TheAlbany Convention Part 2: Who’s in Charge?

by Rudy VanVeghten

EVENTS IN COLONIAL New York evolved rapidly during the earlysummerof1689.Part1ofthis series (de Halve Maen 94:2 summer 2021) explored how the Albany Convention was formedasanoutgrowthofthecommunity’s long-standing concerns over attacks from French Canada and the Indian tribes with whom they allied. This segment will study how the Convention competed with the insurgent Jacob Leisler administration for control of New York’s provincial frontier and Albany’s key position as negotiators with their friendly trading partners—the Five Nations of the Iroquois.

New York Refugee. Not long after the Albany leaders’ first meeting of what became known as the Albany Convention in June 1689, a refugee fleeing from the escalating New York City rebellion arrived in Albany Nicholas Bayard, Dominion councilor and militia officer, retreated up the Hudson on June 28 after hewaschargedwithpapismandtreasonby the rebels. Recalling the situation, Mayor Stephanus van Cortland later wrote about “Coll: Bayard narrowly escaping having two cutts in his hatt soe that he was forced to fly for Albany.”1 Bayard observed that unlikeNewYork,Albanyseemed“inclined topeaceandquietnes.”2Hispresencethere, however,insuredthattranquilitywouldnot lastlong.Albanywouldnowhavetodivert precious physical and emotional resources away from the Canadian threat to focus more on the escalating rebellion down in New York.

Although more subtle in Albany than in New York City, there were currents of displeasure simmering under the surface among a portion of the province’s frontier northern settlements that are evident in three key areas: politics, religion, and the local trade-based economy Politically, the Dutch majority continued to hope for a returntothedaysbeforetheEnglishtakeover of1664,similartothebriefperiodof1673–1674.3Inreligion,thereweredisagreements between conservative Dutch Reformed Church adherents and those professing a moreliberalversionofCalvinismpreached by Leiden-educated ministers like current DomineGodfreyDelius,aswellasdistrust of Lutherans, Anglicans, Anabaptists, and especially Quakers.4 Economically, there had been decades-old complaints by lower-level fur traders against the dominance of wealthier, more powerful figures such as the Schuylers, the Van Rensselaers, and Dirck Wessels ten Broeck.5

Rudy VanVeghten, copy editor of de Halve Maen, continues his series on the relationships between colonial Albany and Native Americans. This installment examines how these relationships spurred the formation of the so-called Albany Convention at the outbreak of Leisler’s Rebellion.

Pleading Their Case: Alfred Frederickse’s nineteenth-century etching depicts Dominion of New England Councilors Stephanus van Cortlandt, Nicholas Bayard, and Frederick Phillipse addressing New Yorkers during the days preceding Leisler’s Rebellion. Unable to convince the crowds of their authority, Bayard and Van Cortlandt eventually fled to Albany.

More powerful than these smoldering grumbles,however,wastheglueofmutual fearthatCanadianFrenchandIndianswere plotting Albany’s destruction—a fear that bonded everyone together in a common cause, at least up until Nicholas Bayard’s arrival in the summer of 1689.

Sometime in mid-July 1689, Leisler began efforts to extend his authority outside of New York City into the other counties of the province, including Albany. From Bayard’s perspective, he did this “by sending messengers and letters to some of the military Officers and factious men, inducing them to follow their steps.”6 Albany’s civil and military officials found it concerning that Leisler was a novice in the delicateartofnegotiationwiththeIndians, anditwasimportantthatthey—theAlbany leaders whom the Indians trusted such as Pieter Schuyler, Dirck Wessels, Robert Livingston, etc.—maintain control until a legitimate new governor arrived in the province.7

1 E.B O’Callaghan and Berthold Fernow, trans. and eds., Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New York, 15 vols. (Albany, 1856–1887), 3:608–609. [hereafter DRCHNY].Aswithothercommunicationsfrom both pro- and anti-Leislerians, it is hard to separate fact from hyperbole and/or fiction.

2 Ibid., 604, 642.

3 A.J.F Van Laer, Correspondence of Jeremias van Rensselaer (Albany, 1933), 460–61, 470.

4 The most notable instance of this was a 1676 dispute betweenAlbanyministerNicholasvanRensselaerandvisiting New York merchants Jacob Leisler and Jacob Milborne.

E.T Corwin,ed.,Ecclesiastical RecordsoftheStateofNew York,7vols.(Albany,1901–1916),1:689–92;E.B.O’Callaghan, TheDocumentary History ofthe State of New-York, 4 volumes (Albany, 1849), 3:895–97 [hereafter DHNY].

5 Charles T. Gehring, trans. and ed., Fort Orange Court Minutes 1652–1660 (Syracuse, 1990), 491, 501–502.

6 DRCHNY 3:598.

OfparticularconcerntotheAlbanyleaders were fresh reports of Indian attacks. A quartetofOnnagongue[Kennebec]Indians attempted in late July to enlist Iroquois support in a general war against colonial rule. “They understood the Christians intended to exterminate all the Indians,” the Onnagongues told the Iroquois, “and that it became therefore necessary for all Indians to unite against the Christians.” In reporting these proposals to their Albany trading partners, a delegation of Iroquois Mohawksadded,“TheGovernorofCanada encourages them [the New England tribes] to wage war against the English and provided them with ammunition.”8

It was a combination of these worries, likely added to Bayard’s reports, that precipitated the Albany County leaders’ decision to reconvene on August 1, 1689. Following the trend of their first meeting a month earlier, the list of attendees demonstrates a broad range of inclusivity Members included not only Mayor Peter Schuyler, Recorder Dirck Wessels, and four elected city aldermen, but also several who later aligned themselves with the Leisler faction, including Lieut. Jochim Staats, Sheriff Richard Pretty, and Gabriel Thomasse Stridles.There were over a dozen militia officers represented, including Capt. Marten Gerritsen van Bergen, Capt. Jan Bleeker, and Kiliaen van Rensselaer, captain of a horse company Representatives traveled to the Convention meetings from Schenectady to the west and from Catskilltothesouth Inadditiontoseasoned politicians like cousins Peter and David Schuyler, there were political newcomers liketwenty-two-year-oldJanAbeel,elected the previous year as an assistant alderman.

Led by Mayor Peter Schuyler, the ConventionopeneditsAugust1,1689,meeting with a pledge “that all public affairs for the Preservation of there Majts Intrest in this Citty be managed by ye Mayr aldermen Justices of ye Peace Commission officers and assistants of this Citty and County, untill such time as orders shall come from theremostSacredMajts William&Mary.”9

One of the Convention’s first orders of business at this meeting, as with its previ- ous meeting in June, involved the northern border. Scraps of information had filtered in from William’s escalating war against Louis XIV and the deposed James II’s Jacobite faction, augmented by rumors of Canadian probes into Lake Champlain. A quartetoftradersintheSaratoga/Stillwater areaarousedsuspicionsduetotheirFrench backgrounds “It is therefore thought fit by ye magistrates of ye Citty of Albany Justices of ye Peace & militia officers of ye sd Countywhoconsidering howdangerous such suspected p’sones are in this juncture oftimeyt ye sd anthoLespinard[,] JohnVan Loon[,] Renne Poupard [alias Lafleur,] and Villeroy be secured in his Majts fort at Albany till further order and till such time The Bussinesse can be further Inspected and Examined,” ordered the Albany ConventiononAugust5,1689.10Althoughthese four fur traders were later found guiltless of conspiring with French invaders, the incident demonstrates theAlbany citizenry’s simultaneous concern over Indian threats andpossibleCatholicsympathizersintheir midst.

First Cousins: French King Louis XIV’s father and English King James II’s mother were siblings, so when James was overthrown by his daughter Mary and son-in-law William, he sought refuge at his cousin’s court in France. Already concerned over a potential attack from French Canada, Albany residents only grew more fearful as word of William’s “Glorious Revolution” reached the American colonies. (Engraving by Nicolas Langlois, 1690).

Leisler soon received word about the Saratoga traders as he continued to concentrateonfortifyingthefortatManhattan. Rather than seeing the situation in terms of a threat by Canadian French and Indians againstAlbany,hesuspectedaJacobiteplot inwhichtheseFrenchmenwereconspiring withAlbany’sleaderstodefendtheirformer allegiance to James II. “The place called Schorachtoge [Saratoga] belongs to the Magistrates there, who doe still Justice for their Maties King William & Queen Mary by the oath they have suorne to the late KingJames,”Leislerwrotetothegovernor of Massachusetts on August 13. “It is the uttermost frontiers & there are six or seven familiesallormostrankfrenchpapiststhat have their relations at Canada & I suppose settled there for some bad designe & are lessertobetrustedthereinthisconjuncture of tyme than ever before.”11

Of more pressing concern than these traders to the Albany gathering were the intentions of the French Canadians and their allied Indian warriors. On August 5, four Natives from the Indian refugee village at Schaghticoke reported that “an army of French & Indians were Seen on yeLake.”AlbanydispatchedLieut.Robert Sanders with a militia contingent to “make Discovery,” but found nothing suspicious. Two days later, additional rumors heightened concerns, causing some residents to consider abandoning Albany, “by which means and bad Example of such Timorous and Cowardly People others will be Discouraged to stay and Defend there Majts InterestinthisFrontierpartofyeProvince.” Tostemthisexodus,theConventionbanned able-bodied residents from leaving.12

7 ThisviewisexpressedinacommunicationtoAlderman LiviniusvanSchaikandLt.JochimStaats:“considerwhat a Conditio we would be with ye Indians if a Change of Magistrates and a Subversion of ye govnerment shhold at p’sent be made.” DHNY 2: 104.

8 DHNY 2:18–20. O’Callaghan equates the Onnagongues with the Eastern Abenaki tribe of Penobscots from present-day Maine. News of Indian attacks in Maine didn’t come until several weeks later

9 DHNY 2:80.

10 Ibid.,82.JanVanLoonwaslaterinvolvedintheLutheran Church south ofAlbany and in the settling of the town of Loonenburg(present-dayAthens)namedforhim.Villeroy was the nickname of trader Pierre de Garmeaux.

11 Ibid., 22–23.

12 Ibid., 84.

Within the next couple of weeks, residents were able to relax somewhat as word arrived of a major attack by the Iroquois on the Canadian village of Lachine on Mont Royal Island. “I have received news from Albany,” Jacob Leisler informed the Massachusetts Bay governor “that there is killed&takenbyourIndianesofthefrench above 500.”13

Matters took on a more regional flavor in late August when a delegation from Massachusetts, Plymouth, and Connecticut colonies arrived in Albany in hopes of enlisting Iroquois support for ongoing militarymeasuresagainstCanadian-backed Algonquian tribes in New England, such as the Onnagongues. Desiring a formal conference, John Pynchon of Springfield, Mass., Jonathan Bull of Hartford, Conn., and the other delegates penned a dispatch toArnoutCornelisseViele,Albany’senvoy and interpreter among the Iroquois at Onondaga, to request the Five Nations each send representatives toAlbany.14

FearsofCanadianaggressionwereagain ontheupswinginAlbanyfollowingreports by Pynchon that a Canadian counterattack in present-day Maine had reversed the gains of the Iroquois’ sack of Lachine. Pynchon had been one of Gov. Edmund Andros’ councilors in the Dominion of New England. During the previous winter, AndroshadpushedbackFrench-supported aggression by Abenaki Indians in Maine, but Pynchon reported “That Pemmaquid was taken by ye Indians and french 45 peoplekild&Taken—alsothatthereshouldbe a ship be come to Quebek of ye french with news of wars Between Engld & France & therefore nothing can be Expected but yt ye french will doe all ye mischieffe they can to this governmt.”15 Apprehension grew further on September 1 when Harmen Jansen van Bommel reported the capture of a handful of French Indians on Lake Champlain “who were bound hither to doe mischieffe, and yt severall french were seen upon ye Lake.”16

When residents of Albany and Schenectady heard about an Iroquois attack on the village of Lachine, near Montreal, they were reassured that their Native trading partners were still allies against a common French-Canadian enemy. Down in New York City, Jacob Leisler inflated the number of French casualties from that attack. Instead of 500 killed as he claimed, the number was closer to 200. (Image from Government of Canada “Parks Canada” website.)

Reinforcement Request. In times before William and Mary’s Glorious Revolution, Albany would receive assistance from the provincial New York governors to help defend against attacks from Canada. Now, the Albany Convention hoped for assistance from Leisler “Resolved Since there is such Eminent DangerThreatened by ye French of Canida and there Praying Indians to come into this

French Connection: Although this map indicates the old Saratoga patent was on the west side of the Hudson River, the actual patent included land on both sides. It was originally granted by New York governor Thomas Dongan, a Roman Catholic, in 1684 to Albany men including Peter Schuyler, Robert Livingston, Dirck Wessels ten Broeck, and others. (Map courtesy of the State Library of New York)

Country to kill and Destroy there Majes Subjects that there be ImmediatelyAn ExpresssentdounetoCaptLeyslerandye Rest of ye Militia officers of ye City and County ofNewYorkeforassistanceofonehundred men” along with gunpowder, ammunition, and financial support.17

ThisdecisionbytheConventiondemonstrates the diversity among its members. Colonel Bayard had fled Leisler’s regime back in the early summer, and his fellow former Dominion Councilman Stephanus van Cortland followed in mid-August.18 Their anti-Leislerian leanings were outweighed by the desperate need for support against Canadian aggression from any quarterpossible.Anyperceivedthreatfrom Jacob Leisler did not compare with the very real threat of attack from Louis XIV’s forces from Canada.

By September 12, Iroquois sachems summoned by the New Englanders had

13 DHNY2:22;AllenW.Trelease,IndianAffairsinColonial New York (Lincoln, Neb., 1997, reprint of 1960 Cornell University edition), 252. The Lachine massacre was in revenge of the 1687 French and Indian attack on Seneca territory by Governor Denonville.

14 Lawrence H. Leder, ed., The Livingston Indian Records 1666–1723(Gettysburg,Pa.,1956),147–48.Onondagawas thecentraltribeoftheIroquoisconfederacywheretheFive Nations traditionally held their council fire.

15 DHNY 2:85. Pemaquid was an English outpost located near present-day Bristol, Maine.

16 Ibid., 87 arrived for a conference at theAlbany City Hall. Noting the general war between EnglandandFranceontheEuropeanstageand betweenCanadaandtheEnglishcoloniesin North America, the delegates reported that “the Easterne Indians being Instigated and Incoradged by the ffrench at Cannida who areyorsandourmortallEnemies;havemade Incurssion upon the Out borders of our grat Kings Goverment to the Eastward of Merimeck river & the places there adjasent.”19

17 Ibid., 88.Among the “Praying Indians” were some who had originated from the Mohawk castle at Caughnawaga, near present-day Fonda, NewYork. Converted to CatholicismbyFrenchJesuitpriestsinthemid-1600s,theyrelocatedinthe1670stoanewvillagesouthofMontreal,Canada.

18 DRCHNY 3:612.Atsome point,VanCortlandt returned to New York City, where he was present at the Common Council meetings in October, shortly after which he again retreateduprivertoAlbany (Minutes of Common Council of the City of New York 1675–1776, 8 vols., 1:210.)

These attacks in present-day New Hampshire were in retaliation for underhanded actions by Major Richard Waldron of Cocheco (present-day Dover, New Hampshire) during King Philip’s War in 1676.Waldronhadofferedsanctuarytothe neutral Penacook Indians as well as their guests from the Nashaway, Nipmuk, and other warring tribes. Once inside the village,thecolonistsbrokeWaldron’spromise by arresting any Natives who had fought against the English and either executed them or sold them into slavery

This action had resulted in a split among the Penacook sachems, with the Christianized pacifist chief Wonalancet retreating with his followers to the north and west, and Wonalancet’s nephew Kancamagus leading revenge-minded warriors to align with Eastern Abenaki villages along the rivers of Maine. “Kancamagus and his Penacooks had come into league with the Ossipees, Pequawkets, Sacos, Androscoggins, and other eastern tribes,” explains

Concord,NewHampshire,historianJames Otis Lyford. “The Penacook sachem was a leading spirit in this savage conglomeration.” After gathering at the old Penacook fort on the Merrimack River, they “made ready to wreak on Major Waldron, for alleged violation of faith and hospitality, the vengeance delayed for thirteen years, but not forgotten.” Waldron was killed in the June 28, 1689, attack on Cocheco, and Kancamagus fled into either Canada or Maine after the Massachusetts General Court declared him an outlaw.20

It was this and similar revenge attacks that led John Pynchon and the other New Englanddelegatestoseekreinforcementof theEnglishalliancewiththeIroquoisatthe September1689conferenceinAlbany “So long as ye French king and ye Jesuits have ye Command at Canida,” they advised the Iroquois, “You can never Expect to live in Peace it being there only Studdy nott only to Dukkoy and Treacherously murther your People butt to Send evill Emissaries amongst you as they did Lately from ye Eastward.”21

In a second session with the sachems on September23,theNewEnglanddelegation remindedtheIroquoisthatithadbeenKing James,“beingaPapistandagreatFrindeof ye French,” who had blocked their efforts two years earlier to attack Canada in retaliation for Denonville’s 1687 attack on the Seneca nation.22

Although the Iroquois leaders openly declined to declare war on all Eastern Indians, “they haveing Committed no acts of hostility upon them,” they did generally promise to continue following the Covenant Chain treaty with the New England colonies. In a separate private session, the sachems assured the colonists, “wee Esteem your Enemies ours, & we are DeSignd and Resolved to fall first on the Aurages or Penekook Indians, and then to fall on ye onnagongues & so our Enemies ye french.”23

Leder explains, “A war was then underway between New Englanders and the Eastern Indians. The latter, however, maintained friendly relations with the SkachkookIndiansinNewYorkand,itwas suspected,withtheMohawks.Thiswasthe reason for the conference.”24

With French and Indian attacks increasing in New England, and with rumors of incursions down Lake Champlain and the Hudson River, The Albany Convention tookseveralactionstobolstertheirdefenses. On September 4, 1689, they resolved to build or renovate forts in the county’s variousneighborhoods,includingSaratoga, Half Moon, Papscanee Island, Bethlehem, andKinderhook.25Theyalsoorderedahead count of their several militia units.26 Militaryservicesrequiredaflowofrevenue“for ye maintaining and paying of [ ] men in thisjunctureoftimeforourDefenceagainst ye french, since by the Present Revolutions we can expect no releef or assistance from ourneighborsaccordingtothereletterssent hither.”As such, the Convention requested subscriptiondonations,“oyrwisethatitwill be paid by a generall Tax out of ye whole County.” All told, the convention raised over350£throughthesubscriptiondrive.27

LEISLER’S RESPONSE. These measures were all in addition to their request for support from the evolving Leisler government down in New York.

19 Livingston Records, 149–50.

20 James Otis Lyford, ed., and the Concord, N.H. City HistoryCommission, History of Concord, New Hampshire (Concord,1903),82–84;C.E.Potter,HistoryofManchester

Formerly Derryfield, New Hampshire (Manchester,1856), 96; Charles Edward Beals Jr., Passaconaway in the White Mountains (Boston, 1916), 77–101.

21 Livingston Records, 151.

22 Ibid., 148, 152, 155.

23 Ibid., 158.

24 Ibid., 151n.

25 DHNY 2:88.

26 Ibid., 91.

27 Ibid., 93–96.

Leisler’s response was less than hoped When express messenger Johannes BeekmanreturnedtoAlbany,hereportedLeisler had objected to his being a civilian, saying “yt he had nothing to doe wth ye Civill Power—hewasaSouldierandwouldwrite to a Souldier.”28

As recorded in the Convention’s minutes: “Resolved since Capt Leysler and ye Military officers of ye Citty and County of N:Yorke have not been Pleased to Return ye Least answer to ye Convention upon there Letter and Resolve ye 4th Instant but sentaLettertoCaptwendel&CaptBleekersignedbyLeysleralonewhichisopenly Read, ye Purport of which Cheefly tends to Desyre them to Induce the Common People to send Two men to assist them in there Committee.” Leisler did, however, provide Albany with some ordnance and powder.29

Recounting the episode, Prof. Allen Trelease notes the Convention “swallowed their pride” by requesting Leisler’s assistance, “but when he demanded their submission in return, the magistrates looked elsewhere.”30 That elsewhere was with the same neighboring New England provinces that had recently sent delegates to Albany seeking assurances from the Iroquois nations. The Convention on September 23 drafted requests for support from Connecticut and Massachusetts Bay. They also encouraged as much assistance aspossiblefromtheMohawks,Esopus,and Schaghticoke Indians.31

It wasn’t until a month later, on October 24, that the Convention reported receiving answers. Boston declined to send any reinforcements, citing their own “p’sent Circumstances” and “ye great distance.” Connecticut was more encouraging. “RobertTreatEsqrGovr ofConetticutdoth answer our Letter sent him by Capt Bull,” reportstheConvention’sminutes.Treatand the Connecticut GeneralAssembly offered “tosendusabouteightysouldierswiththere officersassoonastheycaneffectit,andare endeavoringtoProcureCapt Bulltobethere Capt.”Inanapparentreference toLeisler’s refusal to send troops, Gov Treat and his legislature wrote that “they think strange thatt none of our oun neighboring Counties should Releave us.” Members of the Convention accepted Connecticut’s offer, butwithakeyprovision:“Providedtheybe under Command and obey such orders and InstructionsastheyshallReceivefromtime totimefromye ConventionofthisCittyand County.”32

Down in New York City, Jacob Leisler had already heard of Connecticut’s offer to Albany Connecticut had decided to recall the assistance they had offered to New Yorkandre-appropriateitinsteadaspartof their assistance toAlbany In a letter dated October10,1689,SecretaryJohnAllyninformedLeislerthattheConnecticutGeneral Courthaddecided“tocallinthataydoften souldiers or their pay, wch we hauv hitherto grantedyouforthesecureingoftheforteat Yorke.”Allynexplained“thatwehavebeen & are now at great charge and expences many wayes, by reason of the Indian war, &thenecessityofAlbanywhodaylyexpect to be invaded by the French, to whome we purpos to send som reliefe.”33

Leisler didn’t take this very well. Connecticut’s offer to send troops to Albany, while withdrawing others from NewYork, “enraged Leisler,” writes David Lovejoy, “and commenced a bitter feud between his governmentandthatcolony’swhichlasted forsometime,infactaffectedthecourseof events for the next few years.”34

Albany, controlled as Leisler saw it by a nest of liberal Cocceian Calvinists and Jacobites, quickly became in his mind a threat to his effort to preserve New York provinceforEngland’snewmonarchs,even though both claimed to be working toward the same stated end. Leisler’s resentment comesoutinaparticularlypointedletterto BostondatedOctober22,1689,inwhichhe singlesoutAlbanyresidentandConvention recorder Dirck Wessels ten Broeck:

I perceive also your great & extraordinary charges & your uncomfortable warre with the Indians your enimies discourages me partly of the expectationthepeopleofAlbanyhaveofsome assistance of men for this winter being in Just fear for some attack & never in a worse posture of defence then now, their fort being in possession still of the old late King James souldiers, I am informed your honor has received apar’larletterfromavesselthenbroke [WesselTenbrook]ofAlbanyofwhich I desire your honor for a copie, he is a persone who has formerly professed popery,&recantedaprotestant&been employed by our late papist Governor dongan, for ambassador to Canada & understand not one word French, for which ambassador he has been well rewarded, by both parties being a mistery to many, he is recorder at Albany in noe quality for that office he has occasioned fourty miles from Albany towards the french to build a fort upon his land where he has send 12 men to guardit,whomustbeasacrificeifthey come & the fort a nest to the enemies as penaquide was, our committee & military have voted 50 men to be sent up for assistance at Albany, as per enclosed appeares.35

Dirck Wessels owned a share of the Saratoga patent where the fort mentioned by Leisler was built.As ten Broeck family genealogistEmmaRunknotes,Leislerwas following his customary tactic of accusing political enemies of popery.36 It was Leisler’ssimilarpolitical-religious accusations against New YorkAlderman Nicholas Bayard and Mayor Stephanus van Cortlandt that resulted in their flight from Manhattan upriver toAlbany in July

Inordertounderscoretheirloyalties,the Albany Convention on October 25, 1689, “Thought Convenient that all there Majts Justicesofye Peace&Commissionofficers doetakeye oathofallegiancetothereMajes William and Mary king and Queen of England France & Ireland & Defenders of ye faith.”DirckWesselsadministeredtheoath to Mayor Peter Schuyler, following which Schuyler presided over the oathtaking by others. The Convention also resolved to administer the oath to “ye Inhabitants of ye Citty & County of Albany & souldiers of there Majts fort.”37

Atthesamemeeting,theConvention“resolvedyt CaptkilianVanRenselaer&Capt gert Teunise be deputed to goe to ye Govr and Councill of Connecticut and to Return our heartyThanks for there kinde Letter of ye 15th Instant wherein they signify yt they will send about 80 men besides officers for our Releefe.”38 Gerrit Teunisse was quite familiar with the path to Connecticut from prior trading activities and his service as

28 Ibid., 92.

29 Ibid.

30 Trelease, 299.

31 DHNY 2:96–97.

32 Ibid., 98.

33 Ibid., 34.

34 David Lovejoy, The Glorious Revolution in America (New York, 1972), 313.

35 DHNY 2:38.

36 Emma ten Broeck Runk, The ten Broeck Genealogy (New York, 1897), 16.

37 DHNY 99–100 One of the over two dozen soldiers at the fort refused to take the oath

38 Ibid., 99–100.

Gov Andros’ delegate there during King Philip’s War over a decade earlier.

One day later, the Convention drafted a lettertoConnecticut,inwhichtheyspelled out orders “yt Capt. Renselaer and Capt. Gert Teunise be Commissionated to goe thither and Return our Thanks and accept of ye 80 men & Endeuor to have them hither with all speed, who are to submit themselves to ye ordrs & directions of ye Convention.”39

Tension was clearly rising between Leisler’s regime and Albany during the fall of 1689, and the presence of New York fugitives Stephanus van Cortlandt andNicholasBayardtherecertainlyserved to inflame this anxiety Judging from the many long diatribes penned by Bayard, he most likely fed his Albany hosts with a distorted account of the ongoing rebellion inNewYork.Whileeveryonewaitedforan official new governor to arrive, he wrote, “severalthreatenings wheremadebythesd Leyseler & his crue forceably to fetch the sd Collonel[i.e.himself]wthseverallofthe Chief Magestrates & officers fromAlbany, and by sending of severall of his Creatures and seditious letters made all pressures & endeavorstodesquietandunhingeallmannor of Governmt in that County ofAlbany andinthecountyofUlster,insinuatingand intising the ignorant and meane people of those Counties to the like sedition and rebellionagainsttheestablishedauthority.”40

AnothercomplicationfacingtheAlbany Convention was handling the loyalty of their own members. This was particularly delicateinthecaseofLieut.JochimStaats, son of long-time colonist Major Abraham Staats. Jochim and his brother Samuel were in the process of negotiating with Kiliaen van Rensselaer for the purchase of some Rensselaerswijck farms. Samuel had moved to NewYork City and later became a member of Leisler’s council.41

Minutes of the Albany Convention for October 28 for the first time address suspicions that Jochim’s loyalties were shifting. Jochim had been among those delegated to deliver communications between Albany and Leisler, and his fellow burghers apparentlyhadreceivedinformationthathadthem concerned. It was no time, they thought, to swap in a new untested administration:

The Convention writt a letter to alderman [Livinus van] Schayk and Lieft Staets putting them in minde of what they had writt yesterday Concerning ye Reports of Leyslers Intentions to send up armed men to overthrow ye government of this Citty, and that they would endeavor to prevent it as they loved ye Peace of this Citty, and withall Informed them that we hear by a Prisoner come from Canida yt ye Indian Prisoners were come from france with ye govr of Mont Royal and yt ye govr ofCanidaanddiverseofficers wenttofrance,&therefore considerin what a Condition we would be with ye Indians if a Change ofMagistrates and a Subversion of ye government should at p’sent be made.42

These concerns received further discussion on November 4, 1689, with fears voiced over Leisler’s intent “to send up a Compe of armed men to make themselfs master of there Majts Fort of Albany and of ye Citty turn ye government of this Citty upside doune & Disturbe ye Peace and Tranquility of there Majts King William & queen Marys Leige People.” Delegate van Schaik reported that he “thought himself obliged” to deliver the Convention’s communication. Lieut. Staats, however, was conflicted. “Jochim Staets Replyed [to van Schaik while still in New York] he knewnotwhattodoe,Theywouldhavehim Captofyt CompanythatwentuptoAlbany whichwastoLyeinye fort.”Followingthe loyalty oaths secured from the soldiers at Fort Albany, the Convention had named Capt. Sharpe as the fort’s commanding officer Staets informed van Schaik that Leisler “would have Sharpe out, & if I will notacceptofitt,theywillputtinChurchill, methinks it is better that I accept of itt then that such a Vagabond as Churchill should have ye Command.”43

Van Schaik reported that after he delivered the Convention’s message to Leisler, “Jacob Milborne Replyed with Consent of ye oyr Persons Conveined yt time that he wouldgoeuptoAlbany&seethefortthere better Secured.” The alderman added that he believed Leisler was “fully Resolved to Send up men hither to Disturbe the People ofAlbany,” adding that he overheard Leislerusinghisoft-usedtacticofcallingCapt. Sharpe and his troops “Papists all.”

Reaffirming their solidarity to their own interim government, the Albany Convention resolved “to acquaint the Burgers and InhabitantsofthisCittybytheassistantsof theirRespectivewardshowyt wehaveReceivedInformationfromN:Yorkethatthere is a Compe of men comeing from thence, whoIntendtoTurnye governmt ofthiscitty upside doune, make themselfs master of ye Fort and Citty, and in no manner to be obedient to any orders and Commands as theyshouldReceivefromtimetotimefrom yePersonsnowinauthorityinthisCittyand County.” Convention members were especiallyconcernedthatthiswouldundermine thedelicaterelationshipwiththeirIroquois trading partners, resulting in the Five Nations defecting to the French in Canada.44

In one of his inflamatory writings dated November13,1689,Col NicholasBayard, who returned to NewYork fromAlbany in late October, reported on Leisler’s northern bid: “Some few days after the Coll’s returne from Albany, a party of about 60 armed men under the Command of Jacob Milborn, were sent up to Albany by the sd Leyseler and his associates under a faire pretence of assisting that County agst any incursionsfromCanida,butasitafterwards appeared only contrived for to unhinge all mannerofGovernmntthere,andtointhrall thatCounty.”Insteadofofferingreinforcement,Bayardsaid,“sd JacobMilbornathis

39 Ibid., 102.

40 DRCHNY 3:645.

41 DHNY 2:45.

42 Ibid., 104.

43 Ibid.,2:106–107.Lieut.WilliamChurchill(orChurcher) was a local New York militia officer loyal to Leisler

44 Ibid., 108.

Requesting Reinforcements: When the Albany Convention requested defensive assistance from Jacob Leisler, the New York rebellion leader responded that he would send up an armed contingent, not to provide reinforcements, but to take control of the city and its fort at the top of Jonkers (State) Street. (Wikimedia Commons) arrivallatAlbanyendeavoredimediatelyto raiseallthepeopleintoaRebellionagainst the authority, whoose Commissions, he declared,whereutterlyvoid&ofnoeffect, sincetheyweregrauntedunderthatunlawfull King James (altho’the sd authority had newly sworne faith & allegiance to their nowMayties KingWmandQueenMary).”45

Bayardalsoincludedinhis“Narrativeof Occurrences” a copy of Milborne’s notice to Hudson Valley inhabitants. Claiming that the popular vote from the New York City area gave them governance authority throughout the province, includingAlbany County, Milborne proclaimed, “These are to desire and warne all the Inhabitants of Kinderhoek and places adjacent that they do forthwith repair themselves to the Citty of Albany for to receive their rights and Priviledges & Liberties in such a manner as if ye Raigne of King James ye second had never bene nor any of his arbitrary Commissions, nor what his Governrs have done had never past.”46

Albany’s main objection to the rumored motives of Milborne and his troops was doubting their “Intent to assist us as neighbors, and to obey the Convention, and not to turn ye government of ye Citty upside doune.”47 Redoubling their effort to gain popular support for their efforts, the Convention “Conveined in ye Citty hall by Bell Ringing” all the “Burgers and Inhabitants” in earshot to decide how to handle the predicament. Following a presentation oftheConvention’sconcerns, thegathered populace “agreed and Consented to ye sd Articles, acknowledging ye members of ye Convention for their Lawfull Magistracy in their Respective and Places.” Forty of the “ye Inhabitants Principall men of ye Toune” signed the resolution supporting the Convention.48

Three days later, the Convention took steps to reinforce their fort both physically withrepairsandadministrativelybyassigningMayorPeterSchuylertotakecommand of the king’s troops there, with assistance from Lieut. Sharpe.

With threats looming from the north, the Albany Convention had sought assistance from three separate bodies politick: Massachusetts Bay, Connecticut, and New YorkCity.Aswehaveseen,Massachusetts offered moral support but no manpower Connecticut proffered eighty soldiers plus officersandacceptedtermsthattheywould followtheordersoftheConvention.Capts. KiliaenvanRensselaerandGerritTeunisse VanVechtenhadnotyetreturnedfromtheir mission to thank the governor and General Court at Hartford and escort the reinforcementsbacktoAlbany Incontrast,Albany’s request to Leisler, although originally rejected, resulted in him leveraging the appeal to bringAlbany under his control.

Civic and Military Leader: Pieter Schuyler was not only Albany’s first mayor, serving during the Leisler Rebellion period, he was also the city’s top military officer. When Leisler threatened to dispatch troops to take over the Albany fort, Schuyler took up residence there to block the attempt. (This sketch from Wikimedia Commons is adapted from Nehemiah Partridge’s early eighteenth-century painting.)

November 9, 1689 As it turned out, Leisler’stroopsunderJacobMilborne arrived before Connecticut’s. Convention minutes reveal that a fleet of three ships anchored in the Hudson alongside Albany on November 9, 1689, setting in motion a longdayofpoliticalposturing.Adelegation fromtheConventionboardedtheshipsand asked Milborne and Jochim Staats their business. Milborne asked “if the fort was open for his men to march in that night.” He was told no; the fort was under the command of Major Schuyler.

Milborne, however, was invited into the city, and he took advantage of the opportunity to plead his case with the populace. AccordingtotheConventionminutes,Milborne in his oration told the people “That now it was in powr to free themselfs from ytYokeofarbitraryPowerandGovernment under which they had Lyen so long in ye Reign of yt Illegall king James, who was a Papist, Declareing all Illegall whatever wasdone&pastinhistime,yeatheCharter of this Citty was null & void Since it was graunted by a Popish kings governour.”49

Assuming the mantel as Convention spokesman while Schuyler maintained his postatthefort,RecorderDirckWesselsten Broeck responded to Milborne’s oration that the Convention’s government was by no means “arbitrary.” Quite the contrary, he said, “God had Delivered them from that yoke by there Majesties now upon ye throne, to whom we had taken ye oath of allegiance,forweactednotinkingJames’s name but in king William & queen Marys

& were there Subjects.”50

AswithKinderhook,Milbornealsomade efforts to enlist residents of Schenectady to support Leisler’s government, sending them a similar proclamation. To which Schenectady resident Adam Vrooman answered bluntly, “The Indians lie in divers squads in and around this place and should weallrepairtoAlbanygreatdisquietwould ariseamongtheSavagestothegeneralruin of this Country.”51

Learningofthisdevelopment,theAlbany Convention became furtherconvinced that Milborne’s(andLeisler’s)purposewasless an offer of military assistance and more a politicalpowergrabthatdidnothingtohelp themwithstandpotentialattacksfromCanada. “It is Plainly Evident ye sd Milborne Designs ye Subversion of ye governmt.”52 Albany’s distrust was further reinforced when they obtained a copy of a document, drafted in New York on November 2 prior toMilborne’sdeparture,designedtofurther entice Schenectady to Leisler’s side. This letter drafted by Leisler deputy Hendrick Cuyler promised to break Albany’s traditional monopoly on the beaver pelt trade and share that priviledge with residents of the farming community on the Mohawk

45 DRCHNY 3:646.

46 Ibid.

47 DHNY 2:109.

48 Ibid., 110–111 river “We have this day resolved that you shall have no less Priviliges than those of Albany in Trading and Bolting,” he wrote. “We therefore request that you will exhibit allDilligenceinrepairingtogethertoAlbany to welcome said Milborne.”53

49 Ibid., 114.

50 Ibid.

51 Ibid., 117.

52 Ibid.

As the events of November 9, 1689, finally quieted down, Milborne and the AlbanyConventionhadseeminglyreached an impasse. In a timely coincidence,Albany’s delegates to the east arrived back that night or early the next day and broke the stalemate, at least temporarily. “Kiliaen van Renselaer Esqr Justice of ye Peace and Capt. gerrit Teunise who were sent by ye Convention to ye Collony of Conetticut concerning ye men which that Collony by ye joynt Concurrence of ye Collony of MassachusettshadPromisedtosendhither for our assistance being Returned brings a letter from ye govr and Councill there, how thattheyareResolvedtoRaise80menwth there officers forthwith, that they may be upon there march hither upon munday ye 18th of novembr.”54

ThetwoConventiondelegateshadnegotiated final details of the arrangement with the Connecticut government. They agreed to provide the troops with “ammonition[,] meet[,] Drink and Lodgeing Sufficient” as well as to pay the officers a daily stipend. They also promised to provide medical services “If any of sd officer or Souldiers should be visited with Sicknesse or wounde.” They agreed to supply a canoe for crossing the Westenhook (Housatonic) River, and finally to keep the soldiers’ weapons in good repair. Convention membersratifiedtheagreementwithnorecorded discussion or dissent, possibly due to its juxtaposition with Milborne’s attempt to take control ofAlbany and its fort.55

InadditiontoreportingontheConnecticutagreement,thetwoemissariesalsogave a report of attitudes among a community southofAlbany “TheSaidMr Renselaer& Capt Teunise Report that when they come bykinderhook[they]foundeye PeopleVery much Inclined to mutiny who were Prepareing themselfs to come hither by Reason of a Letter which they had Received of Jacob Milborne to come up to albany in all SpeedtoReceivePriviledgesandLibertyes, so yt they had much adoe to stop them[,] however some Came.”56

November 10, 1689. With the Connecticut report in hand, the Albany Convention, again chaired by Recorder Dirck Wessels, reconvened on Sunday,

November 10, 1689, to continue discussionswithJacobMilborne.AfterMilborne advisedtheConventiontheyshouldpaythe New York soldiers for expenses incurred, “the Recordr Replyed that that was Repugnant to there Resolution.” When the Convention challenged Milborne’s presumed authority to take control of Albany’s fort, heshowedthemalettersignedbyovertwo dozenmembersofLeisler’sNewYorkgovernment. “The Recordr told him that Such a Commission graunted by a Company of Private men was of no force here, and that hehadnoPowertodoeororderanyaffaires in albany, but if he could shew a Commission from his Mats king william our Leige Lord, then they were willing to obey it.”57

Hoping his letters to Schenectady, Kinderhook, and other outlying towns had helped his cause, Milborne once again took his arguments to the people at large. “TheSd Milbornewentonandmadealong oration to ye Common People which were gottogetherinye Cittyhall.”Claimingthat the1686CityCharter,grantedbyGovernor Thomas Dongan, was suspect as part of KingJames’popishgovernment,Milborne suggested “that there ought to be a new Election of Magistrates &c and many oyr things to Stirr up ye Common People.”58

Another selling point made by Milborne was that “many Patents of houses and lands” approved by governors appointed by the Catholic James might now be revoked by administrations appointed by Protestant William and Mary As many of the Albany Convention members were owners or partners in various land grants, it is easy to see how Milborne’s arguments succeededtosomedegreeinstirringupthe poorer, working-class inhabitants against them “The anti-Leislerians defamed the middling Dutch farmer with economic and class epithets,” points out Firth Haring Fabend,“becauseherepresentedathreatto whattheymostwantedtodefend,andwhat they feared, in the end indefensible: their accustomed access to privilege.”59

An unnamed spokesperson for the Convention, likely Recorder Dirck Wessels again, responded in the public forum that not only were Albany’s civic leaders chosen by “a free Election,” but Milborne’s motives had now become quite clear “Sd MilbornebyhisSmoothtongue&Pretended Commissions did aim nothing else but to Raise mutiny and Sedition amongst ye People.”60

Convention minutes naturally present theseeventsfromtheirownperspective,but it is clear that sentiments among the populace were mixed. According to minutes from November 11, “The Convention sent messengers thrice to ye People Convened att ye Citty hall to Disperse themselfs and goe home, they nevertheless went on and choose ye sd Jochim Staets to be Capt of yt come from N: Yorke by syneing there names to near a hundred Persones, most youthes,andthemthatwerenofreeholders which sd Place ye sd Jochim Staets did accept contrare to ye order of ye Convention of which he was a member.”61

Milborne was successful in inciting a significantlevelofdistrustagainsttheConvention. “Yea ye People were so Rageing and mutinous that some of ye Convention being in ye Citty hall, were forced to withdraw themselfs being threatened and menaced that they were in danger of their life.”62Among those siding with Milborne werePieterBogardus,HarmonGansevoort, and Gabriel Thommase Stridles.63

Further emboldened by his success with the “Common People,” Milborne on November 12, increased his pressure on the Convention to relinquish the fort to him and Jochim Staats. But the Convention membership held firm. They would accept assistance from the New York contingent only if “they should be under ye Command oftheConvention,”thesameconditionthey placed on Connecticut’s offer of troops. Eight Convention members accepted the challenge of negotiating terms based on this condition. Included in the eight were Mayor Pieter Schuyler and Kiliaen van Rensselaer.64

MilborneandtheeightConventionmembers continued dickering over terms of an agreementoverthenextcoupleofdays,and bothsidesfocusedeffortsonconvincingthe populace of their respective arguments.At onepoint,DirckWesselsaccusedMilborne of bad faith bargaining—agreeing at one meeting to certain terms but reneging on his agreement when it came time to put his signature on it.65

53 Ibid., 118.

54 Ibid., 119.

55 Ibid.

56 Ibid.

57 Ibid., 120–121.

58 Ibid., 121.

59 FirthHaringFabend,“ThePro-LeislerianDutchFarmers in New York: A ‘Mad Rabble,’ or ‘Gentlement Standing Up forTheir Rights’?, in de Halve Maen (March 1990), 9.

60 DHNY 2:121.

61 Ibid., 122.

62 Ibid., 123.

63 Ibid., 132.

64 Ibid., 124–25.

Milborne Backs Down. Matters escalated close to armed conflict on November 15 when Milborne marched his troops to the gates of the fort demanding Commander Pieter Schuyler surrender it. Schuyler answered “Thatt he kept ye Same forthereMajes kingwilliam&queenmary, & Commanded them away in there Majes name with his Seditious Company.” Milbornerespondedbyorderinghistroops“to Load there gunns with Bullets.”66

In the end, it was the Mohawk Indians whodefusedthethreatenedhostilities They sent word to Milborne that “they were in a firm Covenant chain” with the Albany leadership. The Mohawks announced they would open fire on Millborne’s troops if they advanced further, because “ye People of N: Yorke came in a hostile manner to disturbetheirBrethreninye fortwhichwas for our and there defence.”67 Milborne “at the head of his Compe in ye Presence of a great many Burgers” had no choice but to capitulate. He turned his troops around, “Marched doune ye towne and Dismissed his men.”68

“One of the reasons for Albany’s stubbornness in the face of Leisler’s determination to bring it into line was a fear of whatthechangemightmeantothedelicate balance of relations with the Iroquois,” explains Lovejoy “That the Mohawks appreciatedAlbany’stenuousposition was evident in their silent threat to Milborne, who was forced to retreat and not very proudly.”69

Milbornecertainlyfailedtocomprehend all the dynamics at play Among these was the Mohawk tribe’s respect for Edmund Andros from his earliest days as governor of New York. Instead of looking down at the Indians as ignorant heathens, he had recognized them as allies and important trade partners, whether Iroquois orAlgonquian. In return, the Mohawks gave him a particularly high honor bestowing on him the name Corlaer after the late Arent van Corlaer, the leading peltry trader of an earlier generation.

MohawkchieftainsrecognizedinAndros someone who would continue the partnershipforgedbyvanCorlearandothersmany years earlier They were thus completely comfortable with his return as governor of theentireDominionofNewEngland.When he met with them in September 1688, the sachems said, “Wee return thankes to the Magistrates of Albany who acquainted us of your coming hither and that yow was GovernourGenlofalltheseterritoryes,and the same person wch did us the kindness to be called Corlaer when yow was Governr formerly. Upon which wee resolved not to come slowly but to runn with all speed to see and bid you welcome.”70 Andros, they knew, had restocked Albany’s fort with the same government-paid soldiers that Milborne was now attempting to evict. He had then left for the Maine territory to put down uprisings by Canadian-backed Abenaki Indians, long-time enemies of the Iroquois federation.71

Andros had also consistently supported leaders at Albany who met with the Mohawk’sapproval,menlikePieterSchuyler, DirckWesselstenBroeck,andRobertLivingston. It was their personal relationship and forged trust with the Iroquois, argued theseAlbanyleaders,thatnecessitatedthey, and not Leisler or Milborne, remain at the top of the city’s interim government until a new governor arrived.

AndnowtheIndians’friendandchampion Edmund Andros had been arrested and imprisonedinMassachusetts byagroupof localrebelslinkedpoliticallyandreligiouslytothiscompanyofLeisler’ssoldiers.The Indianslinedupoutsidethefortwerelikely unaware that one of the Boston religious leaders was in fact the brother of Jacob

Milborne,theblusteryleaderfacingthem.72 Buttheywerewellawarethathe“cameina hostile manner to disturbe their Brethren.” They simply could not abandon their trust intheAlbanyConventionleaderswhonow stoodfirmagainstaregimethathadalready upset their sensitivities by arresting their beloved Corlaer

In the face of the Natives’ opposition, Milborne had little choice but to back down. Following his bloodless defeat on November 15, 1689, he retreated back to the more comfortable groups of supporters hehadassembledsincehisarrival.Meeting at the house of Gabriel Thomasse Stridles, Milborne signed a contract with a group of “ExtreamactivemenintheseRevolutions” acting without the Albany Convention’s approval. This contract specifically transferredleadershipoftheNewYorkcompany fromMilbornetoJochimStaats,“whowith muchPerswasionofsdMilborneatlastwas accepted by ye men to be there Capt.” Mil- borne abandoned the mission and headed back down river, “leaving said Company here in such Confusion.”73

65 Ibid., 129.

66 Ibid., 130.

67 Ibid., 130–31.

68 Ibid., 131.

69 Lovejoy, 314.

70 DRCHNY 3:558.

71 Mary Lou Lustig, The Imperial Executive in America: Edmund Andros, 1637–1714 (Madison-Teaneck, New Jersey, 2002), 175–77.

72 DHNY 2:72, DRCHNY 3:582, 621.

Deposed Dominion Councilman and militiaofficerNicholasBayardgloatedover thedevelopment,notingthatMilborne“was shamefully defeated and hurried not only fromthesd ffort,butevenoutofthesd Citty ofAlbanyinsoomuchthathewasforcedto leave there all, or most part, of his men.”74

Leisler, as myopic as Bayard although from a polar opposite point of view, pointedlyavoidedcastinganyblameonhisdeputy and future son-in-law Jacob Milborne. Writing on January 7, 1690, to Bishop of Salisbury Gilbert Burnet, confidant and close advisor to King William, Leisler put his own spin onAlbany’s resistance:

AlbanyandsomepartofUlsterCounty have chiefly withstood us, being influenced by Coll: Bayard and Mr Steph: Van Cortlandt (: the later was Mayor the last year of this Citty :) . . . both which to avoid the indignation of the Citizens escaped to Albany aforesaid inciting them to their perseverance under Sr Edmund Andros Commissions, assuringhiscontinuationwhichsuiting theircircumstances(havinginvadedthe Kings,aswellasothermenslandsettc:) wrought accordingly: – Soon after, the French with considerable numbers of their Allyed Indians alarmed them by threatning to attack Albany aforesaid which awakened the neighbours of NewEnglandandupontheirnoticewee sent 50 men with armes and powder ettc what could be spared under the directionofaperson[i.e.Capt.Jochim Staats] acquainted with the place and peopleinhopesuponsuchanoccasion to have found them of more suitable dispositions, to embrace proposals for their peace and securing His Majesties County, which were readily embraced by the Generality of the Citizens and Planters, saving such who stiled themselves a convention, who resolved to persist in their former practices.75

Friend to the Iroquois: Sir Edmund Andros had earned the respect of Mohawks and other Iroquois nations during his tenure as New York governor in the late 1670s, earning the honorary title of Corlaer. (Frederick Stone Batcheller’s nineteenthcentury painting of Governor Andros is based on an original portrayal by Mary Beale two centuries earlier.)

For members of the Convention, Milborne’sexitbacktoNewYorkwasaPyrrhic victory They had retained the strategic support of their Iroquois allies while also gaining the reinforcing manpower of Leisler’s New York soldiers, even though

Governor Andros Arrested:

Leisler’s Rebellion in New York mirrored Calvinist Puritans in Boston, who arrested Dominion Governor Edmund Andros in April 1689. Knowledge that their respected Corlaer was held prisoner by allies of the Leisler rebellion might have factored in Iroquois warriors siding with the Albany Convention in its standoff with Jacob Milborne outside the walls of the Albany fort in November 1689. (William A. Curtis’s 1876 sketch is titled “Andros a Prisoner in Boston.”) led by Capt. Staats instead of an officer of the Convention’s choosing. But in the process, they had lost the support of a significant percentage of residents from Albany city and county. “All these persons could not have been irresponsible youths, as theAlbany officials alleged,” points out pro-Leislerian author Jerome Reich, “because they billeted Milborne’s fifty men in their homes and soon undertook to support them entirely.”76

Retreating back down the Hudson, Milborne was back in New York City by early December It was on December 8, 1689, that an important message arrived from William and Mary’s government. Addressed to Deputy Governor Nicholson and dated July 29, 1689, before Nicholson haddepartedforLondon,thenewmonarchs ordered him or “in his absence to such as for the time beingTake care for preserving the Peace & administring the Laws in their Matys Province of New York in America” to maintain a status quo until a new regally appointed governor could arrive.77

Part 3 of this Albany Convention series will explore how a mid-winter massacre resulted in the eventual end of the Albany Convention and the assumption of control by the Leislerians.

73 DHNY 2:132.

74 DRCHNY 3:647.

75 Ibid., 655.

76 Jerome R. Reich, Leisler’s Rebellion: A Study of Democracy in New York 1664–1720 (Chicago, 1953), 82.

77 DRCHNY 3:605, 649, 654.