Pointy End Toward the Bad Guy: Chancellor Livingston's Sword

The Chancellor's colichemarde from the collection of the New-York Historical Society

Chancellor Robert R. Livingston was nothing if not a fashionable man. As such he frequently carried a sword. He was not a soldier, but the style of the time called for men of a certain position to carry a blade.

One of the swords that the Chancellor carried during his life was a small sword known as a colichemarde. The colichemarde was developed in the 1680’s and was extremely popular for about the next half century. The sword itself was transitional in nature, shorter and lighter than the rapier’s that proceeded it, hence “small sword”. Not that it was particularly small, the Chancellor’s sword was 39 ½ inches long from its steel tip to its ornate silver hit and grip. The silver work was created by silversmith John Parry of London. [i]

            Colichemarde blades were triangular in shape. The blade started fairly wide near the hilt, which made an excellent surface for parrying a blow from an enemy, but after several inches narrowed sharply to a thin blade with shape edges for slashing and a very sharp point made for lethal thrusting. These swords were ideal for use in duels.

            The colichemarde sword was on its way out as a fashionable sword when the Chancellor was wearing it. Perhaps it would have gone completely out of style had not another famous American taken to wearing one during the French and Indian War, George Washington. Washington’s sword was even more ornate than the Chancellor’s. Historians at Mount Vernon believe that Washington is wearing the sword in at least two portraits done of him.[ii]

The hilt of the sword at Washington's hip appears to match the hilt of his colichemarde

Again, the hilt of the sword shown seems to match the hilt of Washington's colichemarde

            Click here to see one of Mount Vernon’s curators explore George Washington’s colichemarde.  

            As far as we know the Chancellor never fought a duel with his colichemarde, but he would have proved a lethal adversary with this blade in his hand. Had he. Perhaps his size and the sword on his hip prevented many duels he could have found himself in, were he a smaller man or carrying a different sword

---

[i] The Chancellor’s sword is in the collection of the New York Historical Society. Information about the blade comes from their online collections guide.

[ii] Information on George Washington’s colichemarde comes from George Washington’s Mount Vernon

Warts and All: How "That" Uncle At Your Holiday Dinner Is More Like A Livingston Than You Might Think

       The upcoming holidays have me thinking a lot about the complicated relationships we have with other people. Most people love their families, but we can all think of that one cousin or uncle who always says something weird that makes us uncomfortable during dinner, the family member whose opinions are completely out of touch with those of everyone around them. It does not make us hate them completely although it may make us want to throw yams at them. We accept family warts and all.

By the way, if you can’t think of "that" family member then I’ve got some bad news for you.

Its you. This is how your family sees you.

Anyway, we have a similar situation when looking at historical figures. They can be held as paragons in one hand and terrible people

in the other.  The classic examples that are always brought up are George Washington and Thomas Jefferson, leaders in American freedom, held enslaved people. Chancellor Robert R. Livingston also held enslaved people over the course of his life. When he traveled to Philadelphia to attend Congress, he always brought at least one enslaved man who would act as his body man. At the same time the Chancellor was also an early member of the New York Manumission Society, which worked to end slavery in New York. He even waffled a bit on the issue in his will, which called for his enslaved people to be freed but only if it was convenient for his wife Mary.

          

       We see more biases pop up from other members of the family as well.Margaret Beekman Livingston was a highly respectable woman. She ran a highly successful estate for twenty-five years following the

death of her husband, including rebuilding it from almost nothing following its destruction by the British. She raised ten highly successful children. Yet when her daughter Catherine wanted to get married Margaret refused to give her consent for years. She had no objections to the character of the man in question or his ability to support her daughter. She objected to the fact that he was a Methodist.

         

      Perhaps the most controversial character in the family’s history is Henry Beekman Livingston. No one disputes that Henry was a successful army officer from the time he joined the army in 1775 until he resigned in 1779. It’s after his marriage to Nancy Shippen that he became controversial. In her journal Nancy accused Henry of being a violent tempered paranoid who ruthlessly and systematically ruined her life. Some historians have even inferred from the journal that there may have some abuse in the relationship.

         

       On the other hand, there are documents that show that after

Nancy left him that Henry met Maria Van Clief. Henry and Maria had three children, John, Harriet and Charles. Although Henry and Maria never married Henry never denied the children were his. Maria died in 1809. During both the Jefferson and Madison administrations, Henry tried to get John an appointment in the army by writing directly to the presidents. Failing that he sent him to law school. Harriet never married and lived with Henry until his death. Charles was described by his uncle, Freeborn Garretson, as having an “imbecile mind.” From what we know Charles was in some way developmentally disabled, but Henry took care of him until he died. Sadly, Charles died only a month after his father.

          

        So, what does the hypocrisy, bias and other family problems tell us about the Livingston and about the other founders? It tells us they were people. Real people. They were not merely the marble statues and Gilbert Stuart paintings we are left with today. They were real people with problems, complicated thought processes, changing opinions and feelings. They did not do the things they did so that we could deify and worship them 250 years later but so that they could live the best lives they could in their own time. Sometimes they did things right and sometimes they did things wrong.

         

       It’s important to remember this as we enter into the season of family gatherings. Remember that we accept our family warts and all and most importantly refrain from throwing the yams. 

Unless your "uncle" is wearing a MAGA hat. In that case feel free to throw the yams at him. And the bowl they're served in. And a shoe.

Do Not Disrespect The Yams

Moose And Elk!

In addition to his work in government and international relations Chancellor Robert R. Livingston also worked on improving he agricultural society of America. As a founding member and president of the Society for the Promotion of Agriculture, Arts and Manufactures, along with Stephen Van Rensselaer, Simeon DeWitt, Gouveneur Morris and many others, the Chancellor filled the pages of the Transactions of the Society with his thoughts, ideas and transactions

In one experiment, that Boris and Natasha
could have probably gotten behind, he tried to domesticate elk and moose. This was published in the Transaction of the Society for the Promotion of Agriculture, Arts and Manufactures Instituted in the State of New-York, Volume I in 1801. This was based on an observation of his that every society, every place that people developed seemed to be provided with animals that could serve as beasts of burden. Cattle and horses in Europe, elephants in parts of Asia, the camel in North Africa, even the llama in South America and reindeer in the far north. In fact it was only the zebra and giraffe that he couldn't understand as to how they escaped being domesticated. He saw moose and elk as the equivalent animals in North America.

Definitely no problems putting a harness on an animal with antlers like that 

For some reason the Chancellor had more ready access to elk. In fact he owned three that he kept pastured with his cattle. He took two of these elk, each about two years old, and twice tried putting them in a harness. He was very encouraged by his results. Both animals took a bit about as easily as a colt of similar age. One problem he quickly saw though is that the animals had delicate mouths that could be easily damaged if the bit was mishandled.

So graceful and majestic

Based on these experiments the Chancellor felt that Elk could best be used pulling carriages. They were as muscular as horses but their natural gate is a faster so they could, in theory, out pull a horse.

The Chancellor never had the chance to experiment in real life on a moose. He apparently only ever examined a dead juvenile. The rest of his knowledge was based on books and stories told by hunters. He saw the great musculature of moose as an advantage and believed that they could grow up to ten feet tall in domesticity because they wouldn't be desperate for food in the winter.

You ain't a pageant winner either 

The only draw back to moose in the Chancellor's eyes was that they were ugly. In his words; "we must however , except beauty, for few animals have a more uncouth appearence; the head is out of all proportion large, the neck shorter than the head, the body much shorter compared to its height than that of either horse or ox."

He was most offended by the hind end of the moose, "the tail, if it may be so called, is a broad, short flap, that hardly covers the anus."

He wasn't wrong

                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

That reason was the Louisiana Purchase

 For some reason, despite his early success with these experiments the Chancellor never continued on with them and they were never picked up by anyone else on any large scale. His experiments with elk continued to make its way into print for nearly a hundred years. Its mentioned in 1803's Animal Biography; or Anecdotes or the Lives, Manners and Economy, of the Animal Creation Arranged According to the System of Linnaeus by W. Bingley, 1832's A Book of Quadrupeds for Youth and in a 1901 article in the Albany Argus by Judge Robert Earl, who was pushing to start attempting to domesticate both animals again. It was even written about in a blog in 2019. See here Even still no one has jumped into this effort whole heatedly.

Except this guy. He's some kind of moose whisperer 

"Tired With Being There" Henry Beekman Livingston's Brief Time as a Guest of the British Navy

As he took stock of his situation after the Battle of Saratoga General Horatio Gates felt the need to address the situation to his south. While Gates and the Northern Army had been drubbing General John Burgoyne, General Sir Henry Clinton had launched an attack up the Hudson River Valley, taking Forts Clinton and Montgomery, burning Kingston, burning Clermont and a number of other private homes. Gates found this offensive and let Clinton know it in a harshly worded letter.

A perfect choice for messenger boy

          To deliver the letter Gates sent Colonel Henry Beekman Livingston of the 4^th New York Regiment who had a personal stake in the matter as the British had burned down his mother’s house in their attack. Gates ordered Henry to find the enemy at Fort Montgomery, assuming that they would have occupied the fort after they had taken it. They had not, choosing instead to return to New York City.

          Henry, of course, decided to exceed his orders and headed south. At King’s Bridge he was taken aboard the H.M.S. Mercury under the command of James Montagu. Montagu immediately passed Henry off on his first officer Lieutenant Logan.

James Montagu's statue in West Minster Abbey

          Lt. Logan took Gage’s message from Henry and sent it ashore. As for Henry he now found himself a sort of guest, sort of prisoner on the ship. While he was not put in chains he had very little in the way of freedom while he waited for an answer to his message. He could not set foot ashore. Henry described his treatment as “very Indifferent.”

Henry Clinton, not great at checking his messages

          After two days aboard the ship it appears that Montagu and Henry had begun to get on each other’s nerves. Henry was constantly bombarding Montagu and Logan with demands to send more messages to Clinton or for answers as to why he had not had an answer yet. Finally,Henry demanded to send another message to Clinton, from whom he was yet to receive a response and Montagu refused to offer him any more help. Henry was “Tired of being here.”

          It was time for Montagu to get rid of Henry. He could have simply turned him over to one of the prison hulks in New York Harbor, but for a pesky sense of honor. Henry had traveled under a flag of truce so Montagu put Henry ashore back at King’s Bridge.

HMS Jersey, the most famous prison hulk

How many ships did you sink?

          

This allowed Henry to return to his regiment in time to join them at Valley Forge and serve in the army for another year. On Christmas Eve of 1777 Montagu ran the H.M.S. Mercury into a sunken obstacle in the Hudson River and lost her. The obstacle had been placed by the Americans, maybe by the Committee to Defend the River of which Henry's brother Robert R. Livingston was a member. He would have a rather unimpressive career after that until June 1, 1794 when he was killed at the Battle of Ushant, the Glorious First of June during the Napoleonic Wars.[i]

Not shown, James Montagu getting hit by a cannon ball early in the battle.

---

[i] Henry Beekman Livingston wrote a report on his journey south to George Clinton on November 13, 1777.  The letter is now in the New York State Archives Henry Livingston Papers collection.

Not that George Clinton

Perishing in the Field: Henry Beekman Livingston at Valley Forge

It would be tough to decide which members of the Livingston family had the worse Christmas in 1777. Chancellor Robert R. Livingston had suffered the destruction of his house by the British Army and was forced to take Christmas dinner at his cousin Peter R. Livingston’s house. Margaret Beekman Livingston, who had also lost her home to the British was in Connecticut staying at a house that belonged to Robert Livingston, 3^rd Lord of Livingston Manor. On the other hand, Henry Beekman Livingston was settling in to his winter quarters with the Continental Army at Valley Forge, Pennsylvania.

After being briefly held by the British as a quasi-prisoner of war in November of 1777 Henry rejoined his regiment, the 4^th New York, in time to join them in winter quarters. On December 24, 1777 Henry, had written to his brother Robert; “We are now building huts for our winter quarters without tools or nails so I suppose we may render ourselves very comfortable by the time winter is over.” He went on to explain that his men were "in general mostly naked and very often in a starving condition." He and his troops were lousy with bugs and only 18 men could muster fully clothed, the rest missing shoes, stockings, coats or breeches[i]

The huts may have looked something like this reproduction

Christmas Day did not show much improvement for the men in Valley Forge. George Washington’s general orders to the army begin with order 9 men from each brigade and three wagons to be assigned “for the purpose of collecting flour, grain, cattle and pork, for the army.” They end with a warning against plundering the local inhabitants and that anyone caught was to be “severely punished.”[ii] This would seem to indicate a shortage of food and possibly other supplies in the camp.

Not this George Clinton

This one

Henry wrote to Governor George Clinton of New York that day. He wrote; “Wholly destitute of clothing, the men and officers are now perishing in the field at this season of the year, and that at a time when troops of almost every other state are receiving supplies of everything necessary and comfortable.”[iii]

Harry and his men made it through Christmas though many of them would fall sick over the course of the winter. Henry himself fell so ill he had to be removed from the camp to a private house several miles away. He soon recovered though, boasting, in a letter to George Washington, that he had “never been sick before in My Life that I shall be enabled to return to my Duty in a few days.”[iv]

The "Prussian Lieutenant General" von Steuben

 It turned out that it would take Henry six weeks to recover. By the end of March 1778 he was back in camp with his regiment learning how to be a real soldier. Over the next few months Henry and his men trained extensively under the Baron von Steuben who Henry described as "an agreeable man". Henry found the training "more agreeable to the dictates of reason and common sense than any mode I have before seen,"[v] 
In June of 1778 Henry Beekman Livingston, the 4th New York and the entire Continental Army emerged from their winter quarters at Valley Forge transformed. They were an army that could stand in the field against the British Army . Still though, Christmas 1777 was pretty bad.

A copy of this apocryphal image hangs in the study at Clermont supposedly showing George Washington praying for his troops at Valley Forge.

---

[i] Boyle, Joseph Lee Writings from the Valley Forge Encampment December 19,1777- June 19, 1778 Volume 2. Heritage Books, Maryland 2007 p 2.

[ii] “General Orders, 25 December 1777, ”Founders Online, National Archives, last modified June 13, 2018, http://founders.archives .gov/documents/Washington/03-12-02-0647.

[iii] Public Papers of George Clinton Volume II Published by the State of New York, Wynkoop Hallenbeck Crawford Co, New York, 1900, p 605-606

[iv] “To George Washington from Colonel Henry Beekman Livingston, 10 February 1778,” Founders Online, National Archives, last modified June 13,2018, http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-13-02-0417
[v] ] Boyle, Joseph Lee Writings from the Valley Forge Encampment December 19,1777- June 19, 1778 Volume 2. Heritage Books, Maryland 2007 p 92-94

The Boy in the Soldier's Coat: Eugene Livingston and the Civil War

 The American Civil War was hell. Per the American Battlefield Trust there were more than a million casualties during the war. 620,000 men died because of battle or disease. Most of these men didn’t die the quick, painless, glorious deaths seen in paintings and movies. They died screaming for their mothers on bloody,  battlefields stinking of fear and shit or feverish in sick bed slowly succumbing to disease. Such is the story of Eugene Livingston.

Aryyl house in 1869

          Eugene Livingston was born on January 6, 1845 in Philadelphia. His parents were Eugene Augustus Livingston and Harriet Coleman. Eugene Augustus was the son of Robert L. and Margaret Maria Livingston, He would have spent at least part of his childhood at Arryl House, formerly the home of his grandfather Chancellor Robert R. Livingston and now the home of his brother, Montgomery Livingston.

Teviot

          Eugene Augustus and Harriet soon made a home at Teviot, the Hudson River estate immediately south of Clermont. Harriet gave birth to a daughter they named Mary Coleman Livingston. Unfortunately, Harriet died shortly thereafter. Eugene Augustus married Elizabeth Rhodes Fisher in 1851.

          At the same time the country was falling apart. Following the election of 1860 and the inauguration of Abraham Lincoln as president, eleven southern slave holding states illegally withdrew from the union and revolted against the United States.

Eugene Livingston's enlistment record from the National Archives

          The war was expected to end quickly but after a humiliating defeat at the First Battle of Manassas the Union ramped up recruitment for the army as well as production of war materials.

          On February 1, 1862, the younger Eugene enlisted in the 95^th New York Infantry and was mustered in that same day. He lied about his age. He was 17 but his enlistment record says he was 21. We do not know what inspired Eugene to enlist. Perhaps he felt strongly about saving the Union or ending slavery. Perhaps he was worried about being called a coward if he did not fight. Perhaps he was inspired by stories of his famous ancestors. Whatever his reasons, Eugene gave up his life of comfort and safety on the Hudson River to join a brutal war.   

Monument to the 95th Regiment at Gettysburg

The 95^th would go on to see some of the most intense fighting of the Civil War. They served at; The Second Battle of Manassas, Antietam, Gettysburg, Chancellorsville, Spotsylvania and Appomattox. Eugene saw none of this. 

         On March 8, 1862 Eugene posed for a photo in uniform. Ten days later his regiment finally left New York City. They were assigned to help defend Washington D.C. Shortly after arriving in the capital Eugene fell sick with Tuberculosis. On April 27, 1862, he was discharged from the army with a surgeons’ certificate of disability.

Eugene Livingston

          Eugene never recovered his health. He returned to his father’s house, Teviot, hoping the country air would cure his consumption. It did not. On Wednesday December 31, 1862 Eugene died at Teviot, a week short of his 18^th birthday.

In the untimely loss of your noble son, our affliction here, is scarcely less than your own. So much of promised usefulness to one's country, and of bright hopes for one's self and friends, have rarely been so suddenly dashed, as in his fall.

Abraham Lincoln, May 25, 1861 Letter to Ephraim D. and Phoebe Ellsworth

Great Britain has never paid much attention to rights which interfere with her Views: Newfoundland and the American Revolution

       

Captain James Cook's 1775 chart of Newfoundland

  Newfoundland and its associated fishing grounds were among the most valuable properties in the new world. France and Britain had long warred over the islands. Spain tried to claim a share of the fishing trade and Basque fishermen used the fishing grounds for hundreds of years. The French had largely been forced off the island by the 1713 Treaty of Utrecht, which ended the War of Spanish Succession, although they still held the islands of St. Pierre and Miquelon just a few miles off the south coast of Newfoundland. At the end of the French and Indian War these two small islands were France’s only holdings in North America.

As valuable as the island and its fishing was, the British government long discouraged permanent settlement on the island, preferring instead a mainly migratory population that followed the fishing trade. The fishing trade was

Fishing was a little different then

estimated to be worth about £600,000 per year. The island’s position on the globe also meant that’s its ports offered safe harbor during Atlantic crossings.

          The impact of the troubles in the thirteen American colonies was felt in Newfoundland before the actual fighting broke out. As mentioned before Newfoundland had a largely migratory population and needed to be provisioned from elsewhere. Boston became the primary supplier of provisions to Newfoundland and acted as a middleman in the trade of fish with the West Indies. Fisherman sent fish south and rum and molasses made their way north.

          Following the imposition Intolerable Acts of 1774, which shut down the port of Boston and imposed many other limitations on trade in the colonies in response to the Boston Tea Party and other troubles, the colonies declared an embargo on trade with the British. This included Newfoundland. When the fishing fleets arrived that summer, they found no supply of bread and flout to keep them fed. What had not arrived from the colonies could not be replaced from England or from Quebec although attempts were made.

          With the outbreak of the shooting war in 1775 the food shortage did not improve. The price of flour and bread tripled, people went hungry and there were reports of some starving to death. This led to more attempts at farming on the island and several people leaving their small outports and heading for the larger population centers like St. Johns.

          Many Americans saw the value of disrupting the British fishery at Newfoundland. Only the lack of a navy of any size prevented a full-on attack on the

Vice Admiral John Montagu

island. Vice-Admiral John Montagu, commander of the Newfoundland station, had only four ships and a few smaller armed vessels to attempt to defend the coast, the Grand Banks fishing grounds and to disrupt American shipping to Europe. This meant that American privateers could wreak havoc almost at will. Most privateers were after the profit of capturing a British merchant vessel so the small fishing ships were not valuable targets in and of themselves but taking a fishing ship allowed privateers to resupply their stocks of food, water, naval stores and in some cases even men. They also began to attack the small outport villages on the southern coast of Newfoundland.

          The presence of American privateers seriously cut into the fishing off Newfoundland. In addition, the threat of impressment onto the British men of war stationed at Newfoundland or making an Atlantic crossing gave even more incentive to fishermen to stay off the seas. For the first time the resident population of Newfoundland exceeded the

Privateer

migratory population.[i]

          The entrance of the French into the war brought a whole new level of importance to Newfoundland. Shortly after receiving news of the new alliance in 1778, Admiral Montagu took his small force and conquered St. Pierre and Miquelon. The islands had no defenses and were of little value but it really was a thumb in the eye to the French. This led Count D’Estaing to write to George Washington that he had heard the islands had been ravaged and that “We hope that with your assistance the day will come, when France shall partake the Cod-fishery with other nations.”[ii]

          Benjamin Franklin also caught on to the French interest in Newfoundland. On February 25, 1779, he suggested an attack on Nova Scotia and Newfoundland say “Halifax being reduced, the small forts of Newfoundland would easily follow…” He also stated that the fishery was a source of money for the British and “a great Nursery of Seamen.” A place where the British could man their naval vessels with experienced sailors.[iii]

          When the English government finally got serious about negotiating a peace treaty to end the war the rights to fish around Newfoundland were not only incredibly important to the Americans, but a major sticking point for the British. On January 7, 1782, Robert R. Livingston, who had the unenviable task, as Secretary of Foreign Affairs, of trying to supervise the peace negotiations in Paris

Just when you were wondering what this blog had to do with anything

 

from Philadelphia wrote to negotiator Benjamin Franklin; “The fisheries will probably be a source of Litigation, not because our rights are doubtfull, but because Great Britain has never paid much attention to rights which interfere with her Views.”

He went on to explain more fully:

The Arguments of which the People of America found their claim to fish on the Banks of Newfoundland, arise first from their having once formed a part of the British Empire, in which State they allways enjoyed as fully as the People of Britain themselves, the right of fishing on those banks. They have shared in all the Wars for the extension of that right, and Britain could with no more justice have excluded them from the Enjoyment of it (even supposing that one Nation could possess it to the exclusion of an other) while they formed a part of that Empire, than they could exclude the People of London or Bristol. If so the only enquiry is how have we lost this right, if we were Tenants in Common with Great Britain while United with her, we still continue so, unless by our own Act we have relinquished our Title. Had we parted with mutual Consent, we should doubtless have made partition of our common Rights by Treaty. But the oppressions of Great Britain forced us to a seperation, (which must be admitted, or we have no right to be independant) it cannot certainly be contended that those oppressions abridged our Rights or gave new ones to Britain, our rights then are not invalidated by this seperation, more particularly as we have kept up our Claim from the commencement of the War, and assigned the attempt of Great Britain to exclude us from the fisheries as one of the causes of our recurring to Arms.

The second Ground upon which we place our right to fish on the Banks of Newfoundland provided we do not come within such distance of the coasts of other powers as the law of Nations allows them to appropriate, is the right which Nature gives to all Mankind to use its common Benefits, so far as not to exclude others. The Sea cannot in its nature be appropriated. No Nation can put its mark upon it, Tho’ attempts have sometimes been made to set up an Empire over it, they have been considered as unjust usurpations, and resisted as such in turn by every Maritime Nation in Europe.[iv]

Interestingly, in November of 1782, John Adams used a nearly identical

John Adams and his "original" ideas

argument during a negotiation session with British agents. As he recounted in his diary:

When God Almighty made the Banks of Newfoundland at 300 Leagues Distance from the People of America and at 600 Leagues distance from those of France and England, did he not give as good a Right to the former as to the latter. If Heaven in the Creation gave a Right, it is ours at least as much as yours. If Occupation, Use, and Possession give a Right, We have it as clearly as you. If War and Blood and Treasure give a Right, ours is as good as yours. We have been constantly fighting in Canada, Cape Breton and Nova Scotia for the Defense of this Fishery, and have expended beyond all Proportion more than you. If then the Right cannot be denied, Why should it not be acknowledged? and put out of Dispute? Why should We leave Room for illiterate Fishermen to wrangle and chicane?       [v]

It seems reasonable that Adams may have seen Livingston’s letter to Franklin at some point but the terrible relationship between the two men would never have allowed Adams to give any credit to Livingston for the ideas.

          Ultimately the Treaty of Paris was finalized in 1783 and signed. It consisted of ten articles. The first was America independence from Great Britain. The second defined the borders of the new United States. The third reads thusly:

It is agreed that the People of the United States shall continue to enjoy unmolested the Right to take Fish of every kind on the Grand Bank and on all the other Banks of Newfoundland, also in the Gulph of St. Lawrence and at all other Places in the Sea where the Inhabitants of both Countries used at any time heretofore to fish. And also that the Inhabitants of the United States shall have Liberty to take Fish of every kind on such Part of the Coast of Newfoundland as British Fishermen shall use, (but not to dry or cure the same on that Island) and also on the Coasts Bays & Creeks of all other of his Britannic Majestys Dominions in America, and that the American Fishermen shall have Liberty to dry & cure Fish in any of the unsettled Bays Harbours and Creeks of Nova-Scotia, Magdalen Islands, and Labrador, so long as the same shall remain unsettled, but so soon as the same or either of them shall be settled, it shall not be lawful for the sd: Fishermen to dry or cure Fish at such Settlement, without a previous Agreement for that purpose with the Inhabitants, Proprietors or Possessors of the Ground.[vi]

After independence, a share of the fishing trade was considered one of the most important objectives of the American negotiators. Its not until the 7^th article that they actually get around to ending hostility and stopping the war.

It was all about this beautiful, majestic, delicious creature

          The importance of Newfoundland to America cannot be overstated. The territory would flare up again during the quasi-war with France at the end of the 18^th century. In the 19^th century fisherman from all over the east coast, including the City of Hudson would sail for the Grand Banks. At the beginning of World War II Franklin Delano Roosevelt traded a bunch of broken down destroyers to the British for the rights to put a base on Newfoundland. The base ended up operating throughout the war and the rest of the 20^th century, only being scaled down in the 1990’s. It seems that this rocky island has inextricably connected to the fate of the United States.

---

[i] Much of this information come from several ariticles by Olaf Janzen publish on www.heritage.nf.ca and to Olaf Janzen’s article JANZEN, OLAF. "The Royal Navy and the Defence of Newfoundland during the American Revolution." Acadiensis 14, no. 1 (1984): 28-48. http://www.jstor.org/stable/30303382.

[ii] “To George Washington from Vice Admiral d’Estaing, 6 October 1778,” Founders Online, National Archives, last modified June 13, 2018, http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-17-02-0295. [Original source: The Papers of George Washington, Revolutionary War Series, vol. 17, 15 September–31 October 1778, ed. Philander D. Chase. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 2008, pp. 279–280.]

[iii] “From Benjamin Franklin to Vergennes: Two Letters, 25 February 1779,” Founders Online, National Archives, last modified June 13, 2018, http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-28-02-0515. [Original source: The Papers of Benjamin Franklin, vol. 28, November 1, 1778, through February 28, 1779, ed. Barbara B. Oberg. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 1990, pp. 603–607.]

[iv] “To Benjamin Franklin from Robert R. Livingston, 7 January 1782,” Founders Online, National Archives, last modified June 13, 2018, http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-36-02-0267. [Original source: The Papers of Benjamin Franklin, vol. 36, November 1, 1781, through March 15, 1782, ed. Ellen R. Cohn. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2001, pp. 390–402.]

[v] “1782 November 29. Fryday.,” Founders Online, National Archives, last modified June 13, 2018, http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Adams/01-03-02-0001-0004-0023. [Original source: The Adams Papers, Diary and Autobiography of John Adams, vol. 3, Diary, 1782–1804; Autobiography, Part One to October 1776, ed. L. H. Butterfield. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press, 1961, pp. 79–81.]

[vi] “Definitive Treaty of Peace between the United States and Great Britain, 3 September 1783,” Founders Online, National Archives, last modified June 13, 2018, http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Franklin/01-40-02-0356. [Original source: The Papers of Benjamin Franklin, vol. 40, May 16 through September 15, 1783, ed. Ellen R. Cohn. New Haven and London: Yale University Press, 2011, pp. 566–575.]