Generous Enemies

Guided Question: Judith Van Buskirk argues in Generous Enemies that when the British invaded New York City in 1776 personal concerns often triumphed over political ideology.  What kinds of evidence does she provide to make her case?  How does her account of New York City challenge long-held assumptions about wartime experience during the American Revolution? 

New York City is today possibly the most important city in America just as it was in 1776 when both the Colonial and British armies took turns occupying this pivotal area. New York City was a mirror of the colonies with seemingly equal numbers supporting the Revolution or supporting the King while others just waited to see which side would prevail before aliening themselves to either side. In Generous Enemies, Judith Van Buskirk uses primary source documentation to reveal a story usually not found in American history textbooks. Both Loyalists (those supporting Britain) and Rebels or Whigs (those supporting the revolution) are “typically depicted as hostile opponents” but were in fact “in constant contact throughout the war.” (pg. 2) However, Van Buskirk portrays the City of New York as well as the countryside surrounding it, as a porous combative area in which people from both sides continuously transgressed across military lines. The reasons for such infiltration are as varied as the people living there. People crossed military/ occupation lines to help friends and family, pay social calls and make business profits. While military and political considerations were important, Van Buskirk’s book stakes the point that personal concerns greatly outweighed any others as the driving force behind New York’s Revolutionary experiences.

Except for just the very early portions of the war, New York City was in the hands of the British, while the Americans controlled much of the surrounding area. In those early days of Colonial occupation of New York City, Americans rooted out “adherents to the King’s cause.” And because so many residents of the city were Loyalists or “had no great stake in the Whig cause at all,” many patriot organizations arose with their “own style of refashioning the community, whether by persuasion, intimidation, or brute force.” (pg. 16) But by August of 1776 when over 130 warships of the Royal Navy finally sailed into the waters adjacent to New York, Patriots were streaming out in huge numbers. As the British took the city from the Americans “the tables had turned. Those who formerly had to lie low and swallow the directives of the American Revolutionary government could now let loose.” (pg. 21) The British would hold New York for the next seven years, a time that spanned almost the entire American Revolution. Citizens of New York, the city that British political and military leaders believed to be firmly in opposition to the American Revolution, actually turned out to be very opportunistic.

Van Buskirk observes that the military standoff surrounding New York City helped form civilian communities that were forced to function in close, continued proximity with each other. Each community, both Loyalist and Patriot, would test the limits of political and military authority. For the majority of the war, New York City was in the hands of the British, while the surrounding territory was controlled by the Americans. There are countless examples throughout the book of communication through enemy lines including notes, business trips, and even personal visits between Loyalists and Whig family members. Amazingly, in this area of military conflict there were ferry boats called “flag boats” that were allowed to legally carry people across rivers into New York City as long as they obtained proper permission from the political or military authorities in charge.

Van Buskirk points out that usually women had an easier time moving in and out of New York City than did men. “Considered weak and childlike, females could go where few males dared because they were considered no threat.” (pg. 51) Women would often cross military lines to attend to needs in the prisons, join officer-husbands in prison, and aid other family members. This led to “an impressive information network that operated continuously throughout the war.” (pg. 52) Information from female networks was not limited to high society women. Both slaves and market women were able to feed information to and about those they worked for “so successful were women in moving about the war zone that male spies sometimes dressed in women’s clothing to improve their chances.” (pg. 57)     

Conflicting loyalties distorted family relationships between both Loyalists and Whigs. Sarah and Catherine Alexander, wife and daughter of a Major General in the Continental Army and both stanch Whigs, received permission from both the British and American authorities to cross military lines in order “to pay a social call on family and friends.” They stayed with Sarah’s second daughter Mary, who married a “prominent Loyalist merchant.” (pg. 44) John Jay who was a delegate at both Continental Congresses had a brother who was politically loyal to the British. Indeed, many other influential Patriots had certain conflicting loyalties within their families. “General Gate’s sister-in-law; Gouverneur Morris’s half-brothers; General Lord Sterling’s daughter; and the hopeless jumble of the politically-variegated Livingston family” (pg. 70-71) found themselves in complicated family situations. Yet, they justified their own actions in dealing with Tories behind enemy lines by distinguishing a difference between their own relatives and friends and the rest of the population behind British lines. Families continued to act like families “despite obstacles thrown up by war.” (Van Buskirk, 44)

Van Buskirk also brings up the importance of business and profits in understanding why people moved so freely between the British and Americans lines. British and American authorities attempted to control markets with legislative action and military regulations. Merchants and other businessmen usually understood the difference between politics and profits and yet profits often were their main concern. “The opportunity of making hefty profits in high-risk ventures emboldened” (pg. 110) merchants to test the regulations of wartime market controls. “Americans had what the British wanted; the British had what the American’s wanted. Such a scenario of supply and demand…loomed over the New York area, effectively quashing the little measures busy legislatures passed to inhibit trade with the enemy.” (pg. 107) The business community desired to maintain “regular operations” (p.111) in order to maximize profits. Therefore, trading across enemy lines was commonplace. The British added restrictions and regulated prices in the marketplace which drove many towards smuggling goods. Many people in the American occupied areas also sought to avoid government regulations on trade “to warrant the close attention of state governors and congresses throughout the war.” (pg. 118) “States continued to revise their laws throughout the war, plugging holes and attempting to control improprieties in enforcement.” (pg. 123) Businessmen were just like the “soldiers or family members who determined which proclamations and laws would apply to them” (pg. 127-128) and generally acted in their own monetarily self interest.      

Generous Enemies confronts many deep rooted assumptions about New York during the American Revolution. Using primary source documents such as letters, diaries, newspapers, and official military and church records; Van Buskirk proves how interwoven communities that typically are portrayed as distant were in frequent contact. Although they lived in two unmistakably defined zones of military occupation, the citizens of New York City and the surrounding region often reached across military lines to help friends and family members, pay social calls, and conduct business. By studying the movement of Loyalist and Whig families, soldiers, women, and businessmen, Van Buskirk shows how personal needs usually won out over politics. In addition, she proves that the essence of everyday life during the Revolution was much more complex than historians have recognized.