to Rhode Island in late 1776 on a business trip but it seems
unlikely that he would have been in Princeton, a British-held town, on January
2 in order to murder Phillips. Also, as Princeton was garrisoned by the British
army it seems unlikely that the three shots that killed Phillips would have
gone uninvestigated long enough to strip the dead man and break his neck.
A pleated neck stock without its buckle |
There
is one more twist in the publication of the manuscript. The editor in 1873 was
Edward Floyd DeLancey, a descendant of the same rival family.
Did
John R. Livingston murder a British officer for his neck stock? Probably not. The rivalry
between the Livingstons and the DeLancey family was well-known,
possibly even bitter enough to merit a smear campaign of this nature.
But maybe it's John R.'s somewhat shady connections, both during the
war and after, make him vulnerable to a story like this.
No comments:
Post a Comment