Leislers Rebellion - Term Paper Example

Leisler’s Rebellion In the 1680s, the colony known as New York was thrown into turmoil as the result of issues occurring in England. As William of Orange entered England with armed forces and James II fled to France in what today is referred to as the Glorious Revolution, war between England and France was anticipated at any moment. This conflict, as with many conflicts in England and Europe, was founded primarily upon issues of religion between the Catholics and Protestants. James II was quickly enforcing his Catholic doctrines and initiating changes in the colonies without the consent or approval of the colonists themselves. An example of this was his attempt to incorporate New York and New Jersey into one principality with New York as the dominant society. Men in high positions of political power were generally Catholic, a fact that was becoming alarming to many of the Protestant colonists who had fled to the new world in search of the freedom to practice their own religions. William of Orange was supportive of Protestant beliefs. With this event, the concept that a ruler, a king believed to be placed through divine decree, could be replaced if he was deemed unsuitable in his treatment of his people, was introduced to the world. In response to this shift in powers, with plenty of advance knowledge of probable events to come, New York quickly replaced all Papist leaders with Protestant leaders under the leadership of Jacob Leisler, who had just the right combination of skills to accomplish such a feat. This control over the colony, now known as Leisler’s Rebellion (1689-1691), was widely debated at the time and remains widely debated today. However, one thing that can be said about the rebellion was that it undoubtedly functioned to sow some of the seeds required less than 100 years later as abused colonists rose up and created for themselves a new nation. Reports originating in Leisler’s time seem to agree on the generalities of the actual events that occurred, but offer varying interpretations of motives and methods. Most reports seem to agree that his methods of seizing control of New York went beyond the strict letter of the law and several saw Leisler as a usurping tyrant attempting to establish himself as regent of the colonies in lieu of William from across the sea. In an unsigned pamphlet entitled “A Letter from a Gentleman of the City of New York,” the author berates Leisler’s motives and methods. This writer claims that Leisler did not act out of a concern for securing the colony for King William, but rather that he acted out of a more selfish desire to preserve his own income by not paying duties on products he had in the harbor at the time. “And though Captain Leisler had at first so violently opposed the collecting of the revenue, alleging it unlawful, as soon as his wines were landed, and that he got into some power, he forthwith set up for himself the collecting of said revenue by Peter d’Lanoy, allowing him a great salary, and all the prequisits of that office” (A Letter 8). This contention seems to be repeated in several accounts, lending it a certain level of credence and causing even the most believing to question Leisler’s judgment and character. The same contention is made in “A Modest Answer”, the authors of which add that until this point, the leaders of New York had been working to bring about the necessary changes in government, namely the removal of Catholic members, in a peaceful fashion. While the writers of “A Modest Answer” continue to characterize Leisler as ‘usurper’, the author of “A Letter” goes into greater detail as to the types of men Leisler and his men seem to be. His characterizations of Leisler and his men have them typically drunk, rowdy and unconcerned with life and human decency. This author makes the claim that the peaceful process of replaced Papist leaders with Protestant substitutes for the interim period was interrupted by a violent Leisler and several of his followers. “As soon as those gentlemen entered upon the office, Captain Leisler with a party of his men in arms, and drink fell upon them at the custom-house, and with naked swords beat them thence” (A Letter 7). This characterization begins to set up the concept that Leisler was establishing the beginning of a tyrannical reign of terror. The author of “A Letter” discusses how Leisler would create false alarms to arms as a means of identifying those individuals who might prove dangerous to him and then jailing them within the fort without making charges, arranging for bail or following any other due process of law. “Upon the arrival of any vessel, great or small, a file of musqueteers were sent on board, the masters and passengers carried to the fort, and the letters taken from them, some whereof were open’d, and publickly read amongst the people” (Modest 4). To ensure he remained in power, the writers of this document insist that Leisler made unwarranted and unjustified searches and seizures of property and goods and arrested individuals for no other reason than that they might chose to oppose Leisler’s concept of civil law, agreeing with the author of “A Letter” regarding the abuses of power that took place. By quickly appropriating packets sent from England, Leisler was able to appoint himself Lieutenant Governor of the province illegally and immediately began creating laws and collecting the same sort of taxes he had argued against under a Papist lieutenant governor. It is interesting to note that many of the complaints the ‘objective’ writers of “A Modest Reply” bring against Leisler – the establishment of taxes without the consent of the people, the selection of councilors, etc. – were the very things Leisler and his followers had complained about regarding the Papist-dominated council prior to Leisler’s Rebellion. In another pamphlet created shortly after the events of Leisler’s Rebellion, it is argued that Leisler was not a criminal acting against the laws of the nation, but was instead a liberator freeing the people from the encroaching weight of a Catholic-dominated leadership, whether those individuals be Catholic or merely served to enforce Catholic concepts and political objectives. The primary function of the previous government, this document asserts, was to carry out the whims and directives of the king without question or consideration of the colonists and their rights. He “appointed a governor of this province of New York, who … gave active obedience to his prince without reserve; and accepted of a commission … giving him power with consent of any seven of his council to make laws and to raise taxes … without consent of the people … and this governor and council were the tools to enslave their country” (Loyalty 2). According to this writer, the leaders of New York, whether Papist or otherwise, nevertheless failed to take action on Protestant concerns in favor of Catholic ones and thus continued to work to enslave the subjects rather than protect them. Further, this writer points out how it was Leisler who brought about the proper fortification of the fort, not those he opposed who had allowed it to decay, and the Leisler and his followers were simply mimicking the actions of the Prince of Orange, now His Majesty, in their taking of New York and establishing a new order. Modern scholarship takes a somewhat different view of the events that took place during Leisler’s Rebellion. Voorhees, for example, take the stance that Leisler was pushed into his actions as a result of his religious beliefs as they applied to the world at large. John Calvin, the founder of the church in which Leisler was raised, taught that it was the duty of the magistrates, the class to which Leisler was born, to “prevent freedom (whose guardians they have been appointed) from being in any respect diminished, far less violated,” by a ruler who “exalts himself to the point where he diminishes the honor and right of God” (Voorhees 451). While finding himself in direct opposition to Van Rensselaer and Andros, Liesler was given plenty of opportunity to serve officially under Andros’ successor, Thomas Dongan, a Catholic (Voorhees 464). However, Liesler found himself in some form of opposition to the government, again on a spiritual level. As a result, “he expressed his opposition to the Catholic governor by serving in his judicial offices to the minimum required and appears never to have performed in his capacity as county justice” (Voorhees 464). Increased emphasis on Catholic rule continued to concern Leisler, compelling him to purchase freedom for recently arriving Huguenots and donating land for the formation of new German settlements while serving to further instigate his interest in local politics as a means of protecting Calvinist concerns. Murrin takes a more expanded approach, viewing Leisler’s Rebellion as simply one of several events leading from England’s repression of the Dutch through to the Revolution primarily as a result of ethnic differences between Dutch and Dutch sympathizers and English and English-sympathizers, with a great deal of flux occurring between these groups. “Three events have dominated accounts of New York’s development from 1660 to 1700; the English conquest in 1664, the adoption of the Charter of Liberties by the colony’s first true representative assembly in 1683, and Jacob Leisler’s Rebellion in 1689 … [Leisler’s] revolt appears, in turn, primarily as an ethnic Dutch reaction to the English conquest and the several political forms it had assumed since 1664, whether autocratic or libertarian” (Murrin 56-57). The specifics of Leisler’s Rebellion may continue to be debated well into the future as scholars attempt to determine just what the facts were regarding Leisler’s behavior and motives, but what seems clear is that the American attitude of the Revolutionary period seems to have been at least partially seeded here. As the Dutch struggled to maintain their identity in the converted English territory, Murrin points out that there was a natural division within the populace as various members of society, sometimes within the same families, had differing sentiments regarding how fairly each faction was being treated. On the English side, it is told of how “two sons of Thomas [Lawrence] supported Leisler, while their uncle John chose the other side ... Among the Dutch, the Beckman family experienced comparable tensions” (Murrin 65). .Religious influences and certainly political and financial questions also came into play as the Rebellion grew. Through the arguments put forth justifying the action of Leisler and his followers, namely that the king ruled by his ability to protect the rights of a free people who suffered him to rule because of his strength of character and abilities rather than necessarily by his birthright, helped to disturb the status quo in which a small elite group held all the power for a much larger population. While there were tremendous arguments against his methods and serious questions into his motives, the fundamental principles upon which Leisler acted remained valid concerns in that the status quo of the governing elite hadn’t changed for the better with the simple removal of a few Papists. Protestant agendas still had not been adopted and competent people still had not been appointed to positions of authority. Arguments that Leisler was an egomaniac eager for power and control may be valid as well, but the religious principles upon which he stood placed responsibility directly into the hands of the people to ensure that they were governed fairly and honorably, principles that were also applicable less than 100 years later under the reign of King George III and which became essential elements of the new nation that emerged. Works Cited “A letter from a gentleman of the city of New-York, to another, concerning the troubles which happen’d in that province in the time of the late happy revolution.” New York: Printed and sold by William Bradford at the sign of the Bible in New-York, 1698. “A Modest and impartial narrative of several grievances and great oppressions that the peaceable and most considerable inhabitants of Their Majesties province of New York in America lye.” London: Printed at New York and re-printed at London, 1690. “Loyalty vindicated: being an answer to a late false, seditious & scandalous pamphlet entitled A letter from a gentleman of the City of New York to another concerning the troubles which happen’d in that province in the time of the late happy revolution: published for the sake of truth & justice / by a hearty lover of King William and the Protestant religion.” Boston: Printed by B. Green and J. Allen, 1698. Murrin, John. “English Rights as Ethnic Aggression: The English Conquest, the Charter of Liberties of 1683, and Leisler’s Rebellion in New York.” Authority and Resistance in Early New York. Eds William Pencak and Conrad Edick Wright, 56-94. Voorhees, David William. “The ‘Fervent Zeale’ of Jacob Leisler.” The William and Mary Quarterly 3rd Ser. 51. 3 Mid-Atlantic Perspectives (July 1994): 447-472. Read More