family and political rivalry. The Stamp Act crisis opened a crucial period in which the De Lanceys almost delivered a death blow to Livingston political prospects. Both factions supported the Stamp Act Congress held in New York City to voice disapproval of such imperial measures. Judge Livingston served as a delegate to the congress and authored the petition that was sent to King George III, respectfully protesting the stamp legislation. But, the Livingstons suffered from the measured, reasoned manner by which they fashioned their moderate opposition to the British in the general emotional storm that ensued. The De Lanceys fared much better because of the strong ties they forged with the more radical, popularly supported Sons of Liberty.22
In the aftermath of the Stamp Act protests, a widespread tenant or land riot broke out in the rural districts north of New York City. This general disorder consisted of five hundred to two thousand participants, as disgruntled tenants roamed the countryside in armed bands during 1766 and clashed with the Hudson Valley landlords. During these disturbances, the “levelers,” as they sometimes called themselves, killed and wounded a number of men, burned houses, and destroyed crops. This activity centered on the large Livingston estates and threatened New York City before local law enforcement units and British soldiers subdued the outbreak.23
A rebellious spirit that challenged established civil authority provided the atmosphere for the tenant riots, although these hostilities were not an integral part of the coming Revolution. The New York Sons of Liberty, for example, regarded the riots as a separate issue and did not support them. A British officer who participated in apprehending the offending tenants snidely remarked in his journal that the Sons of Liberty were “great opposers to these rioters as they were of the opinion no one is entitled to riot but themselves.”24
Judge Livingston’s propensity for law and order in protecting manorial property was revealed when his cousin, the lord of Livingston Manor adjacent to Clermont, wrote to him for advice on dealing with riotous tenants. The judge responded, “I would let the mob go on their own way and as soon as they had separated get a warrant and take up those that are most dangerous and guilty, and carry them to Albany Gaol. . . . If they should chance kill any person in the Fray every man of them is guilty of murder and the Government must interpose even if they should be obliged to raise men for the purpose.”25
The Quartering or Mutiny Act matter heated up after authorities quelled the tenant uprising. This legislation required colonial assemblies to provide quarters and supplies for British soldiers stationed in their province. Parliament had annually passed temporary acts for quartering troops in America during the French and Indian War. Many Americans came to regard the acts as strictly wartime emergency measures. After the conclusion of hostilities, therefore, the colonies proved less willing to support the British military establishment in their midst. Yet at the time of its passage in 1765, the latest act stirred little controversy in the New York Assembly. Its members were too occupied with adopting resolutions against the Stamp Act to give the Quartering Act much of their attention.
Parliament persisted in seeking adherence to its decree. Now reeling from recent events, the Livingstons embraced the quartering statute in the hope that British troops could safeguard the colony from such domestic law-breaking and attacks on property as experienced during the land riots. Since they were the principal plaintiff in the riots, the Livingstons’ self-interest in the bill was all too obvious. As a result, they appeared to be willing to jeopardize the common good—because the same British soldiers could also be used to enforce the Stamp Act and other objectionable ministerial measures—for selfish considerations.
The Livingston-led New York assembly pushed through quartering-enabling legislation in July 1766. Even so, the measure did not fully conform with the Quartering Act. It did not acknowledge Parliament’s authority to pass such a law and treated the requirement as a mere requisition, with the final decision resting with the New York assembly. Mounting tensions over the measure led to a clash between citizens and soldiers on August 11, 1766. Subsequent action by the New York assembly led to continued reluctance for unconditionally implementing provisions of the bill. On July 2, 1767, a frustrated Parliament declared the province in rebellion and passed the New York Restraining Act, which ordered the assembly suspended effective October 1, 1767, as punishment for noncompliance. Meanwhile, New York assemblymen voted for a more liberal interpretation of the Quartering Act, but it still fell significantly short of complete conformity. Fearing that a prolonged confrontation with New York over the issue might unite the colonies in opposition and defeat its original intent, Parliament decided not to invoke the suspension.
The damage had already been done. The Restraining Act, even though it had not been enforced, provided a cause célébre to kindle colonial resistance. Richard Henry Lee, the ardent Virginia patriot, referred to the act as a “flaming sword over our heads.”26 New York’s recalcitrance toward the Quartering Act also provided an example for other colonies to emulate. Of the seven continental colonies (New York, New Jersey, Massachusetts, Georgia, South Carolina, Connecticut, and Pennsylvania) specifically affected by the Quartering Act, all but two (Connecticut and Pennsylvania) followed New York by refusing full compliance at one time or another.27
As a result of the Livingstons’ conspicuous advocacy of the Quartering Act, public opinion increasingly regarded the family leaders as self-serving patricians who had lost touch with the general cause. The De Lanceys took good advantage of the situation to discredit and displace the Livingston political machine. After 1769, most members of the Livingston family grew dispirited and withdrew from New York politics. William Livingston, the cousin of Judge Robert R. Livingston, actually left New York in 1772 and settled at his country retreat, Liberty Hall, near Morristown, New Jersey. He quickly adapted to politics in that colony and became its first revolutionary governor. Judge Livingston remained as the only member of the former dynasty with an important political office after 1769. Never since the first Livingston entered public life in the seventeenth century had the family political fortunes sunk so low.28
The continuing revolutionary crisis brought a remarkable turnaround in the Livingston-De Lancey rivalry. By 1773, the De Lanceys joined the movement in support of the British and became the senior loyalist faction in America. This unfortunate decision wrecked their provincial interests and political influence. Their property in the colony suffered sacking and confiscation as members of the De Lancey family eventually emigrated to England. The Livingstons, on the other hand, managed to shed their previous stigma and became imbued with intensified patriot commitment. Their revived association with the revolutionary element propelled the family once more into a political leadership position in New York.
Shortly after Montgomery became a member of the Livingston clan, the family engaged in a political discussion. Janet, in her memoirs, described how her grandfather turned to her father and said, “You and I will never live to see this country independent. Montgomery, you may, but (speaking to his grandson) Robert, you will!” Janet continued her remembrance of her grandfather’s passion for American independence: “On the breaking out of war he was in raptures. In beginning with the Bostonians he said ‘They have taken the bull by the horns.’ His sanguine temper made him expect with confidence our independence.” Janet, however, surmised that the turbulent atmosphere of 1775 hastened the end for this aged patriot, who was then in his eighty-seventh year: “I verily believe the Battle of Bunker Hill (of which such a false and disastrous report was made) was his death. He took to his bed immediately, lay a week without pain, and died. The last words he muttered were ‘What news from Boston?’ “ His son, Judge Robert R. Livingston, followed him in death six months later.29
The Livingston family’s stature as ardent supporters of the patriot cause may be gauged by the level of criticism they received from the royalist opposition faction. Thomas Jones, a fervent New York loyalist who vigorously denounced the Revolution as nothing more than widespread lawlessness, singled out the Livingstons for particularly venomous treatment in his history of the Revolution. Jones alleged that a Livingston instigated an atrocity against a British officer in December 1776. The related incident involved the assassination of Capt. Erasmus
