Why is Robert R. Livingston a, so-called, forgotten founder? He participated in some of the most important moments of the Revolution and was at one point specifically targeted by the British Army for it. Yet in innumerable histories of the Revolution you will only find his name on one page, when authors list the Committee of Five, unless they make the mistake, like the Museum of the American Revolution did on June 11, 2026 of mixing up the Livingstons and naming William Livingston to the Committee of Five instead of Robert. See that video here. I won’t even talk about the fact that the image they used labels Robert R. Livingston right under his picture.
In my recent reading and listening to other people talk I have come to realize that over the last 250 years historians have systematically stripped Robert Livingston of his agency. He was not a man of decisions and action, merely a man to whom things happened to. In a world of leaders and speakers he is now viewed as someone ancillary to all of that.
We can start with his time as Recorder of the City of New York. In various articles, and some books he is fired, discharged, or removed from the role because of his views. But what if quitting was his idea based on his views?
A quick look at the Minutes of the Common Council of the City of New York 1675-1776 (Volume 8, pg23) shows us the following entry on April 7, 1774. “Robert R. Livingston Esqr. Signified to this Board that he had Resigned his Commission of Recorder.” That simple, no firing, no removal. Robert R. Livingston chose to resign.
Another story that seems to pop up frequently is that he did not sign the Declaration of Independence because he was recalled to New York. A look at Letters to the Delegates of Congress 1774-1789 (Volume 4, pg. 398-399) shows the Livingston writing to John Jay on July 6, 1776, that “The Congress have done me the honour to refuse to let me go. I shall apply again today.” So not only was leaving his decision, but he also had to fight to go home.
Looking at the foot notes of that letter there is something interesting. The editors claim that Livingston only arrived in Philadelphia on July 3rd because he was in New York all June and they point to The Journals of the Provincial Congress, Provincial Convention, Committee of Safety and Council of Safety of the State of New York 1775-1776-1777 as proof.
An examination of Volume 1 of that book shows that Mr. Livingston attended most sessions as the representative from Dutchess County. It didn’t take much digging into that book to find that Walter Livingston was a member of the Provincial Congress in June of 1776. They mixed Robert R. Livingston up with his cousin.
The editors could have also gone back a few pages in their own book to see that they had published information about him being nominated to the Committee of Five on June 11, and another letter to John Jay, marked Philadelphia, on June 15 which shows clearly that he was in Philadelphia during June of 1776.
Looking back on the career of Robert R. Livingston we see him being put formally, and informally, into positions of trust and a necessary skill by his peers, i.e. the Committee of Five, The New York State Constitution, being appointed Chancellor, being appointed Secretary for Foreign Affairs, being made minister to France. Washington relies on him for military information in New York. So, if George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin, and other founders saw Livingston as a very competent peer, worthy of positions of authority, why can’t historians?
I don’t know the answer. Some of these stories about him being pushed and pulled by other people date back to the 19th century, but the letters showing his decisions have existed for 250 years now. The Minutes of the Common Council, and The Journals of the Provincial Congress were published over a century ago, and the Letters to the Delegates nearly 50 years ago. They’re not hidden stories, yet historians continue to want to take away his accomplishments and his basic ability to choose, intentionally or unintentionally “benching” him while people who relied on him are looked at as the “starters”, to belabor a metaphor.
I think the study of the Revolution and the early Republic could only be improved if we are willing to look at all the players and not simply dismissing ones because they heard a story once.
So, there it is, in less than a thousand words I have debunked two major misconceptions about Robert R. Livingston’s career. He was not fired as Recorder of the City of New York. He made the decision to leave when the political divide became too wide for him. He was not recalled as a member of Congress but chose to leave Philadelphia when he did and met resistance when he tried. He made the decisions about where his life went.