"As Approaches Madness": The Jay Treaty, New York's 1798 Gubenatorial Election and The Death of a Friendship

          

Robert R. Livingston

Chancellor Robert R. Livingston could be a powerful and influential friend to have. Unfortunately, it was very easy to earn the man’s enmity. As a result, Livingston retained few friends for long periods of time. His three most significant friends from before the Revolution were Richard Montgomery, Gouverneur Morris and John Jay. All three men were at one time or another as close as brothers to the Chancellor but over the years the closeness ended.

            Richard Montgomery was married to Chancellor Livingston’s older sister, Janet. The two men became close friends often spending time talking science, agriculture and politics. Both had similar political leanings. Both were sent to New York to guide New York in the early days of the war. Livingston was chosen to go to Congress in Philadelphia while Montgomery remained in New York. With Livingston’s influence, Montgomery was selected as a brigadier general in the new army. On the last day of 1775 his friendship with Livingston came to a sudden and rather violent end when he was struck by several grapeshot while leading an assault on the city of Quebec.

The real death of Montgomery was less clean and dramatic and more taking grapeshot to the head and groin

          

Gouverneur Morris. How could the ladies resist?

Gouverneur Morris met Livingston at King’s College, when he entered a few years behind the Chancellor. Morris and Livingston had similar backgrounds, both were from landed family, and, again, similar political leanings. During the war they frequently served together in various bodies or corresponded about their respective duties. Livingston even had Morris check into the background of Thomas Tillotson when he proposed marriage to one of the Chancellor’s younger sisters. If there was one thing about Morris that Livingston particularly disliked, it was Morris’s penchant for the ladies. Livingston once even took the time to write a letter to Morris admonishing him for spending time with ladies when he should have been attending to his Congressional responsibilities. Given his reputation as a lothario it is unlikely that Livingston would trust Morris alone with his wife, mother, daughters, sister or any particularly attractive sheep. After the war Morris moved to Pennsylvania and his duties took him away for long periods of time. While he and Livingston never formally ended their friendship they had lost the closeness they once shared.

Baa.

            John Jay was the Chancellor’s closest friend for many years. The two had also met at King’s College. After graduating they served their time as law clerks at the same time and passed the bar together. They briefly operated a law firm together and became fairly prominent in New York City society life. Jay even married a cousin of Livingston’s. As they matured they became the god father to each other’s children. In 1776 they made plans to live together with their wives while attending Congress but an illness for Sarah Jay prevented this from happening. During the war the men wrote the lion’s share of the New York Constitution together, they worked on the defense of the Hudson River together and they were even involved in some counter espionage together.

         

John Jay shortly before he stabbed the nation in the back

   The brother like closeness these two men shared makes the ending of their friendship all that much more tragic. The first cracks appeared during the war. In 1777 Jay tried to slip some anti-Catholic clauses into the New York Constitution which Livingston prevented. Later when Livingston was Secretary of Foreign Affairs and Jay was one of the peace negotiators in France, Livingston rebuked the negotiators for exceeding their authority and keeping the French in the dark about their negotiations. Jay responded with an enormously long letter explaining their reasoning.

            After Livingston issued the oath of office to George Washington, making him the first President of the United States of America, his relationship with his friend Jay was further strained. Jay was made Chief Justice of the Supreme Court while Livingston received no federal title. Not only was Jay earning his enmity but so was the entire Federalist party.

            In a relatively short amount of time Robert Livingston would switch his allegiance to the Democratic-Republican party and bring along most of his family or “faction” as his political enemies preferred to call it. In 1795 John Adams celebrated the defeat of Tillotson for office as a victory over the Chancellor in a letter to his wife. “Mr. King is re-elected by the Legislature of New York by a majority of five in the House and two in the senate, in opposition to Mr. Tillotson, whom you know, to have married a Sister of Chancellor Livingstone. This is a great Point gain’d.”[i]  Of course Adams had always hated Livingston although he blamed their animosity on Livingston saying “The Passion which has influenced the Chancellor, through Life has been envy of Mr. Jay, and consequent Jealousy of the Friendship between Mr. Jay and me. He hated me because I was the friend of Mr. Jay.”[ii]

Of course everyone is jealous of you John Adams

The relationship between the Livingstons and the Federalists became so bad that a cousin of Livingston’s, Maturin Livingston, very nearly dueled Alexander Hamilton in 1796 but Hamilton begged off because he already had another duel scheduled.[iii]

People still voted for the man. Twice.

            It seemed that Livingston and Jay had a chance to become friends again in 1794, until Washington sent Jay to England to negotiate a new treaty that would tie up some loose ends from the Revolution. When the text of what became known as the “Jay Treaty” became generally known John Jay became one of the most hated men in America. People felt he had conceded far too much to the British. Jay was quoted as saying he could have traveled from Boston to

A rather elegant bit of graffiti from Boston. They don't vandalize like they used to.

Philadelphia at night by the light of his burning effigies. Livingston was perhaps the loudest voice criticizing the treaty. He published a series of letter under the pen name “Cato” blasting the treaty and even wrote directly to Washington to pressure him not to ratify it. To Washington he wrote; “Nothing but your glory can save under these circumstance the honor of our nation.”[iv]

Not this George Clinton

            In 1795, while he was still in England, Jay had been elected governor of New York when long time governor George Clinton declined to run again. Many had expected Livingston to be Jay’s opponent in the election but the Democratic-Republican surprisingly chose Robert Yates, whom Jay easily defeated.

            Three years later the Chancellor was chosen to run against Jay. The election was tough and dirty. Vicious ads and letters filled the newspapers. It attracted the notice of people in other states.

Seriously thought Livingston was worse than Satan

Abigail Adams wrote to her son John Quincy Adams of the Chancellor “An insatiable Ambition devours the Chancellor. To see Mr. Jay stand higher in the publick estimation and Elected chief over him; fills him with the same sensations, which Milton puts into the mouth of the Arch Fiend. “Better to Reign in Hell, than serve in Heaven.””[v] That’s right. She compared him to Satan. Thomas Jefferson wrote to James Madison “Hard elections are expected there between Jay & Livingston.”[vi]

 Worse yet the Federalists of New York moved in masse against the Chancellor. Alexander Hamilton, who had never forgiven Livingston for opposing his financial plans in the 1780’s, went so far as to write to Timothy Pickering to ask him to examine the papers of the Chancellor from his time as Secretary for Foreign Affairs looking for ammunition to use against him.[vii]

            At one point during the campaign Livingston paid a visit to Philip Schuyler at Schuyler Mansion in

Philip Schuyler, "Go to Canada? I mean ow, my toe."

Albany. Livingston and Schuyler had often found themselves on the same side during the war, even though a very convenient case of gout kept Schuyler from commanding the expedition against Canada which effectively ended with Montgomery’s death. Livingston complained of Jay and the federal government, perhaps forgetting the Schuyler was Alexander Hamilton’s father-in-law. No sooner had Livingston finished his rant and departed the house than Schuyler put quill to paper to report the meeting to Hamilton; “he and his friends are Assiduous in blackening Mr. Jay’s character.”  He went on to say of the Chancellor “The man my dear Sir has worked himself up to such a pitch of Enmity against our Government as approaches Madness.”[viii]

Lets be honest Schuyler Mansion (top) really was shabby compared to the elegant Arryl House (bottom)

            Livingston lost the election. Three years later Thomas Jefferson sent him to France. He returned a few years later having doubled the size of the country with the Louisiana Purchase and went on to a life of success in agriculture and business. In the meantime, his “faction” had seen to the end of the political careers of Aaron Burr and Alexander Hamilton.(Check that story out here)  Jay had retired from public service in 1801 to become a farmer but he and Livingston never spoke again.

---

[i] John Adams to Abigail Adams 29 January 1795 Adams Papers

[ii] John Adams to Francois Adriaan Van Der Kemp, 23 August 1806 Adams Papers

[iii]  See letters between Hamilton and Maturin Livingston January 18, 20 and 21, 1796. Hamilton Papers

[iv] Robert R. Livingston to George Washington, 8 July 1795 Washington Papers

[v] Abigail Smith Adams to John Quincy Adams 27 May 1798, Adams papers

[vi] Thomas Jefferson to James Madison 3 January 1798, Madison Papers

[vii] See letters between Alexander Hamilton and Timothy Pickering 10 February and 5 April 1797 Hamilton Papers.

[viii] Philip Schuyler to Alexander Hamilton, 31 March 1798, Hamilton Papers

"The Gentleman Does Not Reason From Facts": Chancellor Robert R. Livingston and the Fight to Ratify the Constitution in New York

Not that George Clinton

When the Constitutional Convention adjourned in Philadelphia the fight to create a unified country out of thirteen individual states was far from over. In every state another convention was to be held where the leaders would decide whether or not to ratify the new Constitution. Influential individuals were still rife with fears left over from the Revolution; fear of a standing army, fear of a strong central government and fear of loss of control. New York was not exempted from these fears, in fact anti-federalist ideas may have been held even stronger by members of New York’s ratification convention as they had vivid recollections of the long British occupation of New York City and bitter fighting in a significant portion of the state. Chief among the anti-federalists was New York’s long time governor George Clinton.

Alexander Hamilton,
Not really important to the story but his name gets
the hits

That George Clinton
Yes I know I've done this joke
before but its still funny damn it

The Constitution had many valiant defenders in New York, including Alexander Hamilton. Hamilton was not alone in these efforts though. He was ably joined by John Jay on the Federalist papers but on the debate floor it was Robert R. Livingston who became a force of nature although he receives almost no credit for his efforts.

Chancellor Robert R. Livingston
Smarter than you, richer than you and he knows it.

Livingston had not been in Philadelphia to help draft the Constitution although his name had been considered as a delegate. He had come to realize the importance of a strong central government during his time in the Continental Congress and as Secretary for Foreign Affairs. Following his time has secretary Livingston had returned to New York to reassert himself as the Chancellor of New York, a role which had been challenged while he was out of the state.

In Poughkeepsie, where the ratification convention was held, Chancellor Livingston quickly became notorious among the anti-federalists for converting their members to the federalist cause. He was known to single out members of their faction and take them to a tavern, sometimes with Jay or Hamilton, and ply them with food and drink until they had converted them to the federalist side. The anti-federalists simply had no one with the near bottomless purse of the Chancellor who could treat delegates in that fashion.[i]

Livingston’s influence was best shown on the floor of the debate though. He spoke frequently in a sarcastic and condescending tone about specific tones as well as the idea of anti-federalism in general. Melancton Smith was a frequent sparring partner of the Chancellor’s. Smith insisted that a federal system would be dominated by the aristocracy who would be by their very nature corrupt, or intemperate in his words.  To this the Chancellor replied:

Melancton Smith
Perhaps sparring partner is too strong,
maybe verbal punching bag?

“Will he presume to point out to us the class of men in which intemperance is not to be found? Is there less intemperance in feeding n beef than on turtle; or in drinking rum than wine? I think that the gentleman does not reason from facts.”

He went on to ask, rhetorically, who would lead the country in Smith’s world;

“But who in the name of common sense will he have to represent us? Not the rich; for they are sheer aristocrats. Not the learned, the wise, the virtuous for they are all aristocrats.”[ii]     

This sentiment echoed a point he had made in an oration to the New York Society of Cincinnati on July 4^, 1787 when he said;

“Can it be thought that an enlightened people believe the science of government level to the meanest capacity? That experience, application, genius and education are unnecessary to those who are to frame laws for the government of the State.”[iii]

Clearly the Chancellor favored a strong central government led by the best society had to offer dedicated to what was best for the country as a whole. On June 24, 1788 Livingston found himself in the odd position of having to clearly explain the role of the senate to his fellow delegates after their status came up in the debates. He said;

“The Senate are indeed to represent the State governments; but they are also the representatives of the United States, and are not to consult the interest of any state alone but that of the union.”[iv]

            During the debates the Chancellor rarely let an opportunity pass to make a point without belittling anti-federalism. Once he compared anti-federalist arguments to “children blowing bubbles.” Later when disputing a point started with “let us see if we cannot, from all this rubbish, pick out something which may look like reasoning.” He could not.[v]

            When many anti-federalist insisted that the individual states should control separate military forces the Chancellor was forced to illustrate how ridiculous that idea was;

“How is Congress to defend us without a sword? You will also keep that. How shall it be handled? Shall we all take hold of it? I never knew, till now, the design of a curious image I have seen at the head of one of our newspapers. I am now convinced that the idea was prophetic in the printer. It was a figure of thirteen hands, in an awkward position, grasping a perpendicular sword. As the arms which supported it were on every side, I could see no way of moving it, but by drawing it through with the hazard of dangerously cutting their fingers.”[vi]

            If anything the Chancellor seemed to enjoy the enmity he earned from the antifederalists. When his tactics were questioned because they seemed to arouse so much hatred toward him he reportedly said “that if he had no wit himself, he had been the occasion of wit in others…”

            Not even family was safe from the Chancellor’s barbs. When a cousin, Gilbert Livingston, argued a point with the Chancellor, Livingston turned to the rest of the assemblage and said;

John Jay
A long time friend of the Chancellor until he
wasn't but that's a story for another day

“that my worthy kinsman across the table, regardless of our common ancestry, and the tender ties of blood, should join his dagger to the rest, and compel me to exclaim in the dying words of Caesar, “And thou, too, Brutus.””[vii]

Thoroughly rebuked, when the time came to vote on the Constitution, Gilbert voted with the Chancellor.

            New York’s delegates were still debating when word reached them that New Hampshire had ratified the Constitution. This meant that enough states had ratified the document that it could take effect. The Chancellor took the floor and declared “The confederation was now dissolved.” In short, there was no going back.

            In the end it was the Chancellor’s friend (at least at that point) John Jay who finally moved that the body vote to accept or reject the Constitution. After a final attempt to delay by the anti-federalists the Constitution was ratified in New York on July 26,1788.

The Chancellor can be seen in his judge's robe carefully orchestrating the hand shake between
George Clinton and Alexander Hamilton

---

[i] Dangerfield, George Chancellor Robert R. Livingston of New York, 1746-1813 p 224

[ii] The Debate on the Constitution Bernard Bailyn ed. P777-778

[iii] Livingston, Robert R. An Oration Delivered Before the Society of Cincinnati at the State of New York in Commemoration of the Fourth Day of July. p.10

[iv] The Debate Bailyn p 792

[v] The Debate Bailyn p 837

[vi] Elliot’s Debates Volume 2 p 386.

[vii] Elliot’s Debates Volume 2 p 394-395

Vindicating a Forgotten Founding Father: A Recent Historical Discovery Reveals More of Chancellor Livingston's Accomplishements

The recent rediscovery of the hand written first draft of the 1775 “Address to the Inhabitants of Great Britain” by Emilie Gruchow at the Morris-Jumel Mansion presents the perfect opportunity to reexamine the accomplishments of a nearly forgotten founding father.  The sometimes inflammatory and aggressive letter that also appeals for reconciliation has long been attributed to Richard Henry Lee because of its tone.  Analysis of the hand writing of the draft revealed the true author to be Robert R. Livingston, known to history as the Chancellor.

Livingston is often portrayed as a minor background character during the Revolution and early republic, despite the many prominent and important posts he had.  It was once said of the Chancellor that he had a knack for showing up where history was being made, which conjures the image of an eighteenth-century Forrest Gump, stumbling from one historic event to another without having any real role in them.  Perhaps the best example of this was the musical “1776.”  When the committee is chosen to write what would become the Declaration of Independence, Livingston sings his way out of Philadelphia claiming he has to celebrate the birth of his son.  Ignoring the fact that the real Chancellor never had a son, the simple fact is the Chancellor stayed in Philadelphia until much after the Declaration was written.     

      

Some background first:  Robert R. Livingston was born in 1746, the son of Judge Robert R. Livingston.  The Judge was an early supporter of the American cause, representing New York at the Stamp Act Congress in 1765 and authoring an appeal to the House of Lords to end the burdensome taxes they were putting upon the colonies.  The elder Livingston would also be the only crown appointed Supreme Court justice to side with the colonies when war broke out.  The Chancellor also had a colonial bent as demonstrated by the oration he gave in 1765 from King’s College (now Columbia University), entitled “On Liberty.”

By a 1775 Livingston was successful lawyer in his own right, practicing law with his friend and future Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, John Jay.  He had briefly served as Recorder of the city of New York but was quickly replaced by someone friendlier to the crown.  He was chosen to represent New York at the Continental Congress meeting in Philadelphia.  Some people encouraged him to decline the position as he had much to lose, not the least of which was his life, if the situation deteriorated.  However he made his feelings quite clear to his father-in-law John Stevens, himself a representative to the Congress, in a letter dated April 23, 1775; “Some cautious persons w[ill] advise me to decline but I am resolved to stand or fall with my country.”[i]

On June 3, 1775 the Continental Congress voted to create letters to the various parts of the British Empire to explain the situation and make a plea for reconciliation.  Blood had been shed at Lexington and Concord and Fort Ticonderoga was in the possession of Benedict Arnold and Ethan Allen, but it was hoped, by most that the colonies could remain a part of the British Empire.  The letter to George III would go down in history as the “Olive Branch Petition.”  Livingston, Richard Henry Lee and Edward Pendleton were chosen to craft a letter to the people of Great Britain. 

         Livingston’s letter makes it clear that, this is a “last” appeal for peace.  That Parliament has betrayed them, “their object is the reduction of these Colonies to Slavery and Ruin.”  That they have no choice but to fight, “On the Sword therefore, we are compelled to rely for Protection.”  But he also manages to leave the door slightly ajar for peace, Reconciliation with you on Constitutional Principles.”

Before the letter was approved by Congress, with some moderation to its initial tone, on July 8, the battle of Bunker Hill showed how tenacious both sides could be in carrying out the war.   Ultimately the George refused to even read the “Olive Branch Petition” and the “Address to the Inhabitants of Great Britain” went largely unread in England.  The King issued his “Proclamation for Suppressing Rebellion andSedition” and war was unavoidable.  Livingston’s writing did attract some attention in the colonies though when it was published in a pamphlet, unfortunately without his name attached.  In a letter to William Bradford, James Madison praised the address by comparing it favorably to the works of Tully (the anglicanized name of Marcus Tullius Cicero, a Greek writer).

Later that year Livingston was sent as a member of a three person committee to consult with General Philip Schuyler as to how the war in Canada progressed.  They made it as far as Fort Ticonderoga before winter forced them to stop heading north.

When he returned to Philadelphia in May of 1776, he was a different man than he had been in 1775.  His father and grandfather had both passed away leaving him not only in control of all of the Clermont land but also the defacto head of the Livingston family.  In June when the Congress took up the debate of independence, Livingston took a moderate stance.  Perhaps he still clung to a hope for reconciliation or perhaps he feared that declaring independence would lead to a more determined British war effort, which would undoubtedly lead to an attack on the Hudson River valley.  

Whatever the case may be when it came time to choose a committee to draft the Declaration of Independence, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, John Adams and Roger Sherman were joined by the committee’s youngest member, 29 year old Robert Livingston of New York.

Here is where the widespread “understanding” of the Declaration and even many historians do a great disservice to Robert.  Many claim that Livingston took no part in the Declaration, that he was only selected to sit on the committee so that the name of a large New York land owner would be associated with the document.  But, with the discovery of the document at the Morris-Jumel House it seems apparent that Livingston was likely chosen because he was a respected writer at that point, and drafting a document that would serve as the Revolution’s press release to the world would require the best writers that the congress had. Thomas Jefferson did create the first draft of the Declaration, after the Committee had met.  He then took it to John Adams and Benjamin Franklin for revisions.  It then went before the full committee including Livingston for review.  What contributions the various members made during this review is not known.  Perhaps notes from this session will someday be found in another dusty attic.  But until then we can take the following into account.  According to scholar (and former Clermont curator) Travis Bowman, the Declaration of Independence bears a certain resemblance to Dutch political documents.  The only member of the committee that understood the Dutch language was Robert Livingston.

Though he was present for the Declaration presentation to congress, he did not sign the document.  While Livingston and the other New York delegates expressed their support for the document they did not have orders from New York’s government to vote for independence.  Unwilling to act without orders they abstained from the vote.  However Livingston was unable to sit idly by.  He headed back to New York to try to get orders for the delegation in Philadelphia on how to vote.  Unfortunately for his legend, New York voted for independence before he arrived to argue for it.  Thus he is not remembered either as a signer or for pushing Independence in New York.  He would spend most of the rest of the year of 1776 working on state matters, including planning the defense of the Hudson River and “riding about the Country in counteracting the Schemes of Tories”[ii].  Although Livingston never held a commission in the Continental Army, the vast amount of correspondence between him and George Washington is indicative of how respected his opinions were on military matters.  The chain that blocked British vessels from coming up the Hudson was in large part a Livingston creation.  After the war Livingston would be honored as an honorary member of the Society of Cincinnati, a group made up of officers of the Continental Army.  

In 1777 Livingston’s writing ability was put to good use once again as he was one of the primary authors of the New York State constitution.  It was under that document that he was made Chancellor of the State of New York, essentially the highest judge in the land.  He was uncomfortable with the populist turn the government quickly took, but it was better than life under the British for him.  Livingston and the other wealthy, landed patriots supported Philip Schuyler for first governor of the state, but George Clinton was elected on the vote of the common people.

  This year also saw a certain recognition of his contributions to the rebellion.  In October of 1777 a British armada sailed up the Hudson as part of a three pronged attack designed to cut eastern New York and New England off from the rest of the colonies.  When the main British army was defeated at Saratoga, the British decided to punish the notorious rebel, Robert Livingston by spitefully burning his home and outbuildings.    

In 1781 Livingston was made Secretary of Foreign Affairs, supervising the diplomatic activities of men like John Adams and Benjamin Franklin who were at then representing the young country in the courts of Europe.  Although the final peace treaty with England was signed in September of 1783, about two months after Livingston resigned the post, the bulk of the peace negotiations had occurred under his watch.

During the constitutional ratification debates the Chancellor played a key role in the approval of the new government in New York.  Both John Jay and Alexander Hamilton consulted with the Chancellor while writing what became known as the Federalist papers.  In 1789, in his role as Chancellor, Livingston issued the oath of office to newly elected president George Washington, turning to the crowd gathered in New York City and shouting “Long live George Washington, President of the United States!” 

Livingston’s final political achievement came not in the United States but in France.  Sent to Paris as minister to France during the Jefferson administration, Livingston was largely responsible for the negotiation of the Louisiana Purchase.  With communications between Livingston and America taking months at a time, Livingston had to rely on his wits and diplomatic skill to complete the purchase.  He was joined by James Monroe to help complete the deal, which doubled the size of the country at the time.

The purchase was also Livingston’s political undoing.  When he tried to claim sole credit for the purchase by changing the dates on some of the related documents he was found out.  A minor scandal ensued and he never held another political office.

Even then, he was not done contributing to the country.  While in France he had met an inventor by the name of Robert Fulton who rekindled a passion for steamboats that Livingston had held since the 1790’s.  Upon returning to America they combined forces and in 1807 the first practical steamboat in the world roared and smoked its way up the Hudson River, being sure to stop at Clermont.  He also contributed to the agricultural economy of the country with the merino sheep that he brought back from France with him.  The wool from his flocks was used in mills to create the first broadcloth woven in America.  His treatise on sheep was considered a masterpiece of the time, earning the praise of another tinkerer of the time, Thomas Jefferson.  He also founded the American Academy of Fine Arts and was a trustee of the New York Society Library.

Bad timing and a bit of an overreach combined to bury some of the achievements of Robert Livingston in the annals of history.  However that alone would not be enough to wipe the Chancellor from history as thoroughly as he has been.  When the trends in the telling of history are added to that, Livingston vanishes.  Shortly after the war ended a populist version of the Revolution came about.  This is the version where morally pure farmer/ soldiers rose up to cast off the corrupt and evil yoke of the English king, led by the simple farmer, George Washington.  This was the era of when the founding fathers were seen as self-made men.  Where Washington, Adams and Jefferson could all be massaged into fitting that mold, Livingston could never be anything other than the son of an extremely wealthy man who inherited a fortune and vast land holdings.  

Robert Livingston only became less well-received in the late nineteenth century and early twentieth century as the telling of history took on a more socialist leaning.  The pedestals that the populist historians had put the founding fathers on where kicked away.  Dirty laundry was aired, and the wealthy became the enemies of the common people.  In this telling Livingston was dismissed as entitled and with nothing to offer.  It is almost ironic that Livingston most enduring public recognition of his life’s work came during this time.  In 1875 New York placed a statue of the Chancellor in the United States Capital as part of the Statuary Hall collection, one of the two statues New York gave to the people of the United States.

            In truth Livingston’s role in history is much greater than he is often credited with.  He contributed to almost all aspects of this country’s founding and growth.  It is something of an injustice that his name is not known to most Americans, among the pantheon of other founding fathers, which is ironic since in life he moved among them a respected figure. 

           

---

[i] Robert R. Livingston to John Stevens, April 23, 1775

[ii] Edward Rutledge to Robert R. Livingston, October 2, 1776