Livingston arrived back in Philadelphia in late 1779. His presence in Congress had been deeply missed by some of the leading members. In 1777 Robert Morris had written to George Washington; “We have now to lament the absence from the public Councils of Amserica, of a Johnson, A Jay R.R. Livingston, Duane, Deane, W. Livingston Franklin, Dickerson, Harrison, Nelson, Hooper Rutledge & others not less Conspicuous…”[i] He presented Congress with his commission as well as a clarification of the state law that allowed him to be a congressman as well as retain the title of Chancellor. He would have to make trips back to New York in order to hold court and fulfill his Chancellory duties.[ii]
Despite being in Philadelphia Livingston was still concerned with the economy of New York. He wrote to Clinton with a plan for the boundaries of New York that would secure New York a presence on Lake Ontario for trade but also give them land that could be used to secure the currency. Livingston proposed a border consisting of
“a north line, extended from the northwest corner of Pensilvania to the Lake Ontario our western boundary, & from thence along the northwest shore of lake Ontario & the river St. Lawrence to the bounds of Canada, & from thence along those boundaries to the State of New Hampshire.”[iii]
The lines that Livingston described are roughly the modern borders of New York.
Livingston began to show signs of the nationalistic stance that would, many years later, make him a leading member of the Federalist party in the State and a driving force behind the ratification of the Constitution in New York. In 1780 he began to push for Congress to take more power for itself, particularly in terms of taxation. He wrote to Washington “I have been long labouring to bring Congress to assume the power which will enable them to call forth the resources of the States but unhappily without result.”[iv] His motivation for pushing for this power to be taken by Congress was primarily the lack of support the army was receiving. He felt that many States were lax in their responsibilities toward the army while New York was being unfairly burdened with requests for supplies as the seat of war. In early 1781 while visiting Clermont he wrote Washington to acquaint him with the unfair drawing of supplies; “many farmers in this part of the country will not have sufficentcy left for the bread of their families…” He went on;
“Tryon County is in a great measure desolated by the enimy, & the supplies that may be drawn from the county of Albany exclusive of the 5000 bushels of wheat which is daily going to West point from the Manor of Livingston, will hardly suffice to supply the refugees from the frontiers & the troops now toward the Northward till next may. The spring will undoubtedly [open] with inroads of the enimy from Canad[a], in which case I fear that it will be almost impossible to collect supplies for the maintenance of such a body of militia or other troops as are absolutely necessary to prevent the enimies’ possessing themselves of the small remnant of this State… Common prudence directs that the supplies of a state surrounded by the enimy, & the scenes of war, should remain as a magazine in case of emergency.”[v]
At this point Livingston felt that the state was being so heavily drawn upon that the people were in danger of starving and making it impossible for the State to defend itself.
He almost immediately threw himself back into military affairs after being reappointed to the Board of War. In March of 1780 he wrote a report on Freidrich Wilhelm August Heinrich Ferdinand Steuben that recommended paying him for his expenses and lack of pay. The report mentioned Steuben’s vast experience, the system of discipline that he had instilled upon the army and inferred that the army’s continued success depended upon Steuben; “his continuance in the army of the United States will probably be attended with important advantages in perfecting the discipline which he has already introduced.”[vi]
The army, despite the discipline that Steuben had instilled in it, was in a confused state. Many regiments were heavy on officers but light on fighting men. Livingston grasped on to the incorporation plan, which had been proposed by Baron Von Steuben the previous year. This plan called for the number of regiments in the army to be reduced but the size of each of the remaining regiments increased to five hundred men. The Board of War favored this plan and on March 16, 1780 Congress formally approved it when it was put forth by Livingston for a vote.
By the time of the vote, however, George Washington and Steuben had moved on and instead placed their hopes on a new plan that would allow them to maintain the current number of regiments in the army but recruit new soldiers to fill out their ranks. Washington sent Steuben to Philadelphia to argue the point. In a heated engagement with Livingston, Steuben threatened to resign from the post of Inspector General of the Army and return to Washington as simply a major General. Steuben explained the course of events to Washington in a letter on March 15, 1780. “The Day before Yesterday, I went to Mr Chr. Livingston, & declared to him that I was ready to set off for the Army seeing that my presence here was of no kind of use. He requested me to defer my Departure, & communicate my Opinion to the Bord of War of the formation of the Army for the next Campaign.”[vii]
Swayed by Steuben’s passionate plea and perhaps frightened of what would happen to the army if Steuben was no longer in charge of training, Livingston asked him to stay in Philadelphia a bit longer and address the Congress himself. He spoke well, calling for new recruits to be fed into existing regiments to bring them up to three hundred and fifteen men each. On March 25 the incorporation plan was put on hold. The following year Congress decided to allow Washington run the army himself, allowing him to increase the number of men in the army, but reducing the number of regiments slightly. Washington and his staff would decide which officers would lose their postings in this small reduction of force. All this was made possible because Livingston was willing to listen to Steuben.
During this period that Livingston offered Washington a truly disastrous piece of military advice. In a letter to Washington on June 22, 1780, Livingston suggested that Benedict Arnold be given command of the fortifications at West Point. He wrote that “Genl. Arnold whose courage is undoubted-who is the favourite of our militia, & who will agree perfectly with our Govr.”[viii] Livingston knew Arnold was one of the best generals in the Continental Army and thought him a good choice for what he saw as his family’s best line of defense against a repeat of the invasion of 1777. A new chain, a strong fort and a good commander would make West Point impassable. The line about Arnold being the favorite of the militia is a reference to Arnold’s popularity with the American people but more directly harkens back to the Second Battle of Saratoga where men from the manor militia also broke ranks and joined Arnold on the charge that won the battle.
There has been some speculation that Robert R. Livingston’s very close friendship with Arnold’s wife Peggy in Philadelphia may have led to his decision to push Arnold for the post. Arnold’s sister hinted, in a letter to her brother, that Livingston’s relationship with Mrs. Arnold was less than platonic. She wrote:
“As you have neither purling streams nor sighing swains at West Point, tis no place for me; nor do I think Mrs. Arnold will be long pleased with it, though I expect it may be rendered clear to her for a few hours by the presence of a certain chancellor; who, by the by, is a dangerous companion for a particular lady in the absence of her husband… I could say more than prudence will permit, I could tell you of frequent private assignations and of numberless billets daux, if I had an inclination to make mischief.”[ix]
There is virtually no chance that there was anything impure going on between Livingston and Peggy, as this letter from Arnold’s sister seems to be the only hint anyone ever had of an affair. Livingston was never accused of infidelity at any other point. If anything Arnold allowed the friendship because he understood that Livingston could be a very valuable friend. Some have even used this to implicate Livingston in Benedict and Peggy’s scheme to turn West Point over to the British. Livingston was one of only two representatives to Congress who voted against confirming the verdict of Arnold’s court martial for corruption as Philadelphia’s military governor. George Washington refused to believe that Livingston and Philip Schuyler, who had also recommended Arnold for the post, would have had anything to do with the scheme at the time and no further evidence has ever come to light implicating Livingston in the scheme.[x] Washington defended his choice of Arnold for the command of West Point to Joseph Reed by saying that he chose him “having it hinted to me by a very respectable character, a member of Congress (not Genl Schuyler) that a measure of this kind would not be unacceptable to the State most immediately interested in the welfare, & safety of the Post.”[xi]
On March 22, 1780 Livingston made a motion that a committee be appointed to select a place where “buildings may be provided for the reception of Congress, together with an estimate of the expence of providing such buildings and the necessary offices for the several boards.”[xii] Livingston was proposing a national capital. Rather than borrowing buildings as Congress had done to that point, he was proposing buildings be dedicated to the functions of the new government. He was appointed to this committee along with Thomas McKean and William Churchill Houston to look for a possible home for the government offices. Ultimately, this effort came to nothing under the Confederation government and the national government would not have its own home until after the Constitution was passed and Secretary of the Treasury Alexander Hamilton conceded the location of the capital to get his banking plan passed.
[i] “To George Washington from Robert Morris, 27 February 1777” Founders Online, National Archives (http://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/03-08-02-0486 [last update: 2016-03-28]0. Source The Papers of George Washington, Revolutionary War Series, Vol. 8, 6 January 1777-27 March 1777, ed Frank E. Grizzard, Jr. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1998, pp. 456-458.
[ii] Journals of the Continental Congress Volume XVI p 195-196.
[iii] Robert R. Livingston to George Clinton November 20, 1779 Public Papers of George Clinton Volume V p 382.
[iv] Robert R. Livingston to George Washington June 22,1780 LDC Volume 15 p 363
[v] “To George Washington from Robert R. Livingston, 8 January 1781,” Founders Online, National Archives, version of January 18, 2019, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Washington/99-01-02-04466.
[vi] Journals of the Continental Congress Volume XVI p 232-233.
[vii] “To George Washington from Friedrich Wilhelm Ludolf Gerhard Augustin, Baron von Steuben, 15 March 1780,” Founders Online, National Archives, last modified March 30, 2017.
[viii] Robert R. Livingston to George Washington June 22, 1780 LDC Volume 15 p 363
[ix] Quoted in Van Doren, Carl Secret History of the American Revolution p 303-304, The original letter is in the collection of Harvard.
[x] Ibid, p 391.
[xi] Journals of the Continental Congress Volume XVI p 161, George Washington to Joseph Reed October 18, 1780. Founders Online
[xii] Journals of the Continental Congress Volume XVI p 278-279.
Leave a Reply