Generous Enemies
What is an enemy and what makes them Generous? How do personal concerns triumph over political ideology? Judith Van Buskirk gives several examples in her book Generous Enemies which include Loyalty vs. Love; Relationship and Class Privileges; Code of Gentlemen vs. Standard Military Wisdom; Personal Greed; and the Fight for Freedom. Everyone living in New York at the time of the Revolutionary war had to make a decision as to what side they were on. Many times these decisions divided the families in half. There were other times when special privileges were afforded to husbands and wives, and other upper class citizens that were not granted to those of lower classes, which caused conflict. These conflicts spilled over to the military personnel’s treatment as well. But sometimes, the generous enemy was ones personal greed, or a fight for personal freedom. As the web of war loomed, New York was facing their own Civil War and at the same time, life still went on.
Loyalty vs. Love
In a moment that people had long seen coming, British troops had finally invaded New York City. In the hustle of the coming of war, the civilian population was faced with one dreadful question. “Who are you loyal too?”
In the face of many individuals the issue was an ever defining question as it often meant that families were forced to pick sides, and that choice often meant a division among the family members.
As war raged on several families found themselves to be torn asunder as one son would belong to the new Whig or Torries, while another might be a Loyalists, which meant loyal to the crown. Judith Van Buskirk begins her book, the Generous Enemy with the statement that there was a “Tryal between Friendship and Duty” which often resulted in family connection taking precedence over political conformity. (2)
One could only imaging what it was like being on different sides of the political battle, yet trying desperately to maintain a relationship with your kin. Throughout her book Van Buskirk describes incidents where families were in some cases allowed to meet the needs of their loved ones on the opposing side, and yet at the same time there were those individuals who were denied the right to make provisions for their family, as there was a fear they were trading secrets with the enemy. It appeared in many cases that the best method for keeping the family ties was through sending women into the enemy camp. It was not uncommon for British soldiers to allow women to go between the cities. Nor was it seen as inappropriate for a women to visit ill family. Washington made a clear distinction between “no harm done” meaning a women making a visit to an ill family member, and aiding the enemy which was seen as taking items out of town, which was construed as helping the enemy by allowing them to benefit by the trade exchange. (61)
Relationship and Class Privileges
Private communication between a husband and wife appeared to be another aspect where private concerns triumphing over political concerns. (63) It appeared that tradition carried a sense of security for a married couple. In a time where most of the mail was opened and scanned for the possibility of spying or giving secrets, the sanctity of a husband and wife relationship was held as untouchable. In several cases private letters between the couple were left unopened and deemed as simply private matters. It was as though the possibility of sharing of war news would not occur on the pages of the enclosed letter. This often times spilled its way into the upper class as well. Often times, upper class women were treated well in the papers as their husbands were seen as the enemy, not the women, which gave the women a bit of relief in their personal safety.
Another example comes on pg 67 where she mentions that brothers would write accusations of injustices or violations of laws the opposing side was conducting, but then signed the letter “your affectionate brother.” It seemed that no matter how far apart the political idea took the families; the adage remained true that “Blood was thicker than water.” Families would try to find a way to keep some sort of peace as everyone understood that at some time in the future, war would be over, and the family unit would once again be a nucleus, so therefore they must protect the bond that holds them together.
There were two different accounts where daughters of Whig party members fell in love and married a British soldier. (68) This at times meant that the girls would be scorned by their families as well as friends. And yet in the Schieffelin account; he was a British soldier, she was an anti-British poetry writer, who fell in love and were married. To this couple, the mere fact that they had two very different political ideas did not stop their mutual attraction. (70 -71)
Code of Gentlemen vs. Standard Military Wisdom
Another section that addressed personal concerns over political ideology was the different methods in which officers were treated in comparison to general soldiers. It appears that the general population of soldiers were treated harshly if they were captured by either opposing force, but if an officer was to be captured, the rules of civility were changed. One account discusses the fact that General Lee was allowed to wander free in New York even in captivity because he was an officer, therefore the assumption was that he must be a gentlemen. (73) There appeared to be an unspoken bond that held true no matter what side you stood on, there would be an exhibiting of courtesy extended to the officer, which would override any concern of security. (74) This Code of Gentlemen overshadowed the standard military wisdom that would tell a person, an officer is capable of giving away secrets; may always be looking for a way to escape; or provide important information or supplies back to the commander in an effort to further their sides cause. Yet, as an officer, it was as if there was a special identity as a man, which both sides knew they would conduct their life in an honorable way, and surprisingly many of the captured officers followed rules of parole. (80)
The treatment of captured non ranking soldiers was often very poor until the detainees heard of their own soldiers being captured. Then in an effort to improve the conditions for their own comrades, they improved the conditions for their own prisoners. (86) Despite the officers knowing of the poor living conditions for non ranking soldiers, they did not choose to fight for their provisions at a loss of their own. Yes, the gentlemen took their own personal desires and needs over those of the men who were on the front lines protecting the officers and fighting for the cause to which side they had taken. (88)
Personal Greed
One specific incident that is perhaps the most known involves General Benedict Arnold who willing sold US secrets for English money. (92) Imagine the charge that an officer had to protect and provide for the advancement of the US Revolutionary cause, yet his own greed drove him to sell out his own countrymen. Fortunately for the US his plan was foiled and his name will forever be associated with the word Traitor.
Others however did not sell secrets, but chose to trade with the British in an attempt to pad their own pockets. One such incident occurs with Henry Livingston a young man who accepted “some articles” from the British Aristocrat Major and Lady Ackland. Livingston was promised some precious articles in exchange for his help to which he agreed to. However, he was afraid he would be caught, so he stopped short of going the entire distance into New York. As his horse is returned to him with the cargo of goods, he then sent the articles to his sister to keep the sleigh hidden and “a profound secret between Mamma, Kitty and yourself”. His purpose in doing this was, “Tis death in New Jersey to trade with the enemy.” (126) It is interesting that he was willing to risk his families safety in an attempt to provide a more comfortable living environment for himself when the war was over.
Other ideas of the time were that “Business is business” it has nothing to do with political leanings. (127) It was not uncommon for individual business men to sell items to both sides of the war. They believed that the best course of action for them was to keep both sides happy. This in turn would allow the business men to remain safe, as well as continue to receive the shipments which provided for their financial success. One individual Dirk Romeyn as quotated as saying, “ people will risk anything to enjoy the cheapest market.” (127) This idea accounts for the capitalistic ideas that abound in a free market enterprise. Whatever is going to provide for my needs, at the lowest possible cost to me is worth the exchange. This meant that people at times had to cross the political boundaries in order to obtain the best deal.
Fight for Freedom
A final method in which personal concerns triumphed over political is in the area of personal freedom. British Commander in Chief Sir Henry Clinton promised any run a way slave that would be caught in rebel uniform would be sold back into slavery. Any slave who joined the cause of the British would not be sold back into slavery, and would be granted freedom. (135-136) Much to his delight many freed slaves, and those who forged their freedom papers joined the British cause in an attempt to survive the war and win their personal freedom from slavery. In essence, they traded one form of slavery for another. These individuals believed that their greatest hope for personal freedom lay in the hands of a new government who had pledged to help them fight against their personal adversaries, the slave owners.
“How does her account of New York City challenge long-held assumptions about wartime experience during the American Revolution?”
Civil War
New York was facing it own Civil War. The long held idea was that the war involved the US vs. British. However, an even greater war that raged was the question of whose form of government was right, and what was the weak Continental Congress going to do to make life better? Many held to the system they knew and that was in the monarchial government of the British. At least under British rule, the people had a sense of what was expected and perhaps even greater, what would be the result if the rules were not followed. Under a new government, many individuals were vying for a chance to help set policies in order to make their own lives better.
Life Goes On
A final challenge to long held assumptions is that “Life Goes On”. Even in the midst of raging war, people were starting a life. They were venturing out on their own, building homes, starting businesses, and plotting their life’s course. It has long been discussed how devastating the war was, but rarely is it mentioned that people continued to come and go. That New York was truly becoming a magnificent city, and more and more immigrants continued to pour into the Newfoundland area.
Judith Van Buskirk delved to the heart of the Revolutionary war in Generous Enemies as she provided several examples of how personal concerns triumphed over political ideology which included Loyalty vs. Love; Relationship and Class Privileges; Code of Gentlemen vs. Standard Military Wisdom; Personal Greed; and the Fight for Freedom. Through it all, it became clear that New York faced their own Civil War and despite the tragedy, life still went on.
What a Day, What a Life! 