David Franks: Colonial Merchant 9780271051345

Citation preview

D av i d F r a n k s

a keystone book ® A Keystone Book is so designated to distinguish it from the typical scholarly monograph that a university press publishes. It is a book intended to serve the citizens of Pennsylvania by educating them and others, in an entertaining way, about aspects of the history, culture, society, and environment of the state as part of the Middle Atlantic region.

Mark Abbott Stern

David Fra nks ✡

C o lo n i a l M e rc h a n t

The Pennsylvania State University Press University Park, Pennsylvania

“‘ Dear Mrs. Cad’: A Revolutionary War Letter of Rebecca Franks” (appendix C) was first published in The American Jewish Archives Journal 57, nos. 1–2 (2005): 15 –24. Reprinted by permission. American Manuscripts in the Gage Papers have been used by kind permission of the Library of the Sussex Archaeological Society.

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data Stern, Mark Abbott, 1929 – David Franks : colonial merchant / Mark Abbott Stern. p.     cm. —(A Keystone book) Summary: “A biography of David Franks, an American Jewish merchant in Philadelphia during the colonial period and the War for Independence. A supplier to the British Army since the French and Indian War, Franks, though acquitted of treason, was forced out of Pennsylvania”​— Provided by publisher. Includes bibliographical references and index. isbn 978-0-271-03669-4 (cloth : alk. paper) 1. Franks, David, 1720 –1794. 2. Merchants—Pennsylvania—Philadelphia—Biography. 3. Contractors—Pennsylvania—Philadelphia—Biography. 4. Jews—Pennsylvania—Philadelphia—Biography. 5. Philadelphia (Pa.)—History— Colonial period, ca. 1600 –1775. 6. Philadelphia (Pa.)—History—Revolution, 1775 –1783. 7. Great Britain. Army—Equipment—History—18th century. 8. Philadelphia (Pa.)—Biography. 9. Franks, David, 1720 –1794 — Trials, litigation, etc. 10. Trials (Treason)—Pennsylvania—Philadelphia. I. Title. F158.4.F73S747 2009 974.8’1102092 — dc22 [B] 2009046029

Copyright © 2010 The Pennsylvania State University All rights reserved Printed in the United States of America Published by The Pennsylvania State University Press, University Park, PA 16802-1003 It is the policy of The Pennsylvania State University Press to use acid-free paper. Publications on uncoated stock satisfy the minimum requirements of American National Standard for Information Sciences—Permanence of Paper for Printed Library Material, ansi z39.48 –1992. This book is printed on Natures Natural, which contains 50% post-consumer waste.

for irene

Contents

Foreword by William Pencak   ix Preface and Acknowledgments   xi Introduction   xix

One  David Franks, Arrested for Treason   1 Two  Family, Friends, and Associates   6 Three  Indian Affairs, Family Growth, and Supplying the Army   25 Four  Commercial Adventures   39 Five  Plumsted and Franks, Agents for the Contractors   46 Six  General Jeffrey Amherst and Colonel Henry Bouquet   56 Seven  Major General Thomas Gage   69 Eight  Franks, Inglis and Barkly, Agents for the Contractors   79 Nine  Levy and Franks and Land Speculation Companies   90 Ten  A Time of Transition   102 Eleven  Working Both Sides of the Street   113 Twelve  War and Financial Turmoil in Philadelphia   122 Thirteen  The Revenge of the Radicals   136 Fourteen  A Time of Trials   146 Fifteen  Exiles   158 Sixteen  The Final Chapter   169

Appendix A  Letters to the Editor   179 Appendix B  Questions of Death and Burial   197 Appendix C  “Dear Mrs. Cad”: A Revolutionary War Letter of Rebecca Franks   201 Notes   207 Bibliography   241 Index   253

Foreword William Pencak

When Mark Stern first introduced himself and told me he wanted to write a biography of David Franks, I was skeptical. Yes, I knew about David Franks, who was accused of treason in Philadelphia during the American Revolution, but I also knew that there was no large set of Franks papers and thus doubted whether a full-scale biography, as opposed to perhaps a scholarly article, could be supported by this information. Mark is far too generous in thanking me for my assistance: I simply offered a few suggestions as to where sources could be found, and then gave the sort of help I normally would to a PhD student. I never was so happy to be proved wrong in my life. Mark Stern is a remarkable man, who after retiring from the aerospace industry became a piano tuner of such ability that he instructs others in how to do it at national conventions. Then, in his seventies, he decided to write a book, and chose David Franks for his subject. He tells a story that is not only of considerable human interest but is a genuine scholarly production that mined all the relevant sources in Britain and the United States. This book will be important to scholars of early American history and American Judaism in three ways. First, Stern proves that David Franks was not guilty of treason against the United States or the state of Pennsylvania— which juries also denied—but rather was the victim of accusations by the Pennsylvania radicals of 1776, who struck out at their opponents by branding them as traitors. Formerly lauded by historians as democrats, the Pennsylvanians who seized control of the revolutionary government are better described as a majoritarian tyranny that tried to exclude those who disagreed with them from political participation as well as public office. To be sure, Franks did indeed collect a pension as a loyalist, but he identified himself as such only after he was forced out of Pennsylvania and then the United States and needed money to live on in England. But he returned in 1785, as soon as he could. As the radicals had both approved the 1776 Pennsylvania constitution, which limited officeholding to Christians, and denied petitions from Jews to have this onerous measure lifted, Franks was a victim of their anti-Semitism. This prejudice also arose from Franks’s association with

Foreword

the wealthy mercantile and political elite that opposed the radicals and later supported the U.S. Constitution and the Pennsylvania state constitution of 1790, which lifted this exclusionary clause. Second, no other book I know of describes the process of supplying the British army during and immediately after the French and Indian War in such detail. Using the papers of Generals Amherst and Gage and of Colonel Bouquet, Stern is able to show how thousands of troops along a thousandmile frontier were fed, clothed, and supplied with weapons despite a cumbersome process that left Franks and his agents thousands of pounds in arrears as they awaited reimbursements. Franks’s fine job handling supplies during the “great war for the empire” led both American and British authorities to delegate to him the task of supplying British prisoners of war behind American lines during the Revolution. Each side was responsible for taking care of its own prisoners through agents who could cross enemy lines. Franks again advanced thousands of pounds of his own money, even as both sides blamed him for their inefficiency. Again, Stern explains the process by which goods were contracted for and moved more precisely than any other work I have seen. He even takes these contracts and bills of sale and arguments over payments and makes them interesting. Finally, this is the story of the opportunities and difficulties that faced Jews in early America. Franks supported and attended Jewish synagogues in Philadelphia and New York and identified himself as a Jew throughout his life, yet he was refused burial in Philadelphia’s Jewish graveyard because he had married a Christian woman and raised his children as Christians. He moved in circles in which leading Britons such as Generals Thomas Gage and Jeffrey Amherst and Philadelphians such as Benjamin Rush and Bishop William White were his regular associates, yet he never renounced the faith of those who, when he died of yellow fever during the 1793 Philadelphia epidemic, rejected him. Franks’s odyssey as a colonial merchant and public figure involved in the great events of the late eighteenth century is only half the story Mark Stern tells; the other half is about Franks the family man and Jew, whose life is an important element in the history of Jewish life in eighteenth-century New York and Philadelphia.

x

Preface and Acknowledgments

A dislike for fiction, particularly fantasy, has shaped the way I’ve used my spare time throughout my life. Whether the format was books, movies, live stage performances—whatever, I have sought reality. One of my favorite reading subjects was the American colonial period and the War of Independence. Unfortunately, the more I read, the more I was frustrated to see the same dozen men idolized and elevated to the status of demigods. Weren’t there thousands of people involved in their deeds? Didn’t Franklin have meals? Didn’t Hamilton have to buy shoes from time to time? Didn’t Jefferson live in rented quarters in Philadelphia and, if so, who was his landlord? Didn’t they get sick? Go to the bathroom? You understand. Finally, in 1997, I noted a book review in the Sunday New York Times that promised a text in which those icons were humanized, where they were brought down from their pedestals and shown to be real flesh-and-blood people. The book, Angel in the Whirlwind, was written by Benson Bobrick, said to be a descendant of a Revolutionary War personality. The story lived up to its advertised content, presenting coverage of the war and the times populated by human beings who confronted everyday issues. It described the winter of 1777–78, in which Washington’s army camped at Valley Forge. Although not the worst winter of the war, it was bad enough for troops who were poorly clothed, underfed, living in the most primitive dwellings, and recovering from numerous war wounds and endless marches through rough, icy terrain. Martha Washington stayed at Valley Forge and prepared breakfasts for the general’s staff. I liked that. While Washington’s army was suffering, General William Howe’s British forces had taken possession of Philadelphia. They moved into all of the best homes and public buildings and made themselves comfortable. Howe concluded, correctly, that it was too dangerous to march an army and conduct a war in snow and ice and was content to sit out the winter in the comfort of the capital city. The British officers organized an endless series of parties and balls and entertainments. A theater group was formed that performed plays and musicals, reputedly of professional quality. The ladies of the town participated fully. Philadelphia had a splendid crop of affluent, attractive,

Preface and Acknowledgments

charming young women only too happy to attend dances and plays and to mingle socially with the handsome officers of Howe’s legions. A paragraph in Bobrick’s book tells about the Jewish population of America and particularly of Philadelphia. In an aside, we are told that David Franks was the city’s leading Jewish merchant, a loyalist, and that his daughter Rebecca was the toast of the British officers. Wow! I was struck by lightning. I had to find out about this Jewish belle of Philadelphia. Using the Internet, I made one inquiry after another, acquired text after text, and literally exhausted myself finding all I could about this young woman who was the Paris Hilton of her day. It didn’t take very long to learn all there was to know about Rebecca, and to realize that once she left Philadelphia, at age twenty-three, she ceased to be the social princess of those exuberant Philadelphia days. In reading about the lady, however, it became obvious that her father was a far more interesting person, and I thus turned my attention to David Franks. I looked for copies of his biography, only to find that none existed. Several texts discussed him briefly, but no full-length book about his life and struggles had been penned. So I decided to write it myself. Totally unprepared for the assignment, I threw myself into it. Starting at the Henry Library of Hebrew Union College in Los Angeles, I began to identify sources and locations that would offer helpful basic materials. Unfortunately, they were all over the place—Philadelphia, New York, Harrisburg, Cincinnati, London, and elsewhere. This would very probably have stopped me in my tracks had it not been for the Internet, which offered the promise of considerable assistance. I made a very lucky decision to join the Historical Society of Pennsylvania (HSP) and soon received my first copy of their quarterly journal. The lead article was a discussion of antiSemitism in colonial Pennsylvania by Professor William Pencak of Penn State University, in which a fair amount of print was devoted to the Franks family and its place in Philadelphia society. Again using the Internet, I was able to contact Professor Pencak and commence a dialogue with him about Franks. I let him know of my interest in Franks and that I was seeking leads. Almost by accident, it came out that he was in Los Angeles on a Huntington Library fellowship. We were living about fifteen minutes away from each other. The rest, as they say, is history. We met; he began to mentor my work despite what must have been a huge amount of skepticism about my qualifications. I was an aerospace business retiree actively enjoying a second career servicing pianos. Could such a background possibly prepare one to write a rigorous historical biography? I wouldn’t think so, and I can’t imagine that he did either. To his eternal credit, however, Bill Pencak stuck xii

Preface and Acknowledgments

with me, collaborating with Edith Gelles of Stanford University to arrange reader privileges at the Huntington Library, and directing my research. This led me to the locations mentioned above, where a large number of kind, patient, and skillful people helped me along the way. At Hebrew Union College (HUC) I received considerable help from Dr. Yaffa Weisman, the HUC library director, who assisted me with Hebrew translations as well as locating helpful texts. My neighborhood library in Beverly Hills became the source of interlibrary loans by the dozen; later, after my family moved to Westlake Village, the local library there took over this chore, and I obtained considerable help from Marie Braude and from Mark Totten, the new branch manager. I cannot neglect to include the UCLA library system, especially Miki Goral, who could find any source, anywhere, anytime. The Southern Regional Library Facility at UCLA had an invaluable treasure trove of colonial documents on microfilm that could have remained locked away forever but for Miki Goral. The HUC library had catalogues of the collections held by Cincinnati’s American Jewish Archives (AJA). I began to request materials from the AJA and opened a communication path with Elise Nienaber, who became my most frequent e‑mail correspondent. There is no way to describe the huge effort that this lady expended on my behalf, which I appreciated mightily. Though I never visited the archives, I feel that the folks there are old friends. Elise, Dr. Fred Krome (who has since moved on), and Kevin Proffitt made my labors a lot easier, and I thank them all profusely. Appendix C of this book consists of an article I wrote that was published in the journal of the AJA, discussing a letter of Rebecca Franks after she moved to England. I am grateful to Dana Herman, managing editor of the journal, and to Dr. Gary Zola, executive director of AJA, for their kind permission to include the item in my book in slightly modified form. My research would not have been complete without a visit to the archives for original sources. Consequently, I made three trips to Philadelphia and New  York and one trip to Harrisburg, looking for original documentation. During my visits to Philadelphia I spent many days at the Historical Society of Pennsylvania, the Library Company of Philadelphia, the Rosenbach Museum and Library, Christ Church, Congregation Mikveh Israel, and Woodford Mansion. The  principal contact and most helpful hand at the HSP was Dan Rolph, who must surely spend his evenings memorizing finding aids. Similarly, Phil Lapsansky knew where everything could be found at the Library Company, as did Greg Giuliano at the Rosenbach. Archival materials and interesting sidelights were provided at Christ Church xiii

Preface and Acknowledgments

by Donald Smith, at Mikveh Israel by Ruth Hoffman and Louis Kessler, and at Woodford Mansion by Martha Moffat. At each of these venues, I was saved countless days of fruitless thrashing around by the skillful intervention of helpful expert professionals. I can’t thank them enough. The same kind of experiences awaited me in New York, where I visited the New-York Historical Society, the American Jewish Historical Society, and Congregation Shearith Israel, and made a pilgrimage to Queens College to see Leo Hershkowitz. My sincerest thanks go to Jan Hilley and the other members of the manuscript staff at the NYHS. Very special appreciation is offered to Adina Anflick, who made my stay at the AJHS library so valuable, and to library director Lyn Slome, who was very patient with a “noodge.” At Shearith Israel, Rabbi Marc Angel and Dr.  Alan Singer extended the ultimate hospitality, and I received outstanding office assistance from Ashley Fixler. My unfettered access to the synagogue’s archival material was truly a great gift. In Harrisburg, I scanned the Pennsylvania State Archives for materials related to jury trials and obtained considerable help from Jonathan Stayer, although we never did locate the one document that would have made me the happiest. Yes, there were disappointments along the way. In addition to travel, I used the Internet extensively in my search for materials. The British National Archives disgorged literally hundreds of letters germane to the story, as did the London Metropolitan Archives. John Wood of the National Archives made the mistake of becoming interested in my inquiries and spent countless hours searching for individual items buried in the archives. A  lively correspondence ensued, and John began finding materials for which I had not asked or even known about. I am in his debt forever. The Internet also connected me with the library at the University of New Brunswick, where Christine Jack fought the demons of administrative red tape until I was able to secure the American Manuscripts in the Gage Papers, 1781–1874, with its storehouse of DeLancey family letters and other papers. Some of these are cited in the text with the kind permission of the library of the Sussex Archeological Society. Leo Hershkowitz offered ample guidance during a visit on which Bill Pencak kindly accompanied me. Professor Hershkowitz’s book covering Abigaill Franks’s letters is the starting point for all research on the Franks family, and I treasure the afternoon we spent together. More good advice came from Professor Todd Endelman, whose knowledge of Jewish life in Georgian England is unmatched, and from Edith Gelles, in a series of meaningful

xiv

Preface and Acknowledgments

and very interesting e‑mail messages. Edie Gelles’s novel interpretation of Abigaill Franks’s letters was extremely helpful. Special mention must be made of the central basement of the Huntington Library, my home away from home for nearly four years. Despite the innumerable texts I scanned or read or noted, it would take several lifetimes to make full use of the enormous collection of historical knowledge resting on those shelves. This book could never have been written without the material provided by those silent accomplices. Thank you, Huntington Library. This book could not have been completed successfully without the editing services of Suzanne Wolk, whose exceptional skill and vast experience transformed a novice’s debris into a cogent chronicle. I will be in her debt forever. Of course, my greatest and most enthusiastic thanks are reserved for Bill Pencak, my mentor and friend, whose unlimited generosity with his time and ideas and references and patience and encouragement can’t be matched. Just one slight snub might have ended my dreams, but he kept making it easy to do more. In fact, once it became obvious that I would disappoint him if I quit, I simply had to persevere. So, Bill Pencak, my heartfelt thanks for everything. This story also owes a great deal to a number of individuals who preceded me in sifting through the mountains of historical manuscripts and early writings and turned their investigations into reportage that survives. Most of the material in this volume describing the underlying social and political order of colonial America and the lives of David Franks’s contemporaries and associates comes from the work of others. I have made every effort to identify these sources to acknowledge my reliance on them, and to avoid copying or plagiarizing these exceptional histories. Any failure to maintain that integrity is the result of my inexperience rather than abuse or disregard. Additionally, knowledgeable individuals offered sage advice along the way, which provided incalculable aid in the labors that produced this volume. Professor Todd Endelman of Michigan University kindly explained by e‑mail that, “in general, it is difficult to find archival materials that illuminate the inner or family lives of 18th century Jews in Britain and North America. As you have discovered, most of what we know concerns their business dealings. There is very little of a paper trail regarding domestic matters, religious observance, social contacts, etc. One possible way of getting at this is to investigate the papers of non-Jews with whom the Franks family did business. Perhaps you will find references to Franks family members

xv

Preface and Acknowledgments

in them. Given the amount of work that has been published on colonial America, there should be a great deal of published material (letters, diaries, etc.) by non Jews who knew and mixed with the Franks family.” “Should be” proved to be the operative words here. As an inexperienced researcher, I scoured the library systems for family papers that might have references to David Franks and his brood. The letters of John Watts, a business associate of David’s, contain a number of brief allusions to Franks family issues, particularly in relation to the marriage of David’s brother Moses, who had been a classmate of Watts’s, and to Jacob, David’s father, who shared office facilities with DeLancey and Watts. In the hundreds of manuscripts and scraps within the Cadwalader Collection, I found one single fascinating letter from Rebecca Franks. That’s all. These searches have not been abandoned and will continue beyond the publication of this volume. The Plumsted family papers have yet to be examined; those of the Inglis family, if they exist, also need perusing. These labors await my next opportunity to visit the HSP. Tench Coxe may have kept every scrap of paper he ever saw. I scrutinized the huge microfilm collection of his documents at the HSP on two occasions, image by image, for connections to David Franks. As Endelman had predicted, the nearly twenty-year relationship between the two men produced almost nothing but business letters. Despite the fact that Franks’s son Moses had been a classmate of Coxe’s, and that David and his wife had attended Coxe’s wedding, had employed him as an attorney for the years Franks lived in England, and had appointed him as one of three executors of the Franks estate, hardly a word of a social or personal nature was exchanged. Franks’s personal and family life can be glimpsed only in postscripts and in the letters of others. A  social letter from or to David Franks was a rarity. Much may forever remain unknown about Franks. Precisely where and when he died remains uncertain, as does the location of his grave. In fact, there is no record of his birth, either. He was often mistaken in documents for his cousin, David Salisbury (sometimes spelled Solebury) Franks. Still, a great deal about him may be learned from the documents that exist. Scholarly works that mention him include biographies of contemporaries whose paths crossed his, men such as George Croghan, William Trent, Sir William Johnson, George Morgan, Barnard and Michael Gratz, and Joseph Simon. To the extent possible, I examined original manuscripts and contemporary published documents. This book is indebted to the following exceptional works in particular, which deserve special mention here: William Vincent Byars, B. and M. Gratz: xvi

Preface and Acknowledgments

Merchants in Philadelphia, 1754 –1798; Leo Hershkowitz and Isidore S. Meyer, The Lee Max Friedman Collection of American Jewish Colonial Correspondence— Letters of the Franks Family (1733 –1748); The Letters of Abigaill Levy Franks, 1733 –1748, edited by Edith B. Gelles; Edwin Wolf II and Maxwell Whiteman, The History of the Jews of Philadelphia from Colonial Times to the Age of Jackson; Kenneth P. Bailey, The Ohio Company Papers, 1753 –1817; Albert T. Volwiler, George Croghan and the Westward Movement, 1741–1782; Sewell Elias Slick, William Trent and the West; Fintan O’Toole, White Savage: William Johnson and the Invention of America; Clarence Walworth Alvord, The Mississippi Valley in British Politics; Thomas Perkins Abernethy, Western Lands and the American Revolution; John Richard Alden, General Gage in America; and Sidney Meshulam Fish, Barnard and Michael Gratz: Their Lives and Times.

xvii

Introduction

A substantial body of written material describes the origins and development of the Jewish community in America. Most of the authors were themselves Jewish and tended to focus on various elements of settlement related to Jews while paying scant attention to the general population. A number of societies and religious organizations have sponsored extensive programs for collecting historical materials related to the Jewish experience in America, including archival libraries and museums, and they have employed historians to document findings from these materials, resulting in the publication of annual and periodical journals and other works. Over time, every aspect of daily life has been examined—where Jews settled, how they earned a living, how and where they prayed, how they commingled with the non-Jewish majority, how they participated in government at every level, how they took part in military service—these subjects and more have been covered in numerous texts. Out of this body of information, interesting trends have emerged and outstanding individual contributors have been recognized. Most American Jews today would recognize the name of Haym Salomon, who achieved fame for his financial support of the Continental Congress. A smaller number are aware that Judah Benjamin was secretary of state for the Confederacy, but only a handful know who the Gratz brothers were and what they contributed to the growth of this country. Unfortunately, many of the individual Jews who played significant roles in the growth of the United States are lost in the blizzard of information, primarily because the primary intent of authors has been to cover Jewish activities over long periods of time. So books about Jewish military contributions typically devote no more than a paragraph to a given individual, and sometimes less than that. Similarly, books about westward expansion, or the growth of cities, or the founding of the first synagogues in the United States tend to give bare outlines of the work of individuals and to give more weight to broad historical trends than to individual achievements. Every book about Jews in early Philadelphia mentions David Franks. All the books about the fur trade with the Indians and the development of

Introduction

commercial enterprises in western Pennsylvania mention him. All the books about individuals who participated in import and export activities, including those who commissioned the building of cargo vessels, mention Franks. Franks appears briefly in the histories of Ohio, Indiana, and Illinois, which include reference to the Ohio Company, the Vandalia Company, the Indiana Company, and the Illinois-Wabash Company. Elements of his business life and his connections with the British army and the Continental Congress are documented in a number of works, as is the story of his various arrests and imprisonments and his banishment from the colonies. David Franks’s appearance in so many histories of early America is no coincidence. He was a prime mover in the growth of the Ohio Valley region. None of that growth transpired without conflict. His marriage outside the Jewish faith and his ensuing family life produced considerable conflict as well. His commercial enterprises grew to the point that he held a subcontract from the British Treasury and took direction from the Continental Congress simultaneously. Escalating conflicts marked his life until his final years of peace. Throughout his life, David Franks contended with three major issues upon which everything else was superimposed. In his early twenties, he married a Christian woman and permitted his wife and children to practice their own religion. As a young man, too, he engaged in a business collaboration with his father, brother, brother-in-law, and a collection of wellestablished British and British-American businessmen of high social rank that endured for more than thirty years and led to considerable financial success. Misfortune also came his way, however, first in the form of huge financial reverses due to destruction of his property by Indians who rose up against the incursion of whites into their territory, and second, when the American revolutionaries accused him of treason. Franks dealt resourcefully with all of his problems and interests. To make his marriage easier, he came to an understanding with his wife whereby he could enjoy the pleasures of family life by allowing his children to be raised as Christians. Historian Isaac Markens incorrectly asserted that Franks “abjured the Hebrew faith,” and Sabato Morais contended that he “was lax in his adherence to Judaism,” but in fact Franks was a member, for at least twenty-seven years, of New York’s synagogue Shearith Israel, to which his parents belonged.1 Shortly before his death, he is known to have sworn on the five books of Moses when making a deposition. Further, while he probably paid all the dues for his family’s participation at Christ Church, he avoided contributing to building fund campaigns over an extended period of xx

Introduction

time, and in the case of the purchase of the steeple (which made it the tallest building in the American colonies, at 196 feet) and bells, he was recorded as one of the half-dozen people who refused to contribute. These facts hardly support the contention that Franks was a convert to Christianity. Deep in his soul, David Franks was a merchant—full time. He had broad visions of business expansion that led to significant Indian trade, extensive ship designing and building, the manufacture of various products, international trade, and adventures in land speculation on a grand scale. The solid underpinning of this expansive commercial life derived from his family’s principal business—supplying the British army in America with food, clothing, and other necessities over a period exceeding twenty-five years. Through a series of partnerships with influential individuals, Franks was at the center of supplying troops in Pennsylvania and the remote British forts to the west during the “great war for the empire,” as historian Lawrence Henry Gipson has called the French and Indian War.2 It was he who made visits to confirm the reports of his agents, who made the tough decisions when weather, spoilage, or thievery prevented smooth deliveries, and who built confident relationships with high-ranking officers throughout the army. The community of frontier traders and agents turned to Franks to present their interests to the imperial authorities when, in 1754 and again in 1763, Indian uprisings resulted in huge losses. Franks pursued extensive efforts to obtain compensation for these losses for many years, well beyond the date when he was forced to leave the United States. Finally, the British military entrusted Franks with feeding and clothing British prisoners of war behind American lines during the American Revolution. It was a nearly impossible task, as he had trouble obtaining funds, and his efforts to do so led to charges of treason. Falsely accused of being a loyalist by Philadelphia’s radical revolutionaries, who sought scapegoats for their own mismanagement of the government, Franks in fact proved his loyalty to America when he returned to Philadelphia as soon as possible following the War of Independence. That David Franks endured such a complex and convoluted existence, yet prospered and earned the respect and admiration of so many leaders of his time, is a tribute to his life. Unfortunately, he spent a great deal of time “between a rock and a hard place” on issue after issue, and he ended his days without glory or fame. This book is an attempt to earn for this remarkable man a little justice, more than two hundred years after his death.

xxi

One

david franks, arrested for treason

On November 10, 1778, Philadelphia newspapers reported, “Last week, Mr. David Franks, late Commissary for the British Prisoners . . . had been confined by Congress in the new gaol in this city, for writing letters of an improper nature and dangerous tendency to the enemy.”1 Franks had written the letter in question to his brother, Moses Franks, the night after his son-in-law’s brother, William (Billy) Hamilton, was acquitted of treason against the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania. One of several merchants in charge of supplying the British forces in North America, Moses was among London’s leading commercial figures. But Franks did not send the news to his brother directly, as it was impossible to send letters to London in the middle of war. Nor would it have been possible for Franks directly to contact loyalist brigadier general Oliver DeLancey, his brother-in-law, who had married his sister Phila in 1741 and had done business with Moses Franks before the war. Instead, David sent his report to Captain Thomas William Moore, a cousin of his wife’s, who was serving in DeLancey’s loyalist brigade, to have DeLancey forward it to Moses. The  letter stated, “Last Night ab[ou]t 12 oClock Billy Hamilton after 2 hours tryall was honourably acquitted—the jury ab[ou]t two minutes absent . . . —it appears an ill Natured prosecution.”2 Franks was not alone in considering the prosecution “ill natured”; George Clymer, a signer of the Declaration of Independence and a U.S. congressman, wrote to General John Cadwalader of the Continental army that the behavior of Joseph Reed, the president of Pennsylvania, during the trial had demonstrated “the extremity of baseness” of those who “participated in the prosecution.”3 But by calling into question the wisdom of a Pennsylvania judicial decision in a letter to his brother, sent surreptitiously through British

David Franks

lines, Franks brought his own loyalty into question, even though many of Pennsylvania’s revolutionaries, such as Clymer, also thought the new revolutionary government had begun to replicate the tyranny it claimed to replace. Expressing his happiness that Billy Hamilton had been acquitted was not the worst of Franks’s letter. An enclosure also discussed the high prices of foodstuffs in Philadelphia as a guide for Moses in purchasing items for the army, and the rampant inflation Franks disclosed reflected a food shortage about which the revolutionaries would have preferred to keep the British in the dark. Franks was delivered up to the civil authority, brought before the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, and after a hearing released on bail: “himself bound in £5000 and Mr. Joseph Simons [actually, Simon] of Lancaster, and General Cadwalader becoming sureties for him in £2500 each.”4 Simon’s offer of help was understandable. This sixty-five-year-old Jewish businessman was the leading merchant in Lancaster and the leading Jewish citizen of its community. But General Cadwalader was one of George Washington’s most trusted officers. This incident occurred just one month after Cadwalader had turned down an appointment as brigadier general in the Continental army, preferring to remain with the Pennsylvania militia.5 The  relationships among Franks, Cadwalader, Hamilton, and Reed are a fascinating illustration of how friendships, family ties, and rivalries among Pennsylvanians could make the question of who was a loyalist and who a patriot extremely complicated, not to say a matter of bitter recrimination and equally strong personal loyalty. General John Cadwalader remains one of the most neglected figures of the American Revolution. The  story of his extraordinary service to the patriot cause needs to be told so that his vouching for Franks’s innocence will be given the weight it deserves. Beginning in December 1776, Cadwalader commanded the Pennsylvania militia. His support of Washington’s campaign in southern New  Jersey, following through on his commander’s detailed plans, contributed to the victories at Trenton and Princeton. Washington placed great confidence in Cadwalader, who participated in the battles of Brandywine, Germantown, and Monmouth, and offered him command of the cavalry in the Continental army. This was the first of three unsuccessful attempts by Washington to persuade Cadwalader to leave the Pennsylvania militia.6 Yet, although he remained with his Pennsylvania troops, Cadwalader’s loyalty to his commander was beyond question. In 1778 a plot developed to remove Washington from his role as commander of the army and replace him with General Horatio Gates. The leader of the conspirators was Thomas 2

Arrested for Treason

Conway, for whom the plot was named “the Conway Cabal.” Cadwalader challenged Conway to a duel, during which the plotter was shot in the mouth. Cadwalader was unhurt, and Conway survived his wound.7 Word of Cadwalader’s defense of Washington spread throughout the colonies. General Nathanael Greene, a favorite of Washington’s and a close friend of Cadwalader’s, wrote from Camp Fredricksburg, New  York, two years later, “Since the battle of Monmouth I have never had the pleasure to see you, or even hear of you only by accident. I mean such as shooting People through the Head. Your duel made a great noise in the American World. Most People rejoiced at Mr. Conways fate.”8 Cadwalader also played a leading role in the politics of his own state. In the aftermath of the Trenton hostilities, Cadwalader was a key figure in a scandal involving General Joseph Reed, the man who would prosecute Franks. Reed was then adjutant general of the Continental army. Washington had sent him to assist Cadwalader, who was waiting at Bristol (about fifteen miles north of Philadelphia on the Delaware River) for the engagement to begin. During their wait, Reed expressed his view that “affairs look very desperate” and that “we were only making sacrifice of ourselves.” Further, he said that General William Howe had offered “pardons and protection for persons who should come in before January 1st, 1777,” which was less than a week away. Reed also told Cadwalader that “he had a family, and ought to take care of them; and that he did not understand following the wretched remains of a broken army.” Was it not true that “Galloway, the Allens and others had gone over and availed themselves of the pardon and protection?” Joseph Galloway had been a leading member of the Continental Congress and former speaker of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives, and William Allen, the head of the prominent Allen clan, the former chief justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.9 These were borderline treasonous words, and they presented Cadwalader with the knotty problem of how to proceed without causing a general panic among the troops. On top of that, a maid overheard Reed discussing the same issues in the same way with an unnamed colonel who appeared ready to accompany Reed when the time came. Reed was saved by the victorious battle of Trenton, after which he was all too willing to forget these conversations. The victory made the question of desertion moot. Cadwalader, however, shared his recollections of this event with half a dozen or more of his associates.10 A few years later, Reed was accused in the public newspapers of “having meditated a desertion to the enemy.” He issued a pamphlet addressed to 3

David Franks

Cadwalader attempting to defend himself from the charges and making a variety of negative comments about the general. In addition to the desertion issue, a small financial transaction between them remained unresolved and was addressed in their communications to each other. In 1782 Cadwalader issued a fifty-four-page pamphlet that included depositions from a number of his associates at the time of Reed’s contemplated desertion and letters from Washington, Henry Laurens, and others. The pamphlet was reported in local newspapers. The exchange of pamphlets and letters continued for years, as biographers and descendents of the principals continued to disagree over the details of the incident. As late as 1842 letters to newspapers were still being exchanged, and in 1848 a second edition of Cadwalader’s pamphlet was published and distributed. Reed was either an incredible hero or a borderline traitor— depending upon which author you chose to believe.11 After his doubts about the American cause dissolved, Reed had embarked upon a career in politics, holding a succession of positions that included membership in the Continental Congress and president of the Supreme Executive Council of Pennsylvania (the equivalent of governor). The council was charged with identifying, arraigning, and prosecuting wartime loyalists whose actions helped the British or hindered the Continental army. Reed and his secretary, Timothy Matlack, pursued this assignment with vigor, prosecuting not only obvious loyalists but also their own political enemies, some of whom supported the Revolution halfheartedly, tried to remain neutral, or, though favoring the patriot cause, were among the increasing number of Pennsylvanians who tired of their rulers’ disregard for personal liberty. Benedict Arnold was clearly a traitor, but Billy Hamilton was a very different case. Billy was an effete botanist from a wealthy family. Son and grandson of famous lawyers—his grandfather Andrew came to New York to defend John Peter Zenger in his famous 1735 trial—Billy maintained the family estate as a botanical garden, importing rare and exotic plants from all over the world and overseeing their development and growth. The estate, Woodlands, was one of the great showplaces of Philadelphia. Billy had little interest in politics or the war and lived a quasi-hermitic life.12 Unfortunately, the Hamiltons were marked as loyalists, and Billy was brought to trial for treason on October 18, 1778. Among those testifying on his behalf were his uncle, James Hamilton, his sister-in-law, Abigail (Abby) Hamilton, and General John Cadwalader. Abby Hamilton was married to Billy’s brother, Andrew, and was David Franks’s eldest daughter. The Hamilton and Franks families had been neighbors and close friends for many years. Cadwalader, also a neighbor of both and a close friend, was livid 4

Arrested for Treason

about Reed’s persecution of Billy and testified enthusiastically on his behalf. Declaration of Independence signer George Clymer commented that Reed was projecting his own disloyalty onto people he disliked for personal reasons: “it indicated the extremity of baseness in him, to attempt to destroy another for taking the very step he had once lifted his own foot to take.”13 A few days after Billy’s acquittal, Franks’s arraignment for treason and subsequent posting of bail took place. After twenty years of conducting business with the British Crown and ignoring the tug of revolution, David Franks was bailed out by one of George Washington’s most respected and loyal officers.

5

Two

family, friends, and associates

Success always seemed to come easily to Abraham Franks and his sons. David’s paternal grandfather was described as “second in wealth, though not in activity,” within the congregation of the Great Synagogue of London, and was “one of the twelve original Jew Brokers admitted in 1697” to the London Stock Exchange, which established a quota of twelve Jewish men for every one hundred members. Abraham Franks “prospered in London” and “married Abigail, a daughter of Rabbi David Bloch.” They were blessed with seven children, five of whom lived to adulthood. The best known of these was Aaron Franks, whose jewelry business made him one of the bestestablished London gem merchants of his day. In 1742 he lent jewels “to the value of £40,000 to the Princess of Wales for a masquerade.” As early as 1747, Aaron was a governor of the Foundling Hospital and was reputed at the time of his death to have been in the habit of distributing £5,000 annually to charity, without distinction of race or creed. At his house in Isleworth he entertained members of the aristocracy such as Horace Walpole, son of the great prime minister, and celebrities like Kitty Clive, a famous actress. Aaron was born in either 1685 or 1692, so he was fifty-one or fifty-eight years old when he married Moses Hart’s daughter, Bilah, who was also his sister-in-law. That relationship grew out of his brother Isaac’s marriage to Bilah’s sister, Simha Frances Hart, twenty-three years earlier. Within three years of their marriage, Aaron and Bilah were the parents of two daughters, Phila and Priscilla.1 Isaac Franks’s success as a merchant in London gained interest thanks to two sudden events. Isaac’s close friend Moses Hart had married into a wealthy family and was appointed a government agent. Isaac and Moses purchased a lottery ticket jointly and, by an extraordinary stroke of good luck, won the

Family, Friends, and Associates

grand prize of £20,000. Isaac thereupon proceeded to marry Moses’ daughter, receiving as a dowry his partner’s share of the £20,000 as well.2 The third successful son of Abraham was Jacob, father of David Franks, the subject of this biography. Jacob (1688 –1769) became an exceptionally prosperous merchant in New York. There he imported commodities such as tea, iron, guns, currency, and rice in exchange for such local products as grain and furs. Jacob was among the city’s most influential merchants, ranking with members of the Philipse, DeLancey, Van Dam, Beekman, and Clarke families.3 At one time he was the king’s fiscal agent for the northern colonies, distributing royal revenues to governors, ships, soldiers, and others who had dealings with the government, including loggers entitled to bounties on pines for the Royal Navy. Among Jacob’s business ventures, he ran an establishment on Queen Street where he sold all kinds of metal products. In an advertisement in the New York Weekly Journal in April 1739, he offered “sheathing Duck Nails, and Spikes, and all Sorts of best London Nail, Long Scythes, Sickles, Dutch Scythes, Spades, Shod, Shovels, Iron Hoops, best London Steel long and short Handle Frying Pans, Anvils, and Vices, also Anchors and small Swivell Guns.” The following year, Jacob sold six swivel guns to Admiral Peter Warren of the Royal Navy for a price of £18 to fight the Spanish in the War of Jenkins’ Ear.4 More than twenty years later, Jacob still enjoyed a position of great responsibility as agent to the contractors victualing His Majesty’s navy in North America.5 Jacob Franks was an active member of New  York’s Congregation Shearith Israel, the first synagogue in the city, and served as its parnas (president) seven times in a twenty-year span. In 1712 he married Bilhah Abigail Levy, daughter of the city’s most successful merchant, Moses Levy. Over the ensuing thirty years, they had nine offspring. Their first child was Naphtali, born in 1715 and destined to become his mother’s favorite. A second son, Moses, followed in 1718, and in 1720 David was born. This trio of sons was followed by four daughters—Phila, Richa (or Rachel), Sara, and Abigail (known as Poyer). One more son, Aaron, and another daughter, Rebecca, completed the family. Both Sara and Aaron perished as young children. The adult life of Poyer is unknown entirely; after repeated mention in early communications, she simply disappeared from family discussion.6 Between the demands of his business and his involvement in the synagogue, Jacob had precious little time for parenting or partnering. Abigaill (the spelling she preferred) brought up the children and did much as she pleased in her social world. She became the focal point of the family, the high priestess of opinion who, though she lacked the fist, ran the family 7

David Franks

with an iron tongue. Abigaill picked and chose favorites among everything in her life, from books, to foods, to flowers, to her children and the coterie of friends with whom she mingled. She had an opinion about everyone and everything. A major documentary source in Jewish American history contains thirty-one letters she wrote to her eldest son, Naphtali, in London over a period of fifteen years.7 They are filled with her value judgments and opinions and give the reader a view into David’s childhood. Some of her behavior wasn’t very maternal. Abigaill fawns over her favorite son, “Heartsey,” in these letters, and never ceases to enumerate the many talents and successes of Moses, the second brother. But David, we are told, “has not that Sprightly Genious that the rest have.”8 Besides the three brothers, three sisters (and possibly Sara) lived into adulthood. Over time, most of David’s siblings played at least some part in his life. Whatever its problems, growing up in the Franks household offered educational opportunities. Abigaill was a voracious reader and was particularly taken with the best contemporary authors. Her letters to Naphtali often included requests for particular books and comments about the volumes she had read. Almost as soon as they were published, Naphtali acquired new texts for his mother and put them on board the next ship to America. Her other children were constantly exposed to these books. In addition, Hebrew school classes became available at Shearith Israel in 1731, when David was eleven, and he probably attended them. As historian Jacob Rader Marcus has written, “David Franks, son of the great American Jewish merchant . . . had a Hebrew tutor, and when he became bar mitzvah he was able to read his entire pentateuchal portion unvocalized [i.e., in the original, without an English phonetic script], which would be considered a feat even today.” 9 The learning and accomplishments of the Franks family were extensive. Naphtali developed a strong interest in botany, and Abigaill’s letters tell of her having sent plant specimens to him. Years later, Naphtali was accepted into the Royal Botanical Society. Abigaill discussed Moses’ skill in a variety of intellectual pursuits, including mathematics, painting on glass, and, especially, various musical instruments. Moses and sister Richa played the harpsichord, and Moses excelled on the flute. Abigaill asked Naphtali to try borrowing a “German flute” from Uncle Aaron so that Moses, David, and Richa could all use it. There is no indication that Naphtali sent a flute. Although it is not mentioned in any of Abigaill’s letters, David also studied violin and became quite proficient.10 A family prayer book that was passed from one member to another also survives. The  flyleaf contains a series of messages written over the years. 8

Family, Friends, and Associates

The signature of Jacob Franks at the bottom of the page appears to indicate that he was the original owner. At the top, a note reads, “Moses Franks his book Aug’t 10th 1731.” Immediately below is inscribed, “he went to London June 18th 1738 in Capt. Marner.” And then, “David Franks his Book June the 25th 1738.” A final entry announces, “Jacob Franks Junr His Book Jan’y 2nd 1757.” This Jacob was David’s son. From this sequence we learn that Moses probably visited Naphtali to get the “lay of the land” in London and returned in time to enter a partnership with David.11 Business transactions in New York in the early 1700s were fraught with dangers of all kinds. Sinking ships were only one problem. Jacob Franks encountered a great deal of difficulty with business associates, and over the years was engaged in numerous court cases to recover funds and merchandise that were due him. Additionally, he witnessed a number of attacks on associates about which he testified in court. He was involved in a court case surrounding assault charges brought by his future father-in-law, Moses Levy, and Abraham DeLucena against each other. Jacob made several court appearances and, though not personally involved in the incidents, was required to pay court fees. He later sued Solomon Etiel Levy in connection with the assault case, but Levy disappeared. Jacob also sued Thomas Noble and obtained a judgment against ship captain Peter Ayer. He then sued John Newkirk for £12 and later for £30, Jacobus Wynkoop for £63, and Anthony Lewis for £30, before he himself was sued by John Webb. After a trial employing forty witnesses, the jury found for Jacob Franks. On it went, suit after suit: Messrs. Ewetse and Rapalje, John Webb, Garrett van Laer, Philip Schuyler, Abraham van Vleck, Abraham Cannon, William Beekman, Everett Duyckinck, and Mary Teller. The Schuylers and Beekmans were among New York’s first families; Franks was both ecumenical and egalitarian in his suits, taking both Jews and Christians, rich and middling to court if he believed he had been wronged. But he was not hesitant, and his use of the legal system indicates that New York Jews (the only Jews who could vote and hold office in the British Empire) were aware of their rights and exercised them frequently.12 When Abigaill’s father died in June 1728, Jacob was named one of the executors of his will. Soon thereafter, the executors acquired property on Gold Street from the City of New York to create a burial ground for Jews. In August the mayor approved their petition for use of the land as a burial ground. The  land, however, was encumbered with debt, and Jacob was involved in the lawsuits that finally freed it for the Jews’ use.13 Interestingly, in 1738 Jacob, Moses, and David Franks, along with seven other Jews, were listed as members of the local New York Militia Company 9

David Franks

under the leadership of Captain Henry Cuyler.14 Jacob Franks and his family, although they may have experienced some informal prejudice, were full—and among the most prominent— citizens of New York. The marriage rate of colonial American Jews was astonishingly low: more than 40 percent of them were unmarried. There were several reasons for this. There were very few Jews (fewer than three thousand in the first federal census, of 1790); many single men came to America to make their fortune and some became the sole Jewish peddler or merchant in a community; and Jews had to marry other Jews. But the Franks family labored under a further difficulty: David’s mother, Abigaill, was not only unwilling that her children should marry the gentiles with whom they associated socially, she also considered New York’s other Jews beneath her station. As a result, she had not a single Jewish grandchild. Only three of her children—Naphtali, Phila, and David—married before her death in 1756, and of those marriages, she approved of only one.15 The Franks marriage patterns can be traced in the letters that Abigaill, Jacob, and David wrote to Naphtali in London. Only three of the letters in the collection were written by someone other than Abigaill; one, dated November 22, 1743, was from Jacob, and two others were from David.16 The  first of David’s two letters, dated March 14, 1743, Philadelphia, discussed some financial exchanges made to accommodate their father and then described his business plans. “The Arti[c]les betwene Uncle Nathan & My Self are drawn & Shall Signe them Next week,” he wrote, going on to express his desire to see India “before I am too old.” Then, almost as an afterthought, he congratulated Naphtali on his marriage: “as I Suppose you are before this time a Marrid [sic] Man I wish you both Joy & all the happiness you Can desire. My love to My New Sister.”17 Naphtali had done the right thing in marrying a Jewish woman, albeit a first cousin. David’s youthful spirit, and his desire to escape provincial New York and see the big city, come through clearly in the jumble of thoughts with which he closes his letter: “I really wish I could come & Spend One winter with you I quite want to see England I shall always think I have seen Nothing till I have been at London.” He hoped that if his mother’s brother, Nathan Levy, did not go abroad, he would be chosen to represent the family on a journey to London. He asked his brother to “be so good to Send Me Riders Brittish Merlin for the last Year & this Year it’s an almanac. Uncle Nathan & family desires to be remember[e]d to you.”18 At age twenty-three, involved in his father’s business activities and setting out on a new business venture 10

Family, Friends, and Associates

with Uncle Nathan, David still had a lot of boy in him. But in his next letter, just two weeks later, David was forced to grow up a bit. Another family marriage had occurred, bringing sorrow rather than joy. It was David’s task to notify Naphtali about their sister Phila’s marriage to Oliver DeLancey. He explained: All the family in N[ew] York were well last fryday the 27th but in very great uneasiness & great Concern on Acc[oun]t of Philla’s being Marry’d to Oliver  D Lancy, she has been Marriy’d in Sep[tembe]r Last ye 8th & not a Soul Knew of it till Last week when she absented herself & went to his Country house where she has Remain’d Since & not been in town. I was very much Surpris’d when I heard it as I Suppose my Father will or has before this time acq[uain]t[e]d you with the particulars, am told he is & my Mother in great grief about [it].19 David’s sisters Phila and Richa were near enough in age to have been close friends as well as sisters. Phila’s birth is recorded as June 1722, and while no record exists for Richa, it is reasonable to assume that she was born between 1724 and 1728. In 1735 Abigaill reported to Naphtali, “Your Sister Richa has begun to Learn on the harpsichord and plays three Very good tunes in a months Teaching.” This would have been very good for a child of eleven and really remarkable progress for a seven-year-old. As the two sisters grew, Abigaill and Jacob anguished over their marriage prospects. Abigaill held a dim view of the young men who showed an inclination toward either daughter. Most important, they had to be Jewish, but, in addition, Abigaill had mixed feelings about Sephardic Jews owing to the age-old tension between Ashkenazim and Sephardim, even in America. A “Portugueze” would have been an even less desirable mate for one of the Franks girls. Moreover, issues of intelligence and “class” were important to Abigaill. She had nothing good to say about David Gomez, a young Sephardic Jew from a wealthy family, who “for this Some Years has had an inclination to Richa but is such a Stupid wretch that if his fortune was much more and I a beggar noe child of Mine Especially one of Such a good Understanding as Richa Should Never have my Consent And I am Sure he will never git hers.”20 The Franks girls grew into their late teens; none of the New York Jews was good enough for them, but the young men of the wealthy gentile circles in which they moved were off limits as well. The parents were devastated. As Abigaill wrote to Naphtali from their country residence in Flatt Bush 11

David Franks

(Brooklyn) two months after she learned of Phila’s marriage, “I am now retired from Town and would from my Self (if it Where Possiable To have Some peace of mind) from the Severe Affliction I am Under on the Conduct of that Unhappy Girle Good God Wath a Shock it was when they Acquainted me She had Left the House and Had bin Married Six months I can hardly hold my Pen whilst I am writing it Itts wath I Never could have Imagined Especialy Affter wath I heard her Soe often Say that noe Consideration in Life should Ever Induce her to Disoblige Such good parents.” According to traditional Jewish practice, Phila was dead to the family, and Abigaill never saw her again. She didn’t want to see her son-in-law, either. As she told Naphtali, “Oliver has Sent Many times to be Leave to See me but I never would tho’ now he Sent word that he will come here.”21 In the aftermath of Phila’s elopement, the issue of Oliver DeLancey loomed large in the Franks household. Two rival political forces dominated New York City, one headed by the Livingston family and the other by the DeLanceys. Family members of both groups held high-level positions in the city and colonial governments. Among the Frankses’ immediate neighbors were the cream of New York society, including Adolph Philipse, Frederick and Jacobus Van Cortlandt, Robert Livingston, Abraham DePeyster, and Stephen Bayard. The Van Cortlandts, DePeysters, and DeLanceys were already related by marriage. The Livingstons were close friends of Abigaill and Jacob’s. Historian Leo Hershkowitz points out that the Jews remained neutral. The Franks, for instance, were close friends of the Livingstons and relatives of the DeLanceys.22 Oliver DeLancey was not the perfect son-in-law. He had a record of assaults and other “tough guy” criminal activities that intimidated the Franks family. Oliver was the ninth child of Etienne (Stephen) and Anne Van Cortlandt DeLancey. Born in 1718 in New York City, he entered the family merchandising business, in which he, like his relatives before him, prospered. Oliver’s father was a Huguenot and was forced to flee France to escape the persecution of Protestants following revocation of the Edict of Nantes in October 1685. He was a member of the New York Assembly from 1702 to 1708, 1710 to 1715, and 1725 to 1737, a total of twenty-six years. DeLancey’s oldest surviving son, James, served as lieutenant governor of New York; his next son, Peter, married Elizabeth, the daughter of New  York lieutenant governor Cadwallader Colden; daughter Susannah married Admiral Sir Peter Warren.23 The DeLancey family’s importance influenced Jacob Franks to take a more permissive view of his daughter’s marriage than Abigaill did. Although 12

Family, Friends, and Associates

he was a pious Jew who served as president of his synagogue during the year in which the elopement took place, Jacob swallowed his pride and went along. Late in his working career, Oliver established a business partnership with John Watts Sr., who later became his brother-in-law when he married Oliver’s sister Anne. Jacob Franks was one of their most important business associates, and the surviving letters of Watts, Delancey, and Franks are among the most important collections of business correspondence for colonial New York. It was a good thing that Jacob took a lenient view of Jewish-gentile mixing, or he would have lost a son as well: David would soon follow in his sister’s footsteps and marry a gentile. When brothers David and Moses came of age, they tried their hand at merchandising together in Philadelphia. This was a common pattern in Jewish families. Just as Jacob had been sent from London to represent the family interests in New York, and sent his son Naphtali back to England to enter into business with his relatives there, it made sense for the growing family to expand its efforts to the rapidly growing capital of Pennsylvania. In April 1741 the brothers advertised in the Pennsylvania Gazette all “sorts of European goods cheap for ready money or four months credit,” including choice bohea tea, calicoes, damask, pewter, muslin, taffeta, buttons, hairpins, linens, and cotton goods. All could be had “at their store at the Widow Hannah Meredith’s in Front Street.”24 The following month, they continued to urge consumers to purchase their green and bohea tea, imported in the last ship and still “cheap for ready money.”25 Later, Jacob and son Moses sold a shipment of goods to the British army that was shipped by navy vessel to Georgia, probably Savannah, to assist in General James Oglethorpe’s expedition to conquer Spanish Florida. The goods were lost, as the ship sank, and Jacob made various efforts to obtain compensation for the loss. He sent David to Georgia to negotiate payment, but the relevant official had left Savannah before the bill arrived. An appeal to Parliament was the family’s next step. Meanwhile, Naphtali had asked David to obtain some items for shipment to England.26 The entire family seems to have been blessed with mobility and entrepreneurial skill. Though living in Philadelphia, David worked hard to maintain close ties to his parents through frequent visits and by maintaining membership in Shearith Israel, where, in October 1743, his donation to the sedaka, or charity account, was recorded. This special fund had been established for the construction and maintenance of a synagogue, charities, salaries, and offerings.27 Philadelphia did not as yet have a synagogue or a minyan, the ten men necessary when a Jewish religious service was to be held. 13

David Franks

These religious activities may have been David’s attempt to mitigate the family’s dim view of his plans. Just two months later, David married Margaret Evans of Philadelphia. Little information survives about their courtship or wedding; who conducted the service, where it took place, its size, who attended—all these things are unknown. In all likelihood it was an Anglican service and was celebrated at Christ Church. If so, it is impossible to imagine that Jacob and Abigaill attended. Did any other relatives appear? The one surviving memento of the affair is a silver bowl, believed to have been a gift from brother Naphtali, bearing the coats of arms of both families. The bowl, crafted by the renowned silversmith Lamerie, is now in the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City.28 Margaret’s father, Peter Evans, had been born in London and was an attorney. He described himself in his will as “of the Inner Temple.”29 He held high political office at various times in his career. A cousin of Pennsylvania lieutenant governor John Evans, he had come to America with him in 1704 as his clerk or secretary. Some time later he was elected high sheriff of Philadelphia County. Still later he acquired the position of register general of Pennsylvania, the man who recorded land deeds, a most important post in a rapidly expanding colony. The Evans family was affiliated with Christ Church in Philadelphia, where Peter served on the board of trustees for a number of years and was influential in church politics.30 Evans was deeply involved in church affairs. In 1715, while he was still courting his future wife, Mary Moore, the newly appointed minister, Reverend Francis Phillips, was accused of slandering three women of the congregation by boasting of having slept with them. Miss Moore was one of them. Her father, John Moore, was the collector of customs and had been a founder of Christ Church. Phillips was jailed and later released under mob pressure. Evans, who was the jailer, challenged the minister to a duel, a challenge that Phillips ignored. Evans was later indicted for his gallant efforts.31 On two subsequent occasions Evans became embroiled in the selection of new ministers. A struggle over the appointment of the Reverend Richard Peters nearly split the church in two, for Peters had served Pennsylvania as its provincial secretary and the Penn family’s principal advisor, showing more interest in worldly affairs than in religion until he was in late middle age. Evans led the opposition to his appointment.32 Evans’s wife, Mary, was the sister of John Moore, whose wife, Frances, was a very close friend of Abigaill Franks. It is likely that David and Margaret met through that connection. There is no evidence of the details of the meeting or the development of their relationship; we know only that they were wed on December 17, 1743.33 14

Family, Friends, and Associates

Abigaill revealed her emotional reaction to David’s marriage in a letter to Naphtali in November 1745, after a gap in her surviving letters of more than a year. Alluding to Naphtali’s wedding gift to David and Margaret, she advised, “As to wath you Say of david, doe Just As you think proper. For my part, if I cant throw him from My heart, I Will by my Conduct have the Appearance of it. It’s a Firey Tryall. You are Noe parent And therefore Can be Noe Judge. Pray heaven Whenever You are, you may be a happy one.”34 David probably never saw that letter, but he pursued his life as normally as he could without his mother’s affection. He maintained a family affiliation at Christ Church while retaining his individual membership at Shearith Israel in New York. On Sundays he went to church with Margaret. When in New York, he went to the synagogue with his father. In January 1744, the month following his wedding, David pledged to pay his late dues to Shearith Israel.35 He remained close to his Jewish friends and business associates in Philadelphia. As Wolf and Whiteman, the historians of early Philadelphia Jewry, note, “observant Jews did not hesitate to rely upon him in matters pertaining to Jewish and even synagogal life. This remained true until Franks’ death.”36 This early in David’s life, the deference accorded him by his colleagues, particularly those who were Jews, was already in evidence. In later years it was even easier to see the high regard in which he was held. The Gratz brothers continued to address him as “Mr. Franks” well beyond the point at which they became affluent leaders of the Jewish community in Philadelphia. Without disrespect, David called them “Good Barnard” and “Dear Michael.”37 One year later, Margaret gave birth to their first child, Abigail, probably named in honor of David’s estranged mother. She would not have considered herself honored. Little Abigail was baptized at Christ Church on April 12, 1745.38 Sixteen years older than his nephew, Uncle Nathan Levy took on the role of mentor to young David. A brother of Abigaill, Nathan was a merchant in London and New  York before joining forces with David in Philadelphia. Hershkowitz notes that, “like his sister, he had a great interest in literature and music. . . . His library was varied and extensive and included twenty-two Hebrew volumes and twenty-five books on music as well as the works of John Locke and Paul Rapin.” Like all of the younger Frankses, he played the violin.39 He appears to have been married twice, having been widowed in the first instance. On September 25, 1740, Proprietor Thomas Penn granted him a nine-hundred-square-foot burial plot, where he buried 15

David Franks

a child who died in infancy. This was the first Jewish burial in Philadelphia. Similar permission had been granted in September 1738, but for some reason it was not acted on.40 Nathan’s second marriage took place early in 1743. Naphtali and Abigaill disapproved of his choice. Abigaill replied to Naphtali’s letter regarding the news, which has not survived, “as to w[a]th you Say Concerning My brother Nathans Marrying, your reassons are perfectly Just, but then on the Other hand it is a great Disadvantage for a man to keep house without a good Mistress, Soe that a Wife to him is a Nesscessary Evill.”41 David and Uncle Nathan commenced business with a flourish. In September 1742 more than eighty of Philadelphia’s merchants, including some of the most successful and powerful businessmen of the city, signed a testimonial agreeing to rates of exchange for various forms of money being used locally in commercial trade. Colonial Americans, perpetually short of hard currency, accepted British, Dutch, Spanish, French, and other colonies’ currency at generally accepted exchange rates. Levy and Franks were two of the men who signed this document.42 At the time, their business was hardly known, and this was probably an attempt to join the “fraternity” of merchants, which consisted of the Willings, the Shippens, the McCalls, the Allens, and other notables. Acceptance was quick in arriving. In March 1744 David and Nathan shared ownership, with Thomas Hopkinson, of the schooner Drake, which was to be used for import-export activities between England, the West Indies, and the colonies. The forty-five-ton vessel was captained by Master Thomas Charleton.43 Hopkinson was the first in a long line of powerful and influential Philadelphians of many faiths with whom David enjoyed partnerships. He had grown up in London and been a lawyer from the Middle Temple before emigrating to America in 1731. He enjoyed a career in public service and was a charter member of the Library Company, a trustee of the College of Philadelphia (later the University of Pennsylvania), first president of the Philosophical Society, and a colleague of Benjamin Franklin in some of Franklin’s scientific experiments. Such alliances were extremely useful to the fledgling company as it tried to establish a reputation.44 The import-export trade exploited the needs and products of three geographical areas. American lumber, tobacco, and peltry (furs) were in great demand in England. British manufactured goods, particularly clothing and metal products, had ready markets in the colonies and in the West Indies, where sugar and slaves could be picked up for delivery to America. The West Indies needed grain to feed their slaves, as the land was too valuable to use 16

Family, Friends, and Associates

for anything except growing sugar, and productive Pennsylvania was the colonial breadbasket. Levy and Franks invested in six more vessels over the next seven years. Except for a sloop, the Lapwing, each was larger than its predecessor and able to handle ever-increasing cargoes.45 In March 1745 the firm advertised, among other “sundry” items, gunpowder, tea, pepper, cinnamon, sugar, indigo, cotton, nails, muskets, shot, scythes, and snuff, a mixture of luxury items and necessities, as well as commodities from Europe and the Far East.46 Levy and Franks were assigned powers of attorney by a number of their out-of-town family members and friends for the purpose of concluding business transactions in Philadelphia. These usually involved debt collection. David and Nathan served as executors and probate administrators and in a wide variety of quasi-legal services. There is no evidence that David ever received legal training, but he was often called upon throughout his adult life to do legal work and was consistently addressed as “Esq.” in the British style, according him the status of a “gentleman.” He was certainly trusted by his peers—particularly the coterie of Jewish friends and acquaintances that gravitated to his business life. His father’s circle, both in commerce and at Shearith Israel in New York, regularly availed themselves of David’s services when the need arose in Pennsylvania.47 Levy and Franks did not limit their commercial activities in Pennsylvania to Philadelphia. They moved aggressively into land speculation in Lancaster, the largest inland city in colonial America. Over a four-year period, from 1744 to 1748, they acquired four prime pieces of property in the commercial heart of the town as collateral for loans to resident businessmen.48 These acquisitions were connected to David’s growing friendship with Joseph Simon of that city. (The name Simon was often spelled Simons; Joseph himself used both forms on many letters over the course of his life.) Simon came to America and settled in Lancaster sometime between 1735 and 1742. He purchased a house, opened a general store, and commenced trading actively with the Indians. Lancaster was a center of Indian trade, and he formed close working relationships with numerous Indian traders, including Colonel Alexander Lowrey and his brothers. Simon was a pious Jew whose home was used for religious services, in lieu of a synagogue, by the handful of Jews in the area. In 1747 he collaborated with Isaac Nunus Ricus to purchase property for a Jewish cemetery.49 Interestingly, the minutes of Congregation Shearith Israel for April 16, 1747, show a Joseph Simons having been “taxt,” as was David Franks, a supplementary membership payment. It is not clear whether this was the 17

David Franks

same Joseph Simon who maintained a connection to Shearith Israel for his business visits to New York. David’s tax assessment was £5 16s. 8d., whereas Simon’s was only £3 10s., which probably reflected the fact that David attended more regularly and that Simon had his own minyan in Lancaster, the first in Pennsylvania.50 Levy and Franks became major suppliers of goods to Simon and formed a series of interlocking partnerships with Simon, Colonel Lowrey, William Trent, Robert Callender, George Croghan, and others. On his own, Simon was one of the most prominent merchants and largest landholders in Pennsylvania. Over the years Simon and David grew particularly close, as both business partners and devoted friends. Simon enjoyed partnerships with several of his sons-in-law between the 1740s and his death in 1804 at the age of ninety-two. The movement of Jewish merchants between Philadelphia and Lancaster throughout the mid-eighteenth century was continuous, and they were all well acquainted with one another. Many were trained for business by older, more established leaders, and numerous partnerships were created under the “adventure” system. This technique provided opportunities for merchants to team up on individual “deals” despite their regular partnerships with other traders. Consequently, many connections were short term, while others lasted for years. The adventure system depended on a pool of mercantile talent that was always available, and one could select an appropriate player for a designated “adventure.” Cash was always short, and credit was used extensively. One had to know who could be trusted with how much credit to allow, or financial disaster could strike. In this milieu, David Franks and Joseph Simon were sought for their leadership qualities and stability—they had credibility even when they lacked money. The books of these merchants trace a history of credits and debits over many years, and some transactions took decades to resolve. The traders—the men who moved freely among the Indian communities—needed both the merchandise and the business acumen of Simon and Franks to conduct their business. The reward was fur, and it was substantial. But the risks were great. While Levy and Franks’s enterprise in the peltry trade was building, Margaret’s father, who had been living with her and David, died. Peter Evans’s will contained a codicil distributing his estate largely to his son, John Evans, and his son-in-law, Peter Robinson, Esq.; the remainder was to be divided, “share and share alike,” by the two daughters. John Evans and Peter Robinson were elected co-executors, and Robert Ellis of Philadelphia was named 18

Family, Friends, and Associates

to oversee the appraisal of Evans’s properties, which were being converted to cash for distribution.51 In spite of all this directed control, David published an advertisement reading, “Any Persons having any Books belonging to the Estate of Peter Evans, Gent. deceased, are desired immediately to bring them to Peter Robertson [sic], or leave them at the House of Mr.  David Franks, where the deceased lately dwelt, that they may be appraised.”52 It is strange that with two established attorneys available and assigned, David was still tapped for his services to the estate. Evans was buried at Christ Church. David and Margaret’s second child, Jacob, was born in January 1747, almost two years to the day after his sister, Abigail, and was baptized, like Abby, at Christ Church, in the same week that Shearith Israel “taxt” David for additional dues.53 With three ships hauling merchandise, the Indian trade building nicely, real property investments increasing, and retail sales booming, Levy and Franks had achieved financial success, and David had moved into the inner circle of Philadelphia’s social scene. The  year 1748 saw the inauguration of the Philadelphia Dancing Assembly, an association that admitted only members of high society. The  managers of the first assembly were John Swift, John Wallace, John Inglis, and Lynford Lardner, who arranged the festivities at a large room at Andrew Hamilton’s warehouse on the wharf. With an initial membership of fifty-nine, there was no hall large enough to accommodate the group, so the wharf, located on Water Street between Walnut and Dock, provided a convenient setting for a ball. The membership list included Pennsylvania’s chief justice, the mayor of Philadelphia and six former or future mayors, six city council members, and one future governor of New  York. One member, Thomas Willing, was destined to become the richest man in Philadelphia. The group included members of many of the most prominent families in Philadelphia—the Allens, Binghams, Bonds, Conynghams, Elliots, Franklins, Hamiltons, Hopkinsons, Lawrences, McCalls, Plumsteds, Shippens, and others. The group contained very few Quakers, for whom social dancing was not yet an acceptable practice, so that Anglican and Presbyterian families predominated. The charter membership included two Jews—Sam[p]son Levy and David Franks. Levy later converted to the Anglican Church in connection with his marriage, and David was already attending Christ Church, but both men were considered Jews in the social world. On the other hand, Benjamin Franklin, even as the best-known man in the colony, if not the entire continent, was not eligible for membership in the Dancing Assembly because, as a printer, he was considered a mechanic, a man who worked with his hands.54 19

David Franks

Nine assembly balls were organized in the first year. In the next season, some members dropped out and new ones were added, making a total of sixty-five, including David, who retained membership until the outbreak of hostilities in the mid-1770s. More than a hundred years later, an article about the assemblies pointed out that “few names were better known in the old-time social life than that of [David] Franks.”55 David had made that great leap to prominence in the community. Child number three, Mary Franks, later known as Polly, was born to Margaret and David in January 1748, just a year after Jacob, and she too was baptized at Christ Church.56 Two years later, another daughter was delivered stillborn. Little more than a year later, in April 1751, another son, Aaron, was born to the Franks family, only to pass away in November of the following year.57 Beginning in March, Levy and Franks announced that Uncle Nathan was heading for England on the brigantine Richa in six weeks and that “all persons indebted to Levy and Franks are desired to make payment by that time.” In May, the trip to London was put off until the fall. In the meantime, there were goods for sale. The  notice was repeated in August, and a new vessel, the Myrtilla, was advertised “For london . . . Will sail with all convenient speed, great part of her loading being ready; she is 250 tons burden, 10 guns, and 20 men. For freight or passage apply to Messieurs Levy and Franks.” The  Myrtilla was registered at the end of September and appears to have made several trips back and forth across the Atlantic. Another new addition to the Levy and Franks fleet was the snow Amphitrite. The  goods returned from England made excellent merchandise for their retail activities and included “small boxes of prepar’d medicines with directions, fit for country families or ships use, sweet almonds, and a variety of European and India goods.” The Phila and the Lapwing had been added to the complement of seagoing vessels owned or shared by the Levy and Franks enterprise, and they were followed by the Parthenope. Now two of David’s sisters were honored by having ships named for them.58 The firm expanded the scope of its activities that fall by importing a shipload of “likely servants, chiefly tradesman; such as ship carpenters, house carpenters, joiners, black and white smiths, watch makers, barbers, corkers, silversmiths, jewellers, brass founders, bakers, shoemakers, taylors, wool combers, wheelwrights, sawyers, surgeons, gardeners, apothecaries, book keepers, bookbinders, coopers, painters, hatters, scowers, dyers, vintners, coachmen, sailmakers, brickmakers, hostlers, chymists, butchers, and other trades and labourers; to be sold by Levy and Franks.” The services of these 20

Family, Friends, and Associates

indentured servants for a number of years were auctioned on their arrival, with part of the sale price being used to pay for their passage. Trouble was not long in arriving, as eight of the “servants” stole parts of the ship and escaped into the city. Levy and Franks posted a reward for their return. Soon, another pair made their way off the ship and disappeared.59 At this time Levy and Franks embarked upon a major program to acquire property in Lancaster, including a valuable parcel adjacent to Joseph Simon’s home, which facilitated business transactions between the two groups. Two other parcels in the heart of the commercial district in Lancaster would serve the same purpose, being close to the Simon store. Later, one of the latter two properties was conveyed to Simon.60 The partnership moved its headquarters from the store in Front Street at Water Street to “the house of Isaac Norris, Esq; wherein the Governor lately lived, in Second street, where is sold cheap, Variety of India and European goods, sail cloth, cordage, twine, prepared medicines, with directions, best Scotch high, toasted and rappee snuff.” Norris, a wealthy Quaker, had been a merchant who entered the political sphere and eventually abandoned the mercantile trade entirely. At that time he moved out of the city house, which had been the property of his father-in-law, James Logan, to dwell in his family’s estate in the suburbs.61 In the spring of 1751 Christ Church established a fund to add bells to its new steeple. David was not included on the list of subscribers for the building and steeple fund, which had been accumulating over the years following 1739. David was listed among the small group who refused to contribute to the fund for the bells. Others who refused included John Inglis, one of the organizers of the Dancing Assembly. The reason may have been that some Anglicans were “low church” and objected to the fancy furnishings and services others cherished. After the Jewish high holy days that year, David paid his annual dues to Shearith Israel, acquiring seat number 60 in the New York sanctuary.62 An otherwise uneventful year for David and Margaret, 1753 saw the birth of a son, Moses, on November 4. Unlike some of his siblings, Moses does not appear to have been baptized. But tragedy followed soon upon the heels of this joyous event. The sojourn to England was Uncle Nathan’s last trip—he passed away on December 23, 1753, at the age of forty-nine and was buried in the cemetery he had so carefully prepared for the community of Jews in Philadelphia. Per his instructions, his remains were located in the exact center of the area. David owed a great debt to Nathan, who had mentored him through the start-up years of the business; he now headed a very successful, 21

David Franks

multifaceted organization with a variety of valuable assets and considerable credit throughout the community. He was quick to consolidate his position, advertising that those with demands against the partnership should present them and that those indebted should pay “or they may depend on being sued.” David continued to pursue the land acquisition program in the Lancaster area that had been started with Uncle Nathan. His link to Joseph Simon now became a key to commercial activities in that arena. Operation of the import-export business also went forward uninterrupted with its usual success. In June, six months after Nathan’s passing, David again advertised for claims against the partnership and the estate and for collection of outstanding debts to the firm. His annoyance at the response to the previous notice was clear: “Little regard being paid to the above advertisement, this is to assure those that are backward in there [sic] payments, that they may depend on being sued, and that very soon without further notice.”63 In 1754 the Myrtilla brought the eight bells for the steeple of Christ Church from London to Philadelphia. It was a touch of irony that David Franks, who owned the ship, had refused to contribute to the purchase of the bells, along with a handful of other church members. Some years later, this same ship was reported to have carried the Liberty Bell to America. In another irony, the owner of the vessel that delivered the Liberty Bell was himself tried for treason—more than once. However, David Franks’s life was not all ironies. A meeting of the directors of the Library Company of Philadelphia was held on February 11, 1754. The eight directors in attendance, including Dr.  Thomas Cadwalader, James Mifflin, and Benjamin Franklin, voted unanimously to admit David Franks as a member.64 That year, David paid taxes on his net income valued at £70, a considerable sum in colonial Philadelphia.65 The demise of Nathan Levy left a huge void in David’s business enterprise. Jacob Henry had been acting as his uncle’s assistant—basically as the administrative clerk—but was intent upon sailing to Europe. Henry was probably aware that his cousin Barnard Gratz was coming to America and recommended his services to David. On February 1, 1754, Barnard commenced working for David at an annual salary of £21. He also received an allowance for room and board and was free to engage in “adventures” of his own in pursuit of profit. Thus began the saga of the most prominent Jewish family in Philadelphia history.66 Barnard was frugal and always had some cash handy, which he used to accommodate needed advances to both David and Margaret and to various 22

Family, Friends, and Associates

friends as well. At one point, several years later, his records reflect borrowing from “Little Moses,” who must have been spending time at the store. David was known for going about with little money. His credit was substantial and he lived on it. Barnard’s personal business opportunities grew rapidly, and he established numerous accounts with relatives, friends, and other local merchants, which were all recorded in his account books.67 Of course, David’s close association with Joseph Simon required regular meetings between the key players in the enterprise. Barnard made numerous visits to Lancaster to see Simon and his son-in-law, Levy Andrew Levy. While there, he got to know the Simon family well, and he later became part of that family through marriage.68 For more than five years Barnard labored in David’s employ. Then he learned that his brother Michael sought to come to America from India, where he had gone to seek his fortune. Barnard wanted to strike out on his own, and he informed the family intermediary in London, Solomon Henry, that an opportunity might exist for Michael in Franks’s business. He suggested that Michael could live “here at Mr. David Franks’ in my place, as I intend to leave him [Franks] next Spring, as I’ve wrote for a cargo to Mr. Moses Franks by direction of Mr. David Franks.” He suggested that Michael “could learn the business of this country by staying with him two or three years” and pointed out that “this place requires honesty, industry and good nature, and no pride”—that is, an absence of snobbery. The message was transmitted to Michael, who set sail for America in April 1759. Within three months Barnard was in business for himself, in a store on Water Street between Market and Chestnut, and Michael had moved into his brother’s place in David’s store. Little more than a year later, Barnard removed to larger quarters on Chestnut just “three doors from the corner of Front Street.” The list of commodities available at his new facility was as large and diverse as any to be found at a colonial merchant’s—it was truly a department store.69 Like his sibling before him, Michael distinguished himself in his new assignment and quickly established his “outside business” as well. But there was no mistaking the value of David’s tutelage—in the long run he trained a half-dozen of the most significant merchant-traders in the west. The Gratz brothers achieved great success in their partnership with each other and enjoyed many worthwhile financial ventures with David and Simon and the tight fraternity of western traders close to this group. David’s partnerships with Simon and the Gratz brothers were almost like one integrated organization. Merchandise and credit flowed back and 23

David Franks

forth between each of the group members as needed, and sales were completed and profits amassed without rivalry or jealousy. These ventures were extended to the small army of traders who stretched across western Pennsylvania into Ohio and Indiana and served as field representatives for the home offices. Accounting ledgers at each desk recorded numerous transactions. Many ledger pages were recorded in Hebrew script, which was more familiar to the Gratz brothers but was easily understood by Franks and Simon as well. Simon and Colonel Alexander Lowrey, one of the best-known traders, gained fame from a practice of recording their transactions from memory alone. It is reported that one day, forty years later, they reconciled all their accounts without pen or paper, sitting on tree stumps in the woods and mentally adding and subtracting debits and credits for the entire period. There were no disputes, and the reconciliation was completed in a short time.70 The French and Indian War only increased opportunities for David and his circle. Troops and Indian allies needed supplies that exceeded peacetime demands. A new ship, the snow Two Brothers, was bound for Charleston, South  Carolina, under David’s sponsorship. His latest ship from London brought “a very great variety of woollens and broadcloths, guns, muskets, powder, &c. and all sorts of European and East India goods suitable for the season.”71 As the business grew, the Franks family joined in celebrating the wedding of Margaret’s sister Rebecca to Alexander Barclay in February 1759. Both Rebecca and Barclay had been married previously and both had been widowed. Two young children, a boy and a girl, remained with Barclay after the death of his first wife, Ann. Barclay was the nephew of David Barclay, head of the family firm that became Barclay’s Bank of London. The bank was a major element in financial circles surrounding George III, and Alexander Barclay shared the confidence of William Penn and the entire Penn family. Once again, David’s ties to power and prestige increased.72 By the end of the 1750s, he was poised to undertake his greatest business venture yet.

24

Three

indian affairs, family growth, and supplying the army

David Franks was both a hard-headed businessman and a visionary. He had the advantage of a long and extensive family history in the mercantile arena, which provided him with many mentors, potential partners, and trustworthy associates, not to speak of financial resources and ample credit. He was also quick to see the huge business potential in the vast western reaches of America, including the abundance of furs and the market provided by the many Indian nations. Despite these advantages, David’s eventual fortunes were largely out of his hands and were controlled by forces of which he had limited knowledge and no control. The  world surrounding him and his business activities stretched from the Mississippi River eastward to India. In the middle of the eighteenth century, most of North America west of the Appalachians remained substantially undeveloped. Trappers and backwoodsmen had traversed the area, but few put down roots of any kind. The big prize was fur, and Frenchmen from Canada and Englishmen from the British colonies competed with one another for business with the natives—American Indians—who had the pelts. The French claimed a vast territory from the Great Lakes to the Ohio and Mississippi river valleys, in which they considered the business opportunities theirs alone. As British colonists from the coast moved into these areas, the French first buried a great number of lead markers intended to designate their possession of the areas, and then began to construct a series of forts, including Crown Point on Lake Champlain, and others on the Wabash, Ohio, Mississippi, and Missouri rivers. Not to be outdone, the British built forts at Halifax and Oswego to strengthen the force of their claims to the settled areas. Clearly, conflict was inevitable.1

David Franks

In the early 1750s, British and French diplomats attempted in vain to resolve the burgeoning territorial issues. In 1752 the French embarked upon a campaign to erect more forts at Presque Isle and Waterford. At the same time, British colonial leaders were issuing land grants in disputed territory to individual citizens. Britain demanded that the French leave the upper Allegheny River region, a demand the French rejected summarily. In response, in 1754 the British commenced building a fort at the junction of the Allegheny and Monongahela rivers, from which they were removed forcibly by French troops. Originally called Fort  Prince George by the British, the French renamed it Fort  Duquesne. A  young Virginia officer named George Washington delivered the first demand that the French leave. Washington’s effort to expel the French was defeated, leaving the French in control of the west. This was the first skirmish of the war known in Europe as the Seven Years’ War and in America as the French and Indian War. Numerous engagements took place before war was actually declared in 1756. The war lasted until the British regained control of the areas they sought. A peace treaty was signed in February 1763, nearly thirteen years after the disputes commenced. But this was only part of the story.2 Much of the territory over which the French and British fought belonged to the Six Iroquois Nations—the Mohawk, Oneida, Onondaga, Cayuga, Seneca, and Tuscarora. Other peoples inhabiting the region included the Mingo, Delaware, Shawnee, Wyandot, and Miami (Twightwees). The Indians were generally displeased by the usurpation of their lands and hunting areas, but they recognized that their relative weakness, due to their lack of guns and other advanced weaponry, gave the white intruders a great military advantage. As a result, they negotiated a delicate series of alliances with the current power most likely to be in command of areas they inhabited.3 The trappers and traders who came to the Indians’ western regions were an interesting collection of personalities. More than 250 men from the British colonies were engaged actively in trade with the Indians between 1725 and 1776, with the fur trade peaking between 1745 and 1754. Their reputations varied from the finest of gentlemen to the worst scoundrels. As historian John Arthur Adams noted, “Of the entire list, possibly a score were men noted for their good qualities; at least as many [or] more were notorious for the evil ones; and the remainder were average individuals, neither outstandingly good nor bad.”4 Among the men of good qualities were three whose lives intersected with David Franks’s significantly and were noted for their harmonious and honest relationships with the Indian nations and 26

Indian Affairs, Family Growth

individuals within them—Sir William Johnson, George Croghan, and William Trent. The most notable of these was William Johnson. He had migrated from Ireland sometime in 1738 at about age twenty-three, following a conventional Catholic upbringing. An uncle in the colonies, Admiral Peter Warren, had become wealthy through marriage into the prominent DeLancey family and thanks to illegal trading in liquor and slaves. He offered to sponsor Johnson’s initiation into mercantile activities.5 Warren needed someone he could trust to manage portions of his holdings. He had accumulated vast tracts in New York City and later in the Mohawk River valley. He made promises to young William and persuaded him to cross the ocean and move to the Mohawk country. Under the guidance of Warren, Johnson managed the properties and commenced a small amount of trading with the Mohawk tribe. Over time, he succeeded not only in developing the property but in making friends with the Indians to the point that he was accepted as a member and a sachem of the Iroquois. He adopted Mohawk dress and manners and began to exert major influence within the Iroquois hierarchy.6 Admiral Warren told government officials in London of Johnson’s exploits with more than a little pride, suggesting that he should be rewarded for his success in bringing this powerful confederation over to the British side.7 As historian Richard Aquila notes, it was in the best interest of the Iroquois, “lying as they did between two powerful nations each able to exterminate them and both interested in doing so when they no longer needed their help,” to prevent either side from winning.8 This desire for neutrality made Johnson’s task quite challenging. Nevertheless, serving as commissioner of Indian affairs in New York and later as superintendent of Indian affairs in all the northern colonies, Johnson was largely successful at keeping the Iroquois on the British side. This was crucial for his nation, as nearly all other Indian nations actively supported the French before, during, and even after the French and Indian War. When appointed superintendent of Indian affairs, Johnson took as his assistant George Croghan, another of the traders with “good qualities,” who engaged in numerous partnerships with David Franks over a period of nearly thirty years. George Croghan’s biographer considers him “the man who played the most prominent part in the highly important and significant phase [1750 –75] of the western movement of Anglo-Saxon civilization [in America].”9 This accolade pertained to a variety of Croghan’s accomplishments and characteristics. In an age when Indian traders were extremely enterprising, he had probably the largest individual business in rural Pennsylvania. 27

David Franks

Croghan learned to speak both the Delaware and Iroquois languages and understood and respected their customs. Further, and “most important of all, was the fact that he regarded the Indian, not as a dog, but as a human being.”10 However, his linguistic ability was restricted to verbal discourse. There is no evidence that he received any formal education, and it is quite easy to determine which of his letters were written by Croghan himself and which were prepared by some other scribe for his signature. In a letter to General Monckton’s aide, Captain Horatio Gates, Croghan bragged of his efforts, “Sence I parted Gineral Stanwix att Bedferd I have had a Conference with ye Shaunas [Shawnees] in ye presents of 500 Indians of Different Nations A Copey of Which Major Tulikan Tuck Down with him which I make No Doubt you have Seen.”11 Just two weeks later Gates received a very different letter from Croghan: “Yesterday I was favoured with yours of the 7th Instant [May 1760] by Brigadier General Monckton’s orders; and you may ashure the General  I will continue to promote the good of his Majesty’s Indian Interest as far as in my Power and with as much frugality as the service will admit of.”12 Years later, Colonel Henry Bouquet described Croghan as “illiterate.” But formal illiteracy did not deter Croghan’s career any more than the other factors standing in his way: his aggressive behavior, the decline in the fur trade, and fierce competition from French traders. The third of David Franks’s frontier colleagues was William Trent. Trent’s origins were far more distinguished than Croghan’s. A minor partner of William Penn and his deputy James Logan, Trent’s father achieved considerable success as a merchant in Philadelphia. He enjoyed significant political positions and was a pillar of Christ Church. Young Trent probably had the option to follow in his father’s footsteps but chose to venture beyond the colony’s settled communities. Unlike Croghan, he was a gifted scribe, served as secretary to treaty gatherings, and kept a useful journal of a military campaign some years later. He entered into trade with the Indians and into frontier land speculation. At numerous times in his career he was conscripted for military service for the British army, the Virginia militia, and the Pennsylvania colonial forces. Always an officer, he enjoyed positions as captain and major, and his superiors appreciated his service. He was just beginning his business dealings in 1746 when he was first called up to serve in the Pennsylvania militia—without any training or experience. Mustered out the following year, Trent commenced trading with Indians and acting as an agent for both Virginia and Pennsylvania in dealings with the natives. Here he first met Croghan and a number of other frontier traders, including Andrew Montour, Robert Callender, and Michael Teaffe. The conventional 28

Indian Affairs, Family Growth

method of dealing with the Indians was to ingratiate oneself with them by giving them gifts. This technique had been perfected by William Johnson and extended by Croghan. Trent learned fast and entered into a partnership with Croghan that lasted, for all intents and purposes, for the rest of their lives.13 In order to commence trading, stores of merchandise useful as gifts and as barter material were obtained from merchants who specialized in this form of supply business. Goods were provided on consignment, with payment to follow the development of profit. The  two leading firms in the western Indian trade were Baynton and Wharton and the combination of Levy and Franks in partnership with Simon and Levy of Lancaster. Simon was David’s longtime associate. Levy Andrew Levy was a young partner of Simon, while Baynton and Wharton employed a youthful soldier-trader named Captain George Morgan to be their field representative. Morgan, an orphan, had joined the firm as an apprentice at about age thirteen in 1756, soon becoming the company clerk. Like Levy and Franks, Baynton and Wharton first owned a mercantile establishment in Philadelphia, from which they branched out. Soon they began commercial trading in a variety of locations worldwide and became a truly international enterprise. But, as historian Max Savelle writes, “their really great interest lay in the Indian trade; for in business with the Indians the greatest profits were to be won.”14 Baynton and Wharton prospered, and they added Morgan as a full partner in 1763. Their competition with the Franks partnership was direct and intense.15 William Trent, meanwhile, developed a working relationship with both firms. Trent was employed by the Virginia colony to help manage Indian trade and to investigate uncontrolled settlement of areas claimed by Pennsylvania, Virginia, and France in what is now western Pennsylvania. While so engaged, Trent was also able to pursue his own private businesses alone and in partnerships. While he was connected to the Franks interests, over time his ties to Morgan and Wharton grew progressively stronger.16 The period from 1749 to 1763 proved dangerous and costly to the traders and merchants. Repeated attacks by the French and their Indian allies resulted in continuing losses of merchandise and, in some cases, of life itself. In 1754 the losses were particularly severe and extended to more than two dozen of the most prominent British traders, including Trent, Croghan, Callender, Teaffe, and Simon’s friends, Daniel and Alexander Lowrey. The Lowreys experienced losses to robbery in 1749, 1752, and 1753, and were finally bankrupted when most of their goods were lost in 1754. They 29

David Franks

then obtained from Simon and Franks a two-year moratorium on their debts without interest, using a plantation in Donegal Township as collateral. Croghan was probably also bankrupt. These were indeed dark days for the western tradesmen. The  group collaborated by filing individual petitions detailing their losses and combining these petitions into one appeal under the name the “Sufferers of 1754.” Trent was appointed to gather a collection of the affidavits. In April 1756 a petition to the king addressed the consolidated losses of twenty-two individuals and groups of traders and asked that the French and Indians be forced to compensate them. Basically, they sought a share of the money received from the sale of French cargoes captured by British naval vessels. The total of these so-called prizes caught by the navy amounted to £650,000. The traders’ claims amounted to a little more than £48,572.17 Some of these losses were staggering. Croghan claimed more than £8,000 in personal losses, twice that of any other trader. In partnership with Trent, he claimed an additional £6,500, and another £2,500 in partnership with Trent, Callender, and Teaffe. All told, Croghan’s losses were about onefourth of the total. In reality, the losses were not only his and his associates’: all of the lost goods were held by the traders on consignment from Franks and Simon, who actually lost the bulk of funds from goods pillaged by the French and Indians. Franks and Simon pursued various avenues of recompense for these losses over the next fourteen or fifteen years.18 Unfortunately, the costs of the war defined many other priorities for that money, and the petitioners received no answer. A second petition got the same response. Eventually, they concluded that compensation in the form of money would never be obtained, and they began efforts to secure a land grant appropriate to the scope of their losses. Several traders in the group expressed unwillingness to fulfill their debts to the merchants who had consigned goods to them until they were themselves reimbursed for losses. This had to be a concern for David Franks. Croghan and Trent attempted over time to clear their indebtedness with land grants to David and others. But the group’s efforts to obtain remuneration for their losses continued for years.19 Despite his losses on the frontier, David Franks’s business flourished, as his other expenses demonstrated. He contributed to the establishment of a hospital for “Relief of the Sick Poor and Cure of Lunaticks.”20 In March 1755 David moved his place of business to Water Street, taking over the house of the recently departed Thomas Lawrence. He advertised a huge number of items for sale, featuring clothing, cloth, and other materials for 30

Indian Affairs, Family Growth

making clothing, household items of all sorts, tools, furniture, foodstuffs, and toiletries.21 Following General James Braddock’s defeat, David agreed to pay his subscription share of £5,000, along with a number of other prominent Philadelphians, to make unnecessary a tax passed to cover the costs of defending the colony.22 Writing to his sister, Lady Susan Warren (widow of Admiral Peter Warren), in England, Oliver DeLancey explained the situation: The Defeat of General Braddock has been attended with very bad Consequences as it Encouraged the French & Indians to Make dayly Incursions into Philadelphia Maryland  & Virginia and one into N Jersey where they have Destroy’d Some Houses & Murdered Some Familys  I am now bussied in sending Arms  & Ammunition by the Governors Order to Orange & Ulster Countys that Lay Next to Jersey to Enable the Inhabitants to Repell the Savages.23 Peter Warren’s expressed fears of the combined force of the French and Indians proved to be justified; Governor Morris of Pennsylvania had real cause to raise funds for defense. In April 1756 David paid his dues, till then in arrears, to Shearith Israel, totaling £2 18s. 9d. Likewise, Joseph Simons settled his delinquency of £1 12s. 3d.24 In May, David’s mother, Abigaill Levy Franks, passed away. Jacob made arrangements for escaba prayers to memorialize his wife’s death in perpetuity at Shearith Israel. No record remains to confirm David’s attendance at the funeral or whether he observed the traditional mourning period at his father’s house. Abigaill’s vow to “have the appearance” of throwing him from her heart had surely intruded upon their relationship in the dozen years after his marriage. Very little remains in written form to fill in the blanks of their ties; it had been eight years since Abigaill’s last letter to Naphtali. Records at Shearith Israel show no special donations from David to mark the occasion. For that matter, neither are there records of special donations by Moses or Naphtali, her two favorites.25 A daughter, Richa, was born to Margaret and David on June 6, 1756, only to pass away six months later—their third child lost to grave illness. As their first daughter was already named Abigail, the child had not been named for her recently deceased grandmother. It is likely that smallpox took the life of little Richa. DeLancey wrote to his sister in October that “the Small Pox is Spreading Here on which I am Determined to have my three Youngest Inoculated and will try to Influence My Brother Peter to Do 31

David Franks

the Same.” In the same letter he wrote of his election as a member of the assembly in New York and of his desire to send his eldest son to England to attend a country boarding school. He asked for his sister’s assistance in getting this accomplished and referred her to two close friends, William Baker and “Moses Franks [who] will Do any thing in his Power that Can Serve me in the Care of Him.”26 Clearly, Abigaill Franks’s anger over her daughter’s marriage to DeLancey did not interfere with DeLancey’s friendship with other members of the family. On New Year’s Day 1757, David and Philadelphian Michael Moses signed a contract to enter a “Joint Trade or Copartnership” in the “Trade or Mistery of a Tallow Chandler and Soap Boiler.” David was to provide the funding and Michael would run the business, each to share the profits equally. Apparently David did not fear overreaching his span of control. His ambition and energy seem never to have stretched beyond appropriate limits. There is no evidence that he knew much about the candle-and-soap business, but the enterprise survived for twelve years, three of them after the death of Michael Moses.27 In January 1757, Jacob Franks’s house was robbed. The stolen items were described in a newspaper notice and included silver candlesticks, a chased salver, a plain salver, a plain round waiter with “the arms of the late Sir Peter Warren engraved on the middle,” a chased coffeepot, and a chased teapot. The serving tray was probably left to Jacob by the admiral in his will, or it could have been a gift from one of the DeLanceys, who had acquired it by inheritance. Most significant was how the tie between Jacob and Oliver grew stronger as time healed the rift created by Phila’s wedding outside the faith. Abigaill had passed away, but a memento from a DeLancey was never expected to be found inside her home.28 The “List of Belles and Dames of Philadelphia fashionables, of about the year 1757, An original list for the ball of the City Assembly,” included Mrs. David Franks. Still a charming couple, and flush with both social and mercantile accomplishments, Margaret and David decided to have one more child before they turned forty. Rebecca, always known as Becky, was born on March 24, 1758, and went on to become the best known of the Franks children. Margaret noted in the family prayer book that she was born on both Good Friday and Purim.29 Moreover, although Abby, Polly, and Jacob had all been baptized at Christ Church, there is no evidence that Moses or Becky were likewise given the church’s blessing.30 Family matters and business issues continued to dominate the Franks household through the late 1750s, but war was never far away. Sir Jeffrey 32

Indian Affairs, Family Growth

Amherst had yet to arrive in North America to assume his position as commander in chief of the British army in America when, on May 1, 1758, David received an order, his first known correspondence, from George Washington, who wrote requesting “as much green half-thick’s, as will make indian-leggings for 1,000 men: if green can not be had, get white; if there is not enough of that, then get any other colour. Two proper English pack-saddles, for carrying field-baggage on; and four wanteys [saddlebags] suited to ditto. Three leading-halters. A travelling letter-case, with stands for ink, wafers, &c. A pair of light shoe-boots, round toes, without linings, and jockey-tops made of thin, english calf-skin, by the enclosed measure. A hair cloth [trunk], to go under a field-bed. Half a dozen china cups and saucers.” Toward the end of the letter Washington added, “I must beg to know how our [Virginia] paper money passes with you; for I suppose I shall be under the necessity of paying in that currency, having little of another kind with us.”31 This is the earliest record of a direct business connection between Franks and the military. Colonel Washington, then commander in chief of the Virginia militia, was preparing for General John Forbes’s assault on Fort  Duquesne in the autumn. The  following month, David wrote to Washington, “I had pr Spore the please of a letter of 18th Inst. with £.196,15.2, Supposed to be from you, there being no name Sign’d.” David enclosed receipts for the items he sent and expressed his hope that “the Pack Saddles are Right Sort.” He concluded, “I wish you a Successful Campaign, & with great Respect, I am . . .”32 Britain had determined to take control of North America, and in February 1758 a fleet of 157 ships was launched with General Jeffrey Amherst’s eleven thousand men on board. In June the assault upon Louisburg was initiated, and the British succeeded in capturing the fortress and destroying the bulk of the French fleet in little less than two months.33 Concurrently, forces under Amherst’s command conquered Fort  Ticonderoga and took over the fort at Crown Point, which had been abandoned. In these engagements David’s brother-in-law, Oliver DeLancey, led a five-thousand-man militia contingent from the colony of New York.34 Hundreds of miles away in western Pennsylvania, General John Forbes made preparations for an attack on the French-Indian stronghold at Fort  Duquesne. His officers, including Bouquet, Braddock, and George Washington, were busily engaged in procuring food, horses, and wagons for the campaign. Forbes displayed an irascible nature in the face of complex and rapidly changing field conditions and was quick to criticize 33

David Franks

shortcomings among his staff members. Even Washington did not escape a scolding for second-guessing Forbes’s selected route to Fort  Duquesne, through Pennsylvania rather than Virginia—both colonies claimed the territory in question. The battle for the fort went on through the fall, concluding with Forbes’s victory at the end of November.35 Following the battles for Louisburg and Ticonderoga, Amherst relocated to New York to assume his position as commander in chief of British forces in North America. Oliver DeLancey assumed command of the New York militia and prepared to take “2680 Men[,] Many Young Gentlemen” with him into battle.36 Over time, DeLancey rose to the rank of brigadier general in the Royal Army. His three brigades remained together, albeit with sharply reduced numbers, throughout the period 1758 –77. Among DeLancey’s officers was Captain Thomas William Moore, a native of Pennsylvania and a cousin of Margaret Franks on her mother’s side. Throughout this period DeLancey served as a long-distance financial advisor to his sister Susan in London, and he continued to refer her to William and Richard Baker and Moses Franks. While managing her property, he was able to rent a large holding of hers to Christopher Kilby, a partner of the Baker brothers who resided in New York.37 Since 1756 the firm of Baker, Kilby and Baker had been under contract to the British Treasury for “victualing” the British armed forces in North America. The initial order provided for twelve thousand men for six months, and as these stores were depleted, replacements were to be acquired so that the ability to feed that number of troops for the specified period was maintained.38 Over time, the war had expanded to include additional forts and troop stations, and the number of British soldiers in North America had doubled. Kilby, the partner on the spot in North America, was overwhelmed. In 1758 he complained, “I am not in Health Enough to reduce this Letter into Narrow Compass.”39 The point should have been clear to Amherst. Enormous difficulties plagued the attempt to satisfy the complex contract—the dearth of supplies in the colonies, the weak supply chain from overseas, the changing quantity requirements, and the impact of tactical considerations on the manner of delivery. Amherst was certainly aware that General Forbes had complained on more than one occasion about the service he was getting from Baker, Kilby and Baker’s field representatives. Forbes had written that Kilby’s agents might be “extream good people in their way, and very proper for providing a Garrison of 100 men,” but their “Ideas & ways of judging of things are so narrow and Contracted, that all my Rhetorick Cannot drive it into their 34

Indian Affairs, Family Growth

Heads that it is better for me to have a months provisions over, as that the Army should run a risque of being stopt for the want of one days Subsisting.” Not surprisingly, in September 1759 William and Richard Baker sent a letter to the lords of the Treasury giving the required six months’ notice of their withdrawal from the contract.40 Oliver DeLancey reported the event to his sister in London. “Mr. Baker & Kilby My Good Friends have Resign’d the Contract for Victualling His Majesties Troops in North America,” he wrote, adding, “it would be Easy Through the Interest of Col Fitzroy [Susan’s future son-in-law] to Get me named one of the New Contractors on which head youl be so Good as Consult Mr Wm Baker whose friendship to Me has always been so Singular that I don’t Doubt he will do every Thing in His Power to Promote My Interest & Welfare.” The prize was huge, and DeLancey was very interested.41 DeLancey’s hopes were realized. On December 20, 1759, a new contract was drawn for victualing the British troops in the colonies. In England, the contracting consortium included Sir James Colebrooke, George Colebrooke, Arnold Nesbitt, and Moses Franks,  Esq.42 These prime contractors made DeLancey’s father-in-law, Jacob Franks, their principal agent in the colonies, with subordinates in New  York, Philadelphia, and Charles Town, South Carolina, to perform the necessary work. In New York the firm of DeLancey and Watts was retained to supply New York, New Jersey, and Massachusetts. Pennsylvania and the territories to the west would be serviced by David Franks in partnership with William Plumsted in Philadelphia. In Charles Town, the firm of Smith and Nutt would continue its service in the southern areas, as it had for the previous contractors. In addition, General Amherst contracted separately with Plumsted and Franks to provide other services, including carriages and wagons, for Fort  Pitt and other posts at Carlisle, Ligonier, and Bedford, Pennsylvania. These contracts constituted a significant portion of colonial trade with the outlying territories. At a time when the total accumulated assets of an artisan were normally less than £100 sterling, the new contract promised some £10,000 sterling per month for the contractors. Oliver DeLancey estimated the profits to be “about £20,000 St. for every 30,000 men for 9 months supply.”43 Of course, the tangled web of personal relationships between the members of this supply team exerted significant influence upon the conduct of contractual activities. Brothers Moses and David Franks were Jacob’s sons, and Oliver DeLancey was Jacob’s son-in-law. Despite the difficult relationship between Jacob and his daughter Phila, his respect for the power and 35

David Franks

capability of the DeLancey family kept the partnership alive. John Watts and Moses Franks had been schoolmates and were very close friends. Watts was married to Oliver DeLancey’s youngest sister, Anne. Not a relative, William Plumsted had just completed a term as mayor of Philadelphia and had connections with the leading business organizations in that city. Every member of the group maintained a position of personal power in his local community. In combination, they constituted a formidable agency. And they all knew one another well and embarked upon the new adventure with gusto. As Baker, Kilby and Baker phased out, Kilby tried to have his agents and subcontractors secure similar portions of the future contract. He was successful with Smith and Nutt. But he lamented the situation in Philadelphia, “where Messrs. Plumsted & Franks are Appointed to Act instead of Joshua Howell, whose merit and experience has not been understood or is overlookt by the new Principals.”44 Kilby may have been right, but General Forbes was less than pleased with Howell’s performance during the late stages of the war. Personal relationships won out over long and devoted service, to the benefit of David Franks. In February 1760, at the outset of the new contract, Plumsted sent a letter to Colonel Henry Bouquet, the commanding officer at Fort Pitt and Carlisle, introducing the firm to the colonel. Plumsted confessed sheepishly, “as we are in a great degree Strangers to the methods used in the supplying the Army to request if your time will permit you may give us some more instructions.” Bouquet responded directly, indicating that General Robert Monckton would make decisions about the quantities of merchandise to be ordered once General Amherst had decided on the deployment of troops for the next campaign. He closed with a promise to help the new suppliers in any way possible. Contact between Franks and Plumsted and the army would thus involve three chief officers. While Amherst was still the commanding general, he delegated a great deal of responsibility to General Robert Monckton. Monckton in turn depended heavily upon Bouquet. Unfortunately, communications among the three and the contractors were not instantaneous, and delivery lapses were responsible for more than one misunderstanding.45 Plumsted and Franks began supplying the Fort  Pitt and Carlisle locations. At the same time, Franks connected with other partners and associates of his and accelerated his commercial trading in the western territories. On May 16, 1760, Joseph Simon, Levy Andrew Levy, William Trent, and Franks entered into articles of agreement as partners in the western fur trade. The agreement, intended to last for nine years, was structured as an 36

Indian Affairs, Family Growth

“adventure” in which the individuals were not constrained from engaging in other business ventures. Thus the firm of Franks, Trent, Simon and Company was established and operated out of headquarters in Lancaster, Simon’s home base, maintaining a retail outlet in Pittsburgh. Trent continued to pursue his duties with the English military forces.46 Franks’s business life flourished on every front. In May 1760, Plumsted and Franks signed a contract with General Monckton to supply live cattle rather than salted meat to the troops stationed at distant forts, including Carlisle and Pitt. This necessitated driving herds of cattle and hogs over great distances. Additionally, it was agreed that “proper Pens, Pastures etc. shall be provided and grass Guards about,” and that “all Persons employed by the Agents for the Contractors such as Clerks, Issuers, Butchers, Drovers and all Servants be allowed the Kings Provisions.” These arrangements were intended to preclude what the British considered excessive costs for the transportation of salted meat. The contract provided protection to Plumsted and Franks against losses from “[cattle] being overdrove by Events or kill’d or taken by the enemy.” Finally, Plumsted and Franks’s employees were to be shielded from “lies, any Insults being offer’d to the Clerks & Issuers, or Imbezlement made of the Provisions.” The  Crown was to bear the cost of the salt required for the preservation and curing of meat at the several posts. Prices were set for meat delivered to Carlisle and Pittsburgh, with an additional fee for unspecified locations beyond those forts that might be established in the future. This contract with General Monckton ensured considerable protection for Plumsted and Franks against the onerous costs of delivery to remote locations. They grew to depend upon this agreement and were extremely pleased with their success at the negotiating table.47 While Plumsted and Franks were starting up, Baker, Kilby and Baker were busily surveying residual stores and making arrangements for the final sale of their existing assets to the Crown or their transfer to the new contractors. Various surveys were being made by the two contractor organizations and the army. Adam Hoops, acting on behalf of Baker, Kilby and Baker, informed Colonel Bouquet that John Read, the deputy commissary of stores and provisions for the army, was also conducting a survey of the provisions that remained at the various western posts. Robert Cummins, Dr. Thomas Walker, and Thomas Donellan, all agents for Plumsted and Franks, took part in portions of the surveys. Read issued a report on April 10, 1760, showing that, apart from Fort Pitt and Fort Bedford, very few stores remained for the army. In England, Colebrooke and Franks, using the reports of their agents, were performing their own surveys and assessments, which led to 37

David Franks

some unpleasant exchanges. Almost a year after the contract was in force, Samuel Martin of the British Treasury wrote to Baker, Kilby and Baker, informing them that George Colebrooke and Moses Franks had complained to the Treasury that “the two Provinces of New York and Pennsylvania are overloaded with an Enormous quantity of Butter and Rice sufficient to serve upwards of 50,000 Men for Six Months.” Such amounts were clearly outside the parameters of the contractual delivery rates, and now, as residual stores, appeared to constitute potential waste. William Baker responded politely, but his anger simmered beneath the surface: “we thought it ought to be so in the begining of every Summer, because Butter and Rice are not to be replenisht in the course of the campaign as other species may be.” He added, “it was then the only means of subsisting the Army.” In closing, he grumbled that the excess, “if an inconvenience, should I conceive, have been mention’d at first when it must have been as well known as 6 or 8 Months Afterwards.”48 This was one of the early shots fired in the ensuing battle over residual stores. A number of complex questions attended the provisions remaining at the end of the Baker, Kilby and Baker contract. Was the food edible or spoiled? How much of each commodity was in store, and how long would it last? Who owned it—had certificates been issued to the victualers, or did it still belong on their books? What troop complement was expected at the various posts—were troop movements planned that would render these quantities excessive or inadequate? What agency was to pay for them, the Treasury, the army, or the colony? If the contractor’s agents owned the stores, what would the incoming agents pay for them, and what, in turn, would the army pay? The extent to which these questions were addressed in victualing contracts was negligible, and everyone forged ahead under the assumption that reason would prevail. But each party had a different idea of what “reason” meant.

38

Four

commercial adventures

Involvement in the army supply activity did not preclude forays into other business ventures. David Franks had begun selling insurance for ship cargoes in 1757. An interesting series of communications between Franks and a client, Philip Cuyler, recorded the solicitation and purchase of a policy and the subsequent loss of goods that were taken to Louisburg by impressment for the military campaign there. Their value was recovered to Cuyler’s satisfaction, but the process took nine months. Franks got his commission.1 New  York residents continued to give him power of attorney to recover funds from people who had left the colony without paying their debts. He advertised regularly the sale of imported goods, and in 1759 added “Carolina tann leather” to his list of wares. Some months later, his ships brought “an assortment of European and India Goods, suitable for this and Fall Season. Also best Rice, Soal [sole] Leather, Beaver, and the very best Sweet Oil” for sale at his store in Water Street.2 Going far afield of these conventional activities, a November 1760 newspaper advertisement offered rewards for the delivery of twenty-nine deserters from “His Majestys First Regiment of Foot, commanded by the Honourable Lieutenant General James St. Clair.” Lieutenant Richard Marshall of the regiment in New York or David Franks of Philadelphia would issue appropriate rewards when the miscreants were properly put in “goal.”3 Names, descriptions, and reward values were given for each man. Franks posted a reward of $800 (Pennsylvania money) in December for the capture of one Myer Levy, recently of New Jersey, who had “absconded” with at least £2,300 belonging to creditors. Nearly a dozen agents, including David and Barnard Gratz, were authorized to issue the reward.4

David Franks

Franks had given Barnard the opportunity to contract with the Pennsylvania colonial government to provide silver gifts for Indians attending the Easton treaty sessions in 1758. Franks had purchased the items and given them to Barnard on consignment. A year passed without payment. At Barnard’s urging, Reverend Richard Peters, secretary of the province, wrote to Richard Hockley, the colony’s receiver general, “I desire Mr. David Franks may be paid instantly the same Ninety five pounds.” Barnard made payment to David’s account the next day.5 From Savannah, Georgia, came a power of attorney from the partnership of John Morel and Thomas Hooper authorizing David to track down Captain Thomas Bruce and collect the remaining £18 of the debt he had incurred with them some months back. Morel and Hooper were trying to dissolve their partnership and needed to clear all outstanding debts so that the division of assets could commence. Back in March 1760, Captain Bruce had been introduced to Barnard Gratz in a letter from his friend Captain Isaac Martin, aboard his sloop Esther, docked at Savannah. In May, Bruce wrote to Barnard describing the “revolt of ye Creek Indians” and the killing of several acquaintances, and announcing his intentions to get away. Bruce’s contact with the Gratz group probably pinpointed his location for Morel and Hooper and made the connection to David logical. That Bruce intended to return to Savannah was probably unknown to them; they just wanted their money so they could dissolve their firm. Whether that debt was ever collected remains a mystery.6 The extended Franks family continued to depend upon David for legal and paralegal services. David’s cousin Henry Benjamin Franks passed away in December 1758; he had named David executor of his will and specified that David and his father should determine the distribution of assets among the surviving mother, brothers, and sisters. David’s deposition regarding the veracity of the will read in part, “being a Jew, Duly sworn on the five Books of Moses.” At this juncture David was thirty-eight years old, had been married to Margaret for fifteen years, and had been attending Anglican services with her all that time—while maintaining his membership in New York’s Shearith Israel. Shortly thereafter, David advertised that individuals should bring their claims against the estate and announced the sale of shop and household goods at Henry’s former home in “Mountholly,” near York, Pennsylvania. Credit was offered to those purchasing “above Twenty Shillings Value.” Beyond the family, numerous out-of-towners became aware of David’s services in debt settlement and employed his services, either alone or in partnership with others, to recover sums of money. One client, Judge 40

Commercial Adventures

Benjamin Grymes of Spotsylvania, Virginia, had a reputation for contentiousness and hired David to recover funds associated with the sale of a vessel, the Arnold, plus some other uncollected debts. Grymes was at one time seated in the Virginia House of Burgesses.7 In addition to these activities, Franks’s passionate pursuit continued to be the fur trade. With the conquest of the west, writes historian Howard Douds, “competition for the flourishing Indian trade began in earnest in 1760. One of the largest private shops was that run by William Trent and Levy Andrew Levy who were the resident partners of the Lancaster firm of Joseph Simon and David Franks.”8 Franks and George Croghan purchased large quantities of broaches, gorgets (throat ornaments), crosses, and bracelets fashioned by well-known silversmiths in Philadelphia to be used as gifts to Indians when opening trade. But despite Simon and Franks’s early entry and apparent advantage in the Pittsburgh area, leadership of the English trade in the Illinois country, and for that matter in most of the western region, was vested in the firm of Baynton and Wharton.9 In the aggregate, David’s fortunes blossomed during the early part of the 1760s, and life was good. His son Jacob entered the preparatory school at the College of Philadelphia in 1760. One year later, his younger son, Moses, followed. From its establishment in 1757, the student body had consisted of sons from the very best families in and around Philadelphia, and it was a mark of distinction to be matriculated there. In a city of some fifteen thousand people, only twenty-nine owned carriages, of whom ten owned more than one; David Franks owned two.10 Franks was also a member of the Mount Regale Fishing Company, composed of the most influential men in Philadelphia—sixty in all, among them Governor Hamilton, Lieutenant Governor Penn, and numerous political dignitaries. Franks, accomplished on the violin, was a regular member of the musical circle, which included Ben Franklin’s son-in-law, Richard Bache, merchant Charles Batho, music dealer Michael Hillegas, and Reverend Richard Peters, who met to play chamber music at the homes of Francis Hopkinson, Dr. Adam Kuhn, and John Penn.11 All of this would have been sufficiently exciting and satisfying for most men, but David’s biggest challenge and greatest accomplishments were yet to come—in his service for the British army. Jeffrey Amherst held both strong and strange opinions about many issues, but he was not a stupid man. Outgoing victualer Christopher Kilby warned him of possible confusion and leaks in the system during the transition, before Franks and his partners were fully operational. The  general ought 41

David Franks

to make sure that all the supplies contractors claimed to have delivered to the army actually got there, Kilby advised—that cows were healthy and fat, for instance—and that food was not shipped to the enemy in Canada or the West Indies by illegal traders, who could make huge profits through clandestine trade.12 Amherst sent an overblown thank-you note to Kilby, wishing him well on his return to England and saying all the right things about how good their relationship had been and how much Kilby would be missed.13 But the general had a number of more pressing concerns on his mind. One of these was his relationship with the Indians, a subject he addressed in a speech to several Indian nations in late April. Attempting to sound paternal, he promised fairness. “Brethren, as I have nothing more at heart than the good and welfare of the whole community, I do assure all the Indian nations, that his Majesty has not sent me to deprive you of your lands and property.” He told them that as long as they behaved, they would be part of the king’s “family,” but if not, they would be subject to severe punishment. He tried to promote the concept that the French were the enemy and that the British and Indians should present one unified force.14 In fact, however, Amherst had little regard for the Indians; he considered them backward, primitive savages and loathed the need to curry their favor. He explained to his second in command, General Robert Monckton, “There is no guarding against the treachery of the Indians, so long as they have any connection with the French, we may expect they will scalp or carry off any single man or small party, that will expose themselves to their villainy.”15 Of course, prosecution of the war was still Amherst’s highest priority. Wolfe’s victory at Quebec was important, but as of mid-1760 the French still controlled Montreal and much of the rest of Canada. Colonel Henry Bouquet, who commanded Fort  Pitt and the Ohio Valley region, raised concerns about road access from the east to the fort and recommended construction of a second route to complement Forbes’s Road. He urged haste in taking advantage of colonial troops still in service; should the war end, they would all return home before the project was completed. The importance of holding on to Fort Pitt could not be overemphasized in light of continued Indian hostility on the frontier.16 Under Bouquet and Monckton, the western region was being fortified and staffed. Most important, Amherst was leading a large and potent force against French forces in Canada, which by September finally conquered Montreal. Richard Peters, writing to Monckton from Philadelphia, offered two news items involving David Franks and his family: Amherst had sent Captain Oliver DeLancey, recently pressed 42

Commercial Adventures

into active duty, to New York to settle the estate of his recently departed brother, Lieutenant Governor James DeLancey; and David Franks denied any involvement in providing rum to the Indians at several forts where Colonel Bouquet had complained about their perpetual drunkenness.17 As the war and Indian relations progressed, so did the process of getting the new victualing contractors on board. Old accounts were being evaluated and paid off; interim arrangements were quickly made to fill gaps between the termination of old and the commencement of new contracts. Robert Callender (one of the “Suffering Traders” from the 1754 losses) and his partner, Barnabas Hughes, sought payment of £1,806 for the use and loss of packhorses in 1759.18 Their account for the first third of 1760 amounted to £16,588.19 Dr. Thomas Walker, a prominent Virginian who later served an extended period as a subcontractor for David, was solicited and agreed to victual one thousand men at Pittsburgh during the changeover, using contacts in his home state.20 Walker was a jack-of-all-trades who was active as a “physician and surgeon, surveyor, commissary, soldier and legislator, explorer and colonizer, treaty negotiator, politician and diplomat.” He served under Washington during the French and Indian War and held a seat in the Virginia House of Burgesses. In the late 1740s he settled into the business of a merchant, which brought him to the service of the western troops. With Walker’s participation, evaluation of residual stores continued at all of the forts.21 During this time, Plumsted and Franks were preparing to enter the system. Colonel Bouquet continued to rely upon his loyal civilian assistant and agent Adam Hoops for information, on-the-scene observation, and supportive action. Hoops had been the resident field agent for Baker, Kilby and Baker and knew the system for getting foodstuffs to the forts. Hoops’s experience as a trader was invaluable, and Bouquet easily overlooked his narrow perspective and functional illiteracy in order to benefit from what he did best. By mid-March 1760, Hoops was able to report that some of Walker’s hogs had reached Fort Bedford and Fort Cumberland and that a Plumsted and Franks representative, Robert Cummins, was on board at Carlisle. On the side, Hoops continued to represent the Bakers and Kilby, sending a request for substantial payment to General John Stanwix for the firm. Part of Hoops’s memorial discussed the effects of salt losses at the forts occasioned by porous storage conditions, excessive rain, and occasional flooding. As a result, pork and beef could not be butchered and preserved by conventional means, and severe (and costly) losses of meat resulted. The solution, though inadequate, consisted of driving smaller herds to the forts and serving fresh 43

David Franks

meat throughout the year. Though it succeeded functionally, this practice turned out to be expensive.22 General Monckton had already become aware of the problem and contracted separately with Plumsted and Franks for delivery of “Live Cattle at the several Posts.” A new set of rates and fees was established for the revised program, setting different payments at each fort depending upon the distance and difficulty of shipment. Provisions for animal pens and forage were established. Plumsted and Franks were required to maintain staff at each site, including “Clerks, Issuers, Butchers, Drovers and Servants,” who were entitled to victuals at the same rate as troops. Interestingly, the contract specified that “Special Orders shall be given to the Officers Commanding at the several Posts to prevent as much as in them lies, any Insults being offer’d to the Clerks & Issuers, or Imbezlement made of the Provisions.” Both locals and troops could make considerable money on the side by selling pilfered provisions.23 Dr.  Walker completed his efforts for Colonel Bouquet and submitted bills showing that he had obtained about 10 percent of the materials from Plumsted and Franks.24 At the end of May, David Franks advertised extensively for wagons and drivers to transport foodstuffs from Philadelphia to Lancaster, Carlisle, Fort Bedford, Fort Ligonier, and Pittsburgh. Two weeks later, another ad explained that General Monckton disapproved of wagon drivers’ stopping at their homes or along the road to rest after acquiring “Loads of King Stores,” and that henceforth those who were guilty of this practice would be punished. The troops needed to eat on a regular basis, based on shipments that were expected to arrive at scheduled times.25 The better to oversee operations, Franks went to Carlisle, probably for the first time.26 He later traveled to the forts whenever problems arose or changes were anticipated. One month later Hoops anxiously reported a letter from Plumsted in which he was criticized for serving smaller portions to the troops than the contract specified. “I never knew that there was any Alteration made & (if I remember right) you told me that Nine pound of Flour & Eight pound of Beef was the Weekly Allowance.” He lacked (or could not read) a written instruction and feared the possibility that the general might be upset.27 In October Hoops was distressed even further, reporting to Bouquet from Fort Pitt that disputes had arisen between the former contractors and himself over residual amounts of provisions they had supplied. In a particularly unintelligible message, he told the colonel, “I wold Be glad to Now when you think of Coming Down to ye Inhabents . . . they [Baker 44

Commercial Adventures

and Kilby] now Demand som Reset [receipt] for pchings [provisions] wich Remened In store ye first of Jun 1759.” He punctuated the letter with the observation that their behavior was not what he would expect from honest men.28 Despite his difficulties with language, Hoops was extremely successful and enjoyed the full confidence of Colonel Bouquet, whom he served as agent for many years. There is little doubt that Bouquet would have sided with Hoops in this dispute. By the end of October, Plumsted and Franks were inviting claims from drovers who had delivered provisions for the army “since the Commencement of this Campaign.” Payments would be made in Lancaster, York, and Cumberland counties by Adam Hoops; those in any other colonies would be paid by Plumsted and Franks, “Contractors for supplying the Army with Provisions and Carriages.” The ad was repeated in February 1761, with a March deadline for payments.29 Despite these conscientious efforts, new complaints and problems began to surface. Colonel Adam Stephen, in charge of the campaign against the Creeks in South  Carolina, received a shipment of cattle that were found to be significantly underweight. Usually this meant that the herd had been driven hard and underfed. Stephen expressed his surprise at the reported weight and testified that the cattle looked to him to be of standard weight. He suspected that there was something wrong with the scale system used. Plumsted and Franks’s salter, John Metcalfe, was coming under a great deal of criticism, which Stephen felt was unjustified, and he told Bouquet so.30 Between delivery problems, losses to spoilage, issues of residual materials, short weights, contract misunderstandings, and poor communications, it was beginning to look as if Kilby’s exasperation with the impossibility of the job was well founded. But David Franks was not one to give up easily.

45

Fi ve

plumsted and franks, agents for the contractors

David’s choice of a partner displayed brilliant managerial skill. William Plumsted’s father, Clement, had been a prosperous merchant, among Philadelphia’s wealthiest inhabitants; he became an alderman and a judge on the Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas. At his death in 1745 he left a significant mercantile business to William, who had become his partner and who continued the firm’s activities on his own.1 David Franks’s father-in-law, Peter Evans, also died in 1745, leaving the position of register general for the province vacant. William Plumsted was chosen to replace Evans and retained the title until his death. Like his father before him, William was elected mayor of Philadelphia three times—in 1750, 1754, and 1755. Public office often meant a considerable sacrifice of freedom in conducting business affairs, and a number of prominent citizens chose not to accept their election to government office; between 1745 and 1762 no fewer than nine elected mayors refused to serve.2 William Plumsted’s acceptance of the office for three terms was evidence of his great public spirit. Most significantly, Plumsted knew all the influential people in town and in Pennsylvania’s government. He had an entrée to all the seats of power. He had converted from Quakerism to Anglicanism and was a founder of St. Peter’s Church, a warden of Christ Church, a founding trustee of the College of Philadelphia, and a member of the Dancing Assembly and the Library Company.3 David Franks, by contrast, was blunt; he cared little for politics or diplomacy. He knew how to curry favor with his customers, but he was not artful at flattery, and he realized that Plumsted could bring that skill to the partnership. This was equally true when it came to the written word; Plumsted’s ability to craft diplomatic letters, a talent Franks lacked, would become invaluable. The combination

Plumsted and Franks

of David’s vision and aggressiveness with Plumsted’s tact and connections promised to be a winning formula. Having billed the Crown nearly £70,000 for the first year’s carriage and approximately £63,000 for provisions delivered, the partners moved to secure their relationship with Bouquet.4 They informed him of their plan to visit Fort Pitt in July—a month’s journey round-trip—and let him know how disappointed they were not to have seen him earlier at Presque Isle. Their inability to inspect their cattle and the feeding provisions was another disappointment that they hoped to remedy during the visit.5 Bouquet’s deputy, Captain Lewis Ourry, informed Bouquet of a letter from Plumsted and Franks announcing their intention to visit Fort Bedford in July as well.6 Unfortunately, the visits never took place. Amherst had returned from Albany and was preparing for a campaign in Martinique. He redirected provisions, intended for the western forts, to Quebec. In lieu of going themselves, Plumsted and Franks arranged to send Arthur Hamilton on a tour of the forts to assess the level and condition of stores and to confer with Bouquet at Fort Pitt to establish the quantities needed at the various locations. John Metcalfe had told them that salt supplies were insufficient and that other commodities would have to be reviewed one at a time. Winter was coming, and provisions had to be in place.7 Plumsted and Franks’s August 1761 letter, which contained most of this information, also included as much news and social information as they could gather. They thereby hoped to gain favor with Bouquet, whose approbation they wanted desperately. They reported the illness and recovery of Thomas Willing, a prosperous Philadelphia merchant, whose beautiful betrothed, Anne, had caught the bachelor Bouquet’s eye. He had not been very secretive about his interest in Anne, and he received reports about her doings from Alexander Lunan as well. In the end, his hopes came to naught, for she married Willing. A few years later Bouquet wrote Adam Hoops, “I see daily So many of my acquaintance going off that way [to get married] that I must begin to think of it myself and go over to Europe to get me a Wife, For tho’ your girls here are very pretty, I am not Rich enough for them.”8 For the next several years, almost every letter from the partners to Bouquet contained snippets of world, army, and social news that the colonel, being stationed so remotely, would not otherwise have received.9 Not all of Bouquet’s correspondents were so solicitous. Captain Evan Shelby, who fought under Forbes at Fort Pitt, had moved on to serve as a major in a Virginia detachment stationed at Fort  Loudoun in Maryland. Shelby complained to Bouquet that his efforts to assemble and lead 47

David Franks

a fifty-man company in the battle for the fort had not been compensated properly; neither had his detachment’s efforts in building the road from Ligonier to Pitt been recognized with payment. Still doing his duty, he added a postscript: “Sir I have sent ninty nin head of Catall by John matcalf which he is to Deliver at fort Pitts according to a Contrack which I have made with mensurs Plumsted & franks [sic].”10 The number and variety of helter-skelter arrangements such as the one with Metcalfe kept the home office hopping. Just three weeks later Bouquet expressed to Plumsted and Franks his irritation over the excess of beef anticipated at Fort  Pitt and when this new shipment would arrive, and described the quantity as “disproportionate to the Strength of this Garrison,” having been sent without proper direction. Further, he criticized the size of the “Beeves” as too small: “I don’t remember to have Seen So Small ones & So lean killed here for Salting.” He repeated a request for coopers to make barrels for storing these large quantities. Bouquet revealed a touch of anger in closing: “The Consequences can not lie at my door having given you Sufficient time & warning to provide the Barrills.”11 Plumsted’s reply explained that the first delivery by the former contractors had been very late and that the next, a Plumsted and Franks delivery, would be on schedule, thus compressing the two deliveries into too short an interval. He related the firm’s efforts to obtain the general’s approval for coopers, which they never received. Amherst had speculated that there “must be a great number of empty barrels” in Pittsburgh. In response to Bouquet’s letter, they were sending two coopers right away. Plumsted closed with a report about the troop muster and ship assemblage in New  York, which was, he believed, headed for New Orleans, although the destination was secret. Of course, it was really Martinique.12 If this explanation satisfied Bouquet, it did not take long for Plumsted and Franks to provoke his pique again. This time the issue centered around the source of payments for services, which turned into a nightmare for David Franks years later; this was just the beginning. For reasons unknown at the time, Plumsted and Franks’s representative at Fort Pitt, John Ormsby, reported having to make payments for “disbursements and necessaries” that had theretofore been paid by the quartermaster and engineer of the army. Ormsby was unconcerned about the eventual repayment but was confused regarding the change in procedure, of which he had not been notified. Plumsted and Franks asked John St. Clair, the commissary-general, to confirm the change and explain the rationale. St. Clair, apparently uninformed himself, asked Amherst, who responded that he didn’t know but that it 48

Plumsted and Franks

didn’t seem a bad idea, so long as there was no interference between the various operating units. When the news of this series of communications reached Bouquet, he scorched Plumsted and Franks. If they had a problem, they should have written to him. Their letter to Sir John had messed things up, and “what could have been Settled with one word by General Monckton who knew the necessity of that temporary alteration, will give me now much trouble & difficulty to explain.”13 Bouquet followed this with a somewhat cool note enclosing Amherst’s response and letting Plumsted and Franks know some of his problems— making certain they realized that things were not easy for him deep in the wilderness. Plumsted and Franks responded with a groveling letter attempting to smooth the waters and put all the annoying details behind them. Bouquet forgave them.14 Plumsted and Franks sorted out several messes. Shelby’s delivery of 340 head of cattle so soon on the heels of the previous shipment had become necessary when Thomas Walker withdrew from the business. He had been supplying troops in Virginia and, during the transition, had agreed to deliver meat to the western forts. This had not been easy, and he told Franks he wanted to stop as soon as his commitment to General Monckton was fulfilled. Plumsted and Franks notified Amherst and confessed that they lacked a plan to catch up with Walker’s workload on top of their own. Amherst put their minds at ease quickly, explaining that the Indian uprising in Virginia was about to be settled peacefully, that the troops were to be withdrawn from that area, and that, in any event, Virginia governor Fauquier had volunteered to take care of the expenses in the name of the colony. Nothing could have pleased Amherst more than to learn that a colonial government was going to assume responsibility for expenses he was currently paying. Plumsted and Franks were also delighted to hear they would not have to handle supplying Virginia’s forces or paying its creditors. They were learning lessons almost daily about the changing nature of the war and its effects upon their activities.15 In New  York, DeLancey and Watts had a problem just the reverse of David’s. They were old hands at the army supply business, having worked under Baker, Kilby and Baker for years. They knew the geography of their territory; they knew the facilities they were serving; they knew the climate and its effects; they were well acquainted with the customer organization and all of its representatives at the various locations; and they understood the fluctuating nature of the business. Further, they had an experienced crew of agents stationed where needed. Unfortunately, although they had personal 49

David Franks

friendships with some recently hired contractors, they had no working relationship with Colebrooke, Nesbitt, Colebrooke and Franks. Almost before the ink was dry on the draft of the new contract, Colebrooke et al. informed DeLancey and Watts that they needed receipts for the provisions they were sent, a matter of the “utmost importance” that required the “utmost dilligence . . . to prevent any [additional] disappointment.”16 There were bumps in the road for everyone. The defeat of the French in late 1760 had ended the war effort on the Canadian front, but troubles with the Indians in the west seemed never to disappear. The result for David Franks was continual pressure on his commercial interests and endless changes in the number of troops, their locations, and whether and where to expect war or peace. Flexibility was essential and put severe demands upon a staff not trained to handle an enormous territory extending from Canada to the Carolinas. Typical of the sudden requirements was an urgent message from DeLancey and Watts asking Plumsted and Franks to send, “without any Delay, a Thousand or Twelve Hundred Barrels of Flour,” and informing them that more might well be required. This urgent need was at Louisburg— outside Plumsted and Franks’s territory—but it could not be refused. Just where did one get twelve hundred casks of flour instantaneously? And where should it go first—to Louisburg, or to the local forts Plumsted and Franks had to keep supplying?17 Nature also had a hand in creating difficulties. Fort Pitt was inundated by a severe rainstorm in early January 1762. Bouquet reported a ten-foot rise in the water level, which flooded the food stores and ruined a substantial amount of meat. More serious was the loss of more than a hundred bushels of salt essential for preserving the meat before warmer weather arrived in the spring. Plumsted appealed to Amherst for authorization to replace the losses. The general obliged. Plumsted and Franks contracted with Thompson and Pearis, steady subcontractors of theirs, to deliver the salt to Fort Pitt. They committed to have a hundred bushels of salt delivered in April and the remainder in place by June 10. An added paragraph explained that Walker was still getting orders for provisions in Virginia long after Amherst had promised that the conflict would be resolved. Walker required authorization but would continue to deliver, assuming the directions were on the way.18 Plumsted and Franks’s first year as victualers to the British forces had been full of sudden shifts and starts, making management difficult. Military needs were spread over a huge area, some subcontractors were reliable while others were not, weather interfered, and different colonies also had demands on the available supplies. There seemed no way to avoid mistakes, problems, 50

Plumsted and Franks

or criticism, and consequently, apologies were virtually standard openings in every letter to the customers. Similarly, complaints of incomplete, inaccurate, or late communication of customer requirements were very carefully inserted into the same letters to avoid giving offense. These were problems that even honest and conscientious businessmen like Plumsted and Franks could not solve. Little by little, however, the bond between Bouquet and the partners grew stronger, and their letters softened perceptibly over time. In early March 1762 they were delighted to inform him about General Monckton’s success in “Martinico” and passed on a rumor of a Prussian victory that turned out to be incorrect; they rescinded it in a later message. But Bouquet was becoming a friend. “Itt gives us no small pleasure to find you are satisfied with our Conduct,” they wrote him. “We have ever made itt our Study to do every thing in our power that was right and to Oblige. The continuance of your favours is by us greatly esteemed & hope we may allways merit them.” In closing, they reported the possibility that a conflict with Spain was imminent. The colonel realized that he was working with just about the best men possible.19 Two weeks later, Bouquet passed on a complaint from Amherst that had originated with Commissary-General Leake. The First Battalion of the Royal American Regiment had drawn provisions for more women than the number allowed; a list of the women’s names was required, specifying their husbands’ names, the companies they belong to, and by whose orders the provisions were issued. Plumsted and Franks responded that they required that their people prepare the list and would send it along as soon as it was complete.20 Amherst knew of David Franks’s numerous entrepreneurial activities and bypassed him to hire Plumsted for a special assignment for the Crown. The  general wanted to impress fifteen hundred tons of “good Double Deck’d Vessells” in which troops and provisions would be shipped from New York to Martinique and other West Indian islands. Plumsted tried several times to enlist a number of the ships in Philadelphia and had some success, but he received a number of rebuffs. He asked Amherst for assistance. Surprised that getting the ships was proving so difficult, Amherst requested that Pennsylvania governor James Hamilton get involved and support Plumsted, telling him he would issue an embargo if the required tonnage wasn’t acquired on time. With the governor’s assistance, Plumsted managed to get the shipping assembled, but it took five months and considerable irritation.21 This distraction placed a great burden on Franks at a time when much was happening in his life. Croghan, Trent, Teaffe, and the other traders 51

David Franks

were actively rebuilding contacts with the Ohio Valley Indians, which required large quantities of gifts and other provisions on consignment. His fleet was operating between England, the West Indies, and Philadelphia. The  victualing activity was in constant ferment. And the Mount  Regale Fishing Company was enjoying two or three full-day outings per month in good weather, which a new member could certainly not forgo. Meanwhile, Amherst, never pleased completely, found Dr. Walker’s invoices incomplete and demanded a meeting with Walker, who was asked to bring more supportive data before he could be paid.22 The general’s inflexibility and toughness, admirable on the battlefield, would lead to his demise as an administrator, but not yet. His rigidity concerning a number of items in 1762 illustrates this. Franks and Plumsted had advanced funds to cover a shipment of pork by Walker, sub-ordered through DeLancey and Watts, and were at risk for remuneration. To complicate matters, Amherst directed Plumsted to purchase the cargo aboard the Friendship and to send it immediately to Monckton in Martinique. Plumsted, still in the throes of his impressment adventure, made a variety of appeals to Amherst for payment. Disputes had arisen over how to measure the size and displacement of the ships, and Amherst refused to accept the methodology advocated by the ship owners. Then, through DeLancey and Watts, Amherst ordered yet another large quantity of pork for Martinique. Again, Plumsted ran into difficulty getting the quantity requested and had problems with suppliers, with prices rising as the market was stretched thin. Plumsted again asked Amherst to help, and this time the angry general threatened an embargo, once more getting Governor Hamilton to intervene. Amherst also complained about the late arrival of the Roebuck, the last of the impressed ships.23 As for Walker, he paid for his pork but withheld carriage payments. Then the owners of the Roebuck pulled out—they wanted no part of the impressment at any price. Upon hearing this, Amherst complained about the quality of the pork and insisted that it be returned to the original suppliers. Amherst had assigned General John St. Clair to settle Walker’s accounts. St. Clair in turn called upon Mr. Steadman, a deputy of his, who could not be found when Walker arrived to explain the details. Franks had gone to Forts Ligonier and Pitt for an inspection tour, and Plumsted was reluctant to proceed alone. He had no way to return the pork, no opportunity to get Steadman and Walker together to settle matters, and he confronted a huge predicament surrounding the Roebuck. Plumsted was hardly a match for the mass of problems he faced.24 52

Plumsted and Franks

Meanwhile, Franks was making the circuit of the forts to evaluate the quantity and condition of the provisions at each. After Fort Pitt, he met at Fort Ligonier with Lieutenant Archibald Blane, who worked with him to assess the state of the provisions there, many of which had spoiled. Reports were sent to Bouquet as Franks moved on to Bedford and then Carlisle. The baker at Ligonier was superior to the one at Pitt and was able to make satisfactory bread from somewhat inferior flour. Commissary John Read told Bouquet, “The Baker at this place made good Bread of the Worst of the flour Complain’d of. I wish he Could be prevail’d on to go to Pittsburgh if it is only for a few weeks.” Blane and Franks completed the surveys, which resulted in Blane’s issuing certificates for most of the spoilage.25 Bouquet issued certificates for the deliveries and the wastage amounts progressively throughout David Franks’s tour. He also ordered more provisions and requested some carriage actions, which Franks was quick to confirm. More than a month from the start of the trip, Franks stopped in Lancaster on the way home and was met by his family there, to spend some time with the Simons. While there, on September 4, he sent a congratulatory message to Bouquet announcing the British victory over the Spanish at Havana. Just a few days later British troops reconquered Newfoundland, ending the last French military action in North America. There was much to celebrate. Franks’s trip had been extremely successful, as had British military ventures. Additionally, a treaty was concluded in Lancaster with Indians from the Six Nations, the Ohio Delaware, the Twightwee, the Shawnee, the Kickapoo, and some lesser tribes. Governor Hamilton had called the conference in the hope of negotiating the return of a number of prisoners, in which he was partially successful. Among other dignitaries, Croghan and Trent attended; Trent served as secretary. The opportunity to meet at Simon’s with Plumsted and Franks was rare.26 By the time Franks returned to Philadelphia, Plumsted was nearly out of trouble with Amherst. The Roebuck issue had been settled. Three men owned the ship jointly—Joseph Fox, a member of the Pennsylvania Assembly, Joseph Morris, and Thomas Clifford. Morris and Clifford were agreeable to the impressment, but Fox absolutely refused without certain changes to the agreement. Amherst had been informed and dug in his heels: “I can by no means make the least alteration and therefore Desire they will order their Vessell round to this place without delay.” After a number of angry exchanges, Morris and Clifford were able to buy out Fox’s share of the ship and the impressment was accomplished. Plumsted sent an invoice to Amherst covering the cost of shipping the casks of water taken from the 53

David Franks

Roebuck when the schedule became problematic; for payment to Harrison and Ives for measurements of the ships impressed; and for writing the new contract and postage. He added the line “To my Trouble in Takeing up Transports for his majestys service from 7th April to 31st July 1762.” No fee was shown.27 Plumsted and Franks also worked with Virginia’s Colonel William Byrd III, who passed through Philadelphia on his way to New York to see Amherst over Walker’s supply of pork to the army. In New York, Byrd apparently lived in rented quarters owned jointly by David Franks and Michael Moses in or near the chandlery, and also met Plumsted there. Walker’s account was paid, but not without grumbling on the general’s part. Plumsted took this opportunity to remind Amherst that Plumsted and Franks had laid out a considerable amount of money “in the Western department” and requested that someone be appointed to review the account for payment. He also arranged for an inspection of the suspect pork. Each cask was opened and its contents and the sealing bands reviewed. He reported to Amherst that everything passed inspection. Amherst agreed reluctantly to pay but indicated that in the future he was going to find another source. He directed DeLancey and Watts to buy more pork from two competing suppliers. Plumsted and Franks survived this trial.28 But not for long. In October 1762 the firm was forced to write again, soliciting payment for the western provisions and their delivery. They appealed for the appointment of a representative of the Crown to inspect their account and either approve or adjust it. New orders for meat were facing rising prices—“none can buy the most Ordinary Meat by the Quantity under Forty shillings per hundred wt. Mr. Franks shou’d he go to New York will inform you.” Franks went to New York, attempting to get approval of the carriage accounts for the western deliveries.29 Also in October 1762, a new contract draft was prepared for servicing Fort Pitt and the other locations. The unsigned draft covered the salt that had been delivered after the January floods as well as provisions, contract workers, required materials, and carriage for a full year. This version was replaced by a drastically revised contract in January 1763 covering provisioning “from Fort Pitt to the Inhabited Country including Fort Cumberland.” Quantities of items and prices were specified. Extra salt was covered, as were the necessary service employees, carriage, and materials. The oneyear contract was to be signed by Plumsted and Franks for Colebrooke, Nesbitt, Colebrooke and Franks in England and by Sir Jeffrey Amherst for the Crown. The contract was prepared on paper “Sealed and Delivered in 54

Plumsted and Franks

North America where no Stamp’d paper is now used.” Amherst was worried that an impending stamp tax might render the contract void, and he responded to the delivery with a note of rejection, writing, “I do not Chuse to Sign the Contract, for fear it should Interfere with any New Regulations fixed by the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury.” In the meantime, he insisted that “the Troops must be Supplyed as agreable to the Former [contract], so that the Contractors will be no Loser by not Entering Immediately into the New One.” Plumsted and Franks complained to Amherst that prices were way up. Since they could not deliver at the prices he demanded, they wanted prices for fresh meat to be determined “on the same footing at this season as is done to the Eastward.” Amherst retorted that he could “by no means agree to” such pricing, and used the excuse that the contractors could easily afford to continue as usual: “the Number of Troops is very small & will be less, so that this can make but very little Difference to your Constituents.” Thus matters stood in February 1763, and discussions of a new contract were not conducted for many months.30 The army was not David Franks’s only concern. On the last day of 1762, David purchased £218 12s ½d. worth of silver jewelry as “Indian Trade.” The future of these items became part of a major episode in David’s life that would consume much of his interest and energy for the next twenty years.31

55

Si x

general jeffrey amherst and colonel henry bouquet

In May 1763 a bizarre chain of events began, concerning one William McKee, a partner of Barnard Gratz, who had contracted with the Franks firm to deliver a boatload of their tobacco and other products somewhere in North Carolina. Gratz and McKee chartered the sloop Ranger for the purpose, and McKee had sailed off and disappeared. Franks and Mathias Bush gave Michael Gratz power of attorney authorizing him to find McKee and bring back the goods or the payments for them. A little more than a month later Franks informed Michael that McKee had contacted Barnard from Norfolk, Virginia. McKee had become ill and pulled into port but had never communicated with the Philadelphians. Franks was seriously concerned about losing the cargo and the money it represented, and he urged Michael to “secure us.” He also apologized in advance if his suspicions about McKee proved to be unfounded. Almost as an afterthought, he added, “The Indians have begun a war near the Forts; killed and taken several people and traders, and Levy is a prisoner.” Little did he realize that this was to become a momentous episode in his life. A month later he was notified by Michael Gratz that McKee had died from his illness and that Michael had personally arranged for his burial and the return of the sloop.1 Although William Johnson and his deputy George Croghan were authorized to issue Indian trade licenses, the rules for conducting trade were established by the commander in chief, Sir Jeffrey Amherst, and were posted as direct orders from the military. Amherst, born in 1717, had entered the army as a young man and served with distinction at the battles of Dettingen in 1743, Fontenoy in 1745, Lauffeldt in 1747, and Hastenbeck in 1757. When Lord Loudoun was recalled to England, Amherst was assigned in 1758 to command the expedition against Louisburg and succeeded in conquering all of Canada,

General Amherst and Colonel Bouquet

with significant help from General James Wolfe at Quebec. He was named governor general of Canada and received promotions over the years to the position of major general. He was then appointed commander in chief of all British forces in America and in 1761 was elevated to lieutenant general.2 Back home in England, major changes were afoot. The government was eager to enter a period of moderation in spending after years of an expensive war with France. Canada was completely conquered; George  II had died and had been replaced by George III; and Lord Bute became prime minister, replacing the ailing William Pitt. Amherst was directed to curtail expenditures. He relished the assignment, having disliked the practice of giving presents to the Indians, which he likened to bribery.3 Johnson and his “family,” on the contrary, considered the gift giving good sense. “A keg of rum, a few thousand rations, or presents valued at £100, were to Johnson and Croghan a small matter when it meant saving of the profits of the Indian trade or the prevention of all the costs and woes entailed by an Indian war,” writes Croghan’s biographer.4 Bouquet received orders from Amherst that very few gifts were to be given to the Indians from now on. Bouquet obediently issued written orders about how to deal with visiting Indians, including what they could be given in the way of supplies and the extent of physical welcome they were to be accorded.5 In April 1763 a contingent from the Six Iroquois Nations stopped at Fort  Pitt on their way home and asked for gunpowder, lead, and vermilion. Bouquet was constrained from complying, and he explained that he was under orders, which aroused the Iroquois. They expressed their annoyance at the change in British policy now that the war was over; what had happened to all the promises made to them in return for their help in the war? They needed twenty days’ travel to get home and could not do so without hunting along the way, or they would starve. Reluctant to disobey Amherst’s directive, Bouquet persuaded Croghan to give them the required supplies. Croghan, under the same limitations as Bouquet, did so out of his own stores. The chasm between Amherst and Johnson’s group grew progressively wider, in parallel with increasing pressure from the Indians for benefits they considered due them for their war efforts. Amherst considered the Indians, even when allies of the British, savages. He wrote many times of his desire for their “total obliteration” or “Entire Destruction,” their extirpation “Root & branch.” Johnson’s friendship and respect for the Indians were beyond his comprehension.6 Thanks to Amherst’s insensitivity, within a short time after the conclusion of the war with France, brutally violent Indian attacks commenced, 57

David Franks

and were reciprocated in kind by the British. On April 27, 1763, a general uprising began, presumably under the leadership of Chief Pontiac, who had aroused a gathering of Ottawa, Ojibwa, Huron, and Potawatomie at a war council near Detroit. The unrest spread quickly to an even wider group of discontented Indians. Warriors overtook Forts Sandusky, St. Joseph, Miami, Ouiatenon, Michilimackinac, Venango, Le Boeuf, and Presque Isle. More than £100,000 in goods were lost, as about two thousand British soldiers, colonists, and traders were captured or killed and thousands more displaced and impoverished. In just a few weeks, all but three British forts had been captured—Pitt, Detroit, and Niagara remained under British control. Indian uprisings took place all over Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia, spreading panic through the settler community.7 Amherst ordered Bouquet to take command of Fort Pitt and the defenses surrounding it. The colonel was seriously disillusioned by this turn of events, and he began to share Amherst’s view of the Indians, writing of his “hopes to extirpate that Vermine from a Country they have forfeited.” Even his language now mimicked Amherst.8 Meanwhile, Plumsted and Franks were struggling with deliveries of provisions to the various forts. They told Bouquet they had ordered cattle and flour, which they were ready to forward. “But Sir from the insurection of the Indians which you have this night received the Account of We fear we shall not be able to without a proper Esscort to Supply that Garrison with Provisions att any rate,” they wrote, asking that Bouquet present their problem in a proper light to the general, informing him how much they tried to save on expenses. At the same time, Indian warriors were threatening the largest of the forts, Augusta, erected by the Pennsylvania government, and 130 colonial militiamen were sent to defend it. Governor Hamilton turned to Plumsted and Franks to provide and deliver provisions to the fort. Plumsted and Franks notified him that Amherst’s approval would be required for the cost of deliveries. Predictably, Amherst refused. He did agree to respond to a billing for carriage actions for Bouquet, but he repeated his caution about “oeconomy” and how the total number of personnel at Fort Pitt was a mere 347, so “I should think there would be no Difficulty in Driving Live Cattle along with them” to save money. He added that live cattle would “be much better for the Men’s Healths; and is likewise by far the Easiest method of Supplying them on the March.”9 Two things were clear. Plumsted and Franks had a solid relationship with Bouquet, and they held Amherst in low esteem and were aware that Bouquet knew this but would stay silent. Plumsted wrote to Bouquet, “I expect 58

General Amherst and Colonel Bouquet

the General will forward me some money[.] if he does I will see you early in the next week [at Carlisle] in order to settle such necessary matters as You may Judge necessary.” The colonel had wanted David Franks to come to Carlisle, but the firm refused until Amherst paid the carriage bill. Now the visit was possible.10 Throughout the first part of June, the Indians had made small forays against Fort  Pitt. Bouquet had gone to Carlisle and left Captain Simeon Ecuyer in charge. Amherst directed Bouquet to be ruthless in dealing with the savages and suggested, “Could it not be contrived to send the Small Pox among those disaffected tribes of Indians?”11 Bouquet passed this idea on to Ecuyer, who obtained from Trent and Levy “two Blankets and an Handkerchief out of the Small Pox Hospital.” Trent added that he hoped “it will have the desired effect.” Ecuyer made a gift of the blankets during a short truce. Later, the Indians did suffer a severe outbreak of smallpox, but there is no proof of a connection between the gift and the epidemic.12 Meanwhile, Bouquet moved on to the other forts under his command, giving his attention to shoring up the facilities, the equipment, and the morale of the garrisons. He was disappointed in the condition of wagons and horses at Fort Loudoun as well as in a shortage of live sheep compared to what he had anticipated. He was still uncertain how many troops would be assigned there and could not specify quantities of provisions from Plumsted and Franks. Arriving at Fort Littleton, he found sick soldiers hoping to recover quickly and return to service. He continued on his way. On August 5 Bouquet ended the day a mile from Bushy Run, some twenty-six miles from Fort Pitt.13 The siege of Fort  Pitt had intensified throughout the month of June, and on June 22 a full-scale attack was launched. The fort was too strong to be overtaken easily, and the siege continued throughout the month of July. In early August most of the Indians abandoned the direct attack and engaged Bouquet and his troops at Bushy Run. The two-day battle tested the British forces, but by a clever stratagem of Bouquet’s design, the Indian attack was repulsed. Bouquet was generally acknowledged as the hero of the Fort Pitt–Bushy Run episode. Thus ended Franks’s “war near the Forts,” but it was not the end of the anguish he and his many colleagues would suffer in its aftermath.14 The following week Amherst was notified that his “request” to leave North America had been granted by the king and that his replacement would be Lieutenant General Thomas Gage. The  secretary of state, the earl of Egremont, wrote a lengthy and detailed letter to Amherst outlining 59

David Franks

various items of importance to the exchange. He devoted considerable space to fawning over the “eminent and meritorious services” the general had performed in North America; Amherst would be needed in England for future military planning. While General Gage’s assignment was not identical with Amherst’s, Egremont asked Amherst to brief Gage as if it were. Furthermore, Amherst was to select a replacement for Gage, who then commanded Montreal; he transmitted planning documents relative to regulating new acquisitions of territory in America and the potential consequences for military force levels. Amherst was apprised of the potential for renewed French military adventures and was asked to prepare detailed accounts of the recent Indian uprisings—their causes and corrections—and cautioned to remain in place so long as necessary to put down any resumption of Indian attacks. What Egremont was saying politely, of course, was that Amherst had been fired.15 When the merchants and traders figured out their actual losses to Indian plunder during Pontiac’s Uprising, they totaled £86,862. As in 1754, the largest single injury had been done to David Franks. Of the merchandise belonging to Franks, Trent, and Simon (but primarily to Franks), more than £24,780 had been stolen or destroyed. In addition, Franks had consigned significant portions of the merchandise shown as belonging to Trent and his partners or employees. More than 25 percent of the total losses were probably Franks’s exclusively. That was a huge amount of money in 1763: provinces such as New York and Pennsylvania spent less than £5,000 annually to run their governments in peacetime.16 In 1769 Alexander Barclay bought the Woodford mansion and grounds for £745.17 After the French and Indian War was concluded at the Treaty of Paris in 1763, the two groups of “Sufferers” decided to combine their claims. Croghan had been pursuing remuneration for the 1754 claims, and his efforts had received a chilly reception in London. He concluded that there was little possibility of obtaining payment for the losses in cash and that the groups should attempt to seek land grants instead. This made sense: the group of merchants and traders constituting the sufferers was filled with men eagerly seeking to speculate on land holdings. On December 7, 1763, the combined groups met at the Indian Queen Tavern in Philadelphia and formulated a plan. Croghan would be sent to London, where he would work in conjunction with Moses Franks, who had superior connections to the seats of power in Whitehall. A new petition was drawn called “a Memorial of the merchants and traders, relative to the losses sustained in the late 60

General Amherst and Colonel Bouquet

and former Indian trade, occasioned by the Depredations and war of the said Indians.” The merchants paid into a fund, in proportion to their claims, to support the work of Croghan and Moses Franks. This advance was to be repaid when the claims were honored.18 Croghan went to England, where he spent a frustrating year trying to get the attention of influential officials in the British government. He and Franks had enlisted the aid of Benjamin Franklin, who was there on a diplomatic assignment, but even he was unable to break through the wall of inertia in the upper levels of government. Croghan returned empty-handed, and the group decided as a last resort to send William Johnson to try to talk the Indians out of some land as compensation for their pillaging.19 The affair became complicated when Johnson, ever sensitive to the views of the tribes, refused to include the 1754 group along with the 1763 group on the theory that most of the losses in 1754 could be attributed to the French rather than the Indians. This created a division in the ranks of the group, setting one claim against the other. Even more confusion stemmed from the fact that four of the men belonged to both groups. Of course, the major “Sufferer” in both years was David Franks (though he was not listed in 1754); the others with claims in both years were Trent, Callender, and Thomas Mitchell.20 There were other complications as well. In October 1763 the king had issued a proclamation covering a variety of subjects relative to the North American colonies, which included forbidding any official in North America “to grant Warrants of Survey, or pass Patents for any Lands beyond the Heads or Sources of any of the Rivers which fall into the Atlantick Ocean from the West and North West, or upon any Lands whatever . . . reserved to the said Indians.”21 The Proclamation of 1763 became one of the major geopolitical issues in North America over the next decade. An almost endless stream of new land development schemes began to emerge both in the colonies and in England as well. Every group with ideas for a land grant area immediately enlisted the participation of influential politicians, who gobbled up shares in new land companies. But everyone tiptoed gently around the line drawn by the king at the Alleghenies. Even the words “for the present” in the proclamation offered little encouragement to land speculators. An additional complication for Franks and his Pennsylvanians was Virginia’s claims, which were based upon its generous interpretation of its boundaries. In 1747 large portions of what is now western Pennsylvania were included on maps of the Virginia colony, and powerful men in the Virginia hierarchy had acquired interests in some of those areas. George Washington, his brother Lawrence, Thomas Lee (president of the Virginia 61

David Franks

State Council), and the powerful British duke of Bedford joined with other prominent Virginians to form the Ohio Company of Virginia for the purpose of land development and colonization of the Ohio country.22 The king and council had granted the Ohio Company two hundred thousand acres near the forks of the Ohio River, for which they were required to build a fort near the forks for protection of settlers, and they were to settle “one hundred families upon the land within seven years.”23 As soon as word got out that the land grant had been approved, a rival organization formed, named the Loyal Company, also composed of prominent Virginians, including John Lewis, Dr.  Thomas Walker, Peter Jefferson (Thomas Jefferson’s father), Colonel Joshua Fry, and others. This group sought and obtained a grant of eight hundred thousand acres in the area.24 The  land wars were on. Prominent Virginians and others were added as soon as they could be awarded land shares. Even Governor Dinwiddie was taken into the organization. Then a third rival emerged—the Greenbrier Company—also populated by influential Virginians. The  multitude of claims for the land areas bordering the Virginia and Pennsylvania colonies was suddenly overwhelming. Right in the middle of this profusion of claims were the Suffering Traders.25 William Trent had gone about the arduous process of collecting all the affidavits for the losses in 1754 that provided the basis for the sufferers’ memorial. He volunteered to do the same for the 1763 losses—as a partner of David Franks’s and having a personal account exceeding £4,000, he had a great deal at stake. But Trent’s interest wasn’t restricted to the Suffering Traders issue. Land speculation opportunities of all kinds presented themselves. Among other ventures, he offered to buy the claims of 1763 traders at a onethird to one-half discount, though he would not pay until land was actually acquired.26 After numerous false starts, in October 1768 Johnson convened a large conference at Fort Stanwix (what is now Rome, New York). The leaders of the Six Nations were basically amenable to compensating the sufferers with a gift of land but needed much information about details; it took more than nine days to complete the discussions. More than thirty-four hundred Indians attended some portion of the conference, as did governors John Penn of Pennsylvania and William Franklin of New Jersey. Also present was Dr. Thomas Walker, representing the Virginia colony, the same Dr. Walker who was a prominent member of the competing Loyal Company, a surveyor of much of Kentucky (long before Daniel Boone arrived there), a member of the Virginia Council, and a wagon and carriage subcontractor for David Franks.27 62

General Amherst and Colonel Bouquet

As the two groups of “Sufferers” proceeded along different paths toward compensation, David Franks was much too busy with other aspects of his business and social life to play an active role. It was sufficient to have obtained shares proportional to the amount of his losses, giving him significant voting power when issues of procedure arose. He rarely failed to attend meetings when necessary, but he seldom volunteered to perform recovery efforts apart from composing memorials. He left that task to Croghan and Trent, both partners of his and both seriously in debt to Franks. They also had significant vested interests in the remuneration efforts. Franks got back to work. Despite the decisive victory at Bushy Run, warlike engagements with the Indians had continued. Secretary of State Egremont, when directing Amherst’s actions after his reassignment, included a lengthy segment on dealing with the Indians. The  essence of his direction was that the king was concerned that too many of his subjects had already been harmed. He was counting upon General Amherst to straighten out the situation and punish the Indians.28 Amherst passed this instruction to his subordinates. Sir William Johnson reacted to these orders by advising Amherst that, with the geographical dispersion of the Indians and their skill at using the terrain to their advantage, the success of any ensuing military action would depend heavily upon striking the first blow, which would require great force and a large number of troops.29 Bouquet was preparing a march to deliver troops to several of the outlying forts. A virtual blizzard of messages ensued between Amherst, Plumsted and Franks, and Bouquet and his subordinates dealing with preparations for battle. Franks and Amherst exchanged letters concerning delivery of cattle and sheep to Fort  Pitt. Amherst repeatedly emphasized the necessity for “oeconomy,” and Plumsted and Franks continually promised “the Greatest Frugality.” The  general assured them that expenses would be “much less than they seem to think.” Another letter to Amherst advised him that the four hundred horses and wagons Bouquet wanted to lease would cost more than £121 per day, “exclusive of any accidents that may happen by loss of horses,” making the total amount for ninety days a little more than £10,912. Plumsted was on his way to Carlisle to meet Bouquet and iron out the details.30 Joseph Simon and his Lancaster partner, Matthias Slough, had been negotiating the acquisition of wagons for Bouquet at the same time, and they notified the colonel that they were ready to send the full complement. Just 63

David Franks

ten days later, from Loudoun, Bouquet complained to David Franks that “Our Teams and Waggons are not in Gen’el Equal to the Loads they carry, nor the roads they have to go through; and I am afraid that Several will fail before they reach Bedford.” He also was unhappy that he found only two hundred sheep at Fort Loudoun instead of the three hundred he had been promised, adding that he “did not expect this Disapointment having given so much time to Collect them.” Pleasing the customer in wartime had its difficulties. At the same time, the colonel had great praise for Callender, who, working for David, accompanied Bouquet with a hundred live sheep and other provisions.31 After Plumsted returned to Philadelphia, Franks advised Amherst of the actual count of provisions and carriage materials taken by Bouquet and let him know that there was somewhat less than a three-month supply given the number of troops. He asked for further orders, emphasizing, once again, his determination to “use the greatest care to save all expense possible.” The general’s response indicated that future orders would come from Bouquet, who, “being on the Spot, must be the best judge of what will be Wanted.” He also cautioned against supplying any of the “Provincials,” the state militiamen, who were “not under my orders,” and he indicated that he “did not intend to send any more troops your way.”32 Amherst’s insistence upon compliance with minuscule details made life difficult for Franks and Plumsted. The  next letter from Bedford was an urgent request for flour, cattle, and sheep, signed not by Bouquet but by Captain Ourry. Uncertain of the authority of this request, Plumsted and Franks sought confirmation from the general, which he gave them immediately, adding that they were to consider Ourry equivalent to Bouquet when provisioning orders were concerned. It is difficult to imagine that Amherst would have consented to that arrangement had he not been relieved of his position. Amherst also omitted mention of an earlier request for a “convoy” of troops to protect the provision shipment. Plumsted and Franks thanked him for the information about Ourry’s authority and asked again about having troops accompany the wagons and pack horses. If soldiers were not available, they suggested, perhaps “our Government will be kind enough to spare some of their Provincials.” As an afterthought, they included another request for payment. Getting what was coming to them was like pulling teeth under the new “oeconomy.”33 Detailed reports of the Bushy Run battle were late in coming to Philadelphia, and David Franks was extremely enthusiastic in a congratulatory message to Bouquet. Along with family wishes, Franks told the colonel 64

General Amherst and Colonel Bouquet

he had a pair of pistols of his—probably a gift. Bouquet had been born in Rolle, Switzerland, in 1719 to a respected family of innkeepers. At the age of seventeen he commenced a career in military service that lasted the rest of his life. He joined a regiment of international soldiers then serving the Dutch republic. Later he fought for the king of Sardinia in the war against France and Spain. He traveled to Italy in the company of Lord Middleton, and during the year he spent there learned to speak and write English. He next went to The Hague and then served in the Swiss Guards for a time while studying military science and mathematics. Consequently, Bouquet was educated and refined as well as fluent in a several languages. In 1755 the British needed reinforcements in America, and a new corps was organized and named the Royal American Regiment. Bouquet and his good friend and countryman Frederick Haldimand were asked and agreed to take leading positions in the corps. Bouquet and the Royal American Regiment came to America in the spring of 1756. After a brief assignment in South Carolina, Bouquet was sent to Pennsylvania, where he became second in command to General John Forbes in his successful effort to establish British control of the forks of the Ohio. He went on to well-known involvement in the French and Indian War and Pontiac’s Uprising, where his greatest success was achieved. David Franks’s gift reflected genuine respect for the colonel’s successes and his stature. The same could not be said for Amherst.34 General Amherst’s petulant negativity continued in his next missive. He expressed his opinion that Bouquet’s success against the “Savages” would prevent them from bothering folks “on this side of Bedford,” thus making a convoy unnecessary. Furthermore, he wrote, “an escort from what you Call your Provincials, in my opinion, can answer no purpose, but that of their Receiving King’s Provisions, which I shall not Agree to, as I Do not Consider them as Soldiers in any shape Whatever.” Amherst had as little use for the colonials as he did for the Indians. He went on to say that as soon as he received an estimate he would send money for the carriage costs. He had received requests for partial payments two months earlier; an accurate estimate would have to await completion of the deliveries. Amherst knew this and could avoid paying anything now.35 The lame duck status of General Amherst encouraged his negative behavior throughout the remainder of his stay in America. Franks and Plumsted could hardly wait until Gage replaced him. Meanwhile, they continued to respond politely and in businesslike form. They informed him that they would send the provisions that Ourry had ordered but made certain to note that Ourry himself had recommended the escort service and that they were 65

David Franks

disappointed that the general did not concur. They had solicited Pennsylvania’s governor for the escort service and the provisions to support it. Unfortunately, the governor was ill and only the troops were granted. They awaited a response on the provisions. They told Amherst that he had their estimate for the carriage costs, nonpayment of which was becoming a problem, because some drivers were dropping out and new ones were coming into service. Money to pay for the completed actions was absolutely necessary— could he send £3,000 or £4,000 on account and the rest after he had approved the submittal? they asked. A second convoy was ready to set out in about ten days, they informed Amherst, and would cost the same. They needed money to pay for it. A mild tone of exasperation began to creep into their letters to the general.36 Concurrently, Plumsted and Franks stayed in touch with Bouquet, letting him know the general’s instructions regarding Ourry’s authority. An employee named Cummins who was in charge of the stores at Fort Pitt was leaving the company, and they were negotiating with Callender, whom Bouquet liked, to replace him. They requested that the colonel take a personal hand in identifying requirements at Pitt because goods had been stored far longer than the contracted terms and the firm was going to suffer these losses unnecessarily. To stay on Bouquet’s good side, Plumsted and Franks’s compliments on his victory at Bushy Run were slightly overdone.37 Neither Bouquet nor Amherst was particularly sympathetic at this juncture. Bouquet pointed out that losses at Pitt far exceeded what was experienced at the other posts and said he was going to find out why. He appeared to suspect Franks’s employees: “it is impossible not to Suspect of Negligence at least the Persons you have employed before.”38 Amherst, for his part, sent £3,000 to pay the carriage accounts. He also reiterated his feelings about the Pennsylvania militiamen and the needless escort. “I Flatter Myself, there is not an Indian on the Route between Carlisle & Bedford.”39 Franks tried to put an end to the incessant series of instructions and clarifications in a long letter to Bouquet. He addressed the difficulties of multiple ordering sources, conflicting instructions regarding product specifications, employee misbehavior, spoilage as related to the needs of ordering large quantities of goods well in advance, discipline, and some future reassignments of key personnel. In all of this his intent was to show that, time after time, supplying the army had cost Plumsted and Franks part of their fees and/or profits and that they certainly hoped the colonel was aware of what a good job they were doing. He also mentioned Amherst’s continued criticism of the Pennsylvania militia, which he considered inferior to that of 66

General Amherst and Colonel Bouquet

Virginia. Franks didn’t go into great detail, but he noted that the Pennsylvania militiamen had participated with enthusiasm and success at the battle of Kittanning in 1756 —the first major success of the war—and in Forbes’s expedition in 1758, as well as on later occasions.40 David, still managing to juggle his various interests, exchanged letters with Sir William Johnson in which he asked for help obtaining compensation for the Indian losses. In September 1763 Johnson promised any help consistent with the nature of his office.41 That same week, David advertised “a neat assortment of European and East India Goods, suitable for the Season,” to be sold at his house on Second Street between the church and the Baptist Meeting. The ad was repeated a week later in greater detail.42 Meanwhile, Amherst continued to issue instructions. “It will not be amiss to forward a Twelve Months provision to Fort  Pitt for Four Hundred Men altho’ I Believe Three Hundred Men will be nearer the Number of that Garrison.” Which did he want—three or four hundred? Bouquet would make the decision. Both Plumsted and Franks wanted to go to Carlisle again to deal with Bouquet but did not do so; they wrote instead.43 The colonel’s response to David’s long letter two weeks earlier arrived like a bombshell. Bouquet was furious over just about everything. He denied responsibility for the lack of timeliness in ordering for his department, claiming that Plumsted and Franks had “open orders” to get “what was necessary.” He failed to mention the various cautions they had received from the general and his constant referrals to Bouquet as the only source of the quantities required. No quantities had been specified despite their repeated efforts to obtain them. Bouquet had told them that salt pork would be a “more certain supply” than live cattle, not realizing that Amherst had told them just the opposite. They were in a quandary over what to send, but this did not prevent Bouquet’s complaining. He criticized their not having sent food salters to Fort Pitt. That failure had been due to their inability to find any who were suitable. Bouquet hired a man named Metcalfe to do the salting, but he was later fired for some unspecified criminal act. A replacement named Heron followed exactly the same path. Bouquet blamed Plumsted and Franks for both incidents. Franks’s principal agent, William Murray, came in for severe criticism for a major error in assessing and reporting a flour shortage. In addition, Bouquet considered Murray’s attitude an issue with all the officers at the post. He was prideful, disagreeable, and uncivil. To make things worse, Bouquet had cleared the fort of all “useless people,” including women and children, which deprived Murray of a “Young Lady, and wounded him in a tender part.” The colonel hoped he would shape 67

David Franks

up. The ultimate insult followed: “I am still in hopes that the Secret found by [Adam] Hoops to make with your Contract large Profits, and please the Troops, is not irrecoverably lost.” Bouquet was calling his associates war profiteers in no uncertain terms.44 Plumsted was in Carlisle paying the wagon contractors when this letter arrived and sent a lengthy missive thanking Bouquet for his letter and ignoring its content. “We are greatly obliged to You for them [a second letter was included] and hope may ever merrit your esteem.” The remainder of the letter dealt with new business issues.45 Franks responded at length separately more than a month later. He, too, fudged the problems: he was glad that everything was fine with the colonel and that Ourry had arrived safely. He observed the arrival of a new governor ( John Penn) and predicted that Penn would have trouble with the Quakers. If Plumsted had said anything out of order, Franks told Bouquet, he hoped he would ignore it, as “he may Sometimes write before he thinks.” He closed with a humorous reference to having greeted ladies of Bouquet’s acquaintance with regards from the colonel, which they returned. Franks had a puckish sense of humor that he seldom showed, but he was more open with Bouquet than with other officials who were customers. In a short postscript he told Bouquet that he had arranged for salt to be sent to Carlisle before next February. It was back to business.46 Just three days later David wrote again at length to Bouquet, principally about personal and political issues. He told the colonel about having “used all diligence in our power to get the pork, Salt Stores and Flower up to Bedford” to be ready for the next convoy escort. Commissary Read had become troublesome and “if possible more stupid than ever” by confusing order quantities. Most important, Plumsted and Franks had not heard from the general, “reflecting the determination of the Contract as it’s said to expire in this month.” They hoped “soon to have some instructions respecting it” and expressed their belief that Amherst would “continue on the old agreement made with General Monckton during those troubles.” They also informed Bouquet that Amherst “intends soon for London” and said they shared with “many people” the “agreeable” prospect that General Gage would succeed him. On November 18, Amherst sailed for London on the sloop Weasel.47

68

Se ve n

major general thomas gage

Jeffrey Amherst’s departure and Thomas Gage’s taking command of the British forces in North America coincided with a particularly frenetic period in David Franks’s business activities. The combined Suffering Traders had held their organizational meeting on December 7, 1763, at the Indian Queen Tavern in Philadelphia, which stretched into several days of gatherings and caucuses and produced various letters and memorials. Franks had played a key role in organizing the collection of dues and payments to Croghan and Moses Franks, preparing letters to Amherst and to the earl of Halifax, and informing General Gage of their plans.1 Concurrently, John Watts’s friend, Gedney Clarke of Grenada, bought several parcels of land totaling 780 acres from French owners. Watts asked Franks to advance £230 to facilitate the sale, promising to “re-embourse in the Way he chooses.”2 Meanwhile, Pennsylvania’s new governor, John Penn, issued a proclamation of his own confirming the king’s Proclamation of 1763, which identified four distinct governmental areas in British America and set rules regarding access to and use of land outside the established colonial boundaries. Coming so soon after the Suffering Traders made their intentions known, this limitation on the land grants they hoped to obtain was bound to complicate their efforts. Despite their unresponsive answers to Bouquet’s complaints, Franks and Plumsted realized that they needed to mend fences with the colonel. They were also aware that Indian skirmishes continued, and that provisioning services had to be accomplished satisfactorily as to both quantities and schedules. A significant quantity of pork was required at Fort Pitt, and it could not be driven overland given the danger of Indian ambush. Captain Ourry recommended a horse train, with each carrying two small casks of salted and processed pork. Plumsted and Franks agreed

David Franks

with the plan but suggested soliciting approval from Gage, who would not have known about instructions Amherst had left regarding following Ourry’s orders. For unknown reasons, a shipment of flour to Bedford was not accepted, and the colonel was asked for help. All of this occurred within the space of a few days in December 1763.3 In the midst of this activity, Plumsted and Franks’s first letter to Gage prompted two replies, penned the same day, neither of which answered the question regarding pork deliveries. In the first letter, Gage outlined how DeLancey and Watts had already come to an agreement with Amherst regarding the quantities and disposition of residual provisions at the conclusion of the expired contract. This had been accomplished by appointing representatives from both sides to determine the quantity and quality of the remaining stores. They had agreed on most items and had referred those on which they didn’t to the British Treasury and the London contractors. But Gage was “at a loss to know what has been done in this respect in your [Pennsylvania] Department,” whether any measures had been taken to reach the same kind of agreement, and what Plumsted and Franks proposed in this regard.4 The second letter covered two items that were bothering Gage. He was willing to accept on faith that Amherst had contracted with Plumsted and Franks to transport supplies and that Monckton before him had done the same. But Gage had no memorandum explaining this. Second, the Lords of the Treasury issued orders that contractors be compensated for only as much of delivered provisions as had been in storage for six months prior to termination of a contract, so long as they were found to be “good, wholesome and sound” and did not, together with what had been issued since the notice was given, exceed in quantity enough victuals to feed thirty-five thousand men for six months.5 Things were not off to a very good start with the new commander. In a follow-up note, Gage instructed Plumsted and Franks to continue responding to Bouquet and Ourry as they had been. In an attempt to curry favor, Plumsted and Franks delivered a group of dispatches from Fort Pitt to Gage, which he appreciated. He sent his responses through them, asking for the same speedy service with which he had received them, which was superior to normal channels. Information about the new rules regarding residual stores had come to Gage from Charles Jenkinson, secretary of the Treasury. Gage valued Jenkinson’s knowledge and unburdened himself about the missing pieces of information relating to victualing contracts and what Amherst had failed to tell him. He was plainly puzzled by the complexities of the contract changeover and told Jenkinson: 70

Major General Thomas Gage

I must beg, You would put their Lordships in Mind, that the Agreement entered into, between Major Gen’l Monckton, and the Contractor’s Agents, in the Philadelphia Department still subsists, which from the Alteration in the prices now, to what they were then, becomes too expensive, that Sir Jeffrey Amherst had drawn up new Articles of Agreement more advantageous to the Crown last January but deferred signing the Contract, for fear it should interfere, with any new Regulations, fixed by the Lords Commissioners of the Treasury, but I can’t find that their Lordships have hitherto fixed any new Regulations or given any directions thereupon, so that the Old Contract has gone on. I send You, a Copy of this Intend’d Agreement, tho’ I doubt not, Sir Jeffrey Amherst has already sent it, or carried it with him, for the information of the Board. If the present Disturbances occasioned by the War, with the Savages, should oblige Me, to have recourse to the Agents, I think, I can’t act with more advantage for the Crown, than to endeavor to bring Messrs. Plumstead and Franks, to agree to this Contract, but I shall postpone every thing of this Nature, as long as possible in expectation to have Some directions from the Treasury concerning it, or to hear that their Lordships have fixed on Some new Regulations.6 Gage was ill prepared for the new assignment he had assumed. Like most British officers, despite the smattering of military activities in his recent past, he had little training for martial leadership. The younger son of Viscount Gage, he was born in Firle, England, in 1719 (or early 1720) into a Catholic family. Their religion had been the source of problems for the family over the years, and Thomas was sent to non-Catholic schools. By the time he was twenty, he had embarked upon a military career and in 1741 purchased a lieutenant’s commission. He fought in Flanders (the same battle of Fontenoy in which Amherst had fought) and in the Low Countries in 1747–48. Gage spent the next ten years floating from one assignment to another, purchasing higher positions and networking with many of his contemporaries in the army. He emerged from this period with a reputation as “gallant, dignified and courteous” and as willing to make friends with “the high and the low, with the talented and the stupid, with the selfish and the generous.” He had a winning way with the ladies, although “he was no rake.” A close brush with marriage to an English lady of rank and fortune ended unhappily for him. In the fall of 1754 his regiment was ordered to America in response to the growing antagonism between British and French interests there. Gage 71

David Franks

fought alongside Washington under Braddock in early engagements of the French and Indian War. When Colonel Peter Halkett was killed in battle, Gage assumed command of the 44th Regiment and was slightly wounded in the battle of the Monongahela. Gage and Washington developed a friendship in America that lasted more than eighteen years, though they had little direct contact during most of that time. More curious yet was the manner in which that friendship transcended the diverging roles the two men took after the Braddock campaign.7 Gage and the 44th relocated to the northern front—the battle for Canada. Under a succession of generals, the Canadian campaign had been handled ineptly. Gage concentrated upon communicating his opinions regarding strategy and planning to a number of highly placed British officials. It is impossible to measure the impact of this advice, but Gage earned the confidence of military leaders, including the earl of Loudoun, the commander in chief. Gage then commanded the 80th Regiment and was promoted to full colonel. He was credited with forming the “first definitely light-armed regiment in the British Army.” He was sent to New Brunswick, New Jersey, briefly to recruit soldiers, and stayed with the Kemble family, friends he had acquired earlier. He also cemented his relationship with their daughter Margaret, whom he married shortly thereafter.8 In 1758 Amherst arrived with a substantial army and accompanying fleet and led the victory over the French Canadian forces. Gage’s regiment was engaged in battles in upstate New  York in which he was again wounded slightly. After the victory was sealed, he joined Amherst in New York. Gage was appointed a major general and governor of Montreal. He was not particularly pleased with this assignment—Montreal was a backwoods town, and he was burdened with endless administrative tasks for which he had neither the training nor the inclination. But he threw himself into the work and mastered law, economic issues, and management of civic ordinances. As the scholar John Alden wrote, “A milder and more beneficent rule, even though an alien and an arbitrary one, Montreal had never known, and Gage became definitely popular among the Canadians.” But the job bored Gage, and so did the social atmosphere, which lacked the parties and other niceties of the larger colonial cities. Gage asked for a leave of absence so that he could return to London and secure a better position. While he awaited a response, Amherst hinted that he too would be seeking a leave and that Gage, as the senior officer in America, might succeed him. When Amherst left, Gage received the appointment. Once again he found himself embroiled in complex administrative issues—particularly the victualing contracts.9 72

Major General Thomas Gage

Once he had figured out what was going on, Gage notified Plumsted and Franks that (1) he would pay what Bouquet identified as valid claims for supplies at Fort Pitt; (2) he would nominate a commissioner and would invite Governor Penn to do the same, so that they could meet at Carlisle and resolve contested claims relative to the provisions in stores; (3) he would pay carriage contractors in Carlisle rather than make them travel to Philadelphia to collect their fees; he directed Plumsted and Franks to take instructions from Bouquet regarding the claims; and (4) he would direct Bouquet to use newspaper advertising to publicize the carriage payment process.10 Bouquet followed through on these orders but soon realized that he had allowed insufficient time for the wagon drivers to respond. He asked Plumsted and Franks to advertise a second time, providing the needed relief in the schedule. Unfortunately, this second schedule was also inadequate, and Plumsted and Franks requested additional time, which was approved. They also asked for more money—the remaining £4,000 to £5,000 from the last issuance would be far too little for the expected claims. Additionally, the victualing certificates had not been signed, and payments could not be made to the London contractors. Meanwhile, prices were rising and the partners’ profit margins had disappeared. “Itt is very hard and Cruel on our friends in London,” Plumsted and Franks wrote to Bouquet, to pay this “extravagant price of Fresh meat. [W]e are really and truly great sufferers.”11 The day before this letter was sent, March 13, 1764, a new victualing contract was settled between the Lords of the Treasury and a new, modified London consortium consisting of Sir Samuel Fludyer, Adam Drummond, and Moses Franks. The terms of this new covenant were identical to those in the proposed contract that Amherst wanted to negotiate with David Franks but from which he had refrained in case the Treasury wanted changes. It is not certain whether David knew the London negotiations were in progress, though his contact with both his father and his brother increase the likelihood that he was informed. He certainly had seen the document and knew its content.12 The number and variety of complications accompanying this contract intruded significantly upon the lives of the principal parties over the ensuing year. DeLancey and Watts had a well-defined territory completely within colonial boundaries. Their responsibility was restricted to providing specified commodities to distribution centers from which others would make deliveries to listed destinations. David Franks’s territory, by contrast, went beyond colonial boundaries to a continually changing collection of forts and locations with varying numbers of personnel. His responsibility included 73

David Franks

final deliveries to all of these locations. Orders came to DeLancey and Watts from a designated commissary endorsed by the commander in chief. Franks could receive orders from the general, the commissary-general, Colonel Bouquet, Captain Ourry, and, occasionally, Captain Ecuyer. There were skirmishes in several newly acquired territories, but the Indian problem was most severe in Pennsylvania. On top of all that, William Plumsted had become ill with a malady that took his life the following year. He retired from the firm and David took on two new partners, John Inglis and Gilbert Barkly. Inglis had been a successful merchant in partnership with Samuel McCall in Philadelphia for many years. Born in 1708, he was a dozen years Franks’s senior and had been prominent in local politics and social life. Inglis had organized and directed the first Dancing Assembly. He was, like Franks, a member of the Mount Regale Fishing Company and was one of the original trustees of the College of Philadelphia. He was William Plumsted’s brotherin-law, he and Plumsted both having married sisters in the McCall family. Inglis was a member of Christ Church and joined David Franks in refusing to contribute to the fund for purchasing steeple bells. Gilbert Barkly was Inglis’s son-in-law, having married his eldest daughter, Ann, and was related to David’s brother-in-law, Alexander Barclay.13 Colonel Bouquet lost no time in notifying Callender of Plumsted’s replacement by Inglis. He warned his colleague not to respond to orders from anyone but David Franks.14 These radical changes in Franks’s business organization were considerably different from the stability at DeLancey and Watts, where both partners were pillars of their community and had been allied in business for many years. Oliver, obviously, was a DeLancey, which meant everything in New  York. Watts, his brother-in-law, enjoyed close personal relationships with many influential Britons, with whom he communicated frequently. Prominent among these were General Monckton, then living in England on leave, and Moses Franks. It would be difficult to imagine correspondence more intimate and cordial than what passed between Watts and the general—not what one would expect between a supplier and his customer. Watts harbored the expectation that Monckton would be named commander in chief and would replace Gage, whom he considered a temporary appointment. Watts and Moses Franks had been schoolmates and maintained a congenial friendship that came through clearly in their letters. The next twelve months would bring these relationships to the forefront of their commercial ventures. DeLancey and Watts shared office quarters with Jacob Franks, now aging but still active in both 74

Major General Thomas Gage

business and synagogue activities. Consequently, the proximity and the close family and personal relationships kept communication and empathy at extremely high levels in the contractor organizations. It was not until late June 1764 that Gage received official notification from Thomas Whately, secretary to the Lords of the Treasury, of the new supply contract. Whately’s letter of April 26 did not reach Gage until June 30, by which time confusion and stubbornness had created some irritation between the parties in America. More important, Gage surmised that he had been authorized to conclude negotiations with Plumsted and Franks regarding supplying Fort Pitt and the other garrisons. He was determined to write a contract that would benefit the Crown, though it meant less profit for the agents. Scheduling pressures had forced him to issue orders, through Commissary-General Robert Leake, before he was able to conclude an agreement. Realizing that he might have presented Plumsted and Franks with a windfall, he urged Leake to investigate the residual stores to assure that maximum use was made of them and that Plumsted and Franks did not benefit from bad management of the stores through spoilage. Plainly, Gage had suspicions about Plumsted and Franks. He thought they were opportunists and had avoided concluding an agreement with Amherst for spurious reasons. He suggested that “people may be found on the Frontiers, who will Supply the Troops at Fort Pitt, in the manner of Said agreement, on Easier Terms to the Crown, than those which were proposed by the Agents [Plumsted and Franks] of the late Contractors.” Unfortunately, Gage could not be assured that the new contract included Fort Pitt and its environs: he was uncertain of his authority and asked Whately for advice. He sent a copy of the contract he had offered to Plumsted and Franks and a copy of the terms he had offered relative to the residual provisions. He was burning to obtain support to overturn David Franks’s portion of the contract.15 Just a week later, he told Bouquet: Mr. Franks may avail Himself of every Pretense He pleases, but I shall not pay Him in Certificates from me, in the manner he demands. If he can procure orders for it from the Treasury, it’s no longer my Business and they must do what they think proper—I make no doubt that he will use every Chicane and Trick that He is Master of; and may give me some trouble to clear up the affair to the Treasury—But I am satisfied that I have done my Duty to the Crown and am therefore not at all concerned at what he shall do—I am obliged to replace at the posts, for the like quantity received from the Crown, at the time 75

David Franks

the Contract commenced. A  circumstance which I was not before acquainted with.16 Gage did not like David Franks, nor did he trust him—yet. Shortly thereafter, he advised Whately, “Mr.  Franks who is to be the Agent, of the New Contractors at Philadelphia, is not Inclinable to enter into any Agreement for the Supply of the Troops in the District of Fort Pitt, of the Nature of that Contract proposed by Sir Jeffrey Amherst, & Approved by the Board, And which their Lordship’s Sent me powers to conclude in your Letter of the 26th of April last; He gives for reason that his principals were Offered that Contract at the Treasury, but had Rejected it.” Gage went on to detail Leake’s success at finding another contractor near Fort Pitt who would provide the necessary commodities at prices he thought acceptable—all to show that Franks was uncooperative and that his services were overpriced. In the same letter he told how smoothly the process of reconciliation of residuals had been concluded with DeLancey and Watts, again asserting that Franks had not performed as well.17 Watts was less enthusiastic about the contract than Gage was, and he pointed out various inadequacies of the document to his friend and prime contractor, Moses Franks. Where and when certificates would be issued was unclear; how shipments beyond Albany would be accomplished was unstated; the Irish barrels for pork shipments did “not answer the Spirit of the new Contract, they have not the strength & substance enough to bear the usage they must inevitably meet.” Things were not so wonderful in New York as Gage would have others believe.18 Apparently Gage received instructions to contract for carriage service with David Franks. Despite his reservations, he attempted to do this with an excessively cordial request: “I should be glad you would acquaint me whether you would enter into an Agreement of that nature.” Gage was dead set against such an arrangement, having said numerous times that it was different from any other contract he had seen—that none of the other agents were given the same benefit. Clearly, he was unaware that David was not in favor of that scheme, either, owing to his great concerns over Indian attacks and the potential for death or injury to his crew as well as more pillage of his merchandise. He had endured quite enough of that already. He turned to Bouquet for advice, telling him, “this very instant rec’d a Letter fro the Gener’l with a Proposall for Supplying the Troops agreable to an Agreement made Sometime past with Sir Jeffrey, wh’h I think cannot in Warr be done.”19 76

Major General Thomas Gage

Inglis and Barkly were out of town, and Franks used their absence as an excuse to stall in responding to Gage, waiting for some kind of guidance or inspiration from Bouquet. When David did reply, his lengthy letter merely summarized the recent history of contractual actions and ended by informing Gage that, “as neither of my assisting agents in the present Contract are here, though one of them is expected from London now in a few days must beg leave to defer making any proposal.” Gage was probably infuriated at being made to wait for six more weeks for the next communication.20 When it finally arrived, the first letter from Franks, Inglis and Barkly attempted to turn the situation around, to put the blame for the lack of a definitive contract on British sources—several of them, in fact. Fludyer, Drummond, and Franks were reported to have expressed “great Surprize” at Gage’s rejection of the new contract as “invalid.” Furthermore, a substantial order from Bouquet for bullocks, sheep, and flour, which had been acquired and delivered, had been rejected by Leake, who refused to issue a certificate at the old contract price. David judged the contract to be abrogated “by a single stroke of Power.” This had “superseded every Possibility of our executing the Contractor Business,” he wrote, and he expected that a certificate would be sent for the whole order. He expressed annoyance at the continual difficulty in obtaining instructions and settling contractual nuances. Both the king’s service and the contractors would benefit equally from better arrangements.21 Gage’s response came in the form of a letter addressed to “Inglis, Franks & Barkly,” a sharp jab at David. This was the first in a series of five letters so addressed, spanning almost two years, in which Gage vented his irritation with David Franks. Responses to Gage invariably bore the signature “Franks, Inglis & Barkly.” The first of the general’s letters, dated October 8, 1764, was long, detailed, and venomous. Fortunately for Franks, there was nothing Gage could do about David’s position as agent for the contractors. That was the decision of the London consortium. However, this merely added to Gage’s frustration.22 Gage’s anger stemmed from several sources. For one thing, he judged that David Franks knew all about the new contract and its provisions and that it had been negotiated between the parties in London but nevertheless wanted to conclude the sale of Bouquet’s large order against the older, higher-cost agreement. Gage was also very displeased that residuals from the older contract had not been evaluated, that no determination of ownership had been concluded, and that these matters had not been “settled” financially before being issued at the posts. Gage blamed Franks for this state of 77

David Franks

affairs; he had made several unsuccessful attempts to arrive at a contractual understanding with David, who had a variety of reasons for rejecting each approach. The general went on: And now I must come to the point on this matter, And beg leave to speak plain. If you mean to refuse laying in Provisions on the communication [the string of forts in western Pennsylvania]; where it is bought as cheap or cheaper than in Philadelphia, unless, I will agree to give you on the part of the Crown, Such Terms as you please to demand, and that you will otherwise tie down the Crown, to take the Provisions in Philadelphia, and be at the Expence of carrying it such a Number of Miles as to make the Expence rise to near double the Value of it, I must beg you will inform me what your Demands are, that I may transmit them to the Treasury: and their Lordships be able to Judge what Measures shall be proper to be taken thereupon. But I must say, that it behoves the Contractors who benefit by the whole contract, to give the Crown at least as good a Bargain as you know other People would do, were they employed, who could only make their Proffits out of that Agreement alone.23 Poor communication had done its damage. Franks had not received official notice of the new contract when the large order was shipped— actually not until two months after the delivery. Amherst had never initiated a review of the residuals on the Fort Pitt contract while waiting for the chance to negotiate the new one. Before Gage, no one had solicited an agreement with David for the new contract. And, most emphatically, David did not want to buy goods in Philadelphia and ship them to the west. The contract with General Monckton had been written solely to preclude the hazards and exceptional costs of driving herds of cattle, sheep, and hogs over great distances. But Gage believed otherwise on all of these issues and formed his opinion of Franks on the basis of these misconceptions. From there, everything went downhill in the relationship between David Franks and General Thomas Gage.

78

Eigh t

franks, inglis and barkly, agents for the contractors

The contract to supply Fort Pitt and the other western posts, which had been negotiated between General Monckton and Plumsted and Franks, had provided a cushion in the pricing to defray the costs of delivery to these remote locations. David Franks needed that cushion, because assembling herds, hiring riders, collecting and transporting forage, and sustaining losses of all types, particularly from Indian incursions, made the deliveries enormously expensive. Other victualing contractors were not, as a rule, being paid to carry provisions, and the practice drew unfavorable attention whenever it arose with army brass. Paid deliveries to warehouse terminals were understood readily; payment for deliveries to small, remote outposts was not. Having the delivery costs included with the provision costs saved David Franks considerable criticism over an extended period of time. But the day had arrived when a new general and a new contract coincided, making the provisioning costs of the old “Monckton contract” appear way out of line. Gage was determined to get better prices and still have the goods delivered to the locations where they were to be consumed. Very probably, Gage thought that these items could be procured locally and did not need to be shipped from the coast. Franks, perhaps foolishly, tried in every way possible to retain the pricing structure of the old contract or to refuse delivery requirements he knew to be dangerous and costly. Gage would have none of it, and a serious personal breach worsened with every contact. In mid-1764 a new military campaign was beginning, and Bouquet was instructed to supplement his forces with militia. He solicited Governor Penn for a thousand men and was accommodated.1 On June 16 he requisitioned a substantial order of provisions for two thousand men for six months. Though addressed to “the Contractors Agents at Philadelphia,” Plumsted

David Franks

and Franks took this to be directed to them and proceeded to act upon the instructions.2 Hearing this, Gage wrote to them on June 22 saying that the old contract with Colebrooke, Nesbitt, and Franks had expired some months before, yet they had continued supplying Fort Pitt on the terms of the contract with Monckton, “which Agreement was of Course Annulled with the above Contract.” Actually, this was not true; neither contract made reference to the other. They stood alone as separate agreements. The general lectured David severely over not reconciling the residual stores in the Fort Pitt vicinity, which could have been used to fulfill a significant portion of the new requisition. Now they would have to be frozen in place until the surveys were completed. He ordered them to proceed with the surveys and informed them that he had issued orders to Leake to fill the requisition from Bouquet. Further, Gage said, Franks and his associates had probably better not supply any more provisions until they had signed a new contract. In addition, Gage insinuated, how they had completed an order of that magnitude in such a short time was pretty suspicious and bore investigation.3 The explanation was simple and involved no chicanery but rather the availability of Captain Callender. As in the cases of Croghan and Trent, Callender had drifted in and out of the military service and nonmilitary assignments a number of times, as convenience dictated. He had been one of the regular corps of Indian traders and was one of the Sufferers of 1754 and a friend and business associate of David’s for more than ten years. David had arranged for Callender to work for him under the new contract supplying the forts. When Leake went to Fort Loudoun to handle ordering the provisions, Callender was an obvious choice as an agent, as David would no longer be supplying the provisions. Callender, acting as an individual contractor, agreed to deliver the required items at prices that Leake proposed, and signed a contract. Callender bought the provisions, which had been assembled to fill the order, from David.4 Callender’s willingness and success probably only fueled Gage’s anger. He continued to criticize all of the agents over the issue of residual stores, blaming DeLancey and Watts and the Fludyer consortium as well for not clearly isolating provisions that belonged to the old contractors, the new contractors, or the Crown. It appeared likely to him that provisions would be issued and billed that indeed already belonged to the army. He accused the new contractors of directing their agents to “insist upon victualling the troops within the limits of their Contract, from the time that a Blank Copy, or Draught of the Contract, was received by them here; without paying any regard to the provisions, which the Crown might have on hand, to be issued to the Troops.”5 80

Franks, Inglis and Barkly

Watts, who held Gage in very high regard, told Moses Franks, “I don’t wonder you cannot see thro’ the Confusion of the Philadelphia Department for my Life I never could, & have heard both Sides till I have been tyrd. If the General is wrong I am persuaded ’tis an Error of Judgment . . . his hands I am firmly persuaded are clean & his Mind upright, if he has been mistaken it proceeds from a too great diffidence of his own Judgment which is a very good one.” Watts suggested that Franks, Inglis and Barkly write a letter to Gage explaining all the issues.6 In a letter clearly intended to mollify the general, they explained that the survey of stores was nearly completed; that their quick response to Bouquet, which had puzzled him, derived from their having had verbal instructions far in advance of the actual order (which they had hoped would merit approbation); that their apparent failure to answer his letter of June 22 had in fact been acknowledged by a visit from Mr. Plumsted, who discussed all of the issues covered in the letter; and that they were awaiting instructions from London regarding how to proceed under the new contract and would like to be excused from accepting any offers until then. They closed by explaining that when they had been offered the new contract by Amherst, there was peace; now, with a new military campaign starting, the hazards of transporting required escorts and would be very expensive. There was no answer from Gage.7 Watts told Moses that Plumsted and Inglis need to settle things with Gage in person, and that “your Brother David ought to be considered as Neutral, because take which side he would upon so fair Principles his Conduct might be censur’d.” Watts went on to defend Gage, whose hands and heart were clean, unlike his predecessor’s. “Your folks late Letters from Philadelphia have given great umbrage, the G[eneral] expressly told me that himself he would not answer them.” He closed with a short discussion about the folly of contracting for delivery to the remote forts.8 The controversy reached the point where Fludyer, Drummond and Franks were writing to the Lords of the Treasury, reporting complaints from their constituents. Gage, attempting to gather support, wrote to Amherst to describe his side of the affair and to express his pleasure that Amherst would be consulted in the inquiry. He excoriated David Franks at considerable length: Some Time after, it was known here, That the New Contract was made, and very lately that it was dated the 13th of April and to have taken Place as soon as possible, Frank’s represents the Affair to his 81

David Franks

Principals, in the Manner these People generally do, without paying the smallest Regard either to Truth, Sincerity, or Decency. Representing Leake as having an Interest in the Bargain with Callender, and that He would have the Provisions in Store at prime Cost, on his own Account. The  first is a Scandelous Reflection made with very bad designs, and which Franks knows to be false, as the whole Transaction was made publickly, and in the Eyes of every Body. The last a downright Falsehood. As what Remained in Store belonging to the Contractors, was to be taken upon a Certificate of the quantity, and the Price annexed to the Certificate, as ordered to be done, and was done in every other Department. Colonel Robertson was luckily at Philadelphia at the time, and has told me what passed. Franks not only Asperses Leake, but asserts as boldly to his Constituents, that I had taken Possession of Provisions which had been provided by my Requisition. what he can mean by asserting such Falsehoods, I cant conceive, but His Principals had no Reason to disbelieve His Account, and of Course laid their Complaints before the Treasury; which instead of Assisting to clear up this Confusion, has only confused the Affair more.9 Strange that Watts considered Gage “diffident.” The firm sent a note to Gage saying nothing new but including a postscript from Inglis: “Permit me before I seal this letter to beg my most respectful compliment may be presented to Mrs. Gage accompany’d with my sincere wishes for her happiness.”10 Late in January 1765, Gage conceded that the situation in the Fort Pitt department was settling down. While some differences in the value of residual stores needed to be squared, agreement had been reached on most of them. The issuance of certificates was to take place. Franks, Inglis and Barkly had repurchased all of the provisions from Callender in order that they be the agents of supply. Most certainly they lost a great deal of money on the order, having sold it to the army under the new contract price and having delivered everything to Fort Loudoun. Gage anticipated proceeding under the terms of the new contract thereafter.11 He was also becoming annoyed with the Montreal post, where newly delivered provisions were issued while older items in stores remained untouched. There was no end to the problems in the victualing area. That week, Watts confirmed the relaxation of tensions, telling Moses, “your perplexed Contract Affairs relative to Philadelphia I hope are come at last to an Issue, they have never been well understood either here or at 82

Franks, Inglis and Barkly

Home.” He also asked Moses to advance £1,200 for Lieutenant Stephen Kemble to purchase the captaincy of Henry Gordon’s company in the Royal American Regiment. “If Stocks are well up I am well enough inclin’d to part with as much as will do the Business, but if you apprehend they will mend I must trust to your friendship to advance or get the Money upon Interest & I will repay it how & when it may be agreed upon.” Kemble, of course, was the younger brother of Gage’s wife, Margaret.12 On February 4, 1765, Thomas Gage, John Inglis, and David Franks signed a new one-year contract for victualing troops employed in the king’s service “in the several Garrisons in the Province of Pennsylvania from Fort  Pitt to the Inhabited Country Including Fort  Cumberland and Fort  Loudoun.” The contract was “sealed and Delivered in North America where no Stamp’d paper is now used.” Interestingly, this was the source of Gage’s next challenge.13 General Gage would not let the issuance of a new contract put an end to his quarrel with David Franks. Watts offered to help mend fences: “I can reconcile any difference between David & the General, the latter mild & well temper’d, not at all malevolent, and conscientiously just. The Contract [between the Treasury and Fludyer, Drummond and Franks] not clearly drawn, said to be the Board’s choice, by that means they become their own Expositors.” No one was motivated to arrange Watts’s interposition, and the affair took its own course—slowly. Gage continued to address communications to “Inglis Franks & Barkly,” despite the fact that the firm name was otherwise. There is no doubt that Inglis played a substantial role in getting things settled down. The question remains whether Gage actually achieved lower prices, as the new contract contained a proviso addressing the transport of fresh (live) meat “so great a Distance by Land Carriage.”14 Economic problems in the postwar era were widespread. Watts’s partner, Oliver DeLancey, confided to his sister, “As Things are now Circumstanced Here it requires the Greatest Care & frugality to be able to live with Tolerable Decency and though I know I have a Competent Fortune I Cannot assert How Long it will be so from the Prospect at Present of the future Distress in America for Money already is so Scarce and Peoples Circumstances so Precarious I have Many apprehensions.”15 General Gage’s letters in April and May 1765, ordering provisions for Fort Loudoun and Fort Cumberland, continued his practice of listing Inglis’s name ahead of David Franks’s in the address. In June, Gilbert Barkly relocated to Canada, leaving the firm to the two senior partners. In December, however, Gage addressed his final letter of the year to “Inglis, Barclay 83

David Franks

[sic] and Franks.” David’s name now came last, despite the fact that Barkly was gone. So much for “diffidence” on Gage’s part.16 George Croghan returned from England in the autumn of 1764, after spending nearly seven months there. He had gone to negotiate compensation for the losses of Indian traders in the early 1750s and to obtain a grant of two hundred thousand acres of land in upstate New York in which Sir William Johnson had significant interest. Additionally, he sought relaxation of the constraints upon acquisition and use of Indian lands, including moving the defined boundary line westward. He had been disgusted by the lack of action on the part of influential Britons, who were all too eager to discuss land speculation in America endlessly but who accomplished nothing toward enactment. He came home with no land grants or compensation for the traders, but he had made a name for himself and had laid the groundwork for British leaders to rethink their Indian policies. Pontiac’s Uprising and the unrest that followed offered ample evidence that the original approach to managing Indian affairs had been inadequate. Croghan was there to testify in detail. George Morgan seized the opportunity to align the firm of Baynton, Wharton and Morgan with Croghan, whose stature was now at its zenith. At Baynton’s suggestion, Morgan invited Croghan to stay at his home while in Philadelphia, an invitation Croghan accepted. While there, Croghan urged the firm to engage in trade in the Illinois territory, which was precisely what Baynton, Wharton and Morgan had in mind. Croghan was planning a trip to the country of the western Indians and needed a supply of Indian goods—basically gifts—which he wanted to purchase from the firm. Baynton, Wharton and Morgan, in turn, hoped to gain an “insider” advantage over their competitors for initiating trade with the Indians, which was now prohibited but was soon to commence. Croghan’s official status and his mission to open new negotiations with the western tribes provided a perfect opportunity for the company to move into the new territory in anticipation of its opening for business. To smooth the way, the firm agreed to share the proceeds of the “adventure” with two wealthy and experienced traders close to them, Robert Field and Robert Callender, and with George Croghan. Each would have a one-quarter interest.17 A large shipment was assembled, including presents for the Indians and a storehouse full of potential sale items that the firm would stockpile at its facility in Kaskaskia. The  total value approximated £19,766 —a substantial sum. Included in this shipment was £1,200 worth of presents supplied by none other than General Gage, who anticipated that significant peace 84

Franks, Inglis and Barkly

treaties would result from the venture. He also provided £2,000 toward expenses for the project. Croghan headed off to the Illinois country with these goods in the spring of 1765.18 Unfortunately, troubles lay in wait for him. The frontier residents living west of Carlisle wanted no part of commerce with the Indians, having suffered severely at their hands during Pontiac’s Uprising. Further, trade was officially prohibited. When the size of the shipment became known, along with the fact that private goods belonging to Baynton, Wharton and Morgan were included, and that knives and ammunition were also being sent to the Indians, the frontiersmen became enraged. A group of more than thirty men, known alternately as the Paxton Boys or the Brown Boys, with blackened faces and in Indian dress, attacked the convoy, destroying most of the goods, killing a number of horses, and driving off the remaining riders in all directions.19 The affair caused a whole series of repercussions. British troops and local residents became contentious; engagements between them bordered on battle, and both sides took prisoners. Baynton, Wharton and Morgan protested to Governor Penn, who visited the area to investigate and attempted to enforce peaceful coexistence between the parties. Gage was displeased that Croghan had permitted private goods to accompany the government load and was highly critical of Croghan in reports to Johnson and London. Croghan, Field, and Callender terminated their connections with Baynton, Wharton and Morgan, and the firm was on its own, awaiting the signal to begin trading again.20 Croghan had to replace the lost goods and went to the old reliable firm of Franks, Trent, Simon and Levy, from which he acquired, on consignment, merchandise valued at £2,037 11s.  10½d., promising to repay this debt in a year. It is very likely that David had mixed feelings about the episode with his competitor’s goods. On the one hand, Baynton, Wharton and Morgan were his principal adversaries, and their loss could not but help his competitive position. On the other hand, the threat of continued attacks upon merchandise headed for Illinois was not a pleasing prospect. David and Joseph Simon were quick to see the dangers inherent in dealing with the Indians—both from the residents and from the Indians themselves—and concluded that their emphasis would be on sales to the white residential community and, of course, the army.21 Baynton, Wharton and Morgan plunged ahead vigorously in a fourpronged marketing effort supported by an elaborate delivery system. They had boats constructed for delivering goods throughout the territory and organized a group of agents. They contemplated trade with the Indians, the 85

David Franks

white settlers, the military, and the royal department of Indian affairs, but they managed to invest in too much of the wrong merchandise and overextended their credit almost to the point of bankruptcy. George Morgan had been assigned to residency in the region and found himself in uncomfortable business situations time after time. Further, he engaged in a number of contentious personal relationships with key individuals, among them Colonel Wilkins, the British commandant in the Illinois territory, Colonel John Reed, the commandant of Fort Chartres, and, strangely enough, his partner Samuel Wharton.22 Morgan had been supplying meat and other provisions to Fort Chartres and had visions of expanding that activity, not only by providing goods but by developing the product lines himself through farming and raising cattle. Too far from the source of decisions, he was not even aware that in June 1766 a new contract had been signed between the Crown and a reorganized contractor organization consisting of Arnold Nesbitt, Adam Drummond, and Moses Franks, which specified that they would “agree to supply such of his Majesty’s forces as may be stationed at the several places, hereinafter mentioned, between Philadelphia and Fort Pitt,” in addition to the other territories listed. Fort Pitt was identified as the “deposit for all provisions which proceed down the Ohio [to the Illinois country].” This was the beginning of the end for Baynton, Wharton and Morgan.23 Baynton, Wharton and Morgan began a campaign of enlisting allies for their anticipated struggle with Franks and Company. Writing to New Jersey governor William Franklin, they gushed over his father’s last letter to them: “With infinite pleasure we discover, that Gentleman has these Matters [the Suffering Traders’ compensation] much at Heart; & we are perswaded, an Exertion of his great Ability’s, join’d with his usual Application, will in Time mature them into a happy Execution.”24 They unburdened themselves as well to Sir William Johnson, expressing their great need to be paid for the goods given to Croghan. This was their opening for explaining how supportive Benjamin Franklin appeared to be on the issue of colonizing Illinois. Of course, they moved on to discuss reimbursement for the traders’ losses and what progress he could report.25 It was too little too late. The new contract would commence on January 12, 1767, and General Gage had ordered the survey of residual provisions. For the first time in more than two years, Gage addressed the letter to “Franks, Inglis & Barclay.” Of course, Gilbert Barkly had left the firm eighteen months earlier, but no matter: David had made his way back to the head of the line with Gage!26 86

Franks, Inglis and Barkly

Baynton, Wharton and Morgan were not going to give in so easily, and they offered an open bribe to Lauchlin MacLeane, undersecretary to Lord Shelburne: “Our proposals, being so perfectly honorable in Themselves and so beneficial to the Nation, We can without Diffidence, presume to acquaint you, That if you will push your Interest and get an Order, early in the year to General Gage to contract with Us, five six or seven years, or longer if possible, at Twelve pence Sterling p’r Ration &c Agreable to Our propositions—We will interest you, One seventh in the annual Profits of the Contract—.”27 The company sweetened the pot by offering prices to the military much lower than David Franks’s, but made this offer in such a convoluted way that it was difficult to comprehend. Baynton, Wharton and Morgan argued at length about Franks and Company’s inadequate capabilities and how difficult it would be for any new contractor to “catch up” with Franks’s system at Fort  Chartres. They closed with a wink: “PS.  Permit us to mention, That if the present Contractors should have the least Hint, of our proposals, before you have secured y’r Interest, They may effectually supplant us,—pardon this Intimation.” A similar proposal, minus the bribe, was sent directly to the Lords of the Treasury. It didn’t work. MacLeane was furious; he was greatly insulted by the bribe and forwarded the letter to Shelburne with a request for the earl’s guidance.28 Morgan, however, learned that Franks and his partners had been awarded the contract and pushed Baynton and Wharton to somehow stay involved in the supply chain by selling to David Franks. In the same communication he described a number of problems in Baynton, Wharton and Morgan’s activities in Illinois and offered possible solutions for some of them, but without the enthusiasm he had shown previously. It was clear to Morgan that the military supply business was finished for his company, and without a go-ahead from the Lords of Trade, commerce with the Indians was risky. His company’s investments in the delivery system and in the goods for Indians had been unwise and were very unlikely to produce profits in the near term.29 In early 1767 Gage notified the Treasury regarding settlement of the residual provisions from the prior contract, setting the stage for commencement according to the new one. Both the Philadelphia and the New York agents had concluded their preparations successfully.30 Undaunted, Morgan acquired property and began farming again, with the intention of going around the system and selling provisions to the military that he had raised and harvested himself. He attempted to strike an arrangement with Colonel John Reed of Fort  Chartres, who was also circumventing the system 87

David Franks

by acquiring provisions from one Daniel Blouin. But Reed’s pact with the Frenchman was too good to let go, and he refused to deal with Baynton, Wharton and Morgan. Reed’s activities led to his removal from his post in the spring of 1768 and the assignment of an interim commandant, Captain Forbes. Morgan tried again, working his farm assiduously and raising cattle.31 In July 1768, William Murray, now acting as the agent-in-residence for David Franks, showed up in Illinois. In the intervening time, between approval of the new contract and the summer of 1768, John Inglis had left the firm to do other things. In his place, David called upon an uncle, Isaac Levy, another younger brother of his departed mother and Uncle Nathan. Uncle Isaac had been a fairly successful merchant in Philadelphia for many years, but he never had David’s touch or David’s connections to powerful agents in London. Years earlier, he and his brother Nathan had enjoyed a partnership, which ended when Nathan teamed up with David. Now it was Isaac’s chance to work with David, the senior partner, who was fourteen years his junior. In deference to Isaac’s age, the firm name listed his name first. So William Murray became the representative of Levy and Franks, agents for the contractors for victualing the forces of the king.32 Murray was an old friend and active business associate of the Gratz brothers, through whom he had made the acquaintance of David and his family. He was formerly Captain Murray of the Royal Highlanders and a frequent and cordial correspondent with Colonel Bouquet while stationed at Lancaster. Murray knew David’s sister Richa, probably from his introduction to America in New York, where the Franks family played hosts to arriving military officers.33 Murray arrived in the Illinois country bearing goods sent by the Gratz brothers, which he intended to sell while getting his bearings on the Franks job. In August his family joined him there.34 Morgan’s efforts at farming and ranching had resulted in an accumulation of provisions that were just what the fort needed. But it was clear that with the prevailing attitude in the military leadership and the aggressive move by Levy and Franks to initiate trade, Baynton, Wharton and Morgan were not going to have much success selling their merchandise. Morgan decided to capitulate and to sell his residual stores to Levy and Franks, who needed goods desperately and who would pay a better price, not having to transport supplies to Illinois from Pennsylvania.35 James Rumsey managed the Kaskaskia store with his clerk, Windsor Brown, and Morgan assigned Rumsey the job of negotiating the sale to Murray. Discussions commenced and inspections took place in which the parties could not agree on the quality of a portion of the goods. Of the nearly £10,000 worth of items, nearly 88

Franks, Inglis and Barkly

one-tenth was rejected by Murray as unfit. In the middle of these transactions, Rumsey resigned from Baynton, Wharton and Morgan to work for Colonel Wilkins, Morgan’s adversary. In a transitional assignment, he collaborated with Murray in the settlement of the residual goods. Rumsey had recently married Murray’s widowed daughter-in-law, and the two men formed a new partnership. In order to conclude the negotiations, Morgan and Rumsey, now on opposing sides of the issue, agreed to have Windsor Brown, who knew the stock well and who had also been newly employed by David Franks, make a determination of which goods were “saleable.” Murray agreed. The process went badly. Brown issued a decision that Rumsey did not like. Some angry letters were exchanged. The two men agreed that “each party appoint an Honest Man to be Judges of the Same.” Lieutenant John Debermier and Ensign Thomas Hutchins were selected to inspect the items and render judgment. A third person, elected “Umpire,” was Louis Viviat, a French merchant of the Illinois territory. A continuing series of “decisions” and “rejections” followed. The dispute appears to have never really terminated, although the “acceptable” merchandise was transferred to Levy and Franks.36 Some three years later, Baynton, Wharton and Morgan successfully sued Levy and Franks for payment for the goods.37 One year after this, Wharton complained to Baynton that Franks still owed them the money. “We were together four days since pressing D. Franks for payment of the award and judgment obtained twelve months since against him of which he has not paid one shilling though the debt is about £10,000. We told him unless he paid a considerable part this week we should be compelled to take an execution out against him.”38 The firm of Baynton, Wharton and Morgan lasted another two years as a partnership, after which it virtually ceased to exist. Analyses of its failure generally conclude that it focused its resources in the wrong places. There were three major fields of opportunity in the west: Indian trade, business with the British colonials and other settlers, and military sales. Over time, Indian commerce proved to be disappointing, whereas the white population settlement in the area provided substantial growing business, and sales to the British army were huge. Baynton, Wharton and Morgan had bet on the Indians. Additionally, there was competition from French traders. Morgan had been sent to Illinois to take charge of the failing business there and managed to antagonize just about everyone—the French, the Indians, and the British military establishment. Out of the ashes of this collapse, Levy and Franks assumed the top rung on the ladder of English merchants in the west. 89

Ni ne

levy and franks and land speculation companies

For David Franks, the second half of the 1760s began with both land speculation and supplying the troops. The turmoil associated with Indian relations never seemed to abate and was not limited to the western territories. Sir William Johnson made repeated efforts to negotiate treaties that would survive longer than the time it took him to make it home. He engaged Pontiac in serious discussions to establish peaceful relations, only to have the backcountry settlers upset the balance time after time. He called these settlers “Ignorant People, ‘banditti,’ Country People who think they do good Service when they Knock an Indian in the Head.” The Indians who murdered Pontiac did not help either.1 The political struggle between the colonials and the mother country resulted in a steady stream of new regulations that met with vigorous rejection, followed by hardening positions on both sides and episodes bordering on civil uprising. David Franks and many of his friends and colleagues, including Plumsted, Inglis, the Gratz brothers, Thomas Willing, and Robert Morris, along with almost all of the merchants in Philadelphia, signed the nonimportation agreement of 1765 resolving not to import British goods until the stamp tax was lifted.2 Similar declarations were signed throughout America and the British hierarchy. General angst over the arrival of stamped papers went through a number of cycles of exacerbation and relaxation. General Gage alerted troops in the major cities but took no other actions that would aggravate the situation.3 Several colonies advised Gage that they would not provide carriage for military stores so long as the stamp duty was in effect. Gage continued to feel that most of the colonies would comply “without much difficulty . . . and if it is began in some that it will soon spread over the rest.” Just days later, Gage reported to the secretary of state,

Levy and Franks

Henry Conway, that “the pains which has been taken this long time to spirit up the people to oppose the Execution of the [Stamp] Act has had its effect” and that serious, warlike threats had been directed against the lieutenant governor of Massachusetts, Thomas Hutchinson, who had to flee for his life when a mob destroyed his house. “The General agreement not to take Stamps, has put a Stop to Business,” Gage continued. “The people idle and exasperated, the whole wou’d immediately fly to Arms, and a Rebellion began without any preparations against it, or any means to withstand it.”4 David Franks was well aware of all of these elements of ferment but devoted himself to mercantile activities, except when an issue affected the whole merchant community. Meanwhile, Inglis’s son-in-law, Gilbert Barkly, had relocated to Canada in mid-1765. He had been a supernumerary in the firm, and his presence had kept Inglis happy while Inglis was busy pacifying Gage. Keeping the general happy was essential for the success of the firm in its status as agent. Years later, Barkly returned to Philadelphia and appears to have played some kind of role as a spy for the British.5 Shortly following Barkly’s departure, William Plumsted passed away “after a short Illness of four or five days, His disorder was singular, being at first Attack’d by 2 or 3 Biles on the back of his Neck, which Swelling the Parts stopp’d the Circulation of the Blood to the Brains &c threw Him into a Dilirium, attended with a Fever.” None of his obituaries or any of his later biographical treatments made mention of the partnership with David Franks or his active participation in victualing British troops. It appeared he had pursued this as a hobby after his lengthy tenure as a politician.6 Shortly thereafter, David’s good friend and business associate Colonel Henry Bouquet was promoted to the rank of brigadier general and assigned to the southern department, whereupon he shipped out to Florida. Less than two weeks after his arrival, Bouquet died in a yellow fever epidemic, an ironic end for the man who had approved sending blankets to the Indians infected with a deadly disease.7 But deaths weren’t the only events that captured David’s attention. In July 1765 Moses Franks succumbed to the charms of his first cousin Phila Franks, uncle Aaron’s daughter, and they were married. Watts sent greetings: “God send you all the happiness you wish, but mind, as happiness is a good deal ideal, the way to be happy is to endeavor to think yourself so, even tho’ the road is rather rougher than you would choose. No man was ever happy against his Will.” Now forty-six years old, Moses merged his immensely successful career into one of the richest families in London. A  month later Watts teased, “By this Time  I 91

David Franks

suppose you must be in Fetters, may they set easy upon you, tho’ they have galld some poor mortals confoundedly.”8 Levy and Franks continued their multifaceted enterprises—supplying the army, import-export activities, candle manufacture, ship design and manufacture, fur trade, and retail sales. Having acquired the army’s contractual authority in the Illinois country as well as all of Pennsylvania, the agency reached from New Orleans on the Mississippi to Canada and the Great Lakes.9 In addition, acquisition of land was always a high priority, and David Franks rarely passed up an opportunity to buy promising tracts or to take them as payment in legal judgments. In September 1765, meanwhile, at Shearith Israel in New  York, the annual congregational meeting took place at which the officers for the year were elected; among them were “Mr. Hayman Levy, Junr,” who was selected as Hatan Bereshith, the one given the honor of reading the Torah first, after its rescrolling on Simchat Torah. At a meeting eight days later, five “assistants,” one of whom was Jacob Franks, were selected for the four major offices. Less than a month later, “at a Meeting of the Assistance [sic] with the Parnassim [officers] the following Articles were Agreed & resolved: 1st That Mr. H[ayman] . . . L[evy] . . . shall pay a fine of Twenty shillings for an abuse given by him to the Hazan [cantor].” Apparently Levy had also been replaced as Hatan Bereshith for the Simchat Torah celebration a week earlier. Jacob Franks had been his replacement. David had traveled to New York and attended the service, informing “Good Barnard [Gratz]” that “the Hatan Bereshith [in Hebrew]  & all the Kahal [congregation] [were] very Drunk yesterday.”10 Also in New York, David’s eighteen-year-old son, John, prepared to leave for London. His sister Richa, Watts reported to Moses Franks, “says young Sir Will. (tho’ his Name happens to be John) will be a feast to your Brother as a pure Exotick, he appears to be a pretty modest Young Fellow.”11 He turned out to be “exotick” indeed. Once in London, John wed his cousin Priscilla, the younger sister of Moses Franks’s wife, Phila.12 Furthermore, John was known to follow the Anglican faith. Uncle Aaron tried to exert his influence upon the couple and purchased a membership at the Great Synagogue for John and Priscilla. They never renewed it after the initial 1767– 68 year. The young couple had become Christians and maintained membership at All Saints Anglican Parish in Isleworth.13 Meanwhile, David’s daughter Abby married Andrew Hamilton, thereby joining one of the leading families of Philadelphia.14 Hamilton was the grandson of Andrew Hamilton, whose defense of John Peter Zenger stamped him 92

Levy and Franks

as one of America’s leading lawyers. Young Hamilton also adopted the law as a profession. His brother, William “Billy” Hamilton, had inherited the sizable Woodlands estate and property and made a lifetime project out of creating a meaningful and impressive mansion and grounds. Billy had a flair for the artistic, including architecture, which he exploited in refurbishing the mansion and undertaking botanical investigations that served as the basis for developing the extensive gardens on the property. The Hamilton family was closely allied with the Penns, both politically and socially. Yet, while Billy explained that “politicks seem to take up every Body’s attention, & I believe, there never was a greater variety of sentiments on any Topic,” he himself kept “for the most part out of the way, not only for my dislike of the subject as at present handled, but because I have other Fish to fry.”15 Unfortunately, the connection to the Penn family was uppermost in the minds of many Pennsylvanians. Because of these connections, all the Hamiltons, including Billy, Andrew, and later Abby, were judged to be loyalists irrespective of their personal leanings. Billy was a childhood friend of Rebecca Franks, David’s youngest offspring, and a standout student at Dr. White’s academy. His brother Andrew was a serious practitioner of the law and was successful early in his career. He and Abby appear to have had a splendid life together. Weddings were usually pleasant occasions, but many things were changing as the family grew and aged. Back in 1752, when Moses became established in London and it was clear that a significant amount of international business would come to the family, he gave his father, Jacob Franks, power of attorney over his affairs in America. Now, fifteen years later, with Jacob approaching age seventy-nine, that arrangement needed to be modified, and Jacob gave power of attorney to David, thus relinquishing responsibility to his son.16 Meanwhile, Levy and Franks were doing their best to keep General Gage happy. They asked what quantities of provisions were contemplated for the Illinois troops well in advance of ordering time. The general was not in a position to commit and begged off. But he did advise Levy and Franks to replace the boats belonging to the Crown at Fort Pitt, as they were to be used for delivering supplies to Chartres and were in bad shape. As Chartres was a new supply venue, Gage volunteered to provide assistance by clearing the way with the commanding officers at both Pitt and Chartres. This cooperation was a welcome change for Franks. By 1769 the victualing business was progressing smoothly again.17 93

David Franks

In January of that year, Jacob Franks passed away. The  Pennsylvania Gazette published the obituary that appeared in the New York papers: Last Monday Morning ( January 16th) died in an advanced Age, Mr. Jacob Franks, for many Years an eminent Merchant of this City: A  Gentleman of a most amiable Character; in his Family, a tender and kind Master; as a Merchant, upright and punctual in all his Dealings; as a Citizen, humane and benevolent; a Friend to the Poor of all Denominations, affable and friendly in his Behavior to all. He is now gone to receive from the Supreme God, whom he adored, his Reward among the Faithful. The Memorial of the Righteous is Blessed. On Tuesday his remains were decently interred in the Jews Burying Place, attended by a great Number of his Friends. David was in New York about two weeks before Jacob passed away and remained after the funeral for the required mourning period. During his stay he received condolences from the Gratz brothers and took the opportunity to send a note of thanks and to attend to some ongoing business matters, including half a page on local commodity pricing in New York. In an uncharacteristic aside, he complained that his beard (grown during the mourning) was “now Long & troublesome,” adding in Hebrew, “receiving condolences.”18 Jacob Franks left no will. His maiden daughter, Richa, and John Harris Cruger, son of the former mayor of New York and son-in-law of Oliver and Phila DeLancey, were assigned as administrators of his estate. The link between Jacob and Phila, so fragile years earlier, went beyond the grave.19 Cruger and Richa arranged a £25 donation to the charity fund of Shearith Israel, “for which he is entitled to have an Hascaba [memorial prayer] made every [Yom] Kippur  & Ros hodes [first day of the month on the Jewish calendar] hereafter Sivan the 8th 5529 [ June 13, 1769].” In an attached note dated February 19, David Franks promised an additional £5 annually to the fund, according to the Shearith Israel minutes, “exclusive of the offering he may make in the Synagogue.”20 Still in New York in early February, Franks apologized to Gage for not having visited in January but explaining about his father’s illness and death, which kept him at home. Franks went on to make recommendations regarding the boats in bad condition. The letter must have been hand-delivered to headquarters, because Gage’s reply arrived the same day. The general consoled David on his loss and expressed the desire to meet with him personally 94

Levy and Franks

before his return to Philadelphia. He closed with replies to the business parts of David’s letter. The entire tenor of the relationship had changed; clearly, David was out of the doghouse.21 The following month Uncle Isaac gave David power of attorney, authorizing him to manage his debts and accounts.22 The partnership continued for several years, until Isaac’s demise in 1777. This step was probably taken in conjunction with a trip to London (or possibly New York), combining business with a visit to the family there. David was left pondering a number of complex issues in his life. He was running his various business enterprises. With Jacob gone, he was now the titular head of the American branch of the Franks family. The land speculation schemes were accelerating, and he was a key player in several of them. While the Indian tribes were relatively calm, the situation between colonists and the mother country was in ferment, and the British government was alarmed. The decade was coming to a close with great success behind him, but greater challenges lay ahead. The immense stretches of fertile, mineral-rich land beyond the Alleghenies offered visions of enormous profits to both European and American Britons following the French and Indian War. Men of intelligence as well as greed sought ways to gain ownership of vast properties, realizing the potential for gain as westward migration advanced. The participants in this great westward expansion included the most powerful and influential men in the colonies, as well as their counterparts in the British hierarchy. Earls, dukes, lords, colonial governors, generals and admirals on both sides of the Atlantic, and innumerable others, including George Washington and Benjamin Franklin, formed a variety of companies attempting to appropriate huge areas in the Ohio Valley, the Indiana and Illinois countries, Kentucky, and the western portions of what was then Florida. Interlocking and conflicting loyalties abounded, as individuals joined more than one land company and as British colonial policies underwent frequent, radical, and ultimately confusing changes. After the French and Indian War, disagreements had begun to boil over inside the British Parliament regarding various colonial policies. Four issues dominated the debates over the American colonies. Following the victories in Canada, management of areas from Canada to Florida and from the Mississippi to the Atlantic became the responsibility of the colonial governments and the British armed forces. The ability of the British army to keep order in this territory was questionable: the army consisted of uneducated, lower-class volunteers led by an aristocratic elite whose commissions had 95

David Franks

been purchased and could be easily abandoned when no longer needed. The  concept of well-trained permanent officers had not yet taken root, and the nature of battle in the American interior challenged conventional military tactics. Meanwhile, the colonies were growing more self-sufficient, and British officials began to worry about the possibility that they might not remain permanently loyal. These changes and problems were met not by a strong, united government but by political instability. Following the accession of George III in 1758, political leadership and colonial policy in Britain were constantly in flux, as administrations came and went, until Lord North took the helm as prime minister in 1770. Furthermore, a legal decision concerning land in British India had a large impact on the American scene. Land speculation in India had also become a topic of interest and concern. In 1757 the East India Company, which ruled the British-controlled territories, sought to acquire significant new land and had petitioned the Crown for approval. The attorney general and the solicitor general of Great Britain, Charles Pratt and Charles Yorke, later Lords Camden and Morden, produced the Yorke-Camden opinion at the request of the Privy Council. Although designed to deal with a specific problem in India, this opinion was soon applied to America as well. Delicately crafted and perversely subservient, the little manifesto assigned the rights to decisions over land issues to the king by default. Basically, the opinion said that the king was in charge of his empire and that all that was required to acquire land in India was his approval. Some time later, modified versions of the Yorke-Camden opinion began to show up in America, where land speculators were far more active. The aggressive Americans lost little time in trying to obtain royal assent for their schemes, ironically at the same time they were denying British authority to tax them or regulate their trade.23 One of the early forays into land acquisition resulted from the treaty Sir William Johnson had made at Fort Stanwix in 1769, when the Six Nations yielded 2.4 million acres as payment to the Suffering Traders for their losses in 1754 and 1763. As we have seen, David Franks was the single greatest “sufferer” in that group, and he played a pivotal but restrained role in the effort to obtain compensation. Samuel Wharton, though Franks’s principal business competitor, stood to gain much as well, and directed the organizational activities seeking affirmation of the Stanwix agreement by the king or his representatives. The sufferers sent George Croghan to London, there to join with Benjamin Franklin and David’s brother Moses, to sue for royal approval of the treaty. This group became the Indiana Company. At the 96

Levy and Franks

same time, representatives of the Ohio Company, the Mississippi Company, the Loyal Company, and others sought to take possession of large tracts throughout the region west of the mountains beyond the boundaries of the original colonies. While dealing with the speculators, British ministers wrestled with their most nagging problem, “development of that vast transmontane region that was acquired in 1763 by the Treaty of Paris.”24 Political fluctuations within the king’s councils and others close to him in the years before the Revolution contributed significantly to the absence of a clear decision on any of the solicitations or claims. The British government sustained eight changes of prime minister in the thirteen years between 1757 and 1770.25 The result was frustration and chaos within the companies. This was certainly true in the Indiana Company, later called the Walpole Company and, even later, the Vandalia Company. After Croghan returned to America, efforts to validate the Fort Stanwix Treaty took a back seat to new speculative land schemes. While he never forgot about those losses and continued to seek compensation for more than a decade, David Franks withdrew (temporarily) from active participation in the Indiana organization. A  small subgroup consisting of Benjamin Franklin’s son, Governor William Franklin of New Jersey, Croghan, Baynton, Morgan, Samuel Wharton, Callender, and Trent, decided to pursue the claims themselves. They raised funds to send Wharton and Trent to England to petition the Crown for approval of a land grant. Financial problems plagued all of the members of this group in the ensuing three or four years, as they struggled to keep Wharton on the job. When it became clear that approval was not forthcoming, they sought powerful British gentlemen as partners. The principal addition was Thomas Walpole, a leading London banker and a member of Parliament. Other prominent Britons enlisted into the company were Lord Gower, Lord Rochford, Lord Hertford, George Grenville, Lord Camden, Thomas Pownall, John Pownall, and William Strahan. In addition, brothers Moses and Naphtali Franks and David’s son John were included. Oddly, although he was named specifically in the Treaty of Fort Stanwix, David’s name no longer remained on the membership list, but as Moses was the spokesman for the organization in councils, he was certainly represented. The  reorganization made a shambles of the financial interests of the key “sufferers,” and the membership no longer represented the original intent of the Indiana Company. In fact, it was now called the Walpole Company and sometimes the Grand Ohio Company. Many shares of ownership had been traded or sold in the intervening years, and the membership list looked very little like the original “sufferers.” Leadership of this new entity was assumed 97

David Franks

by an executive committee consisting of Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Walpole, Samuel Wharton, and John Sargent. A  total of fifty members were recognized.26 In July 1769 the company petitioned the Crown to purchase the 2.4 million acres specified in the Stanwix agreement. Wharton, who was valued as intelligent, smooth, gentlemanly, and well liked—virtually ambassadorial— spent the next six years in pursuit of approval of this request, without success. The continually shifting tides of sentiment within the king’s council prevented this application and all others from obtaining final ratification. Along the way, Wharton had moments of exultation when approval appeared imminent, and as many moments of desperation when it looked like all was lost. In May 1770 it seemed that all conflicting claims had been either withdrawn or otherwise mitigated. But Lord Hillsborough, who opposed the project and had charge of the Board of Trade, arranged to stall the proceedings until rival claims caught up with the process. A major contribution to Wharton’s failure came from the claims of the Virginians who formed the Mississippi Company and the original Ohio Company. Conflicts and overlapping territorial claims raised questions within the Lords of Trade and the Privy Council, rendering decisions difficult or impossible. Additionally, Virginia governor Dinwiddie had authorized the issue of acreage to militiamen who had fought in the French and Indian War. These veterans’ benefits were in the area around Fort Pitt and conflicted with other claims.27 Under the name of the Vandalia Company—so named in honor of the queen of England, who was supposedly descended from the Vandals— Wharton and Trent continued their attempts to gain acceptance through 1773 and were anxious to succeed before the first shipments of East India tea reached America, which promised to be troublesome. Vandalia, now many times the size of the original Indiana grant, had acquired a number of key opponents, including General Gage. Nevertheless, rumors spread internationally that a new government was to be established in the west and identified Walpole, Franklin, Sargent, and Wharton as the key individuals.28 Just three months later a London gentleman told his Virginia friend, “I can inform you, for certain, that the new Province on the Ohio is confirmed to the Proprietors, by the name of pittsylvania, in Honour of Lord Chatham [William Pitt]. Mr. Wharton from Philadelphia will be appointed Governor in a few days.” Of course, this failed to take place.29 Progress slowed to a crawl, and one year turned into another. In 1774 the British government washed out the Augean stable of land companies by giving the entire trans-Appalachian region to the province of Quebec. In 98

Levy and Franks

the spring of 1775 Wharton and Trent concluded that the game was over and sought to revive the old Indiana claim. Trent returned to America to manage the program, but hostilities began in the colonies soon thereafter. Wharton too returned to America, and later that year the company was reorganized. Membership meetings were called at Pittsburgh and Carlisle at which none of the Philadelphia partners appeared. A  rift between the western and eastern partners caused serious dissension within the group. Benjamin Franklin, David Franks, and others from Philadelphia complained that meetings could have been called in Lancaster instead of Carlisle, which would have facilitated their attendance and representation.30 As the Revolution broke out, a series of meetings was held to reorganize the company. The men involved hoped to agree on new share values that would recognize not only losses in the original complaint but contributions made toward the appeals process as well. This time, the company directed its plea to the Continental Congress rather than the royal government. A meeting on New Year’s Day 1776 consolidated legal opinions, established share amounts, and elected a committee, which included David Franks, to evaluate the opinion of an outside lawyer, Joseph Reed. Reed disagreed with the member attorney, Joseph Galloway, on several key points. The irony of Reed, Galloway, and David Franks working together on a land speculation project, given their later differences— Galloway became a loyalist and Reed was the primary mover behind charging Franks with treason— cannot be overlooked.31 The Indiana Company next submitted its claim to the Congress but was opposed by the Virginia colony. During the Revolution, Congress had little time for worrying about land yet to be secured. In March 1776 Joseph Galloway was appointed president of the Indiana Company, but shortly thereafter he declared his opposition to the armed rebellion, came out publicly in support of Britain, and fled Philadelphia to enjoy the protection of British troops at Trenton. David Franks replaced Galloway as the company’s president. William Trent carried on as the company’s spokesman before the Virginia Assembly in 1779. The rejections continued as the Virginians found endless reasons why Pennsylvanians, though deserving of compensation, were not entitled to land belonging to Virginia. The last resort was a direct appeal to Congress. Trent submitted petitions, as did representatives from Virginia. Congress was slow to act, and Trent sent another quite bitter and vituperative petition, which the congressional committee returned to him with the instruction that unacceptable language be removed. Trent obliged resignedly, but not until July 1781; only then did Congress grant 99

David Franks

Pennsylvania the land disputed with Virginia, but this did not settle the question of who owned private property there. Sadly, David Franks’s life had taken a number of turns in the interim.32 Franks did not restrict his land speculation activities to one adventure. He and his partners were the major sponsors of the Illinois Land Company. Their representative in the west, William Murray, purchased two large tracts of land north and south of Kaskaskia village. To entice Virginia, which claimed the area, to support the claim, Murray formed the Wabash Land Company and made Virginia’s governor, Lord Dunmore, who was greatly interested in acquiring western lands of his own, a charter member.33 David enlisted a substantial number of his business partners, family members, and close associates in this venture, among them Murray, James Rumsey and Alexander Ross (employees of his), brother Moses, and son John Franks of London, John Inglis, Barnard and Michael Gratz, David Sproat and James Milligan of Philadelphia, his son Moses, Andrew Hamilton (his son-in-law) and his brother William, Edmund Milne, Joseph Simon and Levy Andrew Levy of Lancaster, Thomas Minshall, Robert Callender, William Thompson, John Campbell, and George Castles. The company store in Kaskaskia operated under the name of David Franks & Co.34 The Illinois Company had a brief existence on its own, but the combined organization known as the Illinois & Ouabache Company remained an entity for nearly twenty years after its inception in 1773. Circling around the periphery of the inner group throughout the early stages of its life were a number of other vigorous land speculators, including Croghan, Dr. Thomas Walker, Patrick Henry, the Whartons, George Morgan, and the other American Vandalia partners. They made numerous attempts to become involved in the transaction. Shares were bought and sold, and “‘ for ways that were dark and for tricks that were vain,’ the Illinois and Wabash Companies were peculiar,” in the words of historian Thomas Abernethy.35 Angered that a British governor was speculating in land the Crown had deeded to Quebec, secretary of state for the colonies Lord Dartmouth castigated Dunmore: “it is The King’s Pleasure that you do, in the most public and solemn manner, declare His Majesty’s Disapprobation and Disallowance of that purchase and that you do exert every power and Authority which the Constitution has vested in you, to preserve inviolate the Engagements entered into with Indians in the King’s Name, and to prevent any Settlement whatever being made upon any Pretence beyond the Line settled at the Congress at Lockhaber in Octr 1770.”36

100

Levy and Franks

Apparently even this royal order did not put a stop to Dunmore’s participation, as he was listed as a member of the group buying Indian property in late 1775. This list also included Louis Viviat, a prominent French merchant of the Illinois country; Moses and Jacob/John Franks of London; several important Marylanders; David Franks and Moses Franks of Philadelphia; William Murray and Daniel Murray of Illinois; Nicholas St. Martin and Joseph Page of Illinois; and Francis Perthuis of Post St. Vincent (Vincennes).37 Murray had decided not to engage in the negotiations himself and employed Viviat, who in turn enlisted the strong support of influential Marylanders. But David and his brother and two sons were partners. Over time this organization acquired many new members who were enlisted for their influence in the Congress. James Wilson, a signer of the Declaration of Independence, a prominent attorney, and a member of Congress, became the chairman. Other notable “Proprietors” of Indiana were Edmund Milne, a noted silversmith; George Ross, a signer of the Declaration; Samuel Chase, later a Maryland congressman; Charles Carroll, a signer of the Declaration and another Maryland congressman; Dr. William Smith, founder and headmaster of the College of Philadelphia; John Holker, consul of France in America; Robert Morris, noted financier of the Revolution; and Robert Goldsborough, a delegate to the Continental Congress and yet another Maryland congressman.38 In the end, none of the territorial enterprises was successful; the lust for real property as a path to riches eluded even the most influential entrepreneurs. Worse yet, the hopes for recompense, to which so many were genuinely entitled, were never realized. David Franks never gave up hope that somehow his losses as a “suffering trader” would be regained. While this hope was always in the back of his mind, he went on with his life as a businessman and a family man. It was a bumpy ride.

101

Te n

a time of transition

With the departure of Colonel Bouquet for Florida in 1764, new officers took over the posts in the western section. Along with the change went years of close personal working relationships and good will. At Fort Chartres, Colonel Wilkins had a long-standing business connection with Baynton, Wharton and Morgan, although he and George Morgan disliked each other. Clearly, Levy and Franks were the agents for the contractors with the assignment to supply Fort Chartres, but Wilkins was not making things easy for them. In 1770 David Franks complained to General Gage, outlining the history of one particular pork purchase that Wilkins had rejected, even though he had known about the order well in advance and had acknowledged that he anticipated the delivery. Franks pointed out Wilkins’s habit of favoring Baynton, Wharton and Morgan’s products over those of competitors and some of the administrative hurdles placed before others in order to accomplish receipt of merchandise. No effort was being made at Chartres to hide this favoritism. Gage took Franks’s side, but after settlement Wilkins was surely not going to have warm feelings, having been ordered to reverse himself. Wilkins was no Bouquet—in any sense of the word. Working relationships were going to change dramatically.1 The year 1770 was not a good one for Gage. He sent lengthy messages to Lord Hillsborough, the secretary of state for the colonies, describing the “Misunderstanding between the People and the Troops in this Place [New  York]” and the subsequent situation in Boston. In New  York the quartering of troops aroused serious objections, which were settled by negotiation, but in Boston things got out of hand. A  few soldiers and a much larger group of angry colonists had words, which led to pushing and shoving. Captain Preston, the officer in charge, detached a squad of troops

A Time of Transition

and a sergeant to the area and decided to go there himself to keep control of the soldiers. The crowd grew more strident, and Preston stood between the Soldiers and the Mob parlying the latter, and using every conciliating Method to perswade them to retire peaceably. . . . All he could say had no Effect, and one of the Soldiers receiving a violent Blow, instantly fired. Captain Preston turned round to see who had fired and received a Blow upon his Arm, which was aimed at his Head; and the Mob at first seeing no Execution done, and imagining the Soldiers had only fired Powder to frighten, grew more bold and attacked with greater Violence: continualy Striking at the Soldiers and pelting them, and calling out to them to fire. The Soldiers at length perceiving their Lives in Danger, and hearing the Word Fire all round them, three or four of them fired one after another and again three more in the same hurry and Confusion. Four or five Persons were unfortunately killed, and More wounded.2 Preston and the soldiers were arrested and taken to the local prison. This was the first British report of the Boston Massacre. Without conferring with Gage, Lieutenant Governor Hutchinson and Lieutenant Colonel Dalrymple had the troops moved out of Boston to the Island of Castle William in Boston Harbor. Gage was displeased about not being consulted but confessed, “It has indeed been proved, that they [the Soldiers] were of no use in the Town of Boston, for the People were as Lawless and Licentious after the Troops arrived, as they were before.” The major cities in the colonies were in ferment; anti-British feelings were aroused generally. Throughout the period following Pontiac’s Rebellion, the British Parliament, the Board of Trade, and the constantly rotating officials at the head of the British government debated endlessly whether to retain the system of forts and military settlements that had been established when the French were there. Everyone had an opinion. Certainly one of the most valued was that of General Gage, who represented the front line in the conduct of Indian relationships. In 1768 the Board of Trade issued a report, in conjunction with a contemplated reorganization of the government, dealing with management of the Indian/western problem. Among other issues, they concluded that it would “be in the highest degree expedient to reduce all such posts in the interior country, as are not immediately subservient to the protection of the Indian commerce and to the defeating of French and 103

David Franks

Spanish machinations among the Indians,” or that were too expensive to retain given the value they delivered. The  board recommended retaining only three forts: Detroit, Michilimackinac, and Niagara.3 Gage, at this time, wanted to reduce forces at the forts in the interior and to extend coverage into the Illinois country. His superiors favored concentrating the army in Canada, Florida, and along the coast.4 Gage, ever the responsive soldier, agreed to go along with that plan but expressed the opinion that “half the Governors on the Continent will cry out against Me, for there is no post or Fort in any of the Provinces, which the Governors will not deem usefull, and give reasons why they should be kept up.”5 Closing forts or reducing manpower severely at the garrisons was going to have a negative impact on David Franks’s business. The prospect of a buildup at Fort  Chartres was the only bright spot in the unfolding gloomy picture. Franks’s highly structured arrangement, which had worked so successfully for ten years, was breaking down. The “Suffering Traders of 1763” were proceeding down the path (they believed) toward obtaining compensation out of the Stanwix Treaty land acquisition. Along the way, the “Suffering Traders of 1754” made known that they intended to have their share of the acreage, that the treaty had applied to both groups. Despite the fact that a few members belonged to both syndicates, a rift ensued and the two groups split up, the traders of 1754 gathering their forces together and making separate application for redress. A group consisting of Edward Shippen Jr., Joseph Morris, Benjamin Levy, David Franks, Thomas Lawrence, and Samuel Wharton, representing the earlier sufferers, sent a memorial to Moses Franks, including a share for him, so that he would deliver their appeal to the Lords of Trade. Now, as a member of both groups, David had two programs of recompense to follow and was in the middle of a dispute over the same property. Meanwhile, Richa Franks and John Harris Cruger set plans to have the Jacob Franks estate distributed equitably, and in June 1769, five months after the funeral, Richa embarked on a trip to London to see Naphtali and Moses and gain their concurrence in the estate plan.6 Rebecca, another of David’s sisters, had also gone to live in England; the timing of her relocation is not known. Further, Abigaill made mention in letters to Naphtali of a younger sister, Poyer, whose later activities are a mystery. Consequently, apart from Phila DeLancey, David was probably the only Franks child still living in America. Richa’s name was sometimes spelled Richie or Ritchie and, later, Rachel. Her voyage to England was something of a special occasion in her 104

A Time of Transition

life. The ship Dutches of Gordon was captained by Isaac Lascelles Winn and included, among the passengers, the duchess of Gordon, for whom it was named. Other passengers were Colonel Staats Morris, husband of the duchess; Master Billy Gage, son of the general; and Barnard Gratz, on his way to London to “observe the [Indiana Company] situation and, at the same time, personally represent George Croghan.” Before sailing, Barnard had made arrangements for a hazan to officiate at the wedding of his brother Michael to Joseph Simon’s daughter, Miriam. David probably missed attending the biggest event of the year in American Jewish circles because he was still observing the mourning period for his father. On the journey to England, one of the travelers, who identified himself only as “Isaac the Scribe,” wrote a series of sketches in biblical form about some of the passengers, including Richa, which were later published in serial form in the New York Journal or General Advertiser. An  entire chapter devoted to “Richie” was extremely flattering and gentle and revealed considerable affection for her. The author remained anonymous forever. Poor Richa, now in her early forties, who had been sheltered from social life by her parents for her entire adult life and had spent the past ten years attending to her aging widowed father, was finally admired as a woman by a man who would not reveal himself. She never returned to America. And David, who years earlier had said, “I shall always think I have seen Nothing till I have bin at London,” was one of only two family members who had not been there. Yet.7 Closing forts and reducing military forces were not the only steps Britain took to save or increase revenue. A significant number of members of Parliament contended that the French and Indian War had been fought for the colonies and that the mother country should not have been required to bear the brunt of its costs. While it was recognized that the colonies could never repay Britain for past expenses, there was a general consensus that they should pay the present costs of administering and protecting them. Philosophical debates took place continually over whether England had the right to tax colonials and over the nature of individual methods of taxation and impositions.8 The stamp tax had been repealed in 1766, albeit by narrow pluralities in both houses. Concurrently, Parliament passed the Declaratory Act, which certified its right to make laws that were binding upon the colonies.9 This was followed in 1767 by the Townshend Acts, imposing duties on lead, paper, and some types of glass. Public resentment reached new levels; angry mobs hanged British officials in effigy, troops were redeployed to locations where threats of riot loomed, town meetings were held in the big cities, and in Boston the town meeting sought delegates for a “committee 105

David Franks

of convention” to examine issues of peace and safety. Gage reported, “Mad People have governed the Town [of Boston] . . . I am happy the Troops from Halifax arrived at the time they did.” The mood of the colonists had changed radically from their solid support of the Crown in the war against France to open defiance of authority from overseas.10 David Franks’s whole world seemed to be in flux. He had always maintained a cool head when it came to politics, family, and business. He did nothing extreme. While he was adventuresome in commercial activities, he managed risk with care and good sense. But now, with so many things changing all around him, he had to be particularly alert. Without Franks’s knowledge, Gage proposed to his superiors that other contractors be solicited to supply Fort Chartres at lower rates than specified in the contract with Nesbitt, Drummond and Franks. Proposals were obtained, and copies were sent along with his letter to treasury official Thomas Bradshaw.11 In January 1771 Alexander Barclay, David Franks’s brother-in-law, passed away. Barclay had purchased at public auction a home and twelve acres of prime property from the estate of William Coleman outside Philadelphia in 1769. Coleman was a successful merchant and judge who had purchased the land years earlier and directed the design and construction of a rectangular brick home plus some outbuildings. The  historian Carl Bridenbaugh said of the house, “for classic proportions and architectural distinction William Coleman’s ‘Woodford’ (1742) was the finest country house erected near Philadelphia before 1760.”12 Coleman’s business partner had been Thomas Hopkinson, who had been involved with David and Uncle Nathan in ownership of the schooner Drake in 1744.13 Coleman enjoyed a close association with Benjamin Franklin and was a founding trustee of the school that later became the University of Pennsylvania. He was married but had no children of his own. His wife’s sister had married a sea captain and borne a child; both of them had died young, leaving a boy of seven—young George Clymer. Coleman and his wife, Hannah, took her sister’s son into their home and raised him.14 The nearest neighbors had sons who became fast friends with young Clymer; John and Lambert Cadwalader and Andrew and Billy Hamilton lived just down Wissahickon Road, and the boys played together regularly.15 Later, after the Colemans left the area, the Hamiltons and the Cadwala­ ders attended Reverend Smith’s College of Philadelphia together. But their friendship with George Clymer lasted a lifetime. George Clymer grew up and began a career, married, and was taken into the business of his new 106

A Time of Transition

father-in-law and brother-in-law. He soon entered politics and became a delegate to the provincial convention in Philadelphia. Coleman, gravely ill for a long period and recently widowed, passed away in January 1769, just days before Jacob Franks died. He left in his estate more than three hundred books, mathematical instruments he had used for activities of Franklin’s Junto, and the mansion—Woodford. His will required that Woodford be sold, and Barclay had bought it. Now Barclay had died and had left his estate in a mess, which ended in a sheriff ’s sale of the real property.16 The June 13, 1771, edition of the Pennsylvania Gazette contained this advertisement: “By virtue of a writ to me directed will be exposed to public sale, on the premises, on Saturday, the 22nd of June instant, precisely at 3 o’clock in the afternoon, a certain brick messuage and tract of land, situate in the Northern Liberties of the city of Philadelphia, about 4 miles from said city, containing 12 acres and 4 perches of land, bounded by Wissahickon road, and lands of Joseph Shute, Thomas Hood, and others; late the estate of Alexander Barclay, Esq; deceased; to be sold by Judah Foulke, Sheriff.” Barclay’s household goods, garden implements, and town house on Union Street in Philadelphia were also advertised for sale. David Franks offered the high bid of £880 and acquired Woodford. Surely David and Margaret had visited with the Barclays a number of times in the two years they lived there and were very familiar with the house and the two outbuildings. Best of all, their closest neighbors would be the Hamiltons at Woodlands, including their daughter Abby and imminent grandchildren, and John Cadwalader, a fine gentleman and a good friend.17 But, although he was deeply pleased with acquisition of Woodford, Franks could see that everything in his life was undergoing major changes. There was more to come. In August 1772 Gage notified Franks that “Orders are transmitted to the Officer Commanding at Fort Pitt to lay in no more Provisions than what will be sufficient to serve that Garrison from Month to Month” until further notice. This would complicate Franks’s system and foretold the end of Fort Pitt, which the British sold later that year to Franks’s former employee, the merchant and land speculator Alexander Ross.18 Franks had carefully avoided engaging in political activity throughout his working life. He was no fool; he realized that his twenty-year stint as agent to the contractors to victual the British army stamped him as a de facto functionary of the Crown, and that everyone who knew him was aware of that connection. He also realized that, despite nearly thirty years of membership and attendance at Christ Church, he was still known in the community 107

David Franks

as a Jew. Jews did not hold elected public office in the colonies except in New York, where they were sometimes elected or appointed constables— positions no one wanted. In those cases, they were “permitted” to buy their way out of serving. In New York, David’s father had bought his way out of a position as constable in 1720, the year David was born. Electing wealthy people to undesirable offices so that they would pay to escape them was actually a small fund-raising technique in colonial American cities. In Pennsylvania, Jews were barred from voting or holding office, even though differences of ethnicity and religious denomination defined the character of the political scene. One study concluded that “the ethnic-religious conflict transcended [geographic] section and class and was the most salient characteristic of the contending political forces in Pennsylvania.” In the early days, after Quaker William Penn had become the proprietor of the colony, the preponderant affiliation of residents was Quaker, and Quakers thus dominated the elective process. In 1755 Quakers held more than 80 percent of the seats in the Pennsylvania Assembly, although by then they made up less than a quarter of the population. After the death of their father, William Penn’s sons became Anglicans, as did a number of other Quakers, but as the colony approached the mid-1770s, Quakers still held the largest voting bloc in the Assembly. All but three of the fourteen Quakers in the Assembly were English or Welsh. Anglicans held eight seats and were a mix of English, Scots, German, Swedish, and unknown ethnicities. Six of the seven Presbyterians were Scots-Irish.19 This distribution remained fairly constant until the “radical” Assembly took charge with a new constitution in 1776. Under the new state government, combined Quaker and Anglican representation in the Assembly was equaled by the Presbyterians and “all others.” This shift constituted a major upheaval in political outlook. During the French and Indian War and the Indian uprisings that followed, it had been nearly impossible to get the Pennsylvania colony to provide militiamen to support British regulars. Quakers were pacifist in outlook and were committed to avoiding conflict. They voted consistently to withhold fighting men. Their tendency was to comply with governmental direction and to express discontent quietly. In the halls of the Assembly, there was little expressed opposition to the Crown. But as the transition took place in ethnicity and religion, a corresponding major change took place in response to direction from England. By 1765 the nonimportation agreement had been endorsed by nearly every merchant in Philadelphia, Quakers included. David Franks was no exception. In quick succession, taxes on tea, molasses, glass, paint, oil, lead, and 108

A Time of Transition

paper had been applied, only to meet with ever more serious opposition in the colonies, including Pennsylvania.20 In 1773 –74 the Assembly was still controlled by a consolidated group of Quakers and Germans headed by Joseph Galloway, a prominent lawyer and one of the leaders, along with David Franks, of the Indiana Company. This group generally supported establishment interests and were known as “conservatives” in historical accounts. The “popular” party, later called the “radicals,” made known its sympathy for the people of Boston, who had just experienced the Boston Massacre. The changes that David Franks had recently undergone were not all for the good. Franks was still prosperous and lived well; his family still flourished, enjoying fine schooling and almost unlimited social acceptance. But there were ominous rumblings everywhere. Although Philadelphia and Pennsylvania had not been in the forefront of resistance to British measures in the 1760s and early 1770s, they began to catch up in 1774. Paul Revere traveled from Boston to Philadelphia to advise the locals regarding the Intolerable Acts, which had closed the port of Boston and reorganized the Massachusetts government in response to the Boston Tea Party. Philadelphia had a small coterie of those promoting resistance: they were not members of the conservative establishment that controlled the Assembly, but they were successful at inducing the prominent lawyer John Dickinson, who opposed British policies but was not in favor of independence, to attend some of their public meetings, where support for the Bostonians was expressed. Governor John Penn and the other conservatives took no part in these actions. The “radicals” used the conservatives’ apparent neutrality as a lever to encourage the formation of committees of correspondence and called for a convention in July 1774. This was a small but important victory for the radicals. Within months, the differences between Galloway’s conservative followers and the “moderates,” former conservatives who leaned toward some kind of opposition to British policies, widened significantly. Pennsylvanians would be further encouraged to resist British measures by their delegates to the Continental Congress, which met in Philadelphia that September.21 David Franks had no political voice. Although he had signed the nonimportation agreement in 1765, there is no evidence that he was one of the 250 merchants who supported the boycott of British goods in March 1769.22 Further, he played no role in the nonimportation movement in 1770, although his close friends George Clymer, Andrew Allen, and John Cadwalader were elected committeemen in support of the boycott.23 Some three 109

David Franks

hundred Philadelphians were considered to have been “involved in resistance politics—many very prominent, yet easily as many very obscure”— but David Franks does not appear to have been one of them.24 In 1770 he did join with ninety Philadelphia merchants to support their commercial contacts in Lancaster, who had petitioned Governor Penn for a new road between Philadelphia and Strasburg. This would have improved the transportation between Lancaster and Philadelphia by reducing the distance and upgrading the roadbed. But that wasn’t politically controversial.25 After volunteering to assist Gage with provisioning in Florida and being rejected, Franks turned his attention to converting his business from one primarily engaged in victualing British troops to one dedicated to importexport trade and the other pursuits of a general merchant.26 Lord Hillsborough had determined that the economic value of North America to the British Empire required “giving proper Encouragement to the Fishery, to the Production of naval Stores, and to the Supply of the Sugar Islands with Lumber and Provisions.”27 Realizing that their profits coincided with those intentions, beginning in 1770 David and brother Moses collaborated on the design and construction of vessels configured to transport large cargoes, particularly untrimmed tree trunks for use as masts in the Royal Navy. These ships, basically flat storage compartments with sails above, were referred to as “floats” by the brothers and were capable of carrying large quantities of lumber, whether cut or uncut. The first such ship was built in England and named for the village in which Moses lived, Teddington. David also resumed the vigorous pursuit of his real property interests.28 Not quite a year later, Captain Alexander Coffin and the brig Harmony returned from London with ten crew members of the Teddington, including its captain, Joseph Greenleaf. Coffin had seen the ship foundering in waters off the New England coast and rescued the remaining crew members, whom he brought back to Philadelphia, arriving on November 4. The Teddington, of course, had gone down after being released by Coffin. The brothers applied for reimbursement from their insurance carrier and started construction of a new ship, this time in Philadelphia. In December 1771 David informed Moses about the progress: the underwriters were balking at payment because of the unusual nature of the craft; the new ship Gloucester was nearly completed, lacking only sails and rigging. He was disappointed that he would probably not be able to launch the first voyage until March and had still to hire a master. He was expecting delivery of fine white pine timber, which would make an excellent cargo. Another ship was to be constructed starting in early spring. Moses was delighted with everything except the insurance 110

A Time of Transition

problems and vowed to have the issue settled in London if David could not get agreement in America. He offered advice regarding cargoes and schedules. Even the loss of his ship could not blunt his excitement about the new business. He added “my kindest Love to my Sister & family.”29 In July 1772 the Gloucester cleared Philadelphia Harbor bound for London under the command of Captain J. Savage and was observed by Captain Spain two days out. In mid-September, newspaper reports told of Captain Webber’s arriving in Marblehead and coming across a foundering “Raft Ship.” She had been commanded by Captain John Savage and been out three weeks from Philadelphia. The captain and crew quit the vessel and were brought into Marblehead by Captain Webber. Tragedy had struck the Franks nautical empire again. This loss was followed shortly by the sinking of the St. Catherine in September 1772. Undaunted, the brothers and Uncle Isaac continued to build “floats” and attempted to cross the Atlantic with substantial cargoes. At the same time, they were engaged in a war with insurance carriers, who persisted in denying liability owing to the unconventional design of the ships. Moses was convinced that poor construction, rather than the basic configuration, was at the root of these problems. He argued that the building of the ships needed to be overseen by a knowledgeable man who would supervise all of the subcontract work and vouch for its excellence. He recommended Captain Welshman, a shipmaster with considerable experience in the construction of seafaring vessels. If not Welshman, then someone equally skilled needed to be placed in charge of superintending the shipbuilding, or Moses would drop out of the enterprise.30 But little came of these threats. The partners launched the 170-ton Belle, the 300-ton Delaware, and the 400-ton Mars over the next two years. It is likely that there were more ships, as Moses also mentioned a “float Liecestershire” and the Westmoreland in letters to Philadelphia.31 Moses initiated a lawsuit against the underwriters of the Teddington in March 1774. The record of that litigation cannot be found. In any event, the Franks brothers pursued import and export using their fleet of “floats” throughout the prewar period.32 In Pennsylvania the political battle raged between the radicals, moderates, and conservatives. Key men moved from one camp to the other, and a number of them ran on more than one political ticket in elections for the Assembly. In 1774 Speaker Galloway, leading the Assembly, succeeded in getting agreement on very mild expressions of colonial grievance. Shortly thereafter, James Wilson was elected to the Assembly, and new opposition to Galloway’s conservatism commenced. By the autumn of 1774 power had 111

David Franks

shifted, and the Assembly appointed Wilson and Thomas Mifflin to the Second Continental Congress.33 While Wilson and Mifflin were more interested in opposing Britain than in restructuring the government of Pennsylvania, the radical forces, led by George Bryan, Timothy Matlack, David Rittenhouse, James Cannon, Thomas Young, Thomas Paine, and later Joseph Reed, wanted to broaden power to include the lower classes and western counties. They slowly made gains toward control of the Assembly.34 But they were ineffective. Even with thirteen new delegates from the western counties, in the spring of 1776 the Assembly instructed Pennsylvania delegates to the Continental Congress not to vote for independence. The radical congressmen from Boston and other colonies were determined to overthrow the conservative provincial government in Pennsylvania and unify the Congress, where the Declaration of Independence was being prepared. Congress instructed all of the colonies to restructure their governments to “respond to the new situation of affairs.” The struggle between radicals and conservatives continued through the late spring and early summer of 1776. Changes in the qualifications for electors gave added power to the backcountry representatives, and by June 18 the radicals were able to elect Maryland representative Thomas McKean as presiding officer of a Pennsylvania conference formed to settle issues of the state constitution. The  Pennsylvania constitutional convention lasted from July to September 1776. War had been under way for more than a year. The Declaration of Independence had been read and published, and the separation from England was no longer a concept but a fact. Pennsylvania’s delegation had been split severely over ratification of the Declaration. Benjamin Franklin, James Wilson, and John Morton were in favor, Thomas Willing and Charles Humphreys opposed. John Dickinson and Robert Morris were present but did not vote.35 The war was on, and Franks’s friends in the Assembly and other seats of power were slowly but inexorably losing that power to the revolutionaries. As historian Richard Alan Ryerson put it, “In Pennsylvania British authority succumbed to the activity of a few hundred men who were drawn into public life by perhaps twenty veteran politicians within just two years.”36 The old order was threatened, and David Franks was part of it. For nearly fifteen years David and his partners had handled the assignment of acquiring provisions and other necessaries for British troops and then delivering them to the various posts. That system had broken down as local sources of supply for the key provisions had dried up quickly once the shooting started. David Franks’s main business enterprise was dwindling to nothing. 112

Ele ve n

working both sides of the street

As the revolutionary crisis developed, things went from bad to worse for David Franks. First came his second legal defeat at the hands of Baynton, Wharton and Morgan. He had contested the quality of merchandise in their residuals at Fort  Chartres and Kaskaskia based upon Murray’s assessment. The disagreement had gone on for years and had ended up in the courts, where Baynton, Wharton and Morgan were awarded what they claimed they were owed—slightly less than £10,000 for all the items purchased. A  year went by without payment, and Thomas Wharton reminded his brother Samuel that David Franks still owed them money.1 Franks eventually paid, but not until the case had gone through the courts again. But Franks and Co. reaped some consolation by obtaining considerable merchandise they would otherwise never have been able to acquire in the nonimportation environment. Additionally, they had been able to reject some £1,500 to £2,000 worth of items they did not want, declaring their condition “non-saleable.”2 Meanwhile, Franks abandoned the candle business. Michael Moses had died in 1769 and was replaced in the partnership at the chandlery by David’s old friend Matthias Bush.3 Bush was Barnard Gratz’s brother-in-law and part of the Franks-Simons-Gratz-Levy group that enjoyed partnership “adventures” together over the years. He also worked for a time as the clerk/ manager in David’s retail outlet in Philadelphia. Bush’s son, Nathan (Colonel Nathaniel), later took over his family’s part of the business. Four years later, however, the partnership was dissolved and the business was offered for sale.4 In December 1773 the Boston Tea Party had taken place, and ten days later the ship Polly, loaded with tea, arrived at the entry to the port of Philadelphia. Captain Ayres was met by a group of “Respectable Citizens” who

David Franks

advised him not to bring the ship any nearer to the city. They suggested that he deliver his letters, pay his respects, and turn around and head home with his cargo intact. Ayres returned to the coffeehouse with the man in charge of the ship and its contents—none other than Gilbert Barkly, David’s former partner, now representing the East India Company. Handbills signed by “the Committee for Tarring and Feathering” promised severe treatment for docking the ship. Ayres and Barkly were persuaded to return their cargo to London until “after the Duty is repealed by Act of Parliament.”5 Most assuredly, a mob could be assembled in a very short time, even in Philadelphia, to resist new British taxation. The threat of it alone was sufficient. David Franks must have been sorely tempted to side openly with the resistance when the earl of Dartmouth, secretary of state for the colonies, shot down his western land claims at a single stroke. The process leading to that decision began in April 1774, when the Illinois  & Ouabache Company petitioned the earl of Dunmore, then governor of Virginia, to “take the Petitioners, And their settlements into the protection of your Lordships Government of Virginia, and extend to them the Laws and Jurisdiction of your Colony.” Signing for the committee and the company were David Franks, William Murray, and John Campbell. The lands in question were the two Illinois country tracts that Murray had acquired from the western tribes. The dispute over whether Pittsburgh and areas west were in Pennsylvania or Virginia had been contested without resolution, and the company was taking no chances, playing to both sides of the dispute. Dunmore sent the petition to Lord Dartmouth, along with his reasons for recommending acceptance.6 Dartmouth’s reply was nothing less than violent. He lectured Dunmore at length about the restrictions dictated by the king related to settlement in the Indian territories west of the established line. He passed on the king’s command to “signify to your Lordship, His Majesty’s just displeasure that such a Proceeding as that to which your Letter refers should receive any degree of Countenance or Encouragement from you.” In a particularly selfrighteous mood, he added, “I am sorry I am obliged to say so much on this subject, but my Duty to the King is above all other Considerations,” and “in the case of the purchase made by Mr. Murray and others, I have only to add, that it is The King’s Pleasure that you do, in the most public and solemn manner, declare His Majesty’s Disapprobation and Disallowance of that purchase.” Needless to say, this was extremely disappointing for Franks and his partners.7 114

Working Both Sides of the Street

Franks received more bad news, as Gage’s return from London in July 1774 was accompanied by the news of Sir William Johnson’s death. Gage considered this not only a serious loss but “a heavy one at this Juncture,” when the “Frontier people, of Virginia particularly, have taken so much Pains to bring on an Indian War.” Settlers had massacred a number of Indians, and retribution was expected. Johnson had usually been able to quell such outbursts, but now he was gone. He left a recommendation that his nephew, Guy Johnson, succeed him; Gage considered the younger man capable and recommended the appointment to Dartmouth.8 Even worse was to follow. In 1767 the Philadelphia Dancing Assembly had listed the ladies who attended their functions along with the gentlemen members. The  list included “Mrs. [Margaret] Franks, Miss [Abigail] Franks and Miss Polly Franks.” Abby was twenty-two and Polly nineteen. The Franks family friend Lieutenant Colonel Joseph Shippen attended the dances and penned a poem honoring the charm, grace, and beauty of some of its young ladies. Entitled “Lines Written in an Assembly Room,” one stanza read: With just such elegance and ease, Fair, Charming [Alice] Swift appears; Thus [Abigail] Willing, whilst she awes, can please, Thus Polly Franks endears.9 Despite her reputed charm and beauty, Polly passed away in 1774 at age twenty-six, having never married. No family documents offer clues as to why she remained single, which was unusual in the affluent and intensely social Philadelphia milieu. She was buried at Christ Church the day following her death, which also went against the custom. A newspaper account reported that she had perished from an unspecified illness that had lasted just five days.10 Polly’s tombstone inaccurately identified her as “Mrs. Polly Franks second daughter of David Franks Esq. of this city who departed this life Augt 21st 1774 Aged 26 years. A young lady whose sweetness of Temper, Elegance of Manners, Cheerful conversation and unblemished Virtue, Endeared her to all her connexions, Especially to her now mournful parents, who found her in every part of life a shining example of filial duty and affection.”11 Franks was still a prominent Philadelphia merchant and acted as such. In February 1775 he participated with nearly seventy of his merchant colleagues in establishing exchange rates between the various gold coins in 115

David Franks

circulation. The largest and most prestigious merchants in town were part of this group, and there could be very little disagreement with the consolidated force of their decision.12 But as his connections with Britain were obvious to all, David began to sense great danger to himself and his possessions, as threats to tainted loyalists grew. In March he leased 227 acres in Croghan’s Aughwick Creek area to Michael Gratz as protection against having it taken by the Whig/radical forces. This transaction was not recorded for twenty years, until December 1795, some two years after David’s death. Clearly, there had been an unwritten understanding that David would take the property back when the conflagration died down. At that point, it was difficult to imagine that the British would be driven from America by the colonial settlers; the expectation that he had made a safety play with some of his property very probably pleased him.13 Britain had fed its troops in America successfully for many years by contracting with suppliers who acquired foods locally and processed and delivered them to specified locations. But as tensions mounted between the colonists and the mother country, local supplies dwindled. Pressure from colonial citizens began to make the acquisition of provisions difficult. Local agents, including David Franks, were being shut out of contacts to purchase the goods they needed. Gage hired another British merchant firm, Davis, Strachan and Co., to work surreptitiously with Baltimore agent George McCall to purchase pork. He was careful to have Davis, Strachan contact Drummond and Franks in London, instructing them, “you will be so good on the receipt of this to speak to Mr. [Moses] Franks, but don’t mention it any where else, as it may prejudice the person at Baltimore.” Of course, this would cut David out of the supply picture. It is difficult to imagine that if Moses Franks knew of the plan he would not tell his brother. Gage must have been dreaming.14 American farmers and cattlemen stopped selling their products to the British, who ended up transporting food for the entire army from the homeland. According to R. Arthur Bowker, “During the American Revolution, Britain supported an unprecedented number of troops overseas— over 92,000 at one point (1780 –1781), including those in the Floridas and the West Indies.” From 1775 until the end of hostilities, Britain managed a huge ferry service from Ireland to the colonies. Over a four-and-one-half-year period, Commissary-General Daniel Wier recorded receiving more than 79 million pounds of bread, flour, and rice; nearly 11 million pounds of salt beef; more than 38 million pounds of salt pork; 3 million pounds of fresh 116

Working Both Sides of the Street

meat; nearly 4 million pounds of butter; more than 7 million pounds of oatmeal, and vast quantities of peas, molasses, vinegar, and rum. Additionally, the 4,000 horses maintained by the army required 14,000 tons of hay and 6,000 tons of oats each year. All of this had to come through American docks and be warehoused and separated into appropriate quantities for the various destinations. This was the largest single transoceanic shipment of goods in human history to that point. Transportation to the eventual destinations had to be facilitated and provided. Except for transportation, David Franks’s days of victualing British troops were over.15 Franks soon found a new employer, however: the Continental Congress. On December 2, 1775, that body resolved: “That it be an instruction to the Committee appointed to contract for the supplying the prisoners, that Mr. D. Franks, of this city, be permitted to supply the troops who are prisoners in this Colony, with provisions and other necessaries, at the expence of the crown, and to sell his bills for such sums of money as are necessary for that purpose, and that the committee confer with Mr. Franks, and know of him whether he will also undertake, on the same terms, to supply the prisoners in the other colonies.”16 Shortly thereafter, a letter came before Congress from the prison at Reading, Pennsylvania, asking for victualing of their inmates. A committee was established to confer with David Franks to make necessary arrangements. Committee members were Samuel Adams, Thomas McKean, Richard Smith, James Wilson, and Oliver Wolcott, all signers of the Declaration of Independence. Wilson was one of David’s partners in the Illinois & Ouabache Company. On February 7, 1776, the committee reported to Congress that it had conferred with Franks and that he had agreed to supply the prisoners. Therefore, they resolved “that D. Franks, Esqr be allowed to victual the prisoners at Reading, and to sell his bills to defray the expence thereof.”17 Franks was suddenly thrust into the business of feeding British prisoners at the direction of the Continental Congress. Despite hostility between the Americans and British, both sides recognized the need to cooperate in order to care for their respective prisoners of war. The  following day, Daniel Chamier, Esq., the king’s commissary-general of stores and provisions, sent instructions to Franks. He was to victual prisoners from the “7th and 26th regiments, the Royal Artillery, Scotch Emigrants and other of His Majesty’s British troops” within the limits of his contract at the usual allowance, except they were to be served at half a ration each. The letter was addressed to “D. Franks Com[missary] of Prisoners” and was sent through 117

David Franks

both British and American chains of command. It did not reach Franks until March 4.18 Both the British and the Americans considered Franks a logical choice to care for the prisoners, given his vast experience with victualing the British army. General Washington himself recommended David for the job, writing to John Hancock, president of Congress, on February 9: I beg leave to call attention of Congress to their appointing a commissary in these parts, to attend the providing of necessaries for the prisoners who are dispersed in these provinces. Complaints are made by some of them, that they are in want of bedding, and many other things; as I understand that Mr. Franks has undertaken that business, I wish he was ordered to find a deputy immediately, to see that the prisoners get what is allowed them by Congress. Also to supply the officers with money as they may have occasion. It will save me much time and trouble.19 A few days later Washington forwarded the letter from Chamier (which he had received from Howe’s office) to Hancock for delivery to David Franks. He repeated his request that agents be appointed at the various prisons and that some plan be established that would provide money for the officer captives. He also notified General Philip Schuyler of the arrangement. David Franks was back in business, though it was a convoluted business indeed. Franks lost no time in setting up an organization to manage the effort. He appointed Joseph Simon as his chief assistant and assigned his regular office manager, Patrick Rice, as general manager of office functions for the new program. He arranged for agents in prison camps at Carlisle, Lebanon, York, Easton, Reading, Bethlehem, and Sharpsburg in Pennsylvania, Baltimore and Frederickstown in Maryland, and Dumphries in Virginia.20 In performance of this contractual work, both Franks and Simon had regular contact with high-level officers of both armies and were accorded traveling privileges between territories and across battle lines.21 Was this a recipe for success or disaster? Only time would tell. Meanwhile, Nesbitt, Drummond and Franks concluded a new contract with the Crown for victualing the king’s troops in early April, effective from January 1, 1776, until April 30, 1777. The document was silent regarding serving the prisoners, which presented a problem for all the providers. Who would accept billings and pay for the rations provided? What was the 118

Working Both Sides of the Street

proper chain for certification of deliveries? Would certificates generated by Continental officers be accepted for payment by any British agency? Their sense of responsibility to feed and clothe men in captivity drove Franks and his contractors in London to push ahead before answering these complex questions. Inevitably, this led to considerable trouble. The Continental Congress tried to close the loop on some of these questions in May by passing a resolution that covered many of them. It provided that all persons taken in arms on board vessels be deemed prisoners, that prisoners of war be treated humanely, and that they be allowed the same rations as troops in regular service. David Franks was authorized to sell his bills for such sums of money as he needed to victual the British prisoners, and was permitted once a month to visit the prisoners in order to count them and certify the rolls. Women and children belonging to the prisoners were also to be furnished with subsistence and supplied with firewood, matches, candles, and other things absolutely necessary for their support. No prisoner could enlist in the Continental army. In fulfilling his share of these responsibilities, David had a tall order, one with no contractual basis between the responsible agencies on both sides of the conflict.22 While this transition was taking place in his business life, David’s family situation was also seeing a number of changes. Young Moses, now twentytwo, wanted to practice law and expressed his desire to enter the Middle Temple, Britain’s largest center of legal training. David wrote to his brother Moses informing him of his son’s ambition, only to receive a clear rebuff. The senior Moses explained, “however much your son & I would promote such an errand it is highly imprudent to attempt it while Mr. A[aron] Franks is living—he never would admit a step of that sort in any of his family so avowedly—nor would any one of us venture to countenance it, as it would highly insense him—therefore it is necessary to give up the thought at present.”23 Uncle Aaron’s dominance over the Franks family in England was absolute. Attendance at the Middle Temple and becoming an officer of the court would require swearing an oath of Christian allegiance. Aaron had seen young Jacob Franks leave the faith to pursue his career, and he was surely aware that David’s children had not been raised as Jews. But he refused to participate in facilitating their abandonment of their father’s faith. Moses Jr., however, had managed surreptitiously to get himself admitted to the Middle Temple some fifteen months before he raised the issue at home. We do not know whether David knew this and hid the truth from his brother or 119

David Franks

had no knowledge of the fact. Phineas Bond, a cousin of Margaret’s and a respected attorney, had given legal advice and guidance regarding this affair to David and his family. Both Moses Sr. and David’s son Jacob (called Jack since the passing of his grandfather) had discussed their decision with Bond. Moses apparently did attend the Middle Temple for at least two years before Uncle Aaron’s death, and he was called to the bar in November 1781.24 The episode had to be unsettling for David, who imagined that he had long ago put to rest any recriminations in his family over religious issues. A major event for the Franks family was their move to an even better home in Philadelphia. James Logan had accompanied William Penn when he came to America in 1699 and settled in Philadelphia. Logan was a longtime member of the Provincial Council, and in 1747 his son William occupied his town house. The young Logan had built a house on Second Street prior to his father’s death, which he kept after moving into the family’s country estate, Stenton, which survives today as a museum. In 1776 William Logan passed away. The town house, between Chestnut and Walnut streets, was one of the finest in the city, and David Franks leased the property for his family late in 1775.25 After David’s family moved to Woodford, a Mr. Pike rented the house, in which he taught “the use of the small sword.”26 David Franks had reached the ultimate gentleman’s status, with an elegant town house and a splendid country home. The new business victualing prisoners promised to grow as the conflict spread, and he had working relationships at the highest level with both governments, which needed his services badly. He also contributed his musical talents to the revolutionary cause when Reverend William Smith contacted Jasper Yeates in Lancaster to arrange for Eberhart Michael, a superb musician, to take part in an elaborate memorial service for General Richard Montgomery, killed during his attack on Quebec on December 31, 1775. Assisting Michael in the music were James Bremmer, a professional musician; Reverend Richard Peters, retired rector of Christ Church and St. Peter’s; Richard Bache, Ben Franklin’s son-in-law; Robert Hare, the noted brewer and congressman; Michael Hillegas, who would become the first treasurer of the United States; and David Franks. For the moment, life was good.27 Inevitably, Pennsylvania’s radical leadership viewed David Franks’s success and affluence with anger and suspicion. Furthermore, the loopholes in the payment system did not take long to become a problem for him. In October he requested that Congress allow both Patrick Rice and himself to travel to New York and arrange with the British—who ruled that city from 1776 to 1783 —payment for the provisions furnished to prisoners. 120

Working Both Sides of the Street

He was given permission, with the proviso that he was “not to give any intelligence to the enemy” and to pledge to return to Philadelphia. Nearly 140,000 rations had been issued to prisoners at the various camps, and David and his partner agents had paid for these rations up front and had yet to be reimbursed by the British. Franks and his clerk returned from New York on Christmas Day, empty-handed.28 This surely did not please Simon, Hart, or the others, who were badly in need of money. Rice had been given detailed instructions on how to complete receipt forms being submitted for payment, and he had passed them on. These were annoyingly detailed and picayune and undoubtedly irritated Simon and the others. The men’s likely failure to complete each form exactly as instructed was probably used as an excuse for the holdup in reimbursement. Simon agreed meekly to be more “attentive” in the future. He pointed out in a letter to Franks of mid-January 1777 that Lancaster now had 930 men, 22 women, and 7 children in the prisoner compounds. A total of 46 new prisoners had arrived that day, he reported. Also, prices of everything were on the rise.29 Nevertheless, the British continued to rely on Franks. In February, Chamier informed David that Howe wanted him to “continue to victual such of his Majesty’s Troops as are prisoners with you either in your Province, the Jersies or Maryland if possible also the Canadian wheresoever they may be confined.” But Franks was not to pay for back rations claimed by these troops: “it will be charged to the Government as we bring a charge against the Americans for Victualling their Prisoners.”30 Late in March, Simon announced that he was running out of money; there was enough beef for two weeks, but after that he could not continue to operate. His next message, a month later, enclosed vouchers for 58,401 rations that had been delivered that month. Rice sent £1,181. There is no indication as to the source of the money or whether it was sufficient.31 The prisoner provisioning issue was getting out of control, and Congress responded by commissioning Colonel Elias Boudinot as commissarygeneral of prisoners. This position was established to manage both British and American prisoner issues, and Boudinot was authorized to appoint two deputy commissaries with the rank of major—probably one for each side in the conflict. Lewis Pintard, Boudinot’s brother-in-law, rejected one of the appointments, but he agreed to handle the delivery of provisions to the jails.32 David Franks was now specifically under Colonel Boudinot’s direction. Somehow, he had become an agent for both sides!

121

Twelve

war and financial turmoil in philadelphia

The newly established Commonwealth of Pennsylvania passed numerous laws enabling it to fight in the war to guarantee its independence. A militia law required the service of all men between the ages of eighteen and fifty-three. David Franks was fifty-six. Fines were imposed on those who failed to serve. A complex set of additional regulations dealt with the use of substitutes and issues of rank and assignment.1 The establishment of militias went back to December 1747, when Benjamin Franklin proposed articles of association describing voluntary service for defense of the community. The  so-called associators drilled at regular intervals and were required to equip themselves with weapons and ammunition and to maintain them in readiness. Although originally formed to repel Spanish privateers on the Delaware, the main function of these groups was to protect their communities from Indian attacks. The new militia law formalized, for the first time, the connection between militias and the colonial government.2 The most controversial aspect of the new law was a test oath requiring white male inhabitants to take an oath of allegiance to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and renounce their loyalty to George III. Quakers in good standing had considerable difficulty taking any kind of oath, let alone serving in any military capacity. Predictably, the conflict between conservatives and radicals intensified further. Months went by in which only one-quarter of those expected to take the oath did so.3 The need to draft a militia arose from the impending termination of enlistments in the Continental army. Washington was about to lose thousands of fighting men whose terms of service would conclude on December 31, 1776. A scant three weeks earlier, a bold plan was hatched to initiate attacks upon British camps in the New  Jersey area. Trenton was selected

War and Financial Turmoil

as the main target, with the possibility of continuing on to Princeton and New  Brunswick. The  complex plan, which involved having a significant numbers of troops cross the Delaware River, never quite came off as contemplated, when poor communications and severe weather conditions combined to frustrate the elegance of the strategy. However, with General John Cadwalader leading one division, James Ewing a second, and Washington in charge of the main fighting force, Trenton was overcome on Christmas Day. The stronghold had been manned by Hessians, of whom twenty-two were killed and 948, including thirty-two commissioned officers, were captured. A fair quantity of field pieces, horses, wagons, weapons, ammunition, food, and rum was taken. The total American losses amounted to two officers and two privates wounded.4 Further advances might have been accomplished, but Ewing and Cadwalader were out of position at the proper time, and some four thousand enemy troops escaped the fate of encirclement and capture. Cadwalader’s “Silk Stocking” militia was made up primarily of merchants, tradesmen, and craftsmen. As such, they were seen from the outside as a privileged, exclusive organization. Their small contribution to the Trenton victory did not impress many. But they were right in the middle of the fray at the battle of Princeton on January 3, 1777. After a difficult beginning, Washington and Cadwalader urged them on to “succeed beyond expectation.” The British fled the field of battle.5 After nearly a full year of humiliating defeats, Trenton and Princeton enhanced Washington’s reputation for military leadership and encouraged the Continental forces. The series of small victories, the first in the North by the main army since Bunker Hill in June 1775, brought new life to the cause.6 Notable European leaders were impressed by Washington’s military skills. Frederick the Great commented that the campaign was “the most brilliant of any recorded in the annals of military achievement.” The drive to reenlist soldiers and to enlist new militiamen succeeded, saving the cause.7 However, this rash of small victories was answered by the British commander in chief, General William Howe, the following summer. He took about half the army in New  York by ship through Chesapeake Bay and attacked Philadelphia from the south. Battles at Brandywine and Germantown ended in British victories. Washington’s staff deliberated long and hard over whether to fight through the winter or to take quarters and rest. Many favored wintering the army in a southern location, but the Pennsylvania Assembly feared being left without protection in the capital. Reluctantly, Washington took the army to Valley Forge, where his army would 123

David Franks

be impregnable on a high bluff over the Schuylkill River and could receive supplies from the interior. Most of his staff disliked the choice.8 The victualing business collapsed, as the British army could now be supplied only from overseas. Given this fact, Oliver DeLancey accepted appointment as a brigadier general in the British service. His loyalist troop organization functioned much as a militia and was not connected to the regular army. He promised to organize three battalions of five hundred men each, which became known as DeLancey’s brigade, made up of men from New York City, Long Island, Westchester County (New York), and Fairfield County (Connecticut), for the intended purpose of “the defense of Long Island and for other exigencies.” In the end, only six hundred men were assembled.9 Margaret Franks’s cousin, Thomas William Moore, joined DeLancey’s brigade as a captain. When the victualing business collapsed, John Watts left for England and never returned.10 In mid-September 1777, the Continental Congress fled Philadelphia and moved to Lancaster, anticipating the advance of Howe’s army.11 They were joined by large numbers of pro-revolutionary citizens. Some went as families, while in many cases only the men departed, leaving wives and children behind to keep an eye on their property. Men who remained behind were either Quakers, avowed Tories, or those whose business or property ownership made leaving difficult. Howe kept a body of troops with him, sealing off Germantown from Philadelphia. Lord Cornwallis marched into the capital, leading some three thousand British and Hessian troops accompanied by a complement of former inhabitants who had previously sought the protection of British forces in the face of threats and attacks by the radicals. Alongside Cornwallis were Enoch Story, Joseph Galloway, Andrew Allen, William Allen, Phineas Bond Jr., Tench Coxe, and others who had chosen the Tory path.12 In this group of loyalists were some of David Franks’s closest friends and associates. Galloway, Pennsylvania’s most influential politician of the prewar era, had served as president of the Assembly and been a major force in the philosophical debate over issues between the colonies and the mother country. He had also been the most admired lawyer in the colony and was both president of and David’s partner in the Illinois & Ouabache venture. The Allens, father and son, had been David’s close friends and members of the Dancing Assembly. William Allen had served as assemblyman, councilman, and mayor of Philadelphia prior to his twenty-three years as the chief justice of Pennsylvania.13 Tench Coxe had attended the College of Philadelphia with David’s son Moses, and was a rising merchant in the city before the onset of 124

War and Financial Turmoil

hostilities. He had left town after being listed as a Tory subject to attainder by the radicals.14 Without much delay, the troops moved into various quarters and settled in. Few realized at the time that they would stay in the city for the entire winter. Following the “exodus” in the autumn of 1777, a census counted 21,767 inhabitants of Philadelphia. As business conditions improved rapidly, however, Tories and British sympathizers rushed to the city to take advantage of the opportunities available. Howe’s chief engineer, Captain John Montresor, “estimated in the spring of 1778 that the combined military and civilian population of the city totaled about 60,000.”15 David Franks enjoyed the best of situations, partaking of all the local civilian business while being under the direction of the Congress to continue victualing prisoners. His remaining in the city was consistent with that assignment and ought not to have been the cause of criticism from the radicals. David, Margaret, and Rebecca lived in comfort at Woodford. Becky, now nineteen years old, had become a beautiful young woman well schooled in literature and able to hold her own in conversation with anyone. A group of the most affluent, attractive, and lively young women of the city were her closest friends, and they spent as much time as they could socializing among themselves and with groups of young “beaux.” The Franks residence was a regular meeting place. A year earlier, Major André had visited while a prisoner. He had been captured at the battle of St. John’s in Canada and, in keeping with traditional practices, was on his honor to abstain from participating in military activities but was free to go about near his place of internment. He was ordered to Lancaster and set out in January 1776. His travels took him through Philadelphia, where he met Becky and her friends and was enchanted. While there, he drew a miniature portrait of Becky, which he gave her, “accompanied by a few beautiful lines of poetry.” Among her friends were Peggy Shippen, Peggy Chew and two of her ten sisters, Becky’s cousin Williamina (Willy) Bond, and Nancy Harrison. Unsurprisingly, André stayed longer than he should have, but he finally departed for Lancaster.16 Howe and his army stayed in Philadelphia through the winter of 1777 without pursuing the war. Instead, Howe’s men created a thriving social scene that featured parties, balls, and a theater group that presented dramas and musicals in which officers played the characters. The young ladies of the city, especially those with Tory inclinations, joined the social life eagerly. Howe visited his principal victualer, David Franks, at Woodford, bringing some of his young staff along. Later, when wintry conditions made traveling too difficult, the Franks family moved to their town house in the city, 125

David Franks

where the social visits continued. Becky and her young lady friends were there and both they and the British soldiers were delighted.17 One observer reported “that there were rare doings at David Franks’s when General Howe would tie his horse at the door, and go in to call on the young ladies.”18 Meanwhile, Washington and his army suffered through the winter at Valley Forge, immobilized by the lack of food, blankets, firewood, and other forms of comfort. One of Becky’s close girlfriends, Anne (Nancy) Harrison, had married William Paca in February 1777. Paca was a member of the Continental Congress from Maryland and a signer of the Declaration of Independence who had not abandoned Philadelphia along with his colleagues; he had remained to pursue his courtship and marriage. The wedding took place at Christ Church and was performed by Reverend William White, the bride’s brother-in-law, who would flee with Congress and become its chaplain later that year. The couple took up residence in Annapolis. A year later, halfway through the winter of British occupation, Becky wrote to Nancy Harrison: You can have no idea of the life of continued amusement I live in. I can scarce have a moment to myself. I have stole this while everybody is retired to dress for dinner. I am but just come from under Mr.  J.  Black’s hands and most elegantly am I dressed for a ball this evening at Smith’s where we have one every Thursday. . . . I wish to heaven you were going with us this evening to judge for yourself. I spent Tuesday evening at Sir Wm Howes where we had a concert and Dance. I asked his leave to send you a Handkerchief to show the fashions. He very politely gave me permission to send anything you wanted, tho’ I told him you were a Delegate’s Lady. . . . No loss for partners, even I am engaged to seven different gentlemen for you must know ’tis a fixed rule never to dance but two dances at a time with the same person. Oh how I wish Mr. P. wou’d let you come in for a week or two—tell him I’ll answer for your being let to return. I know you are as fond of a gay life as myself—you’d have an opportunity of rakeing as much as you choose either at Plays, Balls, Concerts or Assemblys. I’ve been but 3 evenings alone since we mov’d to town. I begin to be almost tired.19 Rebecca’s full social life did not escape the notice of Pennsylvania’s revolutionaries—at least those who stayed behind for one reason or another. Likewise, her father’s commercial success became a sore point with 126

War and Financial Turmoil

rebel leaders. Providing for the prisoners grew to the point where David’s organization was issuing twenty-four thousand rations per month at the various internment camps. Everyone knew that the radical revolutionaries had David and his close associates marked for retribution when the tide turned. Anyone so close to the British leaders could not be trusted. Before the British troops arrived, Tories, Tory sympathizers, and Quakers had been treated as enemies. On August 31, 1777, the Supreme Executive Council issued an order to the townspeople to round up a list of suspected Tories, who were then either jailed, released on their own recognizance, or sent to inland camps. Twenty-two of the most prominent Quakers were arrested and shipped to Virginia for imprisonment without trial, without appeal, and, of course, without resistance. Among these were Thomas Wharton, Phineas Bond, Reverend William Smith, Henry Drinker, and three of the Pembertons—all leaders of the community.20 The confined men submitted a petition to the council detailing the injustices perpetrated upon them; it was published as a broadside and distributed widely. A copy was delivered to Thomas Wharton  Jr., who presented it to the council. Congress also received copies. Several attempts to gain the men’s release were made, involving special oaths for the prisoners, but all were refused until the following April, when the council set them free after their wives made an impassioned plea for their return. Now the British were in control of the city, but what would happen when they left? In the fall of 1777 Howe’s army included an ample general staff, including General Henry Clinton. Clinton’s principal aide was none other than Major John André, who had returned to active duty following a prisoner exchange. André pursued the social scene in Philadelphia with gusto, along with his close associate Captain Oliver DeLancey Jr., son of the New York merchant who was David’s brother-in-law and therefore a cousin of Rebecca’s. André wrote and directed plays at the officers’ theater and was the principal designer and painter of scenery for the performances. He trailed Howe to gatherings at the Franks home and rebuilt relationships with a number of the ladies, particularly Peggy Chew. He also renewed his acquaintance with Peggy Shippen. The parties and gaiety continued unabated throughout the winter. As time passed, pressure from England increased for Howe to strike against his outmatched adversaries. There was no reaction from Howe. Finally, with the approach of spring, Howe announced that he would retire at the end of May, along with his brother, Admiral Richard Howe, who was in charge of the British naval fleet in America. General Howe’s inactivity over the 127

David Franks

winter had earned him the disapproval of his superiors in the military and the government; in fact, Howe was summoned home to be chastised. His staff and his troops, however, admired him greatly, and they decided to celebrate his career with an appropriate festival. André and young DeLancey, along with Sir John Wrottlesly, Colonel O’Hara, Major Gardiner, and John Montresor, were in charge of organizing and planning the party. André’s imagination went wild. He conjured up a revel that he titled “the Mischianza,” a “made-up” Italian word meaning medley or mixture. He took up a collection from the staff; twenty-two officers donated 3,312 guineas. One observer estimated that the sum could support the entire American army for week.21 Elegant admission tickets were designed (probably by André) and engraved. On May 18, 1778, four hundred ticket holders gathered at Knight’s Wharf at the foot of Vine Street. General Howe and his brother and their personal invitees boarded a galley in the river. Two other galleys followed, full of generals and their guests. Twenty-seven barges filled with the remaining guests came after the lead group. David and Margaret Franks were on one of those barges, as were the Galloways and Tench Coxe. The flotilla moved along the river and came ashore at the Old Fort, at the foot of what is now Washington Avenue. With musical accompaniment, the attendees proceeded to Walnut Grove, the mansion of Joseph Wharton. Triumphal arches honoring both retirees had been erected, and the procession passed under both before arriving on the huge lawn. Two pavilions stood at opposite sides of the field, each filled with rows of seats and occupied by seven young women who had been chosen as the “foremost in youth, beauty and fashion.” Each of the ladies was represented by a knight, mounted and equipped for jousting, and each group had a lead knight and a leading lady. The gentlemen were identified as the Knights of the Blended Rose and the Knights of the Burning Mountain. The  two groups challenged each other that their ladies excelled “in wit, beauty and every accomplishment those of the whole world.” With musical accompaniment, a mock jousting tournament took place. The  Ladies of the Blended Rose included leading lady Miss Frances Tucker Auchmuty (stepdaughter of Reverend Samuel Auchmuty, pastor of Trinity Church in New York); André’s invited “date,” Peggy Chew; Janet Craig; Nancy Redman; Nancy White; and Williamina (Willy) Bond, a cousin of Margaret and Becky Franks. The Ladies of the Burning Mountain consisted of leading lady Rebecca Franks; Becky Bond, Willy’s sister; Sally Chew, Peggy’s sister; and Williamina Smith, daughter of Reverend William Smith. Three Shippen sisters, Sarah, Peggy, and Molly, 128

War and Financial Turmoil

were all dressed and ready to attend, but their father forbade them to participate after judging their dresses too immodest for Quaker ladies. The girls were furious but obeyed.22 Following the tournament, the knights and ladies formed a procession to the ballroom, decorated elegantly, covered with mirrors, and illuminated by a profusion of candles. There was dancing until ten o’clock in the evening, when an elaborate fireworks display took place. At midnight, supper was served in another magnificent setting in a room designated a “saloon.” Dancing resumed after dinner and continued until four in the morning. It is possible that Rebecca first met Colonel Henry Johnson that evening. André’s description of the event concluded, “Such, my friend, is the description, though a very faint one, of the most splendid entertainment, I believe, ever given by an army to their general.” Fortescue, the renowned historian of the British army, dismissed the affair as “a very ridiculous festival held by [Howe’s] officers and by the prettiest women in Philadelphia.”23 The excesses of the Mischianza did not escape the notice of the radical Whig faction. General Anthony Wayne fumed, “Tell those Philadelphia ladies who attended Howe’s assemblies & levees, that the heavenly, sweet, pretty red-coats—the accomplished gentlemen of the guards & grenadiers have been humbled on the plains of Monmouth. . . . The  Knights of the Blended Roses [sic] and of the Burning Mount[ain] have resigned their laurels to Rebel officers, who will lay them at the feet of those virtuous daughters of America, who cheerfully gave up ease and affluence in a city, for liberty and peace of mind in a cottage.”24 The ladies of the Mischianza would not be forgotten as Tory sympathizers, nor would those closely associated with them. Rebecca’s prominence in the event would not help her father’s efforts to escape notoriety despite his connection with the Continental Congress. With the British gone, David Franks became a primary target of the revolutionaries’ revenge. Throughout the war, the finances of the combined colonies were in a state of confusion. It appeared impossible to fund the conflict in so many areas using currencies from thirteen different sources. Consequently, Congress issued its own currency, initially $2 million in June 1775, another million a month later, and a total of $6 million by the end of the year. This was “fiat money” backed only by the promise of the Congress after assigning responsibility for shares to each of the colonies. A year later the total had grown to $25 million. As historian E. James Ferguson wrote, “The expense of the war far exceeded anything in colonial experience. As the conflict broadened, it 129

David Franks

stimulated a business boom and caused price inflation, which was in turn spurred by government and private buying.”25 On top of this, Ferguson notes, “almost all federal procurement officers were merchants, and it was an uncontradicted belief, occasionally proved, that they speculated with public money, embezzled funds and supplies, used public wagons and ships to transport their own goods, and deliberately bid up prices in order to increase their commissions on purchases.” Merchants on both sides of the conflict were subject to the same negative assessment. The records of one Philadelphia merchant serve as a guide to the progress of inflation in the region. The Continental currency required to purchase $1.00 in specie increased from $1.25 to $3.00 between January and October 1777, when the British entered the city.26 In Philadelphia, Congress had ordered all private stores of goods, particularly flour and iron, to be taken outside the city before the British came. Searches and seizures ensured compliance, although recompense was pledged. Since the beginning of the year, residents had seen the prices of coffee, sugar, salt, and flour rise 600 percent—if these staples could be found at all.27 Several factors contributed to the problem, not least the prohibition against importing fuel or provisions, established by the Congress and the Pennsylvania Assembly, which was being enforced by a blockade. Things did not improve much after the British arrived. British control over food and drink, imposed by Howe and supervised by Joseph Galloway, now superintendent-general of Philadelphia, and Enoch Story, named inspector of prohibited goods, created scarcities of rum and other spirits, salt, molasses, and other commodities. These shortages were exacerbated by the surge in population as civilians flooded into the city. Sudden vast improvements in the business environment failed to lower prices; on the contrary, sales to the military and to individual soldiers proved to be a huge source of profit for local businesses—so the value of currency continued to plunge. Some of the depreciation was due to counterfeiting. Unfortunately, the nonmerchant classes in the city suffered as a result. Their incomes could not keep up with inflation, and many were distressed.28 To counteract the inevitable collapse, “a group of citizens, headed by Galloway, voluntarily agreed to accept the old legal tender of the commonwealth at par with specie.” When Howe was ready to leave, only hard money was in circulation in the city, and $1.00 in specie could be bought for no less than $6.00 Continental.29 By the time the Mischianza had concluded, David Franks and his combined agents had delivered more than one million rations to prisoners. However, no agency had agreed to pay for these provisions and no record exists 130

War and Financial Turmoil

to reconcile whatever payments were received to that point. General Howe had signed vouchers acknowledging those deliveries. At an average price of fifteen pence per serving, Franks and Company should have received more than £62,500 sterling.30 Franks’s enterprise was no more immune to the effects of inflation than local merchants were. He received a series of alarming notes from Joseph Simon in Lancaster spelling out the details of rising costs. In January 1777 Simon wrote, “Provisions are high and dayly Rising our farmers will scarsely sell their chattle and flower. . . . The Butchers from Phil’a Riding through our Country gives great [high] Prices for Beefe, and I can assure you our Butchers & Bakers are so much Imploy’d for the Millitia that they seeme indifferent for my Custom, I hope it will not be so [for] long.”31 To Patrick Rice, a little more than a week later, Simon wrote, “I fear Provisions will be higher instead of their Falling. great Quantity will be wanted for some time even when the Millitia return, Flower is not plenty with us. great Quantity of Grain Distill’d. I am Oblidge to Purchase some Wheat in order to Furnish the Bakers with Flower.”32 In March he told Franks he had just about two weeks’ worth of meat for the rations and despaired of getting more. “My money is out. Please find me first safe oppty One Thousand pound. The Enormous price of the Provisions takes a large Sum weekly.”33 At the end of April Simon submitted vouchers for more than fifty-eight thousand rations and explained that the British troops demanded soap and tobacco from him, which they had received from David Franks when they were jailed in Philadelphia. Soap, tobacco, firewood, clothing, candles, and other “necessaries” had never been a part of contracts to victual the troops.34 In May, Simon appears to have stocked himself with the needed supplies but found no one authorized to sign a voucher. He was awaiting the arrival of a Sergeant Major Gray who would fulfill that role. Also, officer prisoners were given their subsistence in cash, which had never been a practice when serving the army directly. One prisoner claimed to be a lieutenant and had requested money appropriate to that rank. Simon wasn’t certain how to handle the request. He also expressed his fear that once the Hessians saw the British prisoners receiving tobacco and soap, they would be after him for the same. And fifteen more men were being served rations than he had reported—he had omitted service personnel, including a surgeon’s mate, a conductor, two wagon masters, and eleven drivers. Four days later he reported that the Hessians and the Highlanders had applied for tobacco, soap, and candles, and asked Franks to let him know the price of soap and candles in Philadelphia. Handling the prisoners was a real challenge.35 131

David Franks

In November, Richard Peters, secretary of the War Office, solicited General Washington’s approval of a request from Simon that he and Barnard Gratz be permitted to go to Philadelphia to see David Franks and settle their accounts relative to prisoner supplies.36 Simon’s next message began, “This day I came home,” apparently from Philadelphia after making the requested trip. He had received sufficient payment from Franks that he planned to give Bush as much as £1,000 if necessary.37 Where Franks got money is not known. In a somewhat convoluted episode, Franks convinced Israel Lieben, an acquaintance in Philadelphia and a member of the Mikveh Israel Congregation, to travel to Virginia surreptitiously and to carry payments to the two agents Franks had there. One managed the British prisoners and the other handled the Hessians. Lieben testified later that he supplied “£3,000 or £4,000 in current money of Virginia, taking as his only security their drafts on David Franks.” Lieben obtained a permit from General Howe to make the trip and supervise the removal from Virginia to Philadelphia of a brig, the Esther, on which Lieben claimed a share of a large tobacco cargo. While there, he made the money transfers for David. The ship was captured by British war vessels and a lengthy investigation ensued. Having left Philadelphia with the British, Joseph Galloway gave his deposition in New York and confirmed Lieben’s testimony and his loyalty to the Crown.38 In addition to these problems, Washington complained to Congress that the British were expecting the United States to subsidize their prisoners. “A few days ago, Mr. Franks of Philadelphia, Agent for the British Prisoners, sent 6000 Continental Dollars to Mr. Richard Graham of Virginia for the subsistence of the Hessians and other Prisoners in that state.” He expressed his opinion that it was foolish to accept money from the British that they refused in normal transactions and that they tried to depreciate in every way they could. At the same time, they demanded hard money to feed the Continental prisoners. There was no equity in that.39 Congress responded to his suggestions and issued a resolution requiring that provisions and necessaries be delivered in kind or that British payment be made in “gold or silver.” Additionally, advance payments were required to liquidate accounts prior to the release of prisoners who had received provisions.40 A  month later, however, Congress received reports from the Board of War regarding significant differences in the treatment of American and English prisoners, to the detriment of the Continental troops. Americans were being mistreated badly, whereas British prisoners were allegedly receiving gentle care. The information included a transaction 132

War and Financial Turmoil

in which David Franks had provided £600 sterling for the use of prisoners in New York: “that every obstacle was thrown in the way to prevent the negotiation of these bills, and after a delay of two months, they were returned to Mr. [Elias] Boudinot, the American commissary of prisoners.” Howe had promised Washington that his people would do the right thing. Congress resolved that David Franks and all other agents would be prohibited from negotiating bills for the supply of prisoners except under a whole series of special conditions. Most important, only barter, gold, or silver were acceptable forms of payment from the British—the Continentals, in short, would not accept their own money from the enemy. There was more. Clearly Washington was very unsatisfied with the status of prisoner treatment and the conditions surrounding paper money. Congress backed him on both issues.41 At this time, too, an investigation was conducted to evaluate prisoner care in Continental jails. Another Jewish merchant, Myer Hart, was Franks’s agent in charge of the British prisoners in Easton, Pennsylvania. He issued a certificate stating that during this whole Time I have seen nothing like Cruelty exercised towards them nor heard of any Insult offered to them. On the contrary, I have observed a Care & Attention have been paid to their wants, and that the Goal [sic] commissary/keeper have behaved to them Civilly and with humanity— That the greatest part of them have had the Liberty of several Miles limits and do know that they have faithfully rc’d one Pound of Meat & one Pound of Bread per man per day till within about two Months past when they were restricted to 12 ounces of each— That they have frequently been allowed to work out for the Inhabitants & rc’d a Dollar per day wages— That Surgeons are appointed to attend the Sick, who have necessaries provided for their Comfort— That all the officers are & have been on their Parole and none have ever been confined to my knowledge— That such Prisoners who have wanted necessaries, as shoes, shirts &c have had liberty to purchase them in the Town when they had money In contrast, reports of inhumane treatment of Continental army prisoners abounded.42 Strange stories about money also came to light. Washington had authorized a convoy of British soldiers to deliver clothing to prisoners in Pennsylvania. They stopped for a meal at an inn in Lancaster and offered to pay their 133

David Franks

bill with specie. The innkeeper was forced by local laws to create an artificial bill, highly inflated, in paper money. The episode was witnessed by members of the New York assembly. Complaints were sent to the Pennsylvania council and on to the Congress. Angry accusations passed between radicals and conservatives over the incident. Further, a considerable amount of Continental money, suspected of being counterfeit, was found in their wagons. The British were all arrested and jailed, which created an uproar that was not solved until Washington interceded and had the prisoners released.43 The issue of provisioning prisoners involved Moses Franks in London as well. He submitted bills from Nesbitt, Drummond and Franks for provisioning the prisoners to his former schoolmate and good friend Grey Cooper, who was serving as one of two secretaries to the Treasury. Cooper directed Howe, now returned to London and working in Whitehall: “And in Regard to all such future Supplies as may be necessary, that your Excellency will order proper Contracts for furnishing the Provisions to be entered into in America, where the same can be best Checked and controlled & make the Payments for this Service out of the Military Chest on the Head of Extraordinaries.” Cooper explained that Nesbitt, Drummond and Franks had billed the Treasury but that no such contract existed from which they could make payment. The Lords of the Treasury were passing the payment issue on to the army, which had earlier referred all payment issues to the Treasury. Things had gone full circle.44 Ten days later, the comptrollers of army accounts recorded a certificate for Nesbitt, Drummond and Franks in the amount of £11,261 16s. 9d. for the period between March 26 and November 4, 1777.45 Early in March, the second secretary to the Treasury, John Robinson, advised Howe that the Lords of the Treasury had approved payment of £10,000 on account to Nesbitt, Drummond and Franks as well as £4,523.2.6 for an earlier application.46 A royal warrant dated March 4 was issued authorizing payment of the total amount, and the final £1,261 16s. 9d. was authorized to be paid a short time later. This was encouraging news— or so it seemed, if in fact the payments were going to be made. Unfortunately, the price of a ration should properly have been between twelve and fifteen pence, but the current payments were made at sixpence per ration.47 Neither Franks nor any of his associates would earn a profit at that rate—in fact, they would take a substantial loss. In April, Robinson ordered provisions from Nesbitt, Drummond and Franks for twenty-four thousand troops for six months in America. But things had changed. American agents would no longer be used. The supplies 134

War and Financial Turmoil

were to be shipped to Cork in Ireland, where the British navy would take over delivery to the locations of use. This spelled the end of primary troop servicing by David Franks and the New York office. Prisoner supply was now their sole government activity.48 This left David Franks in a particularly sorry condition. His importexport business was reduced to nothing by naval blockades and legal restrictions. Victualing British troops had ended. Feeding prisoners, while timeconsuming and regular work, was yielding no profit and sometimes no income at all. He owed his best friends and most loyal business partners large amounts of money that he could not pay. Worse yet, American revolutionaries had him listed for punishment owing to his support of the British enemy, which in turn was no longer paying him for his services.

135

Thirtee n

the revenge of the radicals

The year 1778 had started with a welcome festivity—the marriage of Tench Coxe to Catherine McCall. This was unquestionably one of the high points of the social season. Coxe’s resourceful mercantile activities had resulted in sudden success, and he was marrying into one of the most prominent families in town. While both of Catherine’s parents had passed away, others in the family had intermarried with a number of leading citizens; there were marriages into the Inglis, Plumsted, Willing, and Kemble families. The list of attendees at the ceremony included the Allens, Chews, Francises, Shippens, and David and Margaret Franks.1 One week later, Congress anguished over the double standard of prisoner treatment and issued its resolutions designed to correct the disparities. Responding to a letter from General Washington, they recorded that bills of exchange to the amount of £600 sterling, purchased of David Franks, British commissary of prisoners residing within the jurisdiction of the states, were sent into New York for the relief of the prisoners, that every obstacle was thrown in the way to prevent the negotiation of these bills, and that after a delay of two months they were returned to Mr. Boudinot, the American commissary of prisoners.2 A week later, this information was published in local newspapers. Reading this account, David had to feel somewhat comforted by the knowledge that Congress blamed the British leadership, not him, for the failures in provisioning payments.3 But more bad news arrived soon enough. In early April, Franks’s deputy commissary, Joseph Simon, heard from General Horatio Gates that Elias Boudinot, the American commissary of prisoners, had made charges against him to the Board of War and that he was “therefore required to come to York Town [the temporary capital] without a Moments Delay to explain to

The Revenge of the Radicals

the Board such Parts of your Conduct as appear to be Exceptionable.” At the board session, Simon was charged with accepting Continental money from David Franks for provisions delivered to British prisoners. Simon asked for time to answer the accusation and wanted David to provide a good response. Apparently the charge was partially valid. In the congressional orders, the requirement to accept nothing but gold or silver from the British had not specifically flowed down to the subcontractor level. However, David Franks and Joseph Simon were not in a position to dispute that point with the Board of War. Both were surely in trouble with Congress.4 In mid-May Simon wrote again in a clearly panicky mood. George Murdoch, his agent in Maryland, told him that all prisoners in that state would be relocated to Fort  Frederick and that the Board of War had instructed him to continue to “furnish them as usual.” Simon was not being paid and could not extend further credit despite his strong sympathy for the captives. The Board of War had agreed to do all the delivery, so long as he would provide the goods. But he could not imagine how he would acquire the provisions. There would be upward of twelve hundred prisoners at Fort Frederick. He had advanced more than £15,000 and had new receipts covering nearly forty-five thousand rations. Most significantly, he had not received an answer to his question about the Continental money. If he didn’t hear by June 1, he would have to give up his participation in the prisoner program.5 The Mischianza came and went. Howe departed. His replacement, Sir Henry Clinton, arrived and soon withdrew from Philadelphia with his army, heading for New York. Congress and the rebel citizenry returned to the city to find it in shambles. The British had laid waste to everything— even the Tories were embarrassed and annoyed.6 On June 4 Congress directed the general in charge to prevent the removal, transfer, or sale of any goods, wares, or merchandise in possession of the inhabitants of the city until the ownership of the property could be determined. The general was Benedict Arnold, who had been appointed commander in chief of the forces of the United States of America in the city of Philadelphia.7 Arnold had come from a moderate, nonmilitary family in Connecticut and had gained exceptional success in battles at Quebec, Valcour Island, Freeman’s Farm, and Bemis Heights, the prelude to Saratoga. British military expert Sir John Fortescue said of him, “In natural military genius neither Washington nor Greene are to my mind comparable with Benedict Arnold. The man was, of course, shallow, fickle, unprincipled and unstable in character, but he possessed all the gifts of a great commander. . . . It was he and no other who beat Burgoyne at Saratoga and, with Daniel Morgan 137

David Franks

to command the militia, was the most formidable opponent that could be matched against the British in America.”8 Arnold had little formal military training, however, and less seniority than most of his contemporaries of his rank. Consequently, he continually sought assignments that were given to others, to his great frustration. Arnold was an opportunist and consistently looked for ways to profit from his positions of authority and from the loose conditions of discipline during the war.9 Arnold had two aides, Major Matthew Clarkson and Major David  S. Franks. The latter, David Solebury (or Salisbury) Franks, was a cousin of David Franks.10 He was born in Philadelphia, but his family moved to Canada while he was a child and he grew to manhood there. He is reported to have become parnas of the synagogue in Montreal at an early age. He returned to colonial America in 1774 and joined the Continental army, where he rose to the rank of aide to General Arnold. There is no evidence that he had a personal connection with David Franks of Philadelphia at any time prior to Arnold’s new assignment. But it is clear that he was aware of David Franks’s position in the community and was careful to use his middle name or middle initial at all times to distinguish himself from his cousin.11 Matthew Clarkson had a distinguished career in public life after the war, culminating in a stint as mayor of Philadelphia in the 1790s. Two weeks after the congressional resolution, a broadside was widely distributed throughout the city. Titled simply “A Proclamation,” it repeated the congressional resolution and continued: “In order the more effectually to carry into execution the above resolve, all persons having European, East, or West India goods, iron, leather, shoes, wines, and provisions of every kind, beyond the necessary use of a private family, are ordered to make return of the same to the Town Major . . . [and that] there be no removal, transfer, or sale of any goods, as it will be deemed a breach of the above resolution of Congress, and such goods will be seized and confiscated for the public use.” The proclamation was signed “B. Arnold, Major Gen.,” and had been prepared by “David S. Franks, Sec.”12 Fearful of retribution by the returning radicals, David Franks signed the oath of allegiance to Pennsylvania on July 24, 1778. Therein he renounced all allegiance to George III, affirmed his allegiance to the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, and swore to discover and make known treasons and traitorous conspiracies against the United States. By this act, he placed himself in total compliance with the militia law.13 In September the Pennsylvania Assembly enacted a new law requiring congressional delegates to take the oath; further, no one would be permitted to vote in elections who had not 138

The Revenge of the Radicals

signed the oath prior to June 1, 1778. This was, of course, an ex post facto ruling that disenfranchised David Franks. The radicals were once again asserting their power in order to distort the makeup of the Assembly. Apparently, by June 1, fewer than 20 percent of eligible male voters in Pennsylvania had signed the oath. Thomas Wharton Jr., president of the Assembly, who had been a moderate conservative and had offset the power of the radical Whigs, had passed away in Lancaster in May, while the government was still removed from Philadelphia. The fiercely radical vice president, George Bryan, arranged a special election in which Joseph Reed was chosen to replace Wharton and Bryan remained in place. Reed, who had migrated back and forth between the two political camps over an extended period of time, ran for the Supreme Executive Council of Pennsylvania at the same time and emerged as its president and as a totally converted radical. Concurrently, Reed resigned from the Assembly. Bryan quickly assumed the position of council vice president. The pair brought with them a coterie of their most radical associates, including Timothy Matlack, Jonathan Sergeant, John Bayard, Jonathan B. Smith, James Cannon, and David Rittenhouse.14 During the British occupation, Tories had inflicted severe treatment upon American patriots. The  great fear was that the reverse would now occur—that revenge would become the order of the day. Lists of collaborators and loyalists were made and publicized, and the stage was set for serious reprisals. With the power of the government in the hands of the most radical element, those considered friendly to the British enemy were potential victims. Additionally, the Whig leadership seized upon individuals whose behavior did not fit the approved mold. Even before arriving in Philadelphia, Benedict Arnold had been singled out as troublesome, and he became a target of the rebels. His close association with business partners Robert Shewell, James Seagrove, and William Constable was seen as being pro-Tory, as these three men were confirmed loyalists. They had all traded with the British throughout the occupation, and it appeared that Arnold was ready to join them as a fourth partner in merchandising—which is exactly what he did. They engaged in the practice of collecting merchandise in New York and selling it in Philadelphia at highly inflated prices. Arnold facilitated much of the movement of goods by issuing passes to the Charming Nancy, the vessel they used for access to all ports. All of this was illegal, but Arnold considered himself entitled to some reward for his military service and for the wounds he had sustained in war.15 In mid-July, after France and the new United States had made an alliance, the French fleet arrived, bringing the new ambassador, Count Conrad 139

David Franks

Alexandre Gérard.16 Arnold, determined to make a good impression, arranged several welcoming parties to which the cream of Philadelphia society, both Whig and Tory, were invited. Among the guests at the second soirée, on July 4, were Nancy Boudinot, Polly Riche, the Redman sisters, the Craig sisters, Becky Bond, Nancy White, the Chew sisters, and the Shippen sisters. Joseph Reed was enraged, telling General Greene, “Will you not think it extraordinary that General Arnold made a public entertainment the night before last, of which not only tory ladies, but the wives and daughters of persons proscribed by the State, and now with the enemy at New York, formed a considerable number? The fact is literally true.”17 Arnold ignored the growing hatred around him; he suddenly had a new focus in life. At the party, he had met Peggy Shippen and was immediately smitten. Within days he was writing her name, “Miss Shippen,” over and over again on his financial paperwork.18 Widowed early in the war, General Arnold was determined to make the beautiful Miss Shippen his wife.19 David Franks was probably unaware of the tension between the council leadership and the general, but he surely realized the situation he faced. A  letter from David’s brother Moses in August covered a wide range of subjects, but most significantly responded to an earlier message of David’s in which he talked of leaving America and moving to England. Moses thought very little of the idea; it would be too difficult to make new friends and connections and would, he wrote, “alter our whole system of existence; every individual who have yet come here in this predicament, have repented and wished undone. . . . Think of this & do not let caprice of any sort nor any influence prevail on you to quit the quiet of your own home where you can live the Master of your own time & of your own will & disposition.”20 David was put off for a while, but the thought of flight remained with him. Complaints continued to arrive from jails where wood and candles were not being given to the prisoners. England looked better to David all the time.21 David Franks’s income stream had stopped. He became highly motivated to convert some of his real property into cash, a plan he mentioned to Moses in one of his letters. The promotion of both the Indiana and the Illinois & Ouabache claims had been blunted by the war and, more recently, by the departure of Galloway. Several of the proprietors of the Indiana Company asked Thomas Wharton Sr., the company’s vice president, to hold a meeting at the Indian Queen Tavern in Philadelphia to discuss “matters of the greatest importance . . . as early as possible” and to select a president to replace Joseph Galloway. This request was signed by William Trent, Thomas Bond, Joseph Simon, Andrew Levy, Trent, Franks, Simon, and Levy for 140

The Revenge of the Radicals

Philip Boyht (probably Philip Boyle), and Matthias Slough on behalf of himself and the other executors of Robert Callendar [sic], deceased.22 Wharton, one of the Quakers who had been released from custody in Virginia in April 1778, called the meeting for April 5, 1779. Trent and George Morgan had been pursuing Indiana Company claims in the Virginia Assembly and wanted the meeting to be held significantly earlier. Unfortunately, the company’s constitution required that two monthly notices be published in Philadelphia newspapers. By the time Trent was able to arrange the advertising, the meeting schedule could not be advanced.23 Desperate to minimize expenses, David Franks directed Simon to furnish nothing but provisions to the prisoners. Reluctantly, Simon agreed to follow instructions, adding, “but I assure you they will suffer much more than they have done, for they can not well do without salt, and you may depend on it the Publick will not furnish them with wood.” Thomas Bradford, deputy commissary of prisoners, wrote to Congress advising it of “Mr.  Franks’ refusal to supply British prisoners with wood or necessary cloathing,” despite the fact that after his and Simon’s repeated pleas, many of their expenses for provision of wood and clothing had not been reimbursed. The letter was referred to the Board of War for action.24 In August the radical majority in the Pennsylvania Assembly pushed through a resolution that “able Council” be employed to assist the attorney general, Jonathan Sergeant, in the prosecution of those who had collaborated with the British. Many radicals, it should be noted, saw in the label “Tory” the most effective weapon against their political opponents, no matter how innocent they might be of such a charge.25 David Franks tried in every way possible to ingratiate himself with the radicals. One of the prisoners in Philadelphia “misbehaved,” as Franks described it in a letter to Thomas Bradford. He offered to deliver the man to Bradford after the prisoner had inappropriately applied for a pass from Colonel Nicola, the town major. It was Bradford who had transmitted the complaints about Franks to the Board of War. The attempt to appear cooperative came to naught; Bradford simply ignored Franks’s note.26 Then a new, expanded version of the oath of allegiance to Pennsylvania was circulated, which Franks signed as soon as it was published.27 Meanwhile, Franks had more trouble from the British: he was not getting paid. British Treasury secretary John Robinson sent a particularly abrasive message to General Clinton, which commanded, “you will not sign any more Certificates to be presented to this Board for payment of these services [feeding prisoners] but that you will Settle and pay the same in America out 141

David Franks

of the Contingencies of the Army there.” There is no indication that Clinton had the slightest interest in complying with these instructions; he was not funded to feed the prisoners or to provide them with “necessaries.”28 David’s refusal to furnish firewood aroused the ire of the congressional Board of War. In October 1778 the board communicated with him and learned of his plight—that throughout his years of victualing he had never been required to provide anything but food and had received no authorization to expand his services. Nor had he developed sources to acquire other materials. Furthermore, the prisoners he was to feed were supposed to be soldiers but now included women, children, and a fair number of individuals captured at sea. He was not being paid regularly or promptly because his prime contractors had not contracted for these services, and neither had he. Finally, if and when the British did pay him, it was seldom with the proper gold or silver, as required by the Congress. The Board of War’s representative, Richard Peters, advised Colonel John Beatty, Elias Boudinot’s successor as commissary-general of prisoners, that he should correct these problems and asked if General Washington should be consulted. Peters told Beatty that “Mr.  Franks does not seem competent to the business, We presume from want of Authority.”29 On both sides of the ocean and both sides of the conflict, key individuals and primary organizations assigned to others the responsibilities to get things done. No one was helping David Franks obtain fair compensation. The same week that the crisis about provisioning the prisoners came to a head, Billy Hamilton, the quiet, apolitical botanist hermit, who happened to be related to highly placed loyalists, was arrested and charged with treason. He was subjected to a jury trial on October 18 at the Court of Oyer and Terminer and found not guilty. Testifying on his behalf were his uncle, James Hamilton, three-time lieutenant governor and a known loyalist; Abigail Hamilton, David Franks’s eldest daughter and Billy’s sisterin-law; General John Cadwalader, brigadier of the Pennsylvania militia; and four other close friends of the accused. Hamilton was “discharged by proclamation paying fees.” His arrest and trial were part of the cycle of retribution by the radical leadership. That night, David Franks wrote to Margaret’s cousin, Captain Thomas William Moore of General DeLancey’s brigade in New York, about Billy’s trial. He enclosed a letter that was to be forwarded to his brother Moses, informing Moses how expensive provisions were in Philadelphia and raised the possibility of acquiring them in London at rates that would make their sale feasible. David’s friend, Andrew Allen, had also gone off to fight alongside Oliver DeLancey, and David asked Moore to 142

The Revenge of the Radicals

let him know about Billy’s success in court. David’s glee over the event was short-lived. The letter to Captain Moore, including the enclosure, was intercepted and sent to Congress.30 A congressional committee consisting of William Duer, Daniel Roberdeau, and William Drayton was assigned to review the letter and propose action. It didn’t take the three men long to decide what to do. The next day, on their recommendation, Congress found “that the contents of the said letter manifest a disposition and intentions inimical to the safety and liberties of the United States” and concluded “that Mr. Franks, having endeavored to transmit this letter by stealth within the British lines, has abused the confidence reposed in him by Congress, to exercise within the jurisdiction of these states the office of commissary to the British prisoners.” Benedict Arnold was ordered to arrest Franks and convey him to the city jail. Strangely enough, Franks was also prohibited from fulfilling his duties as commissary for the British prisoners after November 10 —three weeks later.31 The next day, Congress ordered Arnold to report on his proceedings in the execution of the order for Franks’s arrest. Arnold could not have been overjoyed at the prospect of arresting David Franks. First of all, he would be taking his aides along, one of whom was a close relative of the accused. More difficult would be the confrontation with Rebecca Franks, as she was one of Peggy Shippen’s closest friends. The general took the easy way out, reporting, “When the Order of Congress of yesterday was delivered me I was sick in Bed.” He sent Colonel Nicola, the town major, to arrest David instead. Arnold also enclosed a directive to the “Keeper of the New Goal [sic]” to receive David Franks into custody and to confine him until further orders. An additional note explained that he had not yet received a report from Nicola but was expecting it “every minute” and would transmit it as soon as it arrived.32 Later that day, Arnold did send Nicola’s report, which was not exactly what was expected. When Nicola arrived to collect his prisoner, David Franks asked for a “few minutes indulgence” to give some necessary orders. During the delay, Margaret was told for the first time what was happening, and she was “so much affected,” Franks and Abby Hamilton told Nicola, “that fatal consequences were apprehended.” Franks asked Nicola if he could remain at the house for one night, “under such security as [Nicola] thought necessary.” Nicola agreed: “humanity prompted me to deviate from the letter of your order tho not from spirit.” Lieutenant Honeyman was left at the house till the next morning, when Franks was finally arrested and transported to jail. By late morning on October 22, David Franks was a prisoner. 143

David Franks

While Franks was being arrested, the American commissioner for prisoners, John Beatty, was communicating with Joshua Loring, his counterpart in the British military. Beatty told George Washington that he explained to Loring again the “impropriety of our maintaining their prisoners and at the same time furnishing those of ours in their possession with cash and provisions.” Washington replied, “Mr. Franks is not their Commissary, that they wish to remove him, he being neither furnished with money or authority for the purpose of supplying their prisoners.” Even George Washington was aware of Franks’s predicament.33 Congress had also resolved that General Washington tell Clinton about the situation and ask him to nominate a replacement for Franks. Finally, Congress ordered that “the committee sit again and consider by what process it may be proper to take cognizance of Mr.  D.  Franks’s offence.”34 There is no evidence regarding the reasons for a twenty-day delay between the resolution and David’s removal from his position. How he was expected to function in that capacity for nearly three weeks after being jailed remains a mystery. Washington dutifully reported to Henry Laurens, the president of Congress, that he had transmitted the information to Clinton.35 Franks submitted an appeal to Laurens. He explained that in his letter to his brother he had intended no injury to America and was merely reporting on matters necessary to the conduct of his business. He no longer had a copy of the letter and requested one. He concluded, “I have never had any Criminal Intention towards this Country, but have done sundry Services to the public Cause.” The handwriting was someone else’s, but the closing and the signature were Franks’s usual scrawl, with a touch of palsy.36 The letter was hand-delivered to Congress that day and was read at the session. Congress referred the letter to the committee for consideration. After discussion, the committee recommended that a copy of Franks’s letter to Moses be furnished to him.37 Joseph Simon heard the news and offered to accept appointment to the vacated position. In a letter to the Board of War he explained that David Franks had instructed him to stop issuing “Provisions &ca” effective November 10, and he described what items he could provide and how many prisoners were held at Frederick Town, Winchester, Lancaster, and Easton. He would be able to “give Satisfaction and on as good Terms as any other person whatever.”38 As he was well aware of the problems David Franks had encountered in collecting payment, it is difficult to comprehend Simon’s volunteering to assume the responsibilities. He was owed a great deal, and

144

The Revenge of the Radicals

perhaps this would be one way to seek compensation for his past efforts. The Board of War was directed to report on its assessment of the proposal.39 Congress recognized that it had inherited the problem of supplying food provisions and other necessities to the British prisoners. John Beatty, newly appointed Boudinot’s successor as commissary-general of prisoners, received the assignment to coordinate the program.40 On November 7, David wrote again to Laurens from prison. He had never intended to make trouble, he said again, and begged to be released from jail. His family and his business needed him.41 Congress reviewed the situation concerning David Franks and referred the entire matter to the Pennsylvania Supreme Executive Council, declaring that “he be no longer considered as a prisoner of the United States.” The letter to Moses Franks was included with the referral. A letter from Laurens to George Bryan with enclosures confirmed the action. Unfortunately, the letter from David to Moses cannot be found; no copy is extant. It is not clear whether Franks was released from prison with this transfer of responsibility to the Pennsylvania authorities, but this appears unlikely; probably he was held until his arraignment.42 Not explained at all is why Congress had leaped at the chance to arrest David Franks and then, without any kind of hearing, released him to the Pennsylvania authorities. His transfer from federal to state authorities sent Franks from the frying pan into the fire. The following week the Pennsylvania Packet reported, “Last week, Mr. David Franks, late Commissary for the British prisoners, appointed by General Clinton, who had been confined by Congress in the new goal [sic] in this city, for writing letters of an improper nature and dangerous tendency to the enemy, being delivered up to the civil authority was brought before the Supreme Court, and after a hearing admitted to bail; himself bound in 5000 l. [pounds sterling] and Mr. Joseph Simons of Lancaster, and General Cadwalader becoming sureties for him in 2500 l. [pounds sterling] each.”43 David Franks was going to be tried for treason.

145

Fourtee n a time of trials

Though ostensibly the result of his letter to Moses, David Franks’s arrest was in fact part of the radical Pennsylvania revolutionaries’ reprisals against suspected loyalists, the disaffected, the attainted, and all others they disliked. Among those at the top of this list, former lieutenant governor James Hamilton attracted considerable enmity for his alliance with the Penn family and his decidedly pro-British stance. Those close to him, including relatives and friends, were considered part of his coalition. Billy Hamilton and David Franks were guilty of being related to Hamilton, though Franks only by the marriage of his eldest daughter, Abby. Franks’s other daughter, Becky, did not help his image by having devoted herself to the British army during its occupation, or through her many social connections to Tory families. True, her best friends were Peggy Shippen, the new love of the fiercely rebellious Arnold, and Anne Harrison, now married to William Paca, a prominent member of the Continental Congress headed for a long and successful career in the American government. But Becky walked the Tory path most of the time, and this reflected poorly upon her father. Franks’s trial was set for November 9 at the Court of Oyer and Terminer and General Gaol Delivery. Two adjournments set the trial back to December 5 before Thomas McKean, William Augustus Atlee, and John Evans, justices of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court. In a crowded calendar, “a Bill of Indictment was preferred against David Franks, for High Treason, and returned by the Grand Jury Ignoramus.”1 Basically, the jury found insufficient evidence on which to convict Franks, and he was released after more than six weeks of what appeared to have been unnecessary incarceration. He and his family hoped that his trials were over, and he tried to get on with his life.

A Time of Trials

Communication was so slow that more than two weeks later, not knowing the outcome of the trial, Moses Franks sent an appeal to his friend and former schoolmate, Grey Cooper, imploring him to arrange an exchange of prisoners, through Clinton, to set David free. He worried that his brother might have been put to death in the interim.2 Cooper had John Robinson send instructions to Clinton to arrange a release that turned out to be unnecessary by the time it arrived.3 On the American side, the news was equally late, and with less justification. On New Year’s Day 1779, General Israel Putnam, writing from Philadelphia, sent a note to David Franks ordering him to furnish the Hessian prisoners with five days’ provisions (“and order it Cook’d Immediately”) so that they could march at sunrise the next day.4 Of course, Franks had not been serving as commissary of prisoners for the prior seven weeks. Franks was eager to collect the money he was owed by the British for the remaining portion of nearly 1.4 million rations his organization had delivered.5 In late January he petitioned the Supreme Executive Council for permission to send Patrick Rice to New York to settle accounts with Clinton. Before it would issue a pass, the council directed that Franks seek approval from Congress.6 The following day Franks sent a request to John Jay, the new president of Congress, explaining the council’s direction and appealing for approval, owing to the fact “my demands are to a very high amount” because he had made “very large advances.”7 His letter was read in the congressional session that day and it was resolved “that Congress do not object to the council of this State granting a pass to such of Mr. Franks’ clerks to go to, and return from New York on the business mentioned in his letter, as they can confide in, and that such clerk take directions of General Washington, as to the time and manner of his going in.”8 The council issued the pass to Patrick Rice.9 It also ordered That Patrick Rice give Bond with two sufficient Sureties, in the Sum of Ten Thousand Pounds, conditioned that he do not take into the City of New  York any Letters or papers of any kind, save only his accounts, & the Papers & vouchers relating thereto; That he do not by any means, directly or indirectly, bring or send out of the City of New York, any Continental Money or Goods of any kind; That he neither do nor say anything injurious to the United States of America, And that he will bring out no Letters or Papers of any kind except what relates to the accounts aforesaid, but what he will on his arrival communicate to this Council. 147

David Franks

The council had conferred with Washington’s aide-de-camp, Tench Tilghman, a friend of the Franks family, who recommended that Rice be referred to General Maxwell and be passed through the lines as a special case.10 When he arrived in New York, Rice delivered Franks’s greetings to Major André. The major was still Clinton’s aide-de-camp, and Franks hoped the connection would make a difference. Whether André made any attempt to influence Clinton is not known, but it is certain that he was not successful. Rice was to return empty handed. Meanwhile, Franks heard from Richard Rowland of Nesbitt, Drummond and Franks, who told him, “we are truly concerned to tell you that we are under the disagreeable and painful necessity of suffering the Drafts noted at foot [of bills that David had sent] for £4,370.2 to be returned protested.” At length, Rowland explained that the Treasury would not pay the drafts but assured David that he would “have immediate redress on Sir Henry Clinton.” The Lords of the Treasury had “repeatedly given directions to the Commander in Chief to settle & pay the expenses of the Service for victualling the Prisoners out of the Army Contingencies,” Rowland explained, going on to mourn the unhappy fate of the partnership’s effort to supply the British prisoners: “We hoped from the circumstances of this business, and our and your having engaged in it on good faith, that it would have had another termination; but our best and earnest, and we may add indefatigable solicitation at the Treasury has not been in the least effectual, nor had any attention, so that what we do is compulsive, and our conduct towards you is truly distressing; but as we said above, we are not to blame, for we neither can nor will take upon us to maintain an Army.” He concluded, “You will be mindful, that we hold ourselves entirely disengaged from any further connection in this business;—if you proceed in it, we wish you prosperity.”11 This had to be a serious blow to Franks on more than one level. His prime contractors were giving up, and he could not count upon any more help at the Treasury. Clinton continued to thumb his nose at the Treasury with impunity; it would be no simple task to talk him out of money even if David were able to confront him. Worst of all, inexplicably, the message from Nesbitt, Drummond and Franks did not come from his brother. Another month passed before he heard from Moses. Moses’ letter was written as if he were a third party at arm’s length from the issues between his partners and David. He referred to Nesbitt, Drummond and Franks as “the contractors” as though he were not the “Franks” in the name. The lengthy missive repeated a great deal of Rowland’s letter unnecessarily. There was considerable detail about how hard they had tried to push 148

A Time of Trials

the Lords of Treasury without success; he reminded David that English law entitled him to 20 percent of whatever was refused or protested irrespective of the circumstances; and he made recommendations about how to approach Clinton. Despite a cheery opening and a syrupy closing, the letter was cold. Very probably, Moses just didn’t know how to say what needed to be said to a brother whom he loved. The letter concluded, “Mrs. Franks & my D’r Little Girl send their kindest Love to you & Mrs. Franks & Becky— Commend mine heartily & imploring heaven to bestow his blessings to you & them.”12 Within days, David was arrested again by the Supreme Executive Council, and in April was tried for sending traitorous correspondence. Pennsylvania attorney general Jonathan Sergeant conducted the prosecution himself.13 After extended strategy sessions, Sergeant, Matlack, Bryan, and Reed had decided that lowering the charge from a felony (high treason) to a misdemeanor (misprision of treason) would increase the likelihood of success.14 Again, as in the first trial, Franks was acquitted. Sergeant and his radical cohorts were furious. The same day, Matlack, the council secretary, submitted an unsigned letter to the local newspaper expressing contempt for the jury and “detestation of Mr. Franks’s conduct” and enclosed a reputed copy of the offending letter David had sent to Moses, with comments highlighting why Franks’s guilt was “obvious.” As the original letter is not extant, there remains only Matlack’s word regarding its content.15 Matlack’s letter unleashed a war of words in the newspapers. Over the next two weeks, Davis Bevan, a member of the jury at David’s trial, “A Citizen,” “Sidney,” “A Juror,” “A. B.,” and “Cato” (thought to be Matlack again) sent a series of letters to the paper expressing strong views about the jury system, the details of the case, and the correctness of the verdict. Bevan defended Franks’s acquittal. “A Citizen” and “Sidney” took opposing sides in letters that appeared on the same day. “A Juror” incorrectly assumed that Sergeant, not Matlack, had attacked the jury and roasted the attorney general for failing to respect the “rights and prerogatives of jurors.” A lengthy, detailed, well-crafted letter of support for Franks was provided by “A. B.” in the same edition of the paper in which “Cato” answered Bevan, condemning Franks and maintaining that the jury had failed to issue the correct verdict. Later, “Diogenes” rebutted “Sidney.”16 The general feeling in the community was that “clearly, there was doubt at the time of Franks’ loyalty, but also strong belief in his integrity. He seems to have been placed in an impossible position by the job that Congress asked him to do.”17 None of this changed either the verdict or the radical leadership’s opinion of David Franks. Sergeant and Bryan were still debating the legal strategy 149

David Franks

of the case in mid-May. Sergeant pointed out that “by lowering the charge ag’st Franks so much we thought to have had him more securely; and this was the Reason of the G. Jury’s returning the Bill for Treason Ignoramus. Shew this to Matlack.”18 David Franks was still a target of the radicals, and his recent good fortune only increased their desire to punish him—whether he deserved it or not. For the time being, the pressure was off, but there was no telling when it would resume. The flow of verbiage to the papers continued with letters from “X” and “A True Whig,” as well as an unsigned assault upon Matlack ending, “the air, the manner, the strut and the swagger of the man render him as ridiculous as words can make him, or there is any occasion for him to be.”19 The political wars were still in full swing; very probably, Franks had as many supporters as detractors, and he was far from being alone as a victim of radical vengeance. Franks’s good friends George Croghan and Tench Coxe had also been arrested as loyalists. Croghan, of course, had been a British official for the many years he served as Sir William Johnson’s deputy. With Johnson’s death in 1774, his sons Guy and John joined with Croghan’s Indian son-in-law, Joseph Brant, to lead raids against American outposts in Pennsylvania and New York. Similarly, Alexander McKee, who had replaced Croghan as Johnson’s deputy, moved to Detroit and led Indian raids in Kentucky, Virginia, and Pennsylvania. Augustine Prevost, another of Croghan’s sons-in-law, held a commission in the British army and would command the British forces that captured Savannah. Consequently, Croghan’s identification with loyalist causes and active participants was widespread and well known. Though he conspicuously supported the patriot cause throughout the early part of the war, his name was on the list of enemies of the state issued in June 1778. Croghan was commanded to appear for trial for high treason, at which he was discharged.20 Tench Coxe, initially a supporter of the American cause, opposed separation from Great Britain. In the view of true radicals, this branded him a Tory. He left Philadelphia in December 1776, when pressure became intense, but he returned alongside Galloway and the Allens when the British army took control of the city. During his two years in New York and Maryland, he had maintained close ties with the British military. In May 1778 his name appeared on the “Proclamation of Attainder” alongside Croghan’s. Coxe had numerous relatives and friends in high places, not the least of whom was his cousin Tench Tilghman, Washington’s aide-de-camp. Through the auspices of the Tilghman family, Chief Justice Thomas McKean was encouraged to be lenient, and Coxe was released after trial without having his property confiscated.21 150

A Time of Trials

Coxe’s case was unique, as he went from supporting the rebels to supporting the Crown and back again, finally ending up a member of the U.S. Congress. He later served as Alexander Hamilton’s assistant secretary of the Treasury and provided much of the information for his superior’s financial plan, which attempted to further the nation’s industrial and commercial development. While Coxe was going through his difficulties with the radicals, his second wife’s health failed rapidly, and she passed away just a month after his trial. Coxe had to make a new start in every area of his life. David Franks, fearing that he might be forced to leave Philadelphia, knew he would need legal representation in the city and renewed his working relationship with Coxe as quickly as he could.22 The April 5 meeting of Indiana Company proprietors had been held as scheduled, and the absent Joseph Galloway was replaced as president by David Franks. At the end of May, Franks announced a meeting of the Indiana proprietors at the Indian Queen scheduled for July 5, promising “affairs of consequence,” and invited members’ attorneys to attend for them if they could not.23 The land acquired from the Six Nations once again appeared promising, as American colonial control of the territory now seemed likely. Trent and Morgan had been making vigorous presentations to the Virginia House of Delegates, seeking their concurrence on the treaty results. On June 9 the Virginia delegates arrived at a final vote, denying the claims of the Indiana Company. Interestingly, the arguments of Trent and Morgan must have been quite persuasive, as the vote was only fifty to twenty-eight, indicating much greater support for the claims than expected. That was the end of the Indiana Company’s hopes for early settlement, with Virginia’s concurrence, however.24 The failure of Trent and Morgan led Joseph Simon’s partner, Levy Andrew Levy, to advertise “some shares of that valuable tract of land on the river Ohio called Indiana Land, granted by the Six Nations to the Proprietors at the treaty at Fort Stanwix in 1768. For terms of sale, apply to the subscriber, living in Lancaster.” Now was a good time to sell some of that property if it was going to become worthless.25 The July meeting of the members resulted in a decision to present their claims to the Congress. The first draft of the Articles of Confederation had included elements of Benjamin Franklin’s proposal that Congress should control the western lands and define state boundaries or create others as they saw fit.26 Morgan submitted a “memorial” to Congress on behalf of the company, which was read during the session on September 14. It was moved, seconded, and affirmed that the appeal be referred to a five-member 151

David Franks

committee for evaluation. Three weeks later the committee was selected and charged with inquiring into the foundation of the objection formerly made by the Virginia delegates and with reporting the facts relating to that point.27 After review, the congressional committee recommended “suspension of sale, grant or settlement of any land unappropriated prior to the declaration of independence, until the conclusion of the war.” The proposal was defeated by the delegates, but the issue was debated in caucuses for two days, and on October 31 Congress adopted a brief preamble to the essence of the defeated bill and rephrased the resolution. Basically, Congress anticipated political troubles in the vacant lands and recommended that Virginia (and other states with territorial expansion plans) not open land offices as long as the war persisted.28 The Virginia delegation objected strenuously and commenced a dispute with the Congress that consumed the ensuing year. David Franks’s hopes for recompense through the Indiana Company were put on hold indefinitely.29 The Indiana Company was not Franks’s only opportunity to convert his landholdings into money. The  long-dormant Illinois  & Ouabache Company resurfaced in the same month that the Indiana claims were shelved. A meeting of the principals was held on October 30, 1779, at the City Tavern in Philadelphia. Those attending were chairman James Wilson, recently removed by the radicals from his position as delegate to Congress; David Franks; William Murray; Silas Deane, a member of Congress under fire from the radicals over his dispute with Arthur Lee; the Reverend Dr. William Smith; and silversmith Edmund Milne. They concluded that a “plan of settlement” needed to be developed and placed before the entire company in less than a week. Three men were assigned to prepare the plan, but the planned meeting never took place.30 Meanwhile, David wrote to Major André in New  York, explaining that he had some “interesting” accounts at headquarters and was seeking “friendly advice and assistance.” He outlined the problems with his prime contractors, the Treasury and General Clinton. He told André about his “late Sufferings on account of my Loyalty—I have cheerfully submitted to it notwithstanding my Imprisonment, trial for life, the unhappy situation my large Family were necessarily thrown into, and the heavy expence to Lawyers &c of two hundred Guineas”; and he pointed out that he still had not been paid. He had been trying to get a pass to New York for more than three months, so that he could personally settle accounts, but had been turned down consistently. He begged André to help Patrick Rice, who was 152

A Time of Trials

then in New  York and was known to Clinton and André. In closing he conveyed regards from “all the Ladies of your acquaintance in Philadelphia,” who, he said, would “be very happy in taking a view of the Mall, or having a ramble under the Holy olde Trees in the Broad way.” David certainly liked André, and he knew that the young man was attracted to Becky and did his best to use that connection. There is no indication that André ever answered this letter.31 Two days later David heard from Rice, who expressed disappointment over his lack of success in persuading Clinton to pay him. He explained that “it is the express Order & directions from the Lords of the Treasury, to the Commander in Chief to make such settlement with you only.” The only person who could properly assess the charges, and who had the authority to make the agreement, was David Franks. Rice implored Franks to get a pass and come to New York. David applied to the Supreme Executive Council twice for a pass, first on October 20 and again on December 23, and was turned down.32 At the same session of the council he was accused of having some connection with a trunk full of unspecified goods that someone else had transported from New York to Trenton. No action was taken against him at that time, but Franks must have been growing tired of the council’s harassment.33 In his new role as president, Franks called a meeting of the Indiana Company proprietors for February 7, 1780, at the Indian Queen Tavern.34 Virginia had flatly rejected claims by both the Indiana and the Vandalia companies, which led to a confrontation between Congress and the government of Virginia that lasted for nearly four years. The Indiana Company leadership was forced to drop its pursuit of claims for more than six months. While Franks suffered through his various trials, imprisonments, and financial reverses, Benedict Arnold had been the subject of even worse radical attacks. At Reed’s urging, Pennsylvania authorities filed a series of eight charges against him. The council sent these charges to the Congress and, maliciously, to the newspapers at the same time. George Washington had listened to Arnold’s threats to resign from the army because he could not get an assignment he considered worthy of his talents. Arnold actually submitted his resignation, but Washington persuaded him to withdraw it with the promise of an important post.35 The commander in chief also recommended that he insist upon a court-martial as a means of clearing his name of the charges. Arnold and Peggy Shippen had been quietly married in early April and he was in no mood for a trial, but he understood the importance of 153

David Franks

ending the whispering in the community as quickly as possible. Congress set May 1779 as the date for trial, but only four of the charges, those that had military court implications, were to be prosecuted. Reed insisted that a fifth item, dealing with use of public wagons for personal use, be put back on the list, causing the trial date to be postponed until June 1. Arnold, who wanted to be cleared immediately, was furious. One of the dropped charges involved a pass Arnold had issued to a Miss Levy, allegedly a relative of David Franks, to go through the lines to New York in order to collect a debt. Further, both David S. Franks and Matthew Clarkson were suspected of involvement with Arnold, creating yet another link to David. But only the four issues were charged when the proceedings began. The trial dragged on, with postponements and other delays, and it was not until late January 1780 that Arnold was able to present his defense. In the end, he was acquitted of two of the four charges and found guilty of two. His punishment was to be a reprimand from Washington, which he received in April. During the proceedings, Arnold had testified forcefully as to the innocence of majors Clarkson and Franks in his activities.36 As the summer of 1780 drew to a close, events went downhill rapidly for David Franks. News of Arnold’s treasonous plan to betray West Point to the British was announced in Philadelphia on September 27. The radicals arranged a parade to celebrate the vindication of their charges against him, carting a two-faced Arnold in effigy through the streets before burning it. Military authorities arranged to punish five other people: two of Arnold’s partners in the Charming Nancy shipping business, James Seagrove[s] and William Constable; Major David S. Franks; and their two favorite suspected Tories, Billy Hamilton and David Franks. All were alleged to have connections with Arnold’s treachery and British military activities. The day after the parade, September 28, Margaret Franks passed away at age sixty. There are no clues regarding the cause of her death, although one report indicated that the prior week had been “a very sickly time.”37 Margaret and David had been married for more than thirty-seven years and had enjoyed a warm and loving relationship. Her funeral and burial took place at Christ Church on October 2. The  same day, the Supreme Executive Council issued warrants for the five suspected “enemies to the American cause.” The sheriff was directed to “bring them before this Board for examination, pursuant to an act of the General Assembly, passed at Philadelphia, the tenth day of October last, entitled ‘An act to empower the Supreme Executive Council and Justices of the Supreme Court to apprehend suspected persons, and to increase the fines to which persons 154

A Time of Trials

are liable for neglecting to perform their tour of militia duty.’”38 The next day, David’s mourning period notwithstanding, he was brought before the board and was examined “pursuant to the said act.” The council resolved “that the said David Franks, William Hamilton and James Seagrove[s], stand committed pursuant to the powers vested in this Board by the said act of Assembly, and the Goaler [sic] of this city is required to receive and keep them accordingly.”39 With David’s two sons in England, his daughters Abby and Becky had to deal with the burial of their mother. There is no indication in surviving documents that David requested any kind of relief owing to the death of his wife. He was sent to prison. Would he, then, observe shiva in Margaret’s memory? Quite possibly he would have, had he not been confined. Constable was released on bail and Major David  S. Franks was directed to return to the army and report to General Washington.40 This time, there was no trial. Two days later the council met and “considered” the crimes of Hamilton and Franks with this result: “Resolved, That the said David Franks and William Hamilton, do depart this State within fourteen days from the date hereof, and that they give security, each in the sum of £200,000, to go within the enemies lines, and not return again to any of these United States during the continuance of the present war.” Even with wartime inflation, the amount of money demanded was huge; it is unlikely that either man could put his hands on such a sum. There are no records of estate forfeiture for David Franks, which would provide evidence of closure of the surety requirement. David’s banishment was going to be difficult for him and his remaining family. When the news came from Stony Point that General Anthony Wayne had scored a significant victory and the British commander Colonel Henry Johnson had been captured, Grace Galloway described it as “taken by Waine & basely given Up by Johnston— everything I think is over with Us.” Uncertainty reigned. Johnson, the charming colonel whom Becky had met at the Mischianza, was going to be sidelined as a captive.41 Rebecca, now twenty-two and unmarried, would have to leave Pennsylvania with her father, which she probably preferred to remaining among the Whigs. Colonel Johnson was likely to be exchanged and returned to the army in New York, making that city a desirable destination for the Frankses. But leaving Philadelphia would be traumatic for both father and daughter, and the separation from Abigail and the grandchildren would be painful, especially so soon after Margaret’s burial.42 Both Franks and Hamilton asked the council for more time before leaving and were refused. Hamilton then requested that he be allowed to go to 155

David Franks

the island of St. Eustatia in the Dutch West Indies, and for additional time in which to make the move. The location was approved, but not the extension.43 General Cadwalader, now a delegate to the Pennsylvania Assembly, cautioned Hamilton to leave as fast as he could but not to go to England until there was a peace treaty. “Snares will undoubtedly be laid for you,” he added, “& therefore you cannot be too cautious.” Hamilton had arranged that Tench Coxe, Cadwalader Morris, and the general would collaborate as attorneys for him during his absence. The general asked for first right of refusal on the Woodlands estate, after the family, of course.44 David requested a pass to New  York for himself, Rebecca, one manservant, and two maidservants. The  council approved the pass for David, Becky, and one maidservant, “provided she be an indented servant.”45 On October 17, just three days before the deadline for relocating, David petitioned the council for more time, pleading a medical problem in his arm. Dr. James Hutchinson was sent to visit David to evaluate the situation and report to the council.46 But David was really trying to transfer his property into friendly hands as quickly as possible in the hope of reclaiming it when the war ended. He arranged the sale of five substantial parcels of land in Westmoreland County to Barnard Gratz for just a few shillings. Clearly this was a means of keeping the land out of the hands of the radicals for the duration of the war.47 Dr. Hutchinson nevertheless confirmed that David was in “an ill state of health,” and he was permitted to go home to recuperate and to return to custody when well.48 The following day he dictated to Rebecca a letter of instruction to Joseph Simon regarding the disposition and management of a number of other properties, emphasizing his immediate need for money. Simon was given power of attorney. David also arranged for the auction of his library, to take place at his home on November 1.49 David continued his two-pronged project of staying in Philadelphia as long as possible to clean up business affairs and converting all the assets he could to cash. A letter to Barnard Gratz of November 22 gave instructions regarding consignments to Isaac Adolphus, which were part of his estate and ought to be recovered. Heyman Levy was the executor of the estate, and Franks asked Gratz to recover the money.50 The Congress was just as determined to use his properties for government purposes. The  Treasury reported to Congress that Treasury officials were being dispossessed from their current offices. There was a “large, convenient house” available on Second Street (formerly David Franks’s house), but the new owner did not want the Treasury to use it. The Treasury suggested that this would make a fine residence for the president of Congress, and that Treasury officers 156

A Time of Trials

could move into the house where he now lived.51 It was then three weeks past the date set for David’s departure, and he was probably still in the house with his injured arm. On November 18 Timothy Matlack wrote to David, expressing the council’s “surprise” that he still remained in the city and again enclosing a pass for David and Rebecca to go to New York. He hoped they would depart immediately; otherwise, measures would be taken to compel him to comply.52 Franks’s response showed either unusual courage or downright foolishness. Writing to Reed, David acknowledged that he would be extremely ungrateful to trespass on the indulgence shown him by the council. His arm continued to be greatly inflamed, however, and needed to be dressed daily. Further, he was apprehensive that a report “may have given rise to prejudice against me”; this report related to depreciating currency by purchase of specie at unacceptable rates of exchange with paper currency, a charge that Franks denied, enclosing an affidavit to that effect. Lastly, the pass he had received covered only Rebecca and himself, but he required one that would take care of his maidservant and baggage as well. Taking all of these considerations together, he needed until Thursday (November 23) before he could depart.53 The next evening David wrote to Reed again, explaining that the carriage he had engaged for the trip to New York had met with an accident on its way to town, which prevented him from using it the next day. He was ready to go in every other respect and, begging the council’s indulgence, he would be on his way as soon as the carriage was repaired.54 Reed was furious. “Your letter of yesterday was received and read in Council and I am directed to acquaint you, that the Council expect you will be ready to set out on your Journey to New York by to-morrow morning at farthest as it is their opinion the excuse is a very frivolous one, and therefore have agreed to grant no further indulgence.”55 David and Rebecca went to New York.

157

Fiftee n exiles

New York City, David’s birthplace and original hometown, had been filled with family and friends years earlier. When David and Becky returned in late 1780, few of those friends and relatives remained. His parents were both long dead. His siblings Moses, Naphtali, Richa, and Abigail (Poyer) were in England, as were both of his sons. Abby and Andrew Hamilton were back in Philadelphia. John Watts and his family were also in England, and Oliver DeLancey had accompanied Clinton to the Carolinas to wage the southern campaign. Oliver and Phila’s son-in-law, John Harris Cruger, was with Clinton. Likewise, John André had been with Clinton’s forces until his capture in September along with Benedict Arnold. Margaret’s cousin Thomas Moore was with DeLancey’s brigade. David’s sister Phila DeLancey was still in New York after a harrowing ordeal a year earlier. DeLancey’s family home, “Bloomingdale,” had been burned to the ground by Whig activists at a time when only women and servants were in the house. Phila, almost completely deaf, had hidden in a dog kennel on the property and was nearly burned there. She and her daughters wandered through the woods nearby for hours until the attackers left.1 Compounding the dearth of companions, Clinton’s absence made it impossible for Franks to collect his victualing debts. No one else had the knowledge or the authority to approve the payment of these debts, and there was no way of knowing when or even whether Clinton would return to New York. David obtained permission to return to Philadelphia in February for a stay of four to six weeks. While there, he pursued claims and enlisted Tench Coxe to serve as his attorney. Coxe was brought up to speed on what David considered his holdings and what outstanding debts he had listed or remembered.2

Exiles

As soon as David returned to New York, he set out for England, arriving on July 1, 1782.3 Once there, he filed a petition with Parliament for a loyalist’s pension. He obtained letters of support from Adam Drummond, John Peter DeLancey (Oliver’s nephew), and Sir William Howe. Drummond had made an effort to attend the hearing before the American board but had begged off owing to his “very indifferent state [of ] health,” which prevented his coming to town.4 Franks probably anguished over the whole appeal process, being desperate for income. While David was in England, the Hamilton family used their influence in Philadelphia to arrange for the return of Billy Hamilton, who had permission to spend four to six weeks clearing up his affairs. A few weeks later, he was permitted to remain permanently.5 A new hope arose for Franks in March 1781, when Congress listened to a memorial from George Morgan in his capacity as agent for the Indiana Company proprietors. On the same day, a similar but much more extensive memorial by Benjamin Franklin and Samuel Wharton was offered on behalf of the Vandalia Company.6 Morgan’s appeal requested a full hearing before Congress so that the Indiana Company’s case could be presented in an unbiased setting. The Vandalia presentation was to focus upon the great effort and cost already invested by the partners; since British interests were no longer significant, Congress was at liberty to decide the best interests of the United States. James Wilson, president of the Illinois & Ouabache Company, also appealed for the right to make land sales. David Franks had missed a meeting of the company on New Year’s Day at which his sonin-law Andrew Hamilton represented the family’s interests. At that gathering and the subsequent session on January 22, the company concluded that it was willing to show Congress documents of its land titles and any other appropriate materials.7 Affirmative responses from Congress on these three proposals would have made David Franks a wealthy man once again. But Congress assigned a committee to study the offers; the committee delivered its initial report on June 27. Having considered the “Acts of Cession, and from the conditions annexed to them and other circumstances,” the committee members were “of the opinion it would be inexpedient for Congress to accept of them as they stand at present.” They proposed that Congress take into consideration the western limits beyond which it would not extend its guarantee to individual states, and to determine what vacant territory belonged to the United States in common for the general benefit. The  congressional response amounted to kicking the problem down the road, to be considered 159

David Franks

on Saturday, June 30. For some reason, no congressional session was held that day.8 William Trent, who had been collaborating with Morgan on the appeal, was upset by this nonresponse, and he prepared a new, somewhat vituperative memorial, which was delivered to Congress for reading in open session. On July 23 Congress refused to read the document openly and sent it back to Trent and the Indiana Company for modification.9 Trent rewrote it overnight and resubmitted it the following day. The memorial was read, and the following Monday, July 30, was set for its consideration.10 In the interim, a new committee of five members was formed, one member from each state without western territorial claims, a move that was intended to remove bias from the process. The issue was not brought to the floor that week. Instead, the committee invited Virginia delegates to a conference on October 13 that would include representation from the land companies. Virginia raised numerous objections, but the congressional committee pushed forward. On October 28 it met with Indiana and Vandalia representatives, who supplemented earlier presentations with additional documents.11 The Illinois & Ouabache Company realized that it had to ramp up its pressure as well. With David Franks in New York, Tench Coxe sat in for the family at eight meetings between February 1781 and April 1782 in which the leadership took various steps to gain an advantage. An impressive list of new members was proposed that included Governor Thomas Johnson, Samuel Chase, Charles Carroll, Robert Morris, John Holker, the earl of Dunmore (although an exiled loyalist!), and others. Land swaps were crafted that would trade disputed properties to the government for those without other claims. At the final meeting, President Wilson was charged with pressing Congress for an audience to hear the claims again. There is no record of such a presentation, however.12 After the meeting with the Indiana and Vandalia companies, a series of delays, cross-filings, and counterclaims ensued, which consumed more than half a year. On May 1, 1782, the committee announced its long-awaited recommendations regarding the western claims. Three significant resolutions were offered to the Congress: (1) the lands belonging to the Six Nations had always been within the boundaries of the government of New York, which invalidated the claims of Virginia and made the purchases of Colonel Croghan and the Indiana Company legitimate; (2) the land purchase made by the Vandalia Company was organized and not quite completed under the auspices of the Crown, making it “incompatible with the interests, government and policy of these United States”; interested parties should surrender 160

Exiles

all claims to the land but be reimbursed their purchase money expenses and charges; and (3) the petition of the Illinois  & Wabash (Ouabache) Company should be dismissed, as its purchases were made outside the boundaries of then existing states, rendering the territory rightly the property of the United States collectively.13 While waiting for the decision, David Franks sent a newsy, cheerful letter to Abby Hamilton in which he cited a number of earlier messages between Abby and himself. His upbeat mood must have derived from his expectation of the committee’s positive recommendation relative to the Indiana claim that had been so long in dispute but now looked as if it could end favorably. He reported that he had sent letters the previous day to Andrew and the children, and he added jovial greetings of “how doo and love do.” He also told Abby of sending a toothbrush to Peg (the eldest granddaughter, Margaret), and warned her to “make her and Sisters take care of these teeth.” He closed by telling his daughter, “Ive just come out of the River & feel lazy— can yett swim Like boy & wish I had yours with me to Dipp & Learn.” Most assuredly, David was missing his grandchildren.14 Becky sent a letter the same day, also making reference to several earlier letters. Rebecca hadn’t changed much since her Philadelphia days; she was still the social butterfly and filled with opinions about everyone and everything. She told of weekly parties on an officer’s barge and an endless stream of quips, using initials rather than names for the people she mentioned. She told Abby she was going to “Flat Bush” (in Brooklyn) in a few days, and signed herself “Emma,” probably a code established between the sisters when writing forbidden letters across the battle lines.15 The family had already had enough trouble with such letters. In fact, the letter never got to Abby but was intercepted and held by the authorities. From Flatbush, true to her word, Becky wrote again, a lengthy and gushingly girlish message. She rambled on about being angry with Papa for not joining her there; she had not wanted to leave him in New York alone, but he wouldn’t come with her. She gave an extensive description of Cornelia van Horn, whose family owned the summer house Becky was using, and she reflected on the differences between Philadelphia girls and New York girls to the disadvantage of the latter. She also criticized the loose morals of young men and women too eager to engage in physical encounters, related news about visits, letters, and birthday presents from various people, and expressed astonishment and displeasure at her brother Moses’ desire to purchase a commission in the British army, for she considered him too old. She concluded with the news that “yesterday the Grenadiers had a race at the Flatlands and in the 161

David Franks

afternoon this house swarm’d with beaux and some very smart ones. . . . How the girls wou’d have envy’d me cou’d they have peep’d and seen how I was surrounded, and yet I should have [felt] as happy if not much more to have spent the afternoon with the Thursday Party at the Woodlands.”16 Nostalgia for Philadelphia cropped up often in Rebecca’s letters over the years. Most intriguing about this letter is that when it was written Becky was engaged to marry Colonel Henry Johnson, whom she had (reportedly) met at the Mischianza.17 Johnson was the officer who surrendered the British fort at Stony Point to General Wayne, “basely,” according to Grace Galloway, wife of the exiled former congressmen. He had been exchanged and was now in New York.18 None of her letters from this period express any of the premarital excitement one would expect. Quite the contrary; she seems enthralled by the attention of a host of new “beaux”—not the behavior one would anticipate from a lady engaged to be married. Rebecca was always complex and spontaneous. She did marry Johnson, as advertised. One New York newspaper reported, “Last Thursday evening [ January 24, 1782] was married at her father’s house in the Broad-Way, Miss Franks, youngest daughter of David Franks Esq. to Henry Johnston [ Johnson] Esq., nephew to General Walsh and Lieut Colonel to the XVII regiment of foot.”19 General Cornwallis, years later, made disparaging remarks about Johnson, but others were “inclined to say that he who was willing to run the gauntlet of Miss Franks’ daring raillery must have been a brave man.”20 Following the British defeat at Yorktown in late November, the couple sailed to England and settled in Bath. By the time they arrived there, brother Moses Franks  Jr., having sat at the Middle Temple from early 1774, had been called to the bar (in November 1781), after signing up for the British armed forces.21 With Becky safely married to her colonel, David Franks was free to pursue opportunities to make money wherever they presented themselves— except in Pennsylvania, of course. There, he had Tench Coxe watching things and attending to collections and possible sales and handling personal items that Abby would find difficult. A gravestone memorializing Margaret was purchased, engraved, and installed in the Christ Church graveyard. Murray’s expenses on behalf of the Illinois & Ouabache Company were being paid out of David’s funds, later to be transferred to the company’s books. As the largest stakeholder, David accepted the responsibility and the element of control that went with it. Rents were collected. Morgan’s expenses connected with Indiana properties were advanced. Buildings David owned

162

Exiles

were repaired. Patrick Rice was still running the Franks and Company store, and his salary was being covered. Coxe was kept pretty busy with the Franks account; Jacob and Moses Jr. also had accounts being managed in the same way.22 A client of David’s, one David Montaigut, had incurred a debt years earlier and had been avoiding payment ever since. Montaigut showed up in Savannah in the position of city clerk. By a strange coincidence, Margaret’s cousin Captain Thomas William Moore, now barrack-master of the British forces still in Georgia, was working with Montaigut in managing the state lottery. At David’s urging, Moore extracted a payment schedule from the debtor, which he warned would probably not be kept but was the best he could do.23 Ownership documents for the shares in the Vandalia, Mississippi, Indiana, and Illinois & Ouabache companies were gathered from the various relatives in England, and David had copies made that would be sent covertly to Coxe.24 David, meanwhile, anguished over the inability to sell any of his properties. In May he urged Coxe, now working in partnership with Andrew Hamilton, to sell this or that tract of land or some shares in one of the partnerships. Anything. He enclosed a full power-of-attorney assignment. His memory of the details of transactions that had taken place more than a quarter of a century earlier was hard to believe. Franks told Coxe that he planned to leave for London in two or three days and asked him to send any money from the land sales as soon as he could.25 Five days later David Franks boarded a ship for London, arriving on July 2, 1782. By early September David was after Coxe and Hamilton to pursue certain claims they had discussed in previous correspondence. He went into great detail in one case, explaining which drawer of which cabinet in his office contained the applicable receipt and that the details of partial payments were on the back of the document. He quoted all the amounts involved, set forth the chain of events, as one person transferred the document to another and to another, and so on, all in minute detail. David had never been polished or charming in business relationships, but he had a mind like a steel trap and forgot nothing. Michael Gratz said about him, “as you know him when he takes a thing into his head is not easily forgot.”26 Unfortunately, no sales of real property had been accomplished, so David made several suggestions to Coxe about which pieces of land were most likely to produce income.27 In England, David lived with his son and daughter-in-law, John ( Jacob) and Priscilla, in Isleworth. Priscilla, one of rich Uncle Aaron’s two daughters,

163

David Franks

had inherited nearly half his estate when he died, leaving her one of the wealthiest individuals in England. John had inherited a fortune from Judith Levy, the so-called queen of Richmond Green. John had made a success of his career in merchandising, so it caused them no financial strain to take David into their home. But David could not have been happy about living with his children, and he continued to seek independence both financially and personally. One great benefit of his new surroundings was the proximity of so many family members he had not seen for many years. His brothers Moses and Naphtali lived in neighboring communities (Teddington and Mortlake); Becky and Henry Johnson lived in Bath, a few hours away (though a short time later Henry was promoted to major general and transferred to New Ross, Ireland); sister Richa lived in London; and David’s son Moses was stationed at Plymouth. Oliver and Phila and their children were also in London. David had not lived so close to this many relatives for forty years. Priscilla and John lived a life of ease and privilege, taking holiday trips to the resort at Bath more than once each year. While there, they attended concerts and entertainments of all kinds, and while David was with them, he was included in their travels.28 A special treat was in store for David when Billy Hamilton took Ann, his niece, and his two nephews, James and Andrew, to England on the ship Portland, sailing from New York in October 1784. These were, of course, David’s grandchildren and their visit must have heightened his pleasure immensely.29 Coxe attended eight meetings of the Illinois  & Ouabache Company from the time David was banished from Pennsylvania until meetings were suspended in April 1782. He maintained a regular correspondence with David both in New York and in England once David arrived there. He kept meticulous account books and had a reputation for saving every scrap of paper he ever saw. Despite his all-out effort and David’s remarkable memory, the two men had considerable difficulty closing the loop on debts they were attempting to collect. David tried to respond to requests for information in five of Coxe’s letters while preparing for a carriage ride to Bath. He was working all of his acquaintances on both sides of the Atlantic—Simon and Gratz and the Quaker businessmen in America, and Phineas Bond and his family connections in England. Powers of attorney were being obtained, and he continued to implore Coxe to sell land. George Croghan had passed away in August 1782, leaving David with debts but also with land, which David wanted to have converted to cash through the estate. The process was slow and complex and unrewarding.30 164

Exiles

A month later, still enjoying the resort environment in Bath, David exchanged pleasantries and social notes with Barnard Gratz and a Gratz relative by marriage named Jacob Mordicay (actually Mordicai) who was working as a clerk in David’s store in Philadelphia under Patrick Rice’s direction.31 Franks didn’t say a word about it, but he was planning to make his way back to America as soon as he could. The difficulties involved in getting compensation for his debts and motivating others to sell his properties at long distance was frustrating. He had to get back into the fray. Living off his children’s hospitality and enjoying the proximity of his relatives could not satisfy a man whose whole life had been tied up in business deals and dayto-day interactions with the political and financial leaders of his community. Coxe was observant about the land issues. A provisional peace treaty was agreed to on November 30, 1782, and final definitive articles were signed on September 3, 1783. Sometime after May 1782, Coxe wrote an undated letter to Moses, explaining the situation in the western lands. Too many people had moved into the area and were living on land they did not own but considered theirs. They would submit to no authority meekly. The properties owned by the Franks family were not exempt from this situation, and Coxe saw problems ahead. He promised to work on the issues but warned David to expect neither speed nor miracles. He did have high hopes for the Illinois & Ouabache property.32 Samuel Wharton expressed the same fears to Trent regarding the squatters, who were ready to take over portions of the Vandalia claim by force.33 Very little happened in America to please David Franks. He continued to urge action from Coxe without success. He wrote to Simon, apparently in a bad mood, lamenting his recent poverty and telling his friend, “you acknowledged before I left you, a Ballance due to me wh’ch I am since informed you deny’d, & took some freedom in yr speech about me.” The rest of the letter was strictly business, as if the earlier comments had not been made. The growing irritation with his situation was beginning to show. In the same letter, however, David’s humanity shone through his discomfort. He told Simon about hearing from Simon’s sister, who was in dire straits. Franks “strongly recommended a few guineas or a small bill may be sent her, it will be a most humane act.” He would have done it himself but was “pennyless as a beggar.”34 Although his son-in-law was Coxe’s partner, Franks wrote to his daughter urging that she press Coxe to somehow get the £550 Montaigut owed him. In his present straits, this was a substantial sum. Giving Abby the assignment was a natural thing for Franks to do. She 165

David Franks

understood financial jargon—“she was her father’s daughter—solid, sensible,” in the opinion of Jacob Rader Marcus.35 Some relief arrived in early 1784 with the approval of Franks’s £100 annual loyalist’s pension.36 Andrew Hamilton died suddenly in late 1784, leaving Abby, in her fortieth year, with six children, three of whom were in Europe with Uncle Billy and one of whom was already married. Billy Hamilton quickly assumed responsibility for his brother’s children. He altered his plans for an architectural overhaul of Woodlands to include accommodations for the children, and told friends that they had “a claim on [him] for an early attention.”37 The two boys, attending school, remained in England for another ten years, living for the most part with Uncle John Franks in Isleworth. Ann, under Uncle Billy’s care, married several years later in England and returned with her husband to America. Billy Hamilton was not pleased with her choice of a mate and was distressed over the union for some time. None of David’s correspondence during his time in England makes mention of seeing the children or of sharing his son’s abode with the grandsons. Billy Hamilton returned to America in 1786, filled with grief over his brother’s passing and committed to caring for the children.38 Time drifted by with no land sales, no major debts collected, and no new prospects for David Franks. He continued to live with John and Priscilla and make the regular holiday trips to Bath. In January 1785 they visited the resort and attended a performance by John Abraham Fisher, one of England’s premier violinists. A performance on David’s favorite instrument must have pleased him. On the same trip they enjoyed a concert featuring Venanzio Rauzzini, one of Europe’s most renowned castrati, for whom, it was reported, Mozart wrote his Exsultate Jubilate.39 While David and his family were away, Coxe, having lost his partner, announced that he could no longer represent David. He had already notified Moses of this and recommended a colleague of his as a replacement. For some reason he did not make the same recommendation to David but left the issue open, whereupon David requested that he name someone. Additionally, David’s planning had taken firm shape, and he was determined to return to America and take up where he had left off. “I sh’l be better able to judge of the propriety & prudence by the fall,” he wrote Coxe, “at which affairs may be more peaceably settled, business in its old Chanell & I return with a prospect of doing Business on the Old footing, & perhaps in a better & larger line.”40 In July, David had his will prepared.

166

Exiles

In the name of God Amen. I David Franks formerly of the City of Philadelphia in North America, but now of Isleworth in the County of Middlesex, Gentleman, being of sound disposing mind memory and understanding, but considering the uncertainty of human life— do make this my last will and Testament in Manner following. I will and direct that a sufficient Portion of my Lands and other real Estate of which I may die possessed may be sold at the Discretion of my Executors for the Purpose of paying and discharging all my debts and as I conceive my possessions consisting of different Tracts of Land, Lots and Houses in Pennsylvania, Virginia, Indiana and in the Illinois Country and elsewhere are more than adequate to the Discharge of all I owe, I give and bequeath to my son Jacob Franks Eight Hundred acres of any Lands I own situate as aforesaid to him his heirs and assigns for ever to be by him or by such Person as he may appoint chosen out of such Lands as may be left after my debts are paid. And I give my Son Jacob this Preference to the Rest of my children as some Atonement for his and his Wife’s very kind Attention to me. And as for and concerning all the Rest Residue and Remainder of my Estate real as well as personal, I give devise and bequeath the same to and among my four children Abigail Hamilton, the said Jacob Franks, Moses Franks  & Rebecca Johnson and to their several and respective heirs and assigns for ever as Tenants in Common and not as joint tenants— And I do hereby nominate and appoint my two said sons Jacob and Moses and Mr. Tench Coxe of Philadelphia jointly or either of them separately Executors of this my last will—In witness whereof I have hereunder set my Hand and Seal at Isleworth aforesaid this Thirtieth Day of July one thousand seven hundred and eighty five.41 The signature showed an advanced stage of palsy. A totally uneventful year passed for Franks, still living in Isleworth and still desperate for both mercantile action and income. Parliament had established a commission to investigate loyalist claims for losses in America. While Franks had been awarded the small pension, he felt that his potential income from the commissary businesses had been as much as £1,200 per year and that the value of his residential properties and business offices, including contents, had been £20,000. Consequently, he submitted a new claim, accompanied by certificates of loyalty from General Thomas Gage,

167

David Franks

Lieutenant General John Vaughan, Governor William Franklin (New Jersey), Sir William Howe, Governor Thomas Boone (New Jersey), and Governor Richard Penn (Pennsylvania). There is no evidence that an award was made against this claim.42 Two days after filing the claim, David applied for permission to travel to America in order to take a personal hand in settling the disposition of his remaining property. Almost immediately, approval was received and David made preparations to return home.43

168

Si xtee n the final chapter

When David Franks left America for England, Tench Coxe recorded a list of his real property holdings, fastidiously collected rents, and managed properties. Coxe was equally meticulous about keeping the account books, listing all of the items purchased for repairs on the various buildings and all payments to laborers. He also recorded David’s other expenses in connection with the Indiana and Illinois & Ouabache partnerships. When Coxe turned over the accounts, there was barely any increase in their value over the balance of five years earlier. Financially, Franks had been running in place. The list of his properties was impressive and included thousands of acres throughout Pennsylvania, numerous houses, rented farms, a snuff mill, and a fair number of properties owned in partnership with Bush, Simon, Trent, Terence Warder, and others. In addition, Franks still had his 29 percent share of the Illinois & Ouabache Company claim and his stake in Indiana.1 On paper, he was a wealthy man. Further, he had transferred property to the Gratz brothers before departing to England and would be able to reclaim that if he could pay for it. David’s challenge would be to convert some of this land to cash in order to acquire stock for his mercantile business. The entire Franks family was engaged in the same pursuit. David’s son Moses had lent money to Joseph Simon, a large tract in Lancaster serving as security on the loan. When he demanded repayment, Simon was unable to produce cash and mortgaged a large portion of his property, including his primary residence, to pay off the debt. Simon’s son-in-law, Solomon Etting, brought the bad news to the Gratz brothers and was emotionally devastated by the event.2 David, however, was singularly unsuccessful at acquiring cash, and two years later, in March 1788, he appealed to the commissioners of American

David Franks

claims for more time to settle his affairs in America. He told the British government that he had “made some progress therein and has Various Suits at Law now depending, but Owing to the present scarcity of money here and the delay of the Law he finds it Impossible to conclude his very Extensive Affairs for some time and cannot therefore without certain and Inevitable loss leave America and return to England.” Therefore, he “humbly prays your Honorable Board to grant him such further Indulgence of Time to enable him to settle his Extensive Concerns as to the Commissioners may seem just.” This request was approved in June 1788, with no end date specified.3 Brother Moses Franks also attempted to get compensation for the loss and destruction of his American properties through an appeal to the Royal Commission on the Losses and Services of American Loyalists. Inadvertently, the confusion of names (having two Moses Franks appeals concurrently) resulted in Uncle Moses’ claim being sent to the wrong place, and it consequently became moot when the time expired for the claim. He tried to rekindle the effort without success and then asked that his papers be returned so that he could take some other route toward recompense. His letters were approved for return.4 Just six weeks later, Moses Franks died, at age seventy. None of David’s letters in the months following give any indication of his reaction, nor did he convey the news of Moses’ death to others. Moses, who had still practiced his faith, was buried at Alderney Road Cemetery.5 At about the same time, sister Richa, now more than sixty years old, married a considerably younger widower, Abraham ben Baruch De Fries, and became the stepmother of his son, Mordicai (Modcha) De Fries.6 As with Moses’ demise, David’s communications were silent on Richa’s nuptials and the aftermath. David Franks continued to pursue even the smallest opportunities to acquire funds. The tremor in his hand, which he now attributed to gout, became increasingly severe, and his handwriting became more difficult to make out. He used abbreviations more and more frequently and omitted words to spare himself the effort of writing, making it increasingly difficult to decipher his letters as time progressed. He was probably in pain, and he became more irascible, leaving no one, friend or foe, untouched by criticism or complaint. He told Simon, his oldest, most trusted, and most loyal ally, that his handling of a problem had “an odd appearance  & the offer Mr. Etting made . . . was thot an unfair dealing or offer even by his friends & Acq’ns.” He was referring to Simon’s silence on the subject of a favor Simon was attempting to do for Abby Hamilton. The next message from Simon 170

The Final Chapter

conveyed a power of attorney that would enable David to handle a real estate transaction Simon had been managing for him. David responded with a tirade against William Trent: “therefore Lett a proper enquiry be made, & not be jugled out of our rights, have been deceived & Cheated enough by that Damm’d Scoundrell Trent.” He did add that the gout made writing painful.7 The same day, Franks gave Simon power of attorney to dispose of the Eicholtz property, first acquired by the partners in 1750.8 In keeping with the approved policies of the Indiana Company, a small group of the company’s members requested a general meeting for the purpose of prosecuting the company’s claims once again. David joined with Simon, George Morgan, the Gratz brothers, and some others to pursue opportunities arising from the new federal Constitution. The decisions of the federal government relative to Virginia’s claims created new possibilities. In June 1788 George Mason, long a foe of the Indiana claim, spoke out in the Virginia constitutional convention regarding the twenty thousand families already settled in Indiana territory and the likelihood of their being driven from their homes on land still claimed by Virginia. This was enough to pique Morgan’s interest again, and a meeting was called but could not be arranged until December 31, 1789, a year later. This turned into another appeal to the Virginia legislature, which was defeated.9 Somewhat earlier, after a hiatus of four and a half years, the Illinois & Ouabache Company members had also resumed their meetings, hoping to benefit from renewed interest in Congress. A special meeting was convened on December 11, 1786, attended by David Franks and William Murray. No one else showed up, so the meeting was rescheduled for a week later. On the eighteenth, with the bulk of the voting shares represented, Murray, though absent, was appointed secretary, and a meeting was called for January 23, when he would return from a trip. David Franks was also absent, but Barnard Gratz represented the Franks shares. James Wilson, the president, was charged with preparing and presenting a memorial to Congress saying that a request was coming.10 At the next meeting, in March 1788, more than a year later, the company anticipated a treaty between the newly appointed governor of the western territory, Arthur St. Clair, and the numerous Indian tribes in eastern America. The Treaty of Fort Harmar was signed in January 1789, but it achieved little, as it failed to address the deficiencies, in the view of the Indian tribes, of earlier treaties. Indian uprisings took place for the next two years, preventing any settlement on the appeals of the land companies. The Illinois & Ouabache members continued to meet, bringing Robert Morris into their 171

David Franks

fold to work with Wilson on presentations to Congress in the spring of 1790. In Virginia, the Indiana Company attempted to petition the legislature but was rebuffed; its memorial was not even read in the chambers. A full year later Morgan tried again with the same appeal, which was finally read to the legislators but rejected flatly. Exasperated, and in an effort to obtain some return from all of its efforts over the years, the Illinois & Ouabache Company framed an offer to the government wherein the United States would obtain three-fourths of the land claim and the company would retain only one-quarter. Finally, in December 1792, the company met and resolved unanimously to prosecute the memorial before Congress. The effort failed, and in March 1793 a series of meetings ensued, most attended by David Franks, in which it was “resolved unanimously that this Company will not attempt to settle any part of their lands which may fall without the lines established by treaty between the settlements of the inhabitants of the United States  & of the Indian Tribes.” By the end of April it was clear that the U.S. government was not going to cooperate in a settlement with the company. David hadn’t waited for this outcome. On March 21 he sold his stake in the company to Michael Gratz for five hundred Spanish milled dollars (“pieces of eight”). The legal issues between the Commonwealth of Virginia and the U.S. Supreme Court dragged on beyond 1793, with both sides unyielding.11 Franks did not succeed in converting any of his Indiana holdings to cash, and neither did any of his partners. As early as 1791 David found himself borrowing money from the Gratz brothers, but this did not stop him from making gifts he thought necessary. When Barnard Gratz’s daughter Rachel married Solomon Etting, David made a £1 gift to the Mikveh Israel Congregation. He also donated ten shillings in honor of the wedding of Moses Sheftall. Mikveh Israel appointed trustees for its burial ground, including Manuel Josephson, Joseph Simon, Barnard Gratz, Solomon Lyon, and Samuel Hays.12 In connection with that, David wrote and signed a document reading: Whereas Nathan Levy, formerly of this City, Merchant, did apply for two pieces of ground for a burial place for his family, which said two pieces of ground were granted to him, as more fully will appear by the records of the Land Office, this is to certify and declare that said application, which was in the name of the aforesaid Nathan Levy, was intended for the use of his family, and also for the use of the Hebrew 172

The Final Chapter

Congregation of this City; it being intended at the time he applied for the same, to be a trust for a burial place for the internment of Hebrews. Given under my hand at Philadelphia the thirtieth day of November, 1791. The following month, Phila DeLancey, widowed in 1785, had some difficulty validating her age, and David was called upon to set the record straight. He had a deposition prepared explaining the difference in age between Phila and himself, how he knew it, how it was recorded by his father in a family bible, and how he was present when the information was copied from the bible by the Reverend Gershom Mendes Seixas. He swore on the “five Books of Moses (he being a Jew),” thus resolving the issue.13 His memory remained as sharp as ever. Not quite fifteen years had elapsed since David Franks’s first arrest for alleged treason. That period had seen an almost endless series of changes in his life—relocations from Philadelphia to New York, to England, and back to Philadelphia, with smaller dislocations in between; reunions with family members he had not seen for long periods, followed by new separations; transitions from affluence to penury, to living in luxury at his family’s expense, to near poverty again; great exultation alternating with abject despair as his land speculation possibilities fluctuated. This scenario would have frustrated ordinary individuals to the point of surrender. But not David Franks. He pursued his claims with the Illinois & Ouabache Company relentlessly until finally conceding that the federal government was not going to accommodate them. He attended company meetings from December 1792 to March 1793, after a full year’s hiatus. Gout and all, he attended meetings on December 17, March 8, and March 25. The last meeting he attended, on March 25, took place four days after he had sold his stock to Michael Gratz; the sale was recorded later that day. One week later, Secretary of War Henry Knox reported to the company that the president of the United States “does not conceive himself authorized under existing circumstances to permit a copy of the whole or any parts [of the treaty with the Wabash Indians] or the proceedings relative thereto should be given to you.” But David no longer cared.14 Other changes had their effect upon him. Many of his friends and business associates had died. Cadwalader, the neighbor and friend who had played with his sons as a youth and who had provided David’s bail, had died prematurely in 1786 at age forty-four. The general had moved back to his 173

David Franks

family home in Maryland in 1779 and served in the state legislature. A close associate of Charles Carroll’s, he had serious disagreements with Samuel Chase, another assemblyman and a signer of the Declaration of Independence, whose wartime behavior annoyed Cadwalader. Cadwalader accused Chase of speculating in flour to the disadvantage of the Continental army but was not supported in the Pennsylvania Assembly. He replaced his father as a trustee of the University of Pennsylvania. When he died, he left behind his widow, Willy Bond Cadwalader, five children of his two wives, and, quite possibly, one daughter of Willy Bond’s wet nurse, Anne Dingwell.15 George Croghan, David’s associate in the fur trade, renowned for his skill at negotiating with Indian leaders, had died in August 1782, shortly after David reached England. Despite his years of accumulating wealth and property, his net worth at the time of his death was negligible. He had once owned nearly 250,000 acres, of which only nine thousand were left for his heirs. The total value of his personal property was listed at £50 13s. 6d. His will named Barnard and Michael Gratz, Thomas Smallman, William Powell, and James Innes as executors, subject to the consent of Barnard Gratz. Innumerable claims were filed against Croghan’s estate, which were not settled for many years.16 All of David’s victualing partners had died as well. Plumsted, Inglis, Uncle Nathan, Uncle Isaac, all dead. Watts and DeLancey were in England; defeat in the war had forced Tories to leave if they could afford to go. David’s son-in-law Andrew Hamilton had died at age forty-two in 1784, and David’s favorite daughter, Abby, was a widow with seven children, only one of whom was now married. The baby of the family had been one year old when Andrew expired.17 Billy Hamilton had been banished from Pennsylvania during the same session of the Supreme Executive Council that had banished David. He too submitted appeals in order to delay his departure and straighten out his affairs, which were granted. In November 1780 he agreed to leave and to pay a £100,000 bond against his premature return. The following February, however, his mother appealed to the council for a four- to six-week visit that would enable Hamilton to “compleat the settlement of his affairs.” The  request was approved. Just six weeks later the council resolved that “William Hamilton be permitted to remain in this State, any former order of this Board to the contrary notwithstanding.” The  radicals had been replaced in the recent state elections by more conservative revolutionaries such as Robert Morris, who realized that their friend had kept out of politics. Unlike David, Billy was exonerated completely. He returned to 174

The Final Chapter

Woodlands and continued his project of construction and beautification, which he turned into his lifework. His uncle had left him the 179-acre plantation, including the mansion, and he was tenant for life at the Bush Hill mansion as well.18 George Clymer, who had spent his boyhood years at Woodford and was a chum of Cadwalader and young Moses Franks, had served in the Continental Congress, signed the Declaration of Independence, and become a member of Congress for a term ending in November 1788. He declined re-election and held appointed positions for the next several years, including collector of federal excise taxes when the Whisky Rebellion erupted. Clymer had provided substantiation for Cadwalader’s account of Reed’s near fall from grace in Trenton. After retiring from public life completely, Clymer served as president of the Pennsylvania Academy of Fine Arts.19 Joseph Reed, who had been David’s nemesis and tormenter during the political upheavals accompanying the Revolution, completed his term as governor in 1781 and returned to practicing law. By 1784, though elected to Congress, he was in poor health and declined to serve; he died less than a year later.20 Reed’s crony Jonathan Sergeant had also resumed a legal practice after many years in public service and collaborated with Reed in the dispute between Connecticut and Pennsylvania in 1782. Sergeant was still living in Philadelphia as 1793 commenced. Not so Timothy Matlack, Reed’s other cohort, who had moved to Lancaster after leaving the Congress in 1780. He lived to at least age ninety-three (the year of his birth was between 1730 and 1736) and died in 1829.21 With very few exceptions, everything had changed in David’s world. But more change was yet to come. In the fall of the fateful year 1793, the city of Philadelphia was decimated by a merciless epidemic of yellow fever. Citizens died by the hundreds each week. Medical knowledge, facilities, and practitioners were totally inadequate to the situation. No one knew the cause of the disease or that it was borne by mosquitoes. Those whose property or acquaintances permitted them to do so fled the city, “which was supposed to have been deserted by half its inhabitants.” “In the great northeast storm of Sunday, August 25, every road was jammed. . . . Before the end of the fever, seventeen to twenty thousand people had fled the city,” according to historian John Harvey Powell. Among those who left was Julia Rush, the doctor’s wife who was staying with her brother, Richard Stockton, in Princeton. On August 17, Dr.  Benjamin Rush discussed his observations of the disease with Dr. Jean Deveze, a Frenchman who had dealt with similar outbreaks in the West Indies. The pair disagreed on the 175

David Franks

course of treatment. Almost no method seemed to be a complete answer. “In September,” Powell tells us, “1400 deaths were recorded; by the end of the month the average number of deaths per day reached seventy; and on October 11 the staggering total of one hundred nineteen was recorded.”22 The leading medical practitioner in the city was Dr. Rush, who chaired by acclamation the informal committee of doctors that gathered to deal with the plague. Billy Hamilton’s Bush Hill mansion, which had been empty and unused for years and was sufficiently remote from the densest population center, was converted to a hospital for victims of the disease. On October 7 Rush told his wife, “Among the dead of this day are Mrs. Coltman and Major  D. Franks. . . . The  latter died at Mr.  Kean’s under the care of a French physician [possibly Deveze], deserted by all his former friends—so much so that he was buried in the Potter’s field.” The next day he reported, “P. S. Major Franks was not buried in the potter’s field. Honest Jno. Thompson, the blacksmith with the wooden leg, who lives opposite to Mr. Kean’s, prevented it and obtained a grave for him at Christ Church burying ground.” How ironic that Major Franks, who maintained his Jewish connections throughout most of his life, was interred at the Anglican Church.23 Dr. Rush wrote to his “dear Julia” again on October 13, baring his soul about the great danger he had confronted and promising henceforth to be more careful. “I have this day according to promise confined myself to the house and prescribed through the reports of my pupils. I have consented further to the advice of some of my most solid friends not to go into an infected room again until I am much better able to bear the action of the contagion on my system than I have been for some weeks past.” Surely, he said, the Lord would forgive him, as he had tried mightily. The letter ended in midcourse and was picked up again the following day, October 14. “Our old neighbor Mr. Franks died last night,” he wrote.24 And so it ended. David Franks, merchant, husband, father, grandfather, land speculator, commercial investor, business magnate, shipbuilding promoter, mentor of numerous mercantile successors, respected musician, leader by restrained example and loyal friend of many, went to his grave a victim of the Aedes aegypti mosquito.25 One account has him buried at Christ Church, of which he was a member for so many years. Although this is the most credible story, there is no documentary evidence to support this claim.26 Philadelphia was now home to only one set of David Franks’s relatives— his daughter Abby and her children. Her brother-in-law’s unused home, Bush Hill, had served as the hospital for yellow fever victims during the 176

The Final Chapter

epidemic, but Abby’s whereabouts during the fever are unclear. The Philadelphia city directories for 1793 and 1794 list her address as 80 South Third Street. With all her children living elsewhere, the details of her tenure there are simply unknown. Whether a funeral was conducted for David or a mourning period observed are likewise mysteries. In fact, the substance of much of David Franks’s last few years—where he was living, how he passed his time, and why he chose to remain in Philadelphia when so many of his friends and acquaintances had abandoned the city—remains unknown. On September 7 the members of Mikveh Israel Congregation celebrated Rosh Hashanah, after which most of them who were sufficiently healthy abandoned the city. Rabbi Jacob Cohen waited until after Yom Kippur to depart for Easton, a month before David’s demise. Why did Franks not escape? Why did he not go to Simon’s in Lancaster, or to any of his Easton friends, or to wherever Abby and her family were staying? He had no property of great value to protect or people near and dear to him who required his care.27 By January 1794 Simon and the Gratz brothers were busily engaged in finding someone to settle David Franks’s estate, as he was owed some £450 from the estate of his former “Suffering Traders” partner Thomas Mitchell. Clearing the debt stood in the way of selling property at Donegal Place in Lancaster. Life went on.28 David’s will was probated in London in July 1794 and recorded the following January.29

177

AppendixA letters to the editor

Following David Franks’s second trial for treason, a series of letters to local newspapers offered commentary on the results of the court proceedings. Though not signed, the commentary preceding and following the first letter below is attributed to Timothy Matlack, secretary of Pennsylvania’s Supreme Executive Council, who was instrumental in prosecuting Franks. The italicized words in Franks’s letters were underlined by Matlack in an attempt to emphasize passages that he thought demonstrated Franks’s guilt. The second letter is from one of the jurors, Davis Bevan, who defended the verdict of not guilty. The seven letters below appeared in the Pennsylvania Packet or the General Advertiser during a two-week period in the spring of 1779. Jacob Rader Marcus’s American Jewry: Documents—Eighteenth Century (1959) includes copies of these letters. Reverend Marcus added parenthetical comments intended to help the reader understand colonial language. Many of those comments are incorporated here in brackets, sometimes in slightly modified form, with the permission of the director of the Marcus Center at the American Jewish Archives in Cincinnati.

letter no. 1, with enclosures [April 29, 1799] For the Pennsylvania Packet. On Saturday last came on before the Supreme Court the trial of David Franks of this city, on a charge of misdemeanor in giving intelligence to the enemy at New-York. The jury sat ’til Sunday morning, eight o’clock, and then brought in their verdict: Not Guilty. On the trial Mr. Franks confessed that he wrote the letters upon which the charge was founded. As the intelligence which those letters contained is become, by length of time, of no consequence to the enemy, they are laid before the public for their information, as every thing which relates to the

Appendixes

interest of the state ought to be. This case certainly deserves very serious attention. [— Timothy Matlack] Mr. Franks’s compliments to Captain Thomas Moore, hopes he is well, and begs his particular care of the inclosed. The family’s respects to him. His friends are well, and acquaints [him] that last night about twelve o’clock Billy Hamilton [the brother of David’s son-in-law], after a twelve hours’ trial, was honourably acquitted, the jury about two minutes absent, which [I] beg Mr. A. Allen [Hamilton’s kinsman] may be acquainted with. It appeared an ill-natured prosecution; [he was] charged with having a superintendent’s commission for keeping the Middle Ferry. The enclosed [letter to David’s brother Moses] for London to be forwarded per first opportunity. October 18th, 1778, Philadelphia To Captain Thomas Moore, of General [Oliver] DeLancey’s regiment in New York.

Philadelphia, October 18, 1778. Dear Brothers: The opportunity of prisoners going [back into the British lines] gives me the satisfaction of addressing you, and enquiring after yours and good family’s health, and presenting our sincerest and best loves to you, yours, and all the good family, as [I] cannot at these times write to all. I did yesterday write the boys [Franks’s sons], and thought all the prisoners then in town were gone. This goes in an hour or two. I desired you might be made acquainted that, in [the] next week, I hope myself or clerk may be permitted to go for New-York to procure a settlement and get a certificate [for what is due me]. It will be a large one, and as the price of provisions have risen very high in the country, hope you may be able to procure me at least one shilling sterling per ration; they, I think, won’t be less for some time past than 2s. 6 [our currency] per ration at an average. The agents for the French are giving in Virginia and Maryland 60s. to 80s. per cent [i.e., per hundred pounds sterling] for flour for [the] French fleet, and meat in proportion. The contractors’ [i.e., Moses Franks’s firm’s] accounts will go when I go or send. No opportunity trust-worthy has offered, nor would it be proper they should be inspected by [I] don’t know who [i.e., British general headquarters]. This goes by stealth per soldiers, and suppose letters will not be so frequent on account the French war. I acquainted [my son] Moses that his friend Billy Hamilton was acquitted Friday after a trial of twelve hours, a prisoner at the bar, for high treason. 180

Appendixes

People are taken and confined at the pleasure of every scoundrel. Oh, what a situation Britain has left its friends! Sister Richa, I shall next address my love, etc. [to you.] I pray the Almighty to give you every wished-for blessing, and me and mine join heartily in the prayer, being, with the most sincerest gratitude, my dear brothers’ Most affectionate, obliged brother and servant, David Franks Flour in town 100s. per cent. Beef in market 2s. 6 to 3s. lb. And every article in proportion. European goods almost any price. Good broadcloth £15 to £20 per yard. A good beaver hat 50 dollars to 70 per hat. Men’s shoes 7 to 12 dollars per pair. Linens almost what you’ll ask. And all for liberty. Butter 7s. 6 to 10s. lb. 7th day [calf ?] at market 12s. 6 to 15s. lb.

Moses Franks, Esquire. Will it be credited in Europe or by posterity that in a time of open war, the above letter should be deemed innocent? And with that security may our intestine enemies betray our councils and situation, if impunity is thus held forth to offenders? It is vain to think of carrying on war consistent with civil government, if the same transaction before a civil jurisdiction can be pronounced inoffensive, which by a military trial would be punished with death. For had the letter been wrote from General Washington’s camp, the writer would have been hanged as a spy, and we should all have approved the sentence. Does the place where it was written alter the nature of the offence? And what confidence will our allies place in us if, disregarding all those rules of justice and necessity which prevail among other nations, we thus permit persons holding office and growing rich by their connections with their and our avowed enemies to communicate to those enemies our situation, circumstances, and abilities to carry on the war. A juryman, as such, is a public character; and as it is the privilege of the people to scrutinize public measures and characters, they must expect to submit to the same tribunal with others, and have their conduct upon such interesting and important occasions open to the public eye. 181

Appendixes

It is usual in other countries, in all important trials, to publish lists of the jury. I wish it may be now done; and if there are any upon this occasion whose public conduct has suddenly altered to a very favourable turn towards these offenders, let them be known to their country; and if there are any who have been urged by hard necessity to yield their judgment to the demands of suffering nature, they will have an opportunity of removing the impressions which have been made on the minds of all those who duly consider the malignity and dangerous tendency of such correspondence. Nothing now remains but for the community to express that detestation of Mr. Franks’ conduct, which his attachment to the enemies of this country and the known disaffection of him and his connections upon all occasions must necessarily create, by treating him, and them, with the contempt they so justly deserve.

letter no. 2 [May 1, 1779] Mr. [ John] Dunlap [publisher]. Sir: Your publishing the following in your paper will much oblige your humble servant, Davis Bevan Perusing your paper of the 29th, I find some harsh sentiments thrown out against the jury who sat on the trial of David Franks, as he says, for a misdemeanor. Was it not more in regard to the public (who, I hope, will always stand forth in behalf of juries, who are and ever have been esteemed as the bulwark of justice and liberty) than to the chimerical observations of any hot-headed scribbler in this or any other place? He [Timothy Matlack] says it was on a charge of giving intelligence to the enemy in New-York, a construction that never was admitted by the jury, nor, I believe, will by the public. This gentleman is totally unacquainted with business, as from the contents of David Franks’s letter to his brother it must appear he never intended they should be known in New-York at all, as the consequence must have totally ruined his scheme of getting the ration raised [by the British] to one shilling sterling, though the contents of the letter were totally disapproved of by the jury. But I beg this great censor to let me ask him a few questions. First: If he had a mind to give the enemy at New-York intelligence, why not mention 182

Appendixes

the price current of goods to Captain Thomas Moore? Secondly: Whether he would find a man guilty where there was no law known or given for the offence? Where there is no law there is no transgression. Another thing I have to mention, that the charge in the bill of indictment was so high, or otherwise contained what the law of this state would have stiled misprision of [misdemeanor akin to] treason, but the grand jury brought it in misdemeanor. Now, sir, I beg to ask you, whether you would have had us make a law, or leave it to a superior body, our Assembly? The work you have undertaken is beneath the character of a friend to this commonwealth, as it has a tendency to destroy the strength of juries, and touch men’s characters who were on oath to do justice to the best of their knowledge. It appeared very clear that we could not, from the letters as you have quoted, find they would support the charges . . . [and] have mentioned the words hard necessity that was the reason of so long delay. You are mistaken, for after it was dark we could do nothing as we were deprived of candle by order of the court, or the matter would have been determined as it is before ten o’clock. I do not mean to give you these reasons; they are to the public, as I think you or any other man beneath my notice who would so far censure either this or any jury that may sit hereafter. I am, with due respect, The public’s humble servant, One of the jury. Davis Bevan April 30, 1779 P.S.  It must appear to every man of business that the letter to M[oses]. Franks was not for the purpose mentioned by this censor, but a letter of negotiation for private emolument, and not to injure the states.

letter no. 3 [May 4, 1779] For the Pennsylvania Packet. As it is my wish to support the laws of the country, so likewise I conceive it is my duty to support the interest of our allies, the magistracy of the state, and the incorporated dignity of its citizens. The jury have acquitted Mr. David Franks, and I submit to the decision, though with some reluctance, because to counteract it would be an unsafe precedent. But there is something due to our allies as well as to our laws, and on their part I wish to express my contempt of a man who, getting his living among us, and that by our permission, should dare to inform their and our 183

Appendixes

enemies of any transactions which those allies may at particular times find it necessary to take for the support and victualling a fleet destined to act in conjunction with us. “People,” says Mr. Franks in his letter, “are taken and confined at the pleasure of every scoundrel.” I can answer, no man can be taken and confined here but according to the written laws of the country, and therefore, according to Mr. Franks’s phrase, every citizen is a scoundrel who acts in conformity to law. Query: Is it either safe or decent that Mr. Franks should continue among us? A Citizen

letter no. 4 [May 4, 1779] Mr. Dunlap: In your paper of April 29th, I find an attack upon juries, the first that ever was made upon them in a free country. I wish the author of that publication would speak out and tell us at once that he means and wishes that juries should be abolished as troublesome restraints upon our rulers, and that a few Tory-hunters should hang, burn or gibbet all who do not think with themselves, without law, judge, or jury. Sidney

letter no. 5 [May 6, 1779] To Mr. Jonathan Sergeant, Attorney General of the State of Pennsylvania. Sir: Having seen in Mr.  Dunlap’s paper of April 29th, 1779, a publication of Mr.  Franks’s letters with many injudicious and scandalous insinuations against the jury who sat upon his trial, calculated solely to prejudice the minds of people against them, I take it for granted that you are the author, from some warm expressions you were pleased to make use of when you were officiously listening at the window where the jury sat, that you “would publish his letters,” and your exclaiming against their [the jury’s] supposed opinion in a loud manner when you returned to court by saying, “it was not worth your while to indict any person hereafter,” for that “you knew how the verdict would go, etc.” 184

Appendixes

The mode of your obtaining this knowledge [i.e., by eavesdropping], when a strict direction was given by the court to the contrary, casts a shade upon your integrity, and shews the malignity of your temper, in a case which was at that moment in the utmost state of doubt and suspense. Now, sir, if your remarks meant any thing, they conveyed this idea: that a part of the jury were perjured, and you have artfully called upon them to retract the verdict which they gave before the court, and that, too, upon their qualifications. Do you really think, because you are attorney general, that you have a right to insult, in the public newspapers, the freemen of this state, especially those who are upon oath to do justice between the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania and a person whom you thought proper to prosecute? Be assured, sir, you shall not, nor shall this insult upon the rights of citizens pass with impunity. The first bill you drew up against Mr.  Franks was for high treason; it was presented to the grand jury, and they returned it ignoramus [no true bill]. You then preferred another, for misprision of [misdemeanor akin to] treason, in which the jury likewise refused to gratify you, for they could not make it more than a misdemeanor. You pledged your word and honor to the jury that you would support your favourite bill, by a law enacted by the legislature of this state, for punishing high treason and misprision of treason, which law the jury took with them when they left the bar [i.e., the courtroom, for their deliberations]. But when they came to consider the circumstances relative to the case before them, they found that neither the evidence, nor the law you dwelt so tediously upon, would support them in finding Mr. Franks guilty, agreeable to your bill of indictment. And you will dare to say that the jury had not an undoubted right to determine the fact, that is, whether Mr. Franks did or did not commit the crimes charged against him in the bill? And whether any twelve honest men upon their oaths could, consistent with their conscience, find him guilty upon that indictment? Whether you ought to say it, I leave to those who are better acquainted with the law than I am to determine. And now, give me leave to tell you, sir, if there was any crime in Mr. Franks’s acquittal, it is a crime chargeable upon you, and not upon the jury. If public justice appears to you to have been eluded, it must be ascribed to the errors of your head, and not the defection of their hearts; for by your overcharging the bill, you have effectually discharged the prisoner. I am, sir, A Juror Philadelphia, May 5th, 1779 185

Appendixes

letter no. 6 [May 13, 1779] To the Public: The malignant attempts of some late publications to blacken the characters of Mr. David Franks and of the jurors who sat upon his trial must excite the indignation of every friend to his country, every friend to trial by jury, and every lover of good order in society. Had Mr. Franks’s letters been published without any comment upon them, neither my acquaintance with, or friendship for him, would have induced me to trouble the public with a single thought about either one of them. But the base attacks, which I complain of, are not simply made against him but are levelled, with a wicked intent, against the bulwark of our liberties, trial by jury, as well as against the safety of every citizen who may hereafter be acquitted by the laws of his country and the judgment of his peers. For what security can any freeman have in the due administration of wholesome laws, if it is in the power of prejudice to raise the resentment of the people against both him and the jury who acquitted him, by publishing to the world such parts of the evidence only as operated against him, and suppressing whatever made in his favour. Do not our courts of justice furnish daily instances of what appears the strongest evidence brought in support of prosecutions, vanishing like air, when it comes to be explained by the defendant’s witnesses? By halving and frittering away evidence in this manner, may not the plainest logical deductions be made the most nonsensical absurdities? And may not impiety, by practices of the like kind, turn every page of holy writ into blasphemy? In order fully to understand the state of Mr. Franks’s case, and the principles on which an honest jury founded their verdict, it is necessary to observe that many years before the wageing of the present war between Great Britain and America, Moses Franks, Esq., of London, contracted with the Lords of the Treasury to supply the British troops in America with rations at a stipulated price, and appointed his brother, Mr. David Franks, of this city, his agent to manage such parts of the business for him as were to be transacted here. When, by the prowess of American arms, large numbers of the enemy were made prisoners of war, and became very expensive to the country (no British commissary residing here to supply them with necessaries), Mr. David Franks was by a resolve of Congress authorized to continue in his former capacity of agent to his brother and as such to supply, at the expence of the enemy, their troops confined as prisoners among us.

186

Appendixes

This he continued to do in the most unexceptionable manner, till the month of October last, when the price of provisions took such a sudden and rapid rise, owing to many causes, that Mr. Franks, the factor, saw his brother could no longer afford to supply rations purchased here, at the former rate. To prevent his brother and employer who had reposed a confidence in him from being ruined in his fortune, it was the duty of the agent, as a part of his business, and for the omission of which he must have been highly culpable in the eye of every reasonable man, to give as early information of this as possible to his employer. Accordingly, in the line of his business, he wrote the letter in question directed to his brother, but very prudently declined sending it in the usual manner, by a flag [of truce ship] and unsealed, since in such case it must have been open to inspection at [British] head quarters in New-York, and would not only have conveyed intelligence improper to have been communicated there but his plan of enabling his brother to better his contract must in all human probability have been defeated, since Mr. Franks must have been an ideot indeed, if he could suppose the commander in chief at New York would be so inattentive to his master’s [the king’s] interest as to have suffered a letter of this kind, after perusing it (which would have been done by him or his proper officers), to pass to London. In order, then, to ensure the letter a safe passage to his brother, without being examined, and consequently stopped at New York, he sealed it up, and sent it by a soldier, inclosed to Capt. Moore, an officer of his acquaintance at New-York, in whom he could confide. Although it must be admitted to be improper, on most occasions, to send a letter within the enemy’s lines by a soldier, yet when the circumstances of this case are attended to, it will appear quite different, since this was the best plan that ingenuity could form to prevent the letter being intercepted at New-York. And if it contained nothing improper to be communicated to the person for whom it was intended, the sending of it by a soldier cannot make it a crime. That David Franks did not wish the contents of the letter to his brother to be known at New-York is evident, not only from what was his brother’s interest, which alone he had in view, but from his intrusting it sealed up to an officer [General Oliver DeLancey], with whom he had been long acquainted, and who was also related to his family, with a request that he would take particular care of it, and forward it to London by the first opportunity. The same is also evident from his giving no account of prices in his note to Capt. Moore, which he would have done, had he wished to give intelligence to any person at New-York.

187

Appendixes

It is true Mr. Franks desired Captain Moore to inform Mr. A. Allen that Mr. Hamilton had been honorably acquitted, after a trial of 12 hours, the jury about two minutes absent, and concludes with calling it an ill-natured prosecution. But this does not tend to betray America into the hands of the enemy, and is therefore neither prejudicial to the former or beneficial to the latter, but indifferent as to both and consequently no offence in the eye of law or reason. It was natural for Mr. Franks, whose daughter [Abigail] is married to Mr. Hamilton’s brother, to embrace an opportunity of acquainting Mr. A. Allen, who is Mr. Hamilton’s first cousin, with his welfare. And it is nothing extraordinary that so near a connection should call the prosecution an ill-natured one, since Mr. Hamilton’s innocence was so evident that a sensible jury did not take two minutes to deliberate upon their verdict of acquittal. Thus the letter to Captain Moore is not only harmless in itself, but was necessary to procure a conveyance for the other to his brother without the enemy’s knowing the contents. If it should be thought that the letter to Moses Franks contains the current prices of other articles than were to be purchased by Mr. Franks, and supplied as rations, the public should be informed that by the evidence of Mr. Cottringer and Mr. Mordecai it was proved to the jury that Mr. Franks supplied the prisoners not only with beef, pork, bread, butter, etc., but with hats, shirts, stockings, shoes, and other cloathing, which brings the list of articles nearly within his proper business as a factor. Another part of the letter said to be exceptionable is that which mentions that Mr. Franks “had the day before wrote the boys,” but as it did not follow that because a father, moved by paternal affection, had written to his two sons, who had long been absent from him, that his letter contained treasonable matter, the jurors were men of better understanding, and paid a more sacred regard to their oaths than to presume it. By an unaccountable distortion of language, ignorance or envy has construed the expression of the letter, “that the agents for the French were giving in Virginia and Maryland 60s. to 80s. per cent. for flour for French fleet, and meat in proportion,” into traiterously giving intelligence to the enemy, injurious to our allies, when it is plain and obvious to the understanding of any man of common sense that he only mentions this to his employer (not to any person at New-York) as the reason of the sudden rise in the prices, and does not leave his brother to form the unfavourable conjecture (which might otherwise have taken place) that it was owing to an approaching famine, or the fall of our monies credit. Yet we find this innocent expression pitifully 188

Appendixes

wrested to raise the resentment of the French gentlemen, by endeavouring to impress an idea that Mr. Franks wished the supplies for the French fleet should be intercepted, though his letter was not to be read till it reached his brother in London, long before which time the provisions would be supplied if at all. What has probably kindled the zeal of these censors against Mr. Franks is the wound which they receive from this expression in the letter, “that people are taken and confined at the pleasure of every scoundrel,” and I must confess that if, by any rule of fair construction, it could be extended to the government or court where the trial was had, it would be highly censurable. But the words are not descriptive of either, but naturally relate to such bad men as history, the key of knowledge and experience, the touchstone of truth, tell[s] us have at all revolutions taken advantage of the times to gratify their vengeful passions upon their private enemies, till relief can be obtained from the justice of the country in the courts of law. And, indeed, so far was Mr. Franks from casting any reflection on the seat of justice, that he gives it the credit of honourably acquitting Mr. Hamilton, the moment his case was enquired into. To use the words of one of these fathers of wisdom (who assumes the privilege of condemning jurors for daring to exercise their own understandings), “will be credited in Europe or by posterity,” that the following expression, “Oh, what a situation Britain has left its friends!” has been construed into criminality against the country? When reason and candor must agree that it is charging our enemies with ingratitude and want of humanity, who by all the arts of cunning and deception, by denouncing vengeance against their foes, and promising protection to their adherents, seduced some to join them, and others to think and speak favourably of them, and then abandoned them without settling, or endeavouring to settle, any terms of oblivion or amnesty in their favour. Have not good Whigs exulted over the Tories, often, by using the same or like expressions, “see what a situation your British friends have left you in, who spare neither friend or foe in their ravages”? The letter to Moses Franks, then, so far as it relates to the price of provisions, appears to be strictly justifiable; and though there is one expression in it which had better have been left out, yet, as it is not a violation of any law, it could be taken no notice of by any human tribunal. That the public may see no particular lenity has been shown to Mr. Franks, they should also be informed that a bill for high treason was sent against him to the grand jury, who returned “ignoramus” thereon. Upon this the attorney general did not think proper to send a bill for misprision of treason, since such a prosecution could not be supported without a traiterous 189

Appendixes

attempt to give intelligence to the enemy being made appear, and of this there was little expectation, from the first bill being returned “ignoramus.” However, to make a conviction certain, by leaving the matter at large to a jury, this expedient was luckily hit upon to send a bill for a misdemeanor, without charging a breach of any act of Assembly or known law, or even without containing a charge of giving or attempting to give intelligence to the enemy, but simply disturbing the peace of this commonwealth, by raising sedition within it, etc., though the contents of the letter were not to be seen till it reached his brother in London. The trial was had by a struck jury of reputable citizens, several of whom had faced the enemy in the hour of danger, and whose characters are too well established to be hurt by the feeble efforts of narrow minded men “who suffer prejudice to get in the judgment seat, and pronounce sentence in the place of reason.” Upon the trial no violated law could be shewn to support the prosecution but, on the contrary, the 4th volume, page 5, of the learned Judge Blackstone’s Commentaries was read, to prove that a “misdemeanor is an act committed or omitted in violation of a public law, either forbidding or commanding it,” and no such thing appeared in the case of Mr. Franks. As the jury did not sit in a legislative capacity to make laws and convict upon them at the same time, but were bound to determine according to the laws already in being, and as the safety of a free people requires that the laws respecting treason, and treasonable practices, should be known and settled, so as to leave no constructive engines of oppression in the hands of power, they found Mr. Franks not guilty, as by the law and their oaths they were bound to do. What, then, are we to think of the most unfair publications, made with the corrupt view of exciting the resentment of the people against a citizen who has been fairly acquitted from a groundless prosecution, after every nerve had been exerted to punish him even capitally? What security has any man in the law, or safety in living up to its rules, if after an acquittal by a jury of the neighborhood, the severest of punishments are to be inflicted by the dissatisfied and ignorant, who, being actuated by mobbish [?] principles, neither reverence the law or regard its decrees? How disagreeable must the situation of jurors be if, after being compelled by law to serve in that office, and after giving a verdict according to the honest dictates of an upright conscience and well informed judgment, they are to be held up to the world as “suddenly changing their conduct to a very favourable turn towards offenders of a traiterous kind”; and their countrymen are to be deceived into a

190

Appendixes

belief of this being the case, by having only the most unfavourable part of the evidence to judge from? Wherein does the excellency of trial by jury consist, if by practices of this kind jurors are to be intimidated into convictions against both law and evidence, in order to support the character of Whigs? How much longer will this mode of trial be revered as sacred, if it is to be calumniated in public by profane tongues? What kind of logic is it, that because, if a person departing from the line of his business and duty should send such a letter as Mr. Franks’s, from General Washington’s camp, to give intelligence to the enemy at New-York, he would be hanged as a spy, that Mr. Franks therefore, who meant to give no intelligence at all, except what was proper to his brother and employer in a distant country, should also be hung? With what astonishment must the reasonable and unprejudiced part of mankind hear that it ever entered into the imagination of an attorney general to commence a prosecution upon such a groundless and trifling foundation? And with what an honest zeal of abhorrence must the fired bosom of every patriot glow, who reads in the public papers libels upon a mode of trial which secures the liberty of the subject against all machinations which tyrants can form against it! These observations in favour of the jury and in favour of trial by jury are submitted to the consideration of the impartial public by a friend to that mode of trial. A. B.

letter no. 7 [May 13, 1779] For the Pennsylvania Packet. Mr. Dunlap: The examination of any measures affecting the public safety and interests is too important to be relinquished, though it may in its course disturb the tranquility of those who happen to be the objects of such discussions. We have seen the first characters in the community, and men holding the first offices, in this situation. The  jury, therefore, in Mr.  Franks’s case cannot reasonably object to such company. They were called upon to discharge a public duty, under the sanction of an oath—the question is, whether they have done it faithfully. Is not this the case of all public officers? Are they not also sworn and under legal obligations? Why may not they, therefor, claim equal exemptions from enquiry and censure?

191

Appendixes

Jurymen must expect, like all other men acting on public occasions, to stand or fall in the public opinion by the rectitude and wisdom of their decisions. They have no other protection from the censure of doing wrong, than by doing right. What other protection would a reasonable man in a free country desire? There is no magick in the letters which compose the word jury that should charm or awe men into silence. They have the common right of all men, and especially when called to public office, to be treated with decency and candour, but their title extends no farther. The juryman [Davis Bevan], therefor, in a late paper, will do well to consider that passion and resentment always prejudice a man in the eye of the public, and that an argument may by that means be made worse, but can never be made better. As he, therefore, justifies the verdict, I shall consider his reasons, and though they are not very accurately or intelligibly expressed, they are reducible to the following: First: That Mr. Franks did not intend to convey any intelligence to NewYork, but to his brother in London. Secondly: That there was no law, and consequently no transgression. Thirdly: That the letter was innocent in itself, as being a letter of negotiation for private emoluments—not to injure the states. In answer to the first: The crime was corresponding with the enemies of the United States, the guilt of which cannot depend upon the spot of the enemy’s country where they happen to reside. A letter wrote to a secretary of state in London would be equally criminal as to Sir Henry Clinton in New York, in many instances more so. But there is not the least excuse, even on this ground, because this letter was to be sent to New-York, to a refugee officer [General DeLancey] in arms against his country. By this means the paper and its contents were to be conveyed to the enemy, liable to be made use of against us. And whether the letter was sealed, or not, is of no consequence to the writer or sender, either in law or reason, as the malignity of the letter cannot depend upon its being sealed or not, any more than the quality of merchandise depends upon the store in which it is kept, being locked or open. The plain fact was that the letter was enclosed to an enemy in NewYork, to be forwarded to an enemy (Moses Franks) in London, a contractor; wrote by his brother, also a contractor, and both engaged to feed and supply the British troops, while they are employed in the conquest and destruction of this country. It is said that it appears from the letter that David “did not intend it should be known in New-York, as it would have defeated his intention of 192

Appendixes

advancing [increasing] the ration.” This is paying a wretched compliment to Franks’s honesty, as it supposes he intended to deceive his employers by concealing the price of provisions from those in this country, who might have presumed to know better, and so obtain an unfair advance in England. But whoever reads the letter will see that Mr. Franks grounds his expectations of this advance on the real price of provisions; and as a proof tells what the French then gave for flour, and meat in proportion, so that it was not his design to conceal the facts from those in New-York. Do Franks’s intentions appear that the contents of the letter should not be known in New-York, by not sending it there? No, for it was found on a person going there, enclosed in a letter to Thomas Moore, residing there, and he [was] desired to forward it. Why, then, these harmless intentions must appear from his sealing the letter. And did the jury think a seal so sacred a thing in time of war and ground their verdict thereupon? The supposition would affront them, unless they resign all pretentions to common sense. But it is asked why he did not send the prices to Moore? I answer, he gave the letter which contained them, and by that means enabled him to know what they were. It will perhaps be said, this was in order to conceal them from the people in New-York; I confess I have nothing to say to such reasoning. But I ask in turn, who is Moses Franks, and where does he reside? To him the letter was directed, and he had an unquestionable right to break this sacred, this hallowed wax. Why, if it was not otherwise known, the letter describes him to be an officer in the enemy’s service, of course, an enemy residing in the capital of the greatest enemy America has on earth, George the Third, King of Great Britain, and telling his brother such facts as would afford and does afford the greatest encouragement the enemy have to carry on the war, by enumerating the current high prices of the principal articles and conveniences of life. But it seems to be forgot that London was in the enemy’s country, and that Moses Franks was a subject of that country; and if future juries can forget it too, any one may write what he pleases to London, by way of New-York, and all that he has to do is to take care to seal the letter. Now as to the second point: That there is no law against it. This I totally deny. There is every law against it. The law of reason, the law of self preservation, the law of nations, and the law of the land. But as the latter is the law I suppose referred to, I shall prove that there was law sufficient. It is evident the prisoner’s council [counsel] thought so, or they would have demurred to the indictment, and brought the question of law before the court in a proper manner, but they knew better. They knew the ground would fail 193

Appendixes

them. And it must be remembered that the court laid down the law clearly and fully that it was a misdemeanor, punishable by fine and imprisonment. Blackstone, page 119, speaking of misprisions of treason, says that a misprision is contained in every treason whatever, and that if the king so please, the offender may be proceeded against for the misprision only. And that every misprision contains a misdemeanor, upon which the delinquent may be censured, as happened in the case of the Earl of Rutland, etc. If the jury had no reason to doubt the integrity and abilities of the court, why did they not give their opinion its due weight, a point to which they, from their law knowledge, must be deemed more competent? Or why did they not find a special verdict, declaring the facts, and putting it upon the court to pronounce the law? This would have eased their judgments and put the matter upon a proper footing; as if it had been possible for the court to say that there was no law against corresponding with an enemy in time of war. There would have been then some ground for the legislature to have framed one. But if such a law was to be now proposed, whatever the gentlemen of the profession might think it necessary and convenient to say at the bar, those in the house [Assembly?] would hold a different language, and tell them there was law enough, if juries would do their duty. The last point, and which probably was a governing one, is of the utmost importance to us, and therefore deserves to be seriously considered. The  jury in this case seem to have held an opinion that correspondence between subjects of different nations in time of war may be innocent, and that this was so. Both positions are erroneous. By the customs and laws adopted among all civilized nations, in time of war, all intercourse with the enemy, but under the sanction of public authority, is illegal and unjustifiable. And this is highly reasonable, for if it was otherwise, every person holding such intercourse must be the judge of what would or would not be prejudicial. Now in many cases information apparently innocent might be of the most fatal kind; besides that being contrary in its nature to a state of war, it would open a door to all manner of dangers and abuses. Hence it has been adopted, as a general rule, that all intercourse with an enemy, but by special permission, is improper, and therefore letters of the most private kind, and uninteresting to the public, are transmitted open, and pass through the hands of persons of authority. So that the court were fully justified in saying that all correspondence with an enemy, but by special license, is improper and illegal. With respect to this particular letter, it is really doing violence to the common reason and understanding of mankind to call it an innocent letter, 194

Appendixes

and only wrote for private emolument. It appears, in the first place, to have been designed to be conveyed by stealth. It informs what prices our allies were then giving for flour for their support; then a false and infamous reflection upon the government and people of the state, “that people are taken up and confined at the pleasure of every scoundrel.” Then follows a list of prices, holding forth an idea either of a great necessity and scarcity, or a depreciation of our money, which, though true, no one has a right to communicate, as either will naturally prove powerful inducements to our enemy to prolong the war. Yet, as it is said, this was a letter of private emolument, I ask what reference had the reflection on the government, or the price of broad cloth and linens, to his emolument; or how could such information tend to promote it? They might shew a seditious spirit, and disclose our wants and distresses, but how they could promote Mr.  Franks’s interest remains to be shewn. And yet we are told, not only gravely but angrily, that all this is innocent, and can do our country and cause no harm. Fie upon it! And now, my fellow-citizens and countrymen, permit me to address a few lines to you. The  happiness and safety of government immediately depend upon a just and faithful execution of the laws. You are called frequently, as jurymen to perform an important part of this duty. Be not eager to decide too much; where you can have confidence in the judges, repose it. Respect their opinions in points of law; they are sworn to assist you in matters of law, you to assist them in matters of facts, and though you have a power to engross both, you should consider that in so doing you stand responsible to God and the world; and that ignorance is a miserable plea for errors you may thus commit. Your office, though not sacred as some seem to wish, is highly respectable, and it depends upon you to make it more so by caution in your decisions and chastity in your recommendations for mercy. The  frequency of such applications has very much lessened their weight, and even you yourselves must be convinced that had pardons been as frequently granted as they have been asked and solicited, neither your lives, liberties or properties would have been equally secured. Consider also that you are carrying on a war with a bitter and implacable nation, that we have many intestine enemies who earnestly wish and pray for their success and give them all the assistance and intelligence that they dare. Consider that you have allies who look with an attentive eye upon every transaction which affects the common interests of the war. Consider that you have a brave and gallant army exposing themselves to danger and death, that these expect from you vigilance and jealousy to guard, and justice to punish traitors at home, while they are meeting open force abroad; 195

Appendixes

and they have an equal claim upon you to guard them against the secret machinations of the common enemy, as you have to expect their brave and open exertions in the field. The issue of the trial on which I have made these observations has given great and general dissatisfaction. I trust they will have some weight in future. For it is plain as the face of day itself that we must either give up the war, or pursue the necessary means to close it with success, one of which is the detection and punishment of such practices. CATO

196

AppendixB questions of death and burial

Where did David Franks die, and where is he buried? These two questions became thorny problems during the research for this biography. Two conflicting yet credible stories emerged concerning his burial. The  time and place of his death are known. In a letter to his wife, Dr.  Benjamin Rush, a renowned physician, noted patriot, and leading citizen of colonial Philadelphia, reported the deaths of both David Franks and his cousin, David Salisbury Franks, during the yellow fever epidemic of 1793. Rush had remained in town to heal the sick, and had sent his wife, Julia Stockton Rush, to the country for her safety. He told her the story of the burial of David’s cousin, David S. Franks, in potter’s field and his subsequent removal by the local blacksmith, who reburied him at Philadelphia’s Christ Church. Many historians accept Rush’s story as true. The Christ Church Web site lists David S. Franks as “the only Jew” buried in its cemetery, but it also lists David Franks as having been buried there. That our David Franks was a member of Christ Church for many years apparently disqualified him from being listed as a Jew. The Christ Church Web site listing was disputed in an article by historian Rachel Daiches-Dubens in an issue of the Transactions and Miscellanies of the Jewish Historical Society of England from the mid-1950s, in which Daiches-Dubens recorded that “Priscilla, Jacob and David [all Frankses] were all buried in Isleworth Parish Cemetery.” Intensive investigation of Anglican Church properties in the Isleworth area, and of records provided by the church wardens and local genealogical agencies, has produced no confirmation of that assertion. Daiches-Dubens’s article contained no supporting evidence for her statement, and its authenticity is therefore questionable. Priscilla Franks was in fact buried at All Saints Anglican Church in Isleworth; burial records substantiate the fact. Her husband, Jacob ( John)

Appendixes

Franks, was buried at St. Michael’s Church in Bath. No burial site could be found for David Franks in England.1 In 1906, politician and amateur historian Captain  N. Taylor Phillips wrote a letter to Robert Winder Johnson stating, “there can be no question as to the year and place of David Franks’ death, which is as stated by you, England, 1794.” Again, no supporting evidence is given for this statement.2 Phillips was a lifelong member of New York’s Shearith Israel synagogue and held several positions of responsibility in the American Jewish Historical Society. He would have been an obvious source of information for Johnson. The two men carried on a correspondence over a period of several years. Johnson believed himself to be a descendant of Sir Henry Johnson, and therefore of Rebecca Franks Johnson and, consequently, of David Franks. When he had completed his research, Mr.  Johnson wrote a genealogical text about his family that made no mention of the Franks connection.3 Apparently, he had not learned of any. I examined all of the Phillips Family Papers at the American Jewish Historical Society and all of Captain Phillips’s papers in Shearith Israel Congregation’s archives for evidence for the statement about David’s death. I found nothing to corroborate the assertion. There is a probate document dated July 15, 1794, with handwriting extremely difficult to read, which appears to say, “David Franks was late of the City of Philadelphia Esq. [?] and died in October last.” The original, located at Somerset House in London, may be easier to read and may produce a more accurate transcript. In any event, the probate was recorded the following year.4 Mr. John Wood, the customer relations manager of the Public Services Development Unit of the British National Archives, provided the following explanation. Probate recordings are collected in a file called PROB 8/XXX and are termed “probate acts.” Each volume covers one year—PROB 8/187 covers 1794. “Within each volume, they are arranged systematically by date and section— one clerk dealt with each section—the first section each year deals with the overseas deaths—in which the David Franks entry is found.” Mr. Wood declined to copy the entire volume, which would show irrefutably that the Franks listing was in the first section, but he gives absolute assurance of the fact.5 Consequently, we are certain that David Franks did not die in England. Other puzzles remain. Dr. Rush and Franks were indeed neighbors for many years and are believed to have lived around the corner from each other in 1793 —Franks’s daughter Abby lived at 80 South Third Street and Rush’s house was at the corner of Walnut and Third. (It no longer stands.) This 198

Appendixes

would explain Rush’s use of the term “our old neighbor” in reference to David. Rush was involved intensely in the management of epidemic victims and would be considered a very credible reporter of medical events. It is very difficult to doubt the accuracy of his letters. Mathew Carey’s listing of deaths supports Rush, although the source of his information is not known and may very well have been Rush. Burial is another story. We have no clues to the whereabouts of David Franks’s remains. This will probably remain a mystery forever. But that he was buried at Christ Church makes sense, as the church’s Web site claims. His wife was buried there, and it would have been logical to inter them side by side. He is not listed among those buried in Mikveh Israel’s cemetery, which had been founded by his uncle. Rush’s and Franks’s mutual neighbor Bishop William White, whose parish included Christ Church and St. Peter’s, also remained in the city to help the afflicted during the yellow fever epidemic. Philadelphia Jews and Catholic priests were fussy about who they buried.6 However, it is difficult to imagine that Bishop White, a tolerant and ecumenical person who was willing to bury David S. Franks, Roman Catholics, and Native Americans who died while visiting Philadelphia, would have denied an equal privilege to his old friend, parishioner, and neighbor.

199

Appendix C “dear mrs. cad”: a revolutionary war letter of rebecca franks

Life was splendid for Rebecca Franks during the winter and into the spring of 1777–78. Washington’s rebels were immobilized at Valley Forge, improperly clothed and short of food. British general Sir William Howe was content to enjoy the comforts of British-occupied Philadelphia. Some of the finest mansions in the city had been commandeered for Howe and his officers. They embarked upon an almost endless series of parties, dances, plays, and other social delights with the many charming and affluent young ladies of the city.1 Miss Franks was certainly one of these. Renowned for her beauty, wit, and conversational acumen, she enjoyed close friendships with a coterie of the richest and prettiest girls in town—Betsy, Sarah, Mary, and Peggy Shippen; the Chew sisters, Mary, Elizabeth, and Peggy; and Williamina Bond, Nancy Redman, Mary White, and others.2 Upon settling in Philadelphia, Howe made a point of visiting David Franks at his Woodford estate to establish a working relationship with the agent in charge of victualing the British army in Pennsylvania and on the frontier. The general was accompanied by his aides and top staff, including the dashing Major John André, who encountered Rebecca Franks and her friends at Woodford. The encounter was pleasurable—the handsome young officers in their impressive uniforms and the beautiful young women responded instinctively. A pattern of daily visits ensued; even Howe took part. André drew sketches of the ladies and composed poetry. We have no evidence of how Mr. and Mrs.  Franks liked the situation, but there was nothing wrong with finding a way to please one’s best customer. David Franks had supplied the British troops as a co-contractor with his father, the late Jacob Franks of New York, who in turn fulfilled contractual

Appendixes

requirements passed on from the firm of Arnold Nesbitt, Sir James Colebrooke, Adam Drummond, Sir Samuel Fludyer, and Moses Franks of London, David’s brother.3 The business arrangement had been in force since the conclusion of the French and Indian War.4 As we saw in chapter 2, David Franks’s parents were upset that all of David’s children were raised as Protestants, his wife Margaret’s faith. All of the children were baptized at Christ Church— except Moses and Rebecca.5 Oddly, however, despite her Protestant upbringing and her mother’s active devotion to Christ Church, Rebecca became known as the “Jewish belle” of Philadelphia—a consequence of her father’s faith and its indelible stamp. We find numerous references in the literature to Rebecca as a Jewess. In 1893 Anne Hollingsworth Wharton referred to her as “the beautiful Jewess.”6 The following year, the Jewish scholar Max J. Kohler wrote a twentyseven-page essay on Rebecca, pointing out, “We find Rebecca constantly referred to in contemporary and later papers as a Jewess.”7 Henry S. Morais devoted several pages to Rebecca in an 1894 book entitled The Jews of Philadelphia.8 Nearly a century later, a collection of essays on Jewish life in Philadelphia explains that her father was one of the original subscribers to the Philadelphia Dancing Assembly and that “Rebecca Franks was one of the most popular belles of Revolutionary society in the city.”9 One of the most comprehensive histories of Philadelphia, published in 1912, refers to “Miss Rebecca Franks, the Jewish belle of the city,”10 and a late twentieth-century work describes David Franks as Philadelphia’s leading Jewish merchant and a die-hard loyalist, “whose daughter Rebecca was the belle of the Philadelphia social scene.”11 After forty-one years of marriage to an Anglican baronet, Rebecca’s death was recorded under “Jewish Obituary Notices” in the Gentleman’s Magazine of Great Britain.12 As we have seen, David Franks was expelled from Pennsylvania in 1780 despite a series of trials in which he was repeatedly found not guilty of treason. He and Rebecca moved to New York City, where in 1782 Rebecca married British army colonel Henry Johnson, who had been captured and held prisoner during the final stages of the war. Soon after their wedding, the war over, Johnson was sent back to England and the couple settled in Bath. Not long thereafter he was promoted to the rank of major general and appointed governor of Ross Castle in New Ross (near Wexford), Ireland. Rebecca accompanied him there and wrote this letter during their stay. Rebecca’s friend (and her mother’s first cousin) Willy Bond had married one of Washington’s most admired officers, General John Cadwalader. The women corresponded, but only one of their letters has surfaced. This 202

Appendixes

letter from Rebecca to Willy, reproduced here, expresses many of the frustrations Rebecca endured after her expulsion from Philadelphia and the frothy days of 1777–78. The letter provides an unusually perceptive and historically interesting view of relationships between a number of fairly wellknown affluent English and American subjects at the conclusion of the War of Independence. The letter demonstrates that Rebecca Franks had no difficulty taking sides on an issue and would have been an interesting young woman in the twenty-first century as well as the late eighteenth. She yearned for social recognition and fed upon it, and she invited her correspondents to reinforce her opinions and biases. She was very partial to her good friends and often contemptuous of those she either disliked or envied. Years later, Rebecca was reported to have regretted her Tory leanings and to have expressed the view that she should have been a patriot.13 It is more likely that what Rebecca really lamented was her banishment from Philadelphia and the joys and excitement of her social life there. Life as the wife of a general and baronet never quite achieved the same level of intensity she had enjoyed at Woodford. Another interesting feature of the letter is its suggestion that the lines between Whig and Tory, revolutionary and loyalist, were blurred significantly. Close friends and relatives stood on different sides of the divide without its intruding greatly upon their personal relationships. Rebecca had been exposed to Tories and loyalists throughout her life, yet she maintained comfortable and affectionate relationships with many revolutionaries and their supporters, and had close friends whose husbands served in the Continental Congress or as officers in Washington’s army. Benedict Arnold, for example, was one of Washington’s top generals when Peggy Shippen married him, which made not the slightest difference to Rebecca and Peggy’s friendship. Nancy Paca’s husband was a Maryland congressman, and Peggy Chew’s husband was the governor of Maryland. Rebecca enjoyed close friendships with both women. William Tilghman ended his career as chief justice of the Pennsylvania Supreme Court after many years in public service but remained Rebecca’s “old flirt” Billy. Willy Bond’s brother exiled himself to England during the war to shield his Tory feelings, while Willy’s husband was one of Washington’s most trusted generals. Cadwalader fought a duel, taking Washington’s side in a suspected plot to overthrow him as commander in chief.14 All of Rebecca’s cousins and other relatives tilted toward the British side, and she, of course, married a British colonel. At the same time, her father 203

Appendixes

obtained permission from the Continental Congress to victual British prisoners in half a dozen jails throughout the northeastern colonies.15 Clearly, social standing and personal affection superseded political leanings before, during, and after the war. It is true that many loyalists were punished severely after hostilities ended, but not by their friends or relatives.

February 19, 1784 Killernah16 Dear Mrs. Cad17 The night before last I had the satisfaction of hearing from you, a pleasure I wish much more frequently I could enjoy. But the vile sea—how much happiness does it deprive us of—but most willingly wou’d I encounter its dangers to visit Phila[delphia] again—but alas—I fear I never can hope for that all your eloquence will not prevail while he can he will stay, either in Ireland (where we are now) or England, and his wife must obey.18 I couldn’t help smiling at that part of yr letter that so gravely reprobates grandeur  & dissipation—you are indeed consum’d Old Lady—now if I who have it not in my power to enjoy such things—was to rail against them the world might excuse me—but in you who have all the rich gifts of fortune ’tis laughable really19—Becky20 tells me you are again in for the plate [i.e., pregnant], poor Toad. Why don’t you follow your Mother’s wise example—she always contrived matters so as only to be that way once in 7 years. Billy Hamilton21 once made a speech at Dr. Smith’s the day you din’d there as a Bride which you have fully versified— do you recollect it—I dare not trust it on paper—I can tell you very little of yr American acquaintances in London as I left the place last August & indeed when there I knew very little of them except Mrs. Arnold22 who always behav’d more like an affect-[iona]te sister than a common friend, she still continues the same. I hear every week or fortnight from her, she expects to be confin’d23 the beginning of next Month, she’s a true Francs in that particular—she was  & is still more noticed and more liked than any American that ever came over. She is visited by people of the first rank & invited to all their houses24—As for Mrs. R Penn25 she is and ever will be the Master26—No alteration except if possible she is larger & hoarser than ever—her sister27 is thought pretty—but I do not hear of her having any particular admirers—I saw very little of them while in London—Mrs. P was too violent an American to have any intimacy with a British officer’s wife—she is lately lain of a son—Mrs. Bingham28 arriv’d but a little while before I left London & while I was confin’d29 so did not see either her or Mrs. Hare.30 204

Appendixes

The former spent part of the Summer at Brighthelmstone where she was much admired in London She is not known & I hear has had but six ladys to visit her since her arrival.31 At first she talk’d of going to court and living away at a great rate but that Idea is now quite thrown aside & she finds an American in London & an American in their own country quite different beings. Mrs.  Arnold is the only one who has been the least Notic’d—I can tell you nothing of yr British acquaintances—I’ve seen more since I came to Ireland— Col. [indecipherable]32 is still in Canada—so is Colin Campbell33  & married to a very beautiful woman—a Daughter of Guy Johnson’s34—Remember me to General and Mrs.  Dickinson35— Col and Mrs Cad36—& all the rest of yr acquaintances—I blow your Spouse a kiss and mine blows you one at the same time—I’ve not heard from [illegible]— as I write to Becky I say nothing to her of that branch of your famille— When you receive this may you be happily fix’d in D—r Phila. Which in spite of Everything I shall always prefer to every other place—Advise & tell me soon that you have given General C another son37—kiss those you have already for your Sincerely Affecte B Johnson If you see B. Tilghman38 tell him his old Flirt sends her love to him—

205

Notes

abbreviations AJA AJHS HSP JCC NA PAJHS PMHB

American Jewish Archives, Cincinnati, Ohio American Jewish Historical Society Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia Journals of the Continental Congress, ed. Worthington Chauncey Ford et al., 34 vols. National Archives (formerly Public Record Office), Kew, England WO—War Office files AO—Audit Office files C— Chancery files Publications of the American Jewish Historical Society Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography

introduction 1. Isaac Markens, The Hebrews in America: A Series of Historical and Biographical Sketches (New  York: published by the author, 1888), 71; Henry Samuel Morais, The  Jews of Philadelphia: Their History from the Earliest Settlements to the Present Time (Philadelphia: Levytype, 1894), 34. 2. See Lawrence Henry Gipson, The  British Empire Before the American Revolution, 15 vols. (New York: Knopf, 1939 –70), vol. 6, The Great War for the Empire: The Years of Defeat, 1754 –1757, and vol. 7, The Great War for the Empire: The Victorious Years, 1758 –1760.

chapter 1 1. Pennsylvania Packet or the General Advertiser, November 17, 1778. 2. David Franks to Captain T.  W.  Moore, October 18, 1778, Stauffer Collection, 26:2101, HSP. 3. George Clymer to John Cadwalader, March 2, 1783, quoted in Horace Wemyss Smith, Nuts for Future Historians to Crack (Philadelphia: Horace W. Smith, 1856), 32. 4. Records of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Eastern District, Courts of Oyer and Terminer, RG-33, box 6, October 18, 1778, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission; Pennsylvania Packet or the General Advertiser, November 17, 1778. The  commissioners of the Courts of Oyer and Terminer, principally judges, were authorized to make diligent inquiry into all treasons, felonies, and misdemeanors and to hear and make judgments. Additionally, these courts included general gaol delivery dockets where judges rendered decisions regarding the jailing or release of prisoners based upon results of grand jury indictments. 5. At the present time, no biography of John Cadwalader (1742 –1786) exists. Brief accounts and useful supplementary information can be found in Charles Penrose Keith,

Notes to Pages 2 –7 The Provincial Councillors of Pennsylvania Who Held Office Between 1733 and 1766 (Philadelphia: printed for the author, 1883), 374 –76; John Cadwalader, “Selections from the Military Papers of General John Cadwalader,” PMHB 32 (1908): 149 –74; Charles Winslow Dulles, “Sketch of the Life of Dr.  Thomas Cadwalader,” PMHB 27 (1903): 262 –78; and Smith, Nuts for Future Historians to Crack. A storehouse of manuscripts and other documents can be found in the Cadwalader Collection, HSP.  Brett  M. Reigh prepared a catalogue and finding aid for the collection in 1999. For an example of the esteem in which Cadwalader was held, see Henry Laurens to Cadwalader, September 12, 1778, in “Military Papers of Cadwalader,” 170: “His Excellency General Washington having recommended to Congress the appointment of a General of Horse, the House took the subject under consideration the 10th Inst. [September] when you were unanimously elected Brigadier & Commander of the Cavalry in the service of the United States. From the general voice above mentioned you will perceive Sir, the earnest desire of the House that you will accept a Commission & enter as early as your convenience will admit of upon the duties of the Office & I flatter myself with hopes of congratulating you in a few days upon this occasion.” Cadwalader turned Laurens down on September 19, writing, “I have the highest Sense of the Honor conferred upon me by Congress in appointing me a Brigadier in the Continental Service, with the Command of Cavalry: more particularly, as the whole of Congress was unanimous—I cannot consent to enter into the Service, at this time, as the War, appears, to me, to be near the close—But should any Misfortunes give an unhappy turn to our affairs I shall immediately apply to Congress for a Command in the Army” (172). 6. Keith, Provincial Councillors of Pennsylvania, 374 –76; John Richard Alden, ed., The War of the Revolution, 2 vols. (New York: Macmillan, 1952), 1:289 –90, 293, 302 –9, 381– 82; Washington to Cadwalader, October 5, 1780, in Cadwalader, “Military Papers of Cadwalader,” 173. 7. Alden, War of the Revolution, 2:560 – 61; George F. Scheer and Hugh F. Rankin, Rebels and Redcoats: The American Revolution Through the Eyes of Those Who Fought and Lived It (Cleveland: World Publishing, 1957), 294 –302. 8. Nathanael Greene to John Cadwalader, November 10, 1778, in The Papers of General Nathanael Greene, ed. Richard K. Showman, 13 vols. (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1976 –2005), 6:56 –57. 9. Smith, Nuts for Future Historians to Crack, 26 –29. 10. Ibid., 30 –38. 11. Ibid., 8 –9, 55 –90. Cadwalader’s pamphlet was called A Reply to Genl. Joseph Reed’s Remarks on a late publication in the Independent Gazetteer; with some observations on his Address to the People of Pennsylvania (Philadelphia: T. Bradford, 1783). 12. James A. Jacobs, “William Hamilton and the Woodlands: A Construction of Refinement in Philadelphia,” PMHB 130 (2006): 186 – 87. 13. Clymer to Cadwalader, March 2, 1783, quoted in Smith, Nuts for Future Historians to Crack, 32.

chapter 2 1. Cecil Roth, The Great Synagogue, London, 1690 –1940 (London: E. Goldston, 1950), 47– 65. 2. Hilda F. Finberg, “Jewish Residents in Eighteenth-Century Twickenham,” Transactions and Miscellanies of the Jewish Historical Society of England 16 (1945 –51): 129, 130; Rachel Daiches-Dubens, “Eighteenth Century Anglo-Jewry in and Around Richmond, Surrey,” Transactions and Miscellanies of the Jewish Historical Society of England 18 (1953 –55): 144, 148 –53.

208

Notes to Pages 7 –10 3. Cathy D. Matson, Merchants and Empire: Trading in Colonial New York (Baltimore: John Hopkins University Press, 1998), 168. 4. New  York Weekly Journal, April 12, 1739; Admiral Peter Warren’s Miscellaneous Account Books, 1740, 1744, 1747, 86, American Manuscripts in the Gage Papers, 1731–1874, reel 1, collection G/Am/11, Sussex Archaeological Society, Lewes, England. The American Manuscripts in the Gage Papers are divided into three sections entitled “Gage American” (G/ Am), “Gage Additional” (Gage Addit), and “Gage Addit 1201” (miscellaneous Mss). These groups do not coincide with the breaks between the three microfilm strips. An introduction and list of contents in the finding aid are extremely helpful and are essential for locating items in the collection. 5. General Jeffrey Amherst to Lt. Governor Cadwallader Colden, May 25, 1762, Letters and Papers of Cadwallader Colden, 9 vols. (New York: New-York Historical Society, 1919 –37), 6:182 – 83; Amherst to Colden, May 26, 1762, ibid., 6:183 – 85; Amherst to Colden, May 27, 1762, ibid., 6:185 – 86; Colden to Amherst, May 26, 1762, ibid., 9:210 –11. 6. Malcolm Henry Stern, First American Jewish Families (Cincinnati: American Jewish Archives, 1978), Franks 1 (1), Levy 1 (1). 7. In addition to Abigail’s thirty-one letters, the book contains two letters by David Franks and one by Jacob Franks. Leo Hershkowitz and Isidore S. Meyer, eds., The Lee Max Friedman Collection of American Jewish Colonial Correspondence—Letters of the Franks Family (1733 –1748) (Waltham, Mass.: American Jewish Historical Society, 1968). Letters in this volume are cited by number so that they can also be located in Abigaill Levy Franks, The Letters of Abigaill Levy Franks, 1733 –1748, ed. Edith B. Gelles (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004), which numbers the letters in the same way. Page references are to Hershkowitz and Meyer’s editorial comments. 8. Hershkowitz and Meyer, Letters of the Franks Family, letter 16. 9. Jacob Rader Marcus, The Colonial American Jew, 1492 –1776, 3 vols. (Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1970), 2:1068. 10. Carl Bridenbaugh and Jessica Bridenbaugh, Rebels and Gentlemen: Philadelphia in the Age of Franklin (New York: Reynal and Hitchcock, 1942), 156, 160. 11. Jacob Franks, personal documents, box 1, folder 9, Franks Family Papers, AJHS. 12. These various lawsuits were reported in the New York Gazette, November 10, 1711; February 5 and December 9, 1712; October 18, 1715; September 28, 1721; April 15, 1725; October 17, 1726; May 30, 1727; January 5, January 10, June 10, October 28, November 4, December 11, and December 13, 1728; June 12, 1729; and September 11, 1733. 13. Ibid., June 13, June 26, August 23, and December 18, 1728. 14. Edmund Bailey O’Callaghan, ed., Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New York, 15 vols. (Albany: Weed, Parsons, 1853 – 87), 4:143. 15. For marriage rates, see Robert Cohen, “Jewish Families in Eighteenth-Century New York: A Study in Historical Demography,” seminar paper, Brandeis University, 1972, 31, copy in AJA. Around 1789, years after both Jacob and Abigaill were dead and buried, Richa was reported to have married a Jewish widower, Abraham ben Baruch De Fries, who had a son, Mordicai (Modcha) De Fries. This would have been a singular Jewish step-grandchild for Jacob and Abigaill, if true. Richa would have been approximately sixty-four years old at the time of the marriage. The source of this information is questionable. It comes from a document entitled Coats of Many Colours—an Account of the Joseph Families in the English Speaking World, by Wilfred S. Jessop (Chicago: privately printed, 1951); the only known copy of this complete document is handwritten and is in the possession of the Australian Jewish Historical Society, Victoria chapter. No actual printed texts have been found. The Web site of the Jewish Genealogical Society of Great Britain contains a substantial portion of the text under the heading “The Susser Archive,” prepared by Rabbi Susser; unfortunately, the portions

209

Notes to Pages 10 –15 germane to Richa Franks and her alleged marriage are not included in the Web version but were provided by photocopy and e‑mail transmission. 16. Hershkowitz and Meyer, Letters of the Franks Family, letters 28 –30. 17. Ibid., letter 29. In November 1742 Naphtali married Phila Franks, daughter of Uncle Isaac Franks, his father’s brother. The risk of birth defects in offspring produced by the pairing of first cousins was not generally known in the late eighteenth century. The marriage was considered a great blessing for both families, particularly because the bride and groom were Jewish and of the “right” ethnic origin. In 1761, when the first register of members of the Great Synagogue was prepared, Naphtali was included in the “Main List,” signifying that he was a regular member of long standing. His family was delighted with the union. 18. Rider’s British Merlin was an almanac first issued in London in 1733 and then almost annually through the early nineteenth century. 19. Hershkowitz and Meyer, Letters of the Franks Family, p. 114 and letter 30, dated April 1, 1743. 20. Ibid., 110. 21. Ibid., letter 31, dated June 7, 1743. 22. Ibid., xix. 23. Duncan Albert Story, The DeLanceys: A Romance of a Great Family (London: Thomas Nelson, 1931). Letters from John Watts to Moses Franks, in John Watts, Letter Book of John Watts: Merchant and Councillor of New York, January 1, 1762 –December 22, 1765, ed. Dorothy Barck (New York: New-York Historical Society, 1928), 59, 75 –76, 91, 101, 191, 200 –201, 240, 261, 257, 376 –77, 392. 24. Pennsylvania Gazette, April 16 and May 7, 1741. 25. Ibid., May 21, 1741. 26. Hershkowitz and Meyer, Letters of the Franks Family, letter 32. 27. “The Earliest Extant Minute Books of the Spanish and Portuguese Congregation Shearith Israel in New York, 1728 –1786,” PAJHS 21 (1913): 44 –45. 28. Jessie McNab Dennis, “London Silver in a Colonial Household,” Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 26 (1967– 68); Jessie McNab Dennis, “Franks Family Silver by Lamerie,” Antiques Magazine, May 1968; Yvonne Hackenbroch, English and Other Silver in the Irwin Untermeyer Collection (New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1969). 29. Peter Evans, Will, May 10, 1754, Phineas Bond Moore section, ser. 5, box 24, Cadwalader Collection, HSP. The British legal system was built upon a collection of “Inns of Court,” which were small, collegiate campuses of lodgings, schools, and offices where law students, barristers, and practicing attorneys lived, trained, and worked. Though there were more inns in the eighteenth century (they date from the fifteenth century), four remain today: Gray’s Inn, Lincoln’s Inn, the Inner Temple, and the Middle Temple. Training and practice continue there, though very few lawyers live there. 30. Septimus Evans Nivin, Genealogy of the Evans, Nivin, and Allied Families (Philadelphia: International Printing, 1930), 16. 31. Deborah Mathias Gough, Christ Church, Philadelphia (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1995), 31–32. 32. Ibid., 37, 57– 60. 33. Hershkowitz and Meyer, Letters of the Franks Family, 129n. 34. Ibid., letter 35, November 25, 1745. 35. “Earliest Extant Minute Books of Congregation Shearith Israel,” 45. 36. Edwin Wolf  II and Maxwell Whiteman, The  History of the Jews of Philadelphia from Colonial Times to the Age of Jackson (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1957), 42.

210

Notes to Pages 15 –20 37. See their letters in William Vincent Byars, B. and M. Gratz, Merchants in Philadelphia, 1754 –1798 ( Jefferson City, Mo.: Hugh Stephens, 1916). 38. Baptismal records for Abigail Franks, daughter of David and Margaret, April 20, 1745, in Charles R. Hildeburn, “Records of Christ Church, Philadelphia, Baptisms, 1709 –1760,” PMHB 16 (1892): 112. 39. Hershkowitz and Meyer, Letters of the Franks Family, 19n. 40. Wolf and Whiteman, Jews of Philadelphia, 24 –25. 41. Hershkowitz and Meyer, Letters of the Franks Family, letter 31, June 7, 1743. 42. Pennsylvania Gazette, September 16, 1742. 43. “Ship Registers for the Port of Philadelphia, 1726 –1775,” PMHB 23 (1899) and PMHB 24 (1900). The ship’s registry listing is shown in six groups divided between the two annual volumes. All of David Franks’s vessels are listed in chronological order with those of other owners. See vol. 23, 254 – 64, 370 – 85, 498 –515, and vol. 24, 108 –15, 212 –23, and 348 – 66. 44. Allen Johnson and Dumas Malone,  eds., Dictionary of American Biography, 22 vols. (New  York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1928 –37), 9:220 –21; James Grant Wilson and John Fiske,  eds., Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 6 vols. (New  York: D.  Appleton, 1887– 89), 3:260 – 61. 45. Samuel Oppenheim, “Jewish Owners of Ships Registered at the Port of Philadelphia, 1730 –1775,” PAJHS 26 (1918): 235 –36. Oppenheim acknowledged obtaining the information from the PMHB. 46. Pennsylvania Gazette, March 26, 1745. 47. See chapter 4, notes 1– 6, for examples. 48. Lancaster County, Pennsylvania, Office of the Recorder of Deeds, 1849 – 85, folders SC 6574, SC 6576, Small Collections, AJA. 49. Henry Necarsulmer, “The Early Jewish Settlement at Lancaster, Pennsylvania,” PAJHS 9 (1901): 29 –43. Additional biographical information about Joseph Simon can be found in Samuel Evans, “Sketch of Joseph Simon,” Papers Read Before the Lancaster County Historical Society 3 (1899): 165 –72; Monroe B. Hirsh, “The Early Jewish Colony in Lancaster County,” Papers Read Before the Lancaster County Historical Society 5 (1901): 91–105; John F. Megginess, Biographical Annals of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania (Chicago: J. H. Beers, 1903), 90 –91; and Franklin Ellis and Samuel Evans, History of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania (Philadelphia: Everts and Peck, 1883), 18. Byars, B. and M. Gratz, contains a considerable amount of material about Simon. 50. “Earliest Extant Minute Books of Congregation Shearith Israel,” 53, dated April 16, 1747. 51. See note 29, above. 52. Pennsylvania Gazette, July 4, 1745. 53. Baptismal record for Jacob Franks, son of David and Margaret, April 20, 1747, in Hildeburn, “Records of Christ Church,” 112. 54. Franklin expressed his grievance against the assembly in print. See William Pencak, “The Beginning of a Beautiful Friendship: Franklin, Whitefield, the Dancing School Blockheads, and a Defense of the Public Sphere,” Proteus 19 (2002): 45 –50. 55. Anne Hollingsworth Wharton, Through Colonial Doorways (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1900), 212; see also Rufus Wilmot Griswold, The Republican Court, or American Society in the Days of Washington (New York: Appleton, 1864), 13; Thomas Willing Balch, The Philadelphia Assemblies (Philadelphia: Allen, Lane, and Scott, 1916), 14 – 83; letter from Richard Peters to Mr. Thomas Penn, May 3, 1749, Notes and Queries, PMHB 23 (1899): 529 –31. 56. Baptismal records for Mary Franks, daughter of David and Margaret, April 10, 1748, in Hildeburn, “Records of Christ Church,” 112.

211

Notes to Pages 20 –23 57. Edwin Wolf II, “Abigail Evans Franks’ Bible,” PAJHS 58 (1941): 137–38. 58. Pennsylvania Gazette, March 22, May 26, August 11, and August 18, 1748; November 23, 1749; January 23, August 9, September 6, and November 15, 1750; March 19 and May 9, 1751; August 2, 1753. A “snow” is a sailing vessel bearing two masts with square sails and a trysail forward. 59. Ibid., November 14 and 21, 1751; March 17, 1752. 60. “Indenture, Jacob Huber to Levi & Frank,” July 5, 1750; “Indenture, Jacob Echoltz to Levy and Franks,” December 29, 1750; “Indenture, John Hart & UX. to Levy & Franks,” August 7, 1751; “Indenture, Levy & Franks to Joseph Simons,” February 14, 1752, all in Lancaster, Pennsylvania, folder SC 6574, Small Collections, AJA. 61. Pennsylvania Gazette, October 17, 1751; Townsend Ward, “The Germantown Road and Its Associators,” PMHB 5 (1881): 11. 62. Archives of Old Christ Church, microfilm reel 32; “Earliest Extant Minute Books of Congregation Shearith Israel,” 62 – 63. 63. Leon H. Elmaleh and J. Bunford Samuel, The Jewish Cemetery, Ninth and Spruce Streets, Philadelphia (Philadelphia: Congregation Mikveh Israel, 1906), 1–3, 9; Sidney Meshulam Fish, Barnard and Michael Gratz: Their Lives and Times (Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1994), 21; Stern, First American Jewish Families, Levy 1 (1); Wolf and Whiteman, Jews of Philadelphia, 34 –35; Pennsylvania Gazette, January 15, May 16, and June 27, 1754. The following records of indenture are in the Lancaster, Pennsylvania, folder SC 6574, Small Collections, AJA: “Andreas Beyerly & UX. to David Franks & Joseph Simon,” May 2, 1754; “Thomas Smith to David Franks,” May 7, 1754. For more information about Nathan Levy, see Hershkowitz and Meyer, Letters of the Franks Family, and Franks, Letters of Abigaill Levy Franks. 64. Benjamin Dorr, A Historical Account of Christ Church, Philadelphia, from Its Foundation, a.d. 1695 to a.d. 1841 (New York: Swords, Stanford; Philadelphia: R. S. H. George, 1841), 330 –31; Jacob Rader Marcus, ed., American Jewry: Documents—Eighteenth Century (Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1959), 7; Byars, B. and M. Gratz, 32 –33. 65. Hannah Benner Roach, Colonial Philadelphians (Philadelphia: Genealogical Society of Pennsylvania, 1999), “Taxables in Chestnut, Middle and South Wards, 1754,” 77. 66. Fish, Barnard and Michael Gratz, 23 (copied from Etting Collection, HSP). 67. Account Book 1a, selected unnumbered pages, Etting Collection, HSP. This account book is incorrectly labeled “Account Book of David Franks, 1757–1762.” It is actually the account book of Barnard Gratz for his activities outside the Levy and Franks business. See Fish, Barnard and Michael Gratz, 40. Byars, B. and M. Gratz, 32 –36, gives a substantial amount of information about the relationships between David Franks, the Gratz brothers, Joseph Simon, and a number of their close associates. One unfortunate aspect of Byars’s work is his bias in favor of the Gratz brothers and Simon, to whom Byars attributes major roles in the early westward movement. “The success of the firm of Levy and Franks in the West depended first of all on Joseph Simon, though his name appeared only when necessary. . . . These associates of the Croghan group reappear, however, after the close of the war, concerned with Joseph Simon in the Indiana grant, and with the Gratz brothers as well as Joseph Simon, in the Illinois Company, all part of this ‘first American movement West’ ” (33, 36). We find not one word about the influence of David Franks. As  I have demonstrated in this biography, Franks consistently played the leading role in the partnerships that give his name first. When there were losses, his were the greatest, owing to the size of his investments. When the Indiana Company sought a president in its later days, David Franks was chosen. The Illinois and Ouabache Company’s largest voting bloc belonged to David Franks, while Michael Gratz was the “permanent” secretary and took the minutes at meetings. Some letters between the Gratz brothers reflect deference for Franks, which suggests that his status required their respect. Byars’s choice of the Gratz brothers as his subject appears to have clouded his vision. This

212

Notes to Pages 23 –29 flaw notwithstanding, his book is a very valuable resource and should be read by everyone interested in the early westward movement. Byars relies heavily on the Gratz Family Papers held by the Rosenbach Museum and Library in Philadelphia, including some twenty volumes of original manuscripts and other documents that constitute a unique and valuable source of information about the Gratz brothers and their world. 68. Byars, B. and M. Gratz, 32 –33. 69. Fish, Barnard and Michael Gratz, 28, 31; Pennsylvania Gazette, August 2, 1759, June 26 and November 6, 1760; Byars, B. and M. Gratz, 43, 44. 70. Gratz Family Papers, ledger book, 1759 – 63, 1–9, AJA; Evans, “Sketch of Joseph Simon,” 171. 71. Pennsylvania Gazette, August 19 and November 18, 1756. 72. June Avery Snyder and Martin P. Snyder, The Story of the Naomi Wood Collection and Woodford Mansion in Philadelphia’s Fairmont Park (Wayne, Pa.: Haverford House, 1981), 36 –38.

chapter 3 1. Thomas Perkins Abernethy, Western Lands and the American Revolution (New  York: Russell and Russell, 1937), 1–18; Kenneth P. Bailey, ed., The Ohio Company Papers, 1753 –1817: Being Primarily Papers of the “Suffering Traders” of Pennsylvania (Ann Arbor: Edwards Brothers, 1947), 1–18; Seymour I. Schwartz, The French and Indian War, 1754 –1763 (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1994), 3. 2. For a good account of the war, see Fred Anderson, The  War That Made America: A Short History of the French and Indian War (New York: Viking, 2005). 3. Fintan O’Toole, White Savage: William Johnson and the Invention of America (New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2005), 62 – 65. 4. John Arthur Adams, “The Indian Trader of the Upper Ohio Valley,” Western Pennsylvania Historical Magazine 17 (1933): 165. 5. O’Toole, White Savage, 36. 6. In addition to O’Toole, White Savage, see William Johnson, The Papers of Sir William Johnson,  ed.  James  H. Sullivan, Alexander Clarence Flick, and Almon Wheeler Lauber, 14 vols. (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1921– 65). 7. Peter Warren to the Earl of Sandwich, October 4, 1746, American Manuscripts in the Gage Papers, 1731–1874, G/Am/6, no. 22, Sussex Archaeological Society. 8. Richard Aquila, The Iroquois Restoration (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1997), 87. 9. Albert Tangeman Volwiler, George Croghan and the Westward Movement, 1741–1782 (New  York: AMS Press, 1926), 23. I relied primarily on Volwiler’s biography for material about Croghan. There are a number of other useful texts, including Nicholas B. Wainwright, George Croghan, Wilderness Diplomat (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1959). 10. Volwiler, Croghan and the Westward Movement, 44 –45. 11. Henry Bouquet, Papers, ed. Sylvester K. Stevens, Donald H. Kent, and Autumn L. Leonard, 6 vols. (Harrisburg: Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, 1951– 84), 4:547–48. 12. Ibid., 4:566 – 68. 13. Sewell Elias Slick, William Trent and the West (Harrisburg: Archives Publishing, 1947). Slick’s book is the principal source of material on Trent, but several other excellent biographical treatments contain valuable information about his life and activities. These include Trent, Journal of Captain William Trent from Logstown to Pickawillany, a.d. 1752, ed. Alfred Thomas Goodman (Cincinnati: Robert Clarke, 1871), 83 –105; and George  E. Lewis, The  Indiana

213

Notes to Pages 29 –35 Company, 1763 –1798: A Study in Eighteenth Century Frontier Land Speculation and Business Venture (Glendale, Calif.: Arthur H. Clark, 1941). 14. Max Savelle, George Morgan, Colony Builder (New York: AMS Press, 1967), 4. 15. Ibid., 5 –7; Kenneth P. Bailey, The Ohio Company of Virginia and the Westward Movement, 1748 –1792 (Glendale, Calif.: Arthur H. Clark, 1939), 6 –7. 16. Slick, William Trent and the West, 15 –41. 17. Bailey, Ohio Company Papers, 34 –35. 18. Volwiler, Croghan and the Westward Movement, 41–42. 19. Ibid., 51. 20. Pennsylvania Gazette, May 29, 1755. 21. Ibid., March 4, 1755. 22. J. Thomas Scharf and Thompson Westcott, History of Philadelphia, 1609 –1884, 3 vols. (Philadelphia: L. H. Everts, 1884), 2:1003. 23. Oliver DeLancey to Lady Warren, December 20, 1755, American Manuscripts in the Gage Papers, Gage Addit 1201, no. 12, Sussex Archaeological Society. 24. “Earliest Extant Minute Books of Congregation Shearith Israel,” 73, dated April 1756. 25. “The Record Book of the Reverend Jacob Raphael Cohen,” comp. Alan D. Corré, American Jewish Historical Quarterly 59 (1969): 31; Stern, First American Jewish Families, Levy (1) 1. 26. Oliver DeLancey to Lady Warren, October 29, 1756, American Manuscripts in the Gage Papers, Gage Addit 1201, no. 15, Sussex Archaeological Society. 27. “Articles of Agreement Indented, etc.,” January 1, 1757, McAllister Collection, HSP. 28. Pennsylvania Gazette, January 27 and February 10, 1757. 29. Wolf, “Abigail Evans Franks’ Bible,” 138. 30. Balch, Philadelphia Assemblies, 58; Baptismal record for Jacob Franks, son of David and Margaret, April 20, 1747, in Hildeburn, “Records of Christ Church,” 112. 31. Wolf and Whiteman, Jews of Philadelphia, 391n9; George Washington to David Franks, May 1, 1758, in George Washington, The  Writings of George Washington, from the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745 –1799, ed. John C. Fitzpatrick, 39 vols. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1931–44), 2:190. 32. Leon Hühner, “The Jews of Virginia from Earliest Times to the Close of the Eighteenth Century,” PAJHS 20 (1912): 90 –91; David Franks to George Washington, June 27, 1758, in Stanislaus Murray Hamilton, ed., Letters to Washington, 5 vols. (Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1898 –1902), 2:32. 33. John William Fortescue, A History of the British Army, 14 vols. (London: Macmillan, 1910 –30), 2:322 –27. 34. Story, DeLanceys, 69. 35. Irene Stewart,  ed., Letters of General Forbes Relating to the Expedition Against Fort Duquesne in 1758 (Pittsburgh: Allegheny County Committee of the Society of Colonial Dames of America, 1938). 36. DeLancey to Susan Warren, April 25, 1758, American Manuscripts in the Gage Papers, Gage Addit 1201, no. 21, Sussex Archaeological Society. 37. DeLancey to Susan Warren, October 4, 1757, ibid., no. 20. 38. Christopher Kilby to Amherst, April 14, 1759 (enclosure), WO 34/69/85, NA. The contract between the Crown and Baker, Kilby and Baker (WO 34/69/86 – 89) was originally signed on March 26, 1756. A copy was transmitted to Amherst at his request on the date shown. 39. Kilby to Captain Gabriel Christie, September 3, 1759, WO 34/69/81– 82, NA. 40. William Baker and Richard Baker to the Lord Commissioners of His Majesty’s Treasury, September 25, 1759, WO 34/69/158, NA.

214

Notes to Pages 35 – 42 41. DeLancey to Susan Warren, December 16, 1759, American Manuscripts in the Gage Papers, Gage Addit 1201, no. 26, Sussex Archaeological Society. 42. “Articles of Agreement Indented, etc.,” dated December 20, 1759, signed by the consortium but not by the Crown, WO 34/69/160 – 62A, NA. 43. DeLancey to Amherst, February 20, 1760, David Franks file, Small Collections, AJA; [DeLancey] to Moses Franks, February 17, 1760, Moses Franks folder, file P-255, Franks Family Papers, AJHS. 44. Kilby to Smith and Nutt, March 2, 1760, David Franks file, Small Collections, AJA. 45. Plumsted to Bouquet, February 25, 1760, Bouquet, Papers, 4:468 – 69; Bouquet to Plumsted and Franks, February 29, 1760, ibid., 4:473 –74. 46. Byars, B. and M. Gratz, 47. 47. Carriage contract between Plumsted and Franks and General Robert Monckton, May 17, 1760, David Franks file, Small Collections, AJA. 48. Samuel Martin to William Baker, December 6, 1760, and William Baker to Lords of the Treasury, December 9, 1760, both in David Franks file, Small Collections, AJA. See also Hoops to Bouquet, March 14, 1760, Bouquet, Papers, 4:496; July Tulleken to Bouquet, April 2, 1760, ibid., 4:506 –7; Baker quoted in John Read, “General State of Provisions: Western Forts and Posts,” ibid., 4:514 –15.

chapter 4 1. See letters of Philip Cuyler to David Franks, December 19, 1757, January 2, February 18, June 9, August 14, and September 18, 1758, all in Samuel Oppenheim, “David Franks as an Insurance Broker, 1757 and 1758,” PAJHS 26 (1918): 268 –70. 2. Pennsylvania Gazette, April 5, 1759, July 17, August 20, and August 28, 1760. 3. The eighteenth-century spelling of “jail”—gaol—was sometimes rendered as “goal.” 4. Ibid., November 27 and December 4, 1760. 5. Richard Peters to Richard Hockley, March 1, 1759; receipt of Barnard Gratz for Richard Hockley, March 2, 1759, both in Fish, Barnard and Michael Gratz, 31–32. 6. John Morel and Thomas Hooper to David Franks, December 24, 1760; power of attorney from Morel and Hooper to Franks, December 22, 1760, both in David Franks file, Small Collections, AJA; Isaac Martin to Barnard Gratz, March 20, 1760, in Byars, B.  and M. Gratz, 46. 7. Samuel Oppenheim, “The Will of Henry Benjamin Franks, December 13, 1758, and Inventory of His Estate,” PAJHS 25 (1917): 125 –27; Stern, First American Jewish Families, Franks (1) 1; Pennsylvania Gazette, December 28, 1758. 8. Howard C. Douds, “Merchants and Merchandising in Pittsburgh, 1759 –1800,” Western Pennsylvania Historical Magazine 20 (1937): 123 –24. 9. George Croghan to William Trent and Alexander Lowery [sic], with enclosure, February 5, 1761, Bouquet, Papers, 5:282 – 84; Volwiler, Croghan and the Westward Movement, 151. 10. Notes and Queries, PMHB 27 (1903): 375. 11. Bridenbaugh and Bridenbaugh, Rebels and Gentlemen, 156. Colonies were directed by their “proprietors,” who were designated by the king and resided in Britain. The position also carried with it the title of governor. The governors appointed lieutenant governors or deputy governors who resided in the colony and were often known as “governor” despite the reality of their secondary position. Such was the case with John Penn and his brother Richard. 12. Kilby to Amherst, March 25, 1760, WO 34/69/[illegible], NA. 13. Amherst to Kilby, May 6, 1760, WO 34/69/159, NA.

215

Notes to Pages 42 – 47 14. “General Amherst’s Talk to the several Indian Tribes and Nations of Indians, enclosed in his letter to Gen. Stanwix April 28, 1760,” in Aspinwall Papers, ed. Thomas Aspinwall, Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society, 4th ser., vols. 9 and 10 (Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1871), 9:240 –42. 15. Amherst to Monckton, November 3, 1760, ibid., 9:346 –50 (quotation on 347); O’Toole describes Amherst’s attitude toward Indians in White Savage, 213 –16. 16. Bouquet to John Stanwix, April 26, 1760, Aspinwall Papers, 9:243 –45. 17. Peters to Monckton, September 11, 1760, ibid., 9:318 –20. 18. “Robert Callender and Barnabas Hughes: Accounts of Pack Horses, 1759,” August 8, 1759, in Henry Bouquet, The Papers of Col. Henry Bouquet: Series 21631 and Series 21632, ed. Sylvester K. Stevens and Donald H. Kent, 15 vols. (Harrisburg: Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, 1940 –43), 14:183 – 85. 19. “Callender and Hughes: Pack Horse Account,” April 14, 1760, ibid., 4:516. 20. Walker to General John Stanwix, November 5, 1759, ibid., 4:300 –301; Walker to Bouquet, November 5, 1759; ibid., 4:299 –300; Archibald Henderson, Dr. Thomas Walker and the Loyal Company of Virginia (Worcester, Mass.: American Antiquarian Society, 1931), 4 –9, 20 –26, 56 – 66. 21. “Inspection of Meal: Walker’s Contract,” November 27, 1759, Papers of Col. Henry Bouquet, 4:334 –35. 22. Hoops to Bouquet, March 14, 1760, ibid., 4:496; Hoops, memorial to Stanwix, May 9, 1760, ibid., 4:553 –54. Adam Hoops worked as an agent for Baker, Kilby and Baker while they held the victualing contract in America. In this letter, Hoops requests that Stanwix have someone look into Baker, Kilby and Baker’s losses. In addition, he worked as an aide to Bouquet over an extended period of time. Dependability was his principal attribute, and he was loyal to his employers to a fault. No biography of Hoops is available to fill in essential parts of his early life or provide details of his many other business ventures. He did marry and have a family, to whom he left considerable real estate and other assets. He died in 1771. 23. Agreement between General Robert Monckton and the firm of Plumsted and Franks, May 17, 1760, WO 34/69/164, NA. 24. “Public Account of Walker,” May 20, 1760, Bouquet, Papers, 4:571. 25. Pennsylvania Gazette, May 29 and June 19, 1760. 26. Hoops to Bouquet, June 9, 1760, Bouquet, Papers, 4:589. 27. Hoops to Bouquet, July 9, 1760, Aspinwall Papers, 9:263 – 64. 28. Hoops to Bouquet, October 14, 1760, Bouquet, Papers, 5:70 –71. 29. Pennsylvania Gazette, October 30, 1760, February 19, 1761. 30. Stephen to Bouquet, April 1, 1761, Bouquet, Papers, 5:386 – 87.

chapter 5 1. Wilson and Fiske, Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 4:43. 2. Philadelphia Information Locator Service, “Mayors of the City of Philadelphia, 1691–2000,” http://www.phila.gov/PHILS/Mayorlst.htm. 3. Wilson and Fiske, Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 4:43. 4. “The Crown in Account with William Plumsted and David Franks,” company claim for May 1760 –May 1761, dated June 10, 1761, Horatio Gates Papers, New-York Historical Society; Frances Dublin, “Jewish Colonial Enterprise in the Light of the Amherst Papers,” PAJHS 35 (1939): 20 –24, quoting WO 34/69/160 – 61, NA.  The  Colebrooke, Nesbitt, Colebrooke and Franks contract covered provisions for thirty-five thousand troops for one year at 4 ¾ pence per ration. Assuming that one-quarter of the troops were located in the

216

Notes to Pages 47 –52 Pennsylvania-Delaware area, Plumsted and Franks would have delivered that value of victuals. The constant movement and reassignment of troops makes accurate accounting impossible. 5. Plumsted and Franks to Bouquet, July 1, 1761, Bouquet, Papers, 5:611–12. 6. Lewis Ourry to Bouquet, July 6, 1761, ibid., 5:616 –17. 7. Plumsted and Franks to Bouquet, August 22, 1761, ibid., 5:706 –7. 8. Bouquet to Hoops, March 5, 1764, Papers of Col. Henry Bouquet, 13:265 – 66. 9. Lunan to Bouquet, June 18, 1760, Bouquet, Papers, 4:602 –3; Lunan to Bouquet, November 5, 1760, ibid., 5:101–2. Lunan was a Philadelphia merchant who provided military supplies to Washington in 1756 and had an ongoing business relationship with Bouquet. In this letter he wrote of enjoying a day at the Mount Regale Fishing Company, a social club for some sixty prominent citizens of Philadelphia. However, the 1762 – 63 list of members does not include Lunan; see “The Mount Regale Fishing Company of Philadelphia,” PMHB 27 (1903): 88 – 89. 10. Shelby to Bouquet, October 3, 1761, Bouquet, Papers, 5:794 –95. 11. Bouquet to Plumsted and Franks, October 22, 1761, ibid., 5:832 –33. 12. Plumsted and Franks to Bouquet, November 3, 1761, Papers of Col. Henry Bouquet, 7:179 – 80. 13. Plumsted and Franks to St. Clair, December 1, 1761, David Franks file, Small Collections, AJA; Bouquet to Plumsted and Franks, December 26, 1761, Papers of Col.  Henry Bouquet, 13:96 –97. 14. Bouquet to Plumsted and Franks, December 26, 1761, Papers of Col. Henry Bouquet, 13:100 –101; Plumsted and Franks to Bouquet, January 22, 1762, ibid., vol. 8, part 1, 8 –9. 15. Plumsted and Franks to Amherst, December 10, 1761; Amherst to Plumsted and Franks, December 16, 1761, both in WO 34/69/243, NA. 16. Colebrooke, Nesbitt, Colebrooke and Franks to DeLancey and Watts, May 1, 1760, WO 34/69/6, NA. 17. DeLancey and Watts to Plumsted and Franks, September 17, 1761, WO 34/69/242, NA. 18. Plumsted and Franks to Amherst, January 29, 1762, WO 34/69/167, NA; Amherst to Plumsted and Franks, February 3, 1762, WO 34/69/244, NA; Plumsted and Franks to Amherst, February 15, 1762, WO 34/69/168, NA; “Notes to General Concerning Flood at Fort Pitt,” January 9, 1762, Papers of Col. Henry Bouquet, 13:101–4. 19. Plumsted and Franks to Bouquet, February 17, 1762, Papers of Col. Henry Bouquet, vol. 8, part 1, 28; Plumsted and Franks to Bouquet, March 3, 1762, ibid., 40; Plumsted and Franks to Bouquet, ibid., 42. 20. Bouquet to Plumsted and Franks, March 29, 1762, ibid., 13:118 –19; Plumsted and Franks to Bouquet, May 6, 1762, WO 34/69/79, NA. 21. Amherst to Plumsted, April 4, 1762, WO 34/69/27; Amherst to Plumsted, April 5, 1762, WO 34/69/248; Plumsted to Amherst, April 8, 1762, WO 34/69/170; Amherst to Plumsted, April 10, 1762, WO 34/69/249; Plumsted to Amherst, April 12, 1762, WO 34/69/171–72; Amherst to Plumsted, April 15, 1762, WO 34/69/250, NA. 22. Plumsted and Franks to Amherst, February 25, 1762, WO 34/69/169; Amherst to Plumsted and Franks, March 2, 1762, WO 34/69/246; Plumsted and Franks to Amherst, April 19, 1762, WO 34/69/176; Plumsted and Franks to Amherst, April 19, 1762, WO 34/69/177; Amherst to Plumsted and Franks, April 22, 1762, WO 34/69/253; Plumsted to Amherst, June 19, 1762, WO 34/69/195; Amherst to Plumsted, June 22, 1762, WO 34/69/264; Plumsted and Franks to Amherst, September 20, 1762, WO 34/69/203, NA. 23. Amherst to Plumsted, April 16, 1762, WO 34/69/251; Plumsted to Amherst, April 18, 1762, WO 34/69/173; Plumsted to Amherst, April 19, 1762, WO 34/69/174; Plumsted to Amherst, April 19, 1762, WO 34/69/175; Amherst to Plumsted, April 22, 1762, WO 34/69/252; Plumsted to Amherst, April 26, 1762, WO 34/69/179 – 81; Amherst to Plumsted,

217

Notes to Pages 52 –58 April 29, 1762, WO 34/69/254; Plumsted to Amherst, April 29, 1762, WO 34/69/182; Amherst to Plumsted, May 1, 1762, WO 34/69/256; Plumsted to Amherst, May 5, 1762, WO 34/69/185; Amherst to Plumsted, May 7, 1762, WO 34/69/258; Plumsted to Amherst, May 18, 1762, WO 34/69/188; Amherst to Plumsted, May 23, 1762, WO 34/69/259; Plumsted to Amherst, May 31, 1762, WO 34/69/189, NA. 24. Amherst to Plumsted, June 6, 1762, WO 34/69/260; Plumsted to Amherst, June 7, 1762, WO 34/69/190; Plumsted to Amherst, June 12, 1762, WO 34/69/193; Plumsted to Amherst, June 17, 1762, WO 34/69/194; Amherst to Plumsted, June 12, 1762, WO 34/69/261; Amherst to Plumsted, June 16, 1762, WO 34/69/262; Amherst to Plumsted, June 19, 1762, WO 34/69/263; Plumsted to Amherst, June 19, 1762, WO 34/69/195; Amherst to Plumsted, June 22, 1762, WO 34/69/264; Plumsted to Amherst, July 1, 1762, WO 34/69/267. 25. Blane to Bouquet, July 31, 1762, Papers of Col. Henry Bouquet, vol. 8, part 2, 32 –33; Franks to Bouquet, August 15, 1762, ibid., 60; John Read to Bouquet, August 15, 1762, ibid., 57; Blane to Bouquet, August 15, 1762, ibid., 58. 26. Bouquet to Franks, August 18, 1762, ibid., 65; Franks to Bouquet, September 4, 1762, ibid., 83; Slick, William Trent and the West, 103 –4. 27. Amherst to Plumsted, July 4, 1762, WO 34/69/265; Plumsted to Amherst, July 8, 1762, WO 34/69/197; Amherst to Plumsted, July 11, 1762, WO 34/69/266; Plumsted to Amherst, July 15, 1762, WO 34/69/198; Plumsted to Amherst, July 15, 1762, WO 34/69/199; Amherst to Plumsted, July 18, 1762, WO 34/69/267; Plumsted to Amherst, July 30, 1762, WO 34/69/200, NA. 28. Plumsted to Amherst, July 30, 1762, WO 34/69/200; Plumsted and Franks to Amherst, September 20, 1762, WO 34/69/203; Amherst to Plumsted and Franks, October 7, 1762, WO 34/69/268, NA. 29. Plumsted and Franks to Amherst, October 2, 1762, WO 34/69/204, NA; Plumsted and Franks to Bouquet, October 27, 1762, and Robert Lake and J. Robinson to Bouquet, November 23, 1762, both in Papers of Col. Henry Bouquet, vol. 8, part 2, 134 –35 and 164 – 68, respectively. 30. Unsigned, undated draft of contract between the Crown and the London contractors prepared for signature by Sir Jeffrey Amherst (for the Crown) and Plumsted and Franks (for the contractors), WO 34/69/206; unsigned draft of contract between the Crown and the London contractors dated January 24, 1763, WO 34/69/207; Amherst to Plumsted and Franks, January 26, 1763, WO 34/69/269; Plumsted and Franks to Amherst, February 5, 1763, WO 34/69/209; Amherst to Plumsted and Franks, February 11, 1763, WO 34/69/270, NA. 31. Harold Gillingham, “Indian Silver Ornaments,” PMHB 58 (1934): 113.

chapter 6 1. McKee to Barnard Gratz, July 9, 1761; power of attorney from Bush and Franks to Michael Gratz, May 8, 1763; Franks to Michael Gratz, June 12, 1763, all quoted in Byars, B. and M. Gratz, 54, 64, and 65, respectively. 2. O’Callaghan, Colonial History of New York, 7:548ff. 3. Anderson, War That Made America, 233; O’Toole, White Savage, 235 –37. 4. Volwiler, Croghan and the Westward Movement, 163. 5. Orders sent to the officers commanding the communication to Fort Pitt, March 8, 1763, David Franks file, Small Collections, AJA. 6. Volwiler, Croghan and the Westward Movement, 159 – 63; Slick, William Trent and the West, 102. 7. O’Toole, White Savage, 233 –49; Volwiler, Croghan and the Westward Movement, 163 – 64; Anderson, War That Made America, 236.

218

Notes to Pages 58 – 68 8. O’Toole, White Savage, 245. 9. Plumsted and Franks to Bouquet, June 4, 1763, Papers of Col. Henry Bouquet, vol. 9, part 1, 132; Plumsted and Franks to Amherst, June 15, 1763, WO 34/69/212; Amherst to Plumsted and Franks, June 19, 1763, WO 34/69/271; Plumsted and Franks to Amherst, June 23, 1763, WO 34/69/213 –14; Amherst to Plumsted and Franks, June 25, 1763, WO 34/69/272, NA. 10. Plumsted to Bouquet, June 28, 1763, Bouquet, Papers, 6:270. 11. Anderson, War That Made America, 236; Volwiler, Croghan and the Westward Movement, 135. 12. “Levy, Trent and Company: Account Against the Crown,” August 13, 1763, Papers of Col. Henry Bouquet, 14:218 –19. 13. Bouquet to Plumsted and Franks, July 19, 1763, Bouquet, Papers, 6:320 –21; Bouquet to John McDowell, July 21, 1763, Papers of Col. Henry Bouquet, 13:203 –4. 14. Bouquet to Amherst, August 5, 1763, Bouquet, Papers, 6:338 –40; Bouquet to Amherst, August 6, 1763, ibid., 6:342 –44. 15. Earl of Egremont to Gage, August 13, 1763, in Clarence Edwin Carter, ed., The Correspondence of General Thomas Gage with the Secretaries of State, and with the War Office and the Treasury, 1763 –1775, 2 vols. (New Haven: Yale University Press, 1933), 2:1; Egremont to Amherst, August 13, 1763, ibid., 2:207–9. 16. E.  James Ferguson, The  Power of the Purse: A  History of American Public Finance, 1776 –1790 (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1961), 7. 17. Snyder and Snyder, Naomi Wood Collection and Woodford Mansion, 40. 18. “Proceedings of a Meeting of Traders,” in Johnson, Papers of Sir William Johnson, 4:264 – 66; “A Memorial of Merchants,” ibid., 270 –71; Lewis, Indiana Company, 38 –42; Slick, William Trent and the West, 128; Bailey, Ohio Company Papers, 8 –9. 19. Volwiler, Croghan and the Westward Movement, 168 –77; Bailey, Ohio Company Papers, 9 –10; Lewis, Indiana Company, 42 –44. 20. Lewis, Indiana Company, 45 –46; Slick, William Trent and the West, 129 –31. 21. Pennsylvania Gazette, December 8, 1763. 22. Bailey, Ohio Company Papers, 1–18. 23. Abernethy, Western Lands and the American Revolution, 5. 24. Ibid., 7. 25. Ibid., 8. 26. Slick, William Trent and the West, 127–29, 131. 27. Ibid., 131–35. 28. Egremont to Amherst, August 13, 1763, in O’Callaghan, Colonial History of New York, 7:538 –41. 29. Ibid., 7:541. 30. Amherst to Plumsted and Franks, July 3, 1763, WO 34/69/275; Plumsted and Franks to Amherst, July 3, 1763, WO 34/69/218; Plumsted and Franks to Amherst, August 29, 1763, WO 34/69/222; Amherst to Plumsted and Franks, September 1, 1763, PRO WO 34/69/278, NA. 31. Bouquet to Plumsted and Franks, July 19, 1763, Bouquet, Papers, 6:320 –21. 32. Plumsted and Franks to Amherst, July 28, 1763, WO 34/69/220; Amherst to Plumsted and Franks, July 31, 1763, WO 34/69/276, NA. 33. Plumsted and Franks to Amherst, August 22, 1763, WO 34/69/221; Amherst to Plumsted and Franks, August 25, 1763, WO 34/69/277; Plumsted and Franks to Amherst, August 29, 1763, WO 34/69/222, NA. 34. Franks to Bouquet, August 29, 1763, Papers of Col. Henry Bouquet, vol. 9, part 2, 33; George Harrison Fisher, “Brigadier-General Henry Bouquet,” PMHB 3 (1879): 121–35. 35. Amherst to Plumsted and Franks, September 1, 1763, WO 34/69/278, NA. 36. Plumsted and Franks to Amherst, September 5, 1763, WO 34/69/223 –25, NA.

219

Notes to Pages 68 –76 37. Plumsted and Franks to Bouquet, August 30, 1763, Papers of Col.  Henry Bouquet, vol. 9, part 2, 35 –36. 38. Bouquet to Plumsted and Franks, September 11, 1763, ibid., 13:220 –21. 39. Amherst to Plumsted and Franks, September 11, 1763, WO 34/69/279, NA. 40. Plumsted and Franks to Bouquet, September 14, 1763, Papers of Col. Henry Bouquet, vol. 9, part 2, 47–49. 41. “From Richard Shuckburgh, etc.,” reporting a letter from William Johnson to David Franks, September 17, 1763, in Johnson, Papers of Sir William Johnson, 2:204. 42. Pennsylvania Gazette, September 15 and 22, 1763. 43. Amherst to Plumsted and Franks, September 18, 1763, WO 34/69/280, NA. 44. Bouquet to Plumsted and Franks, September 30, 1763, Bouquet, Papers, 6:418 –21. 45. Plumsted to Bouquet, October 2, 1763, ibid., 6:424 –26. 46. Franks to Bouquet, November 1, 1763, ibid., 6:444 –45. 47. Plumsted and Franks to Bouquet, November 4, 1763, Papers of Col. Henry Bouquet, vol. 9, part 2, 126 –27.

chapter 7 1. Johnson, Papers of Sir William Johnson, 4:264 – 66. 2. “Memorandum to David Franks,” December 2, 1763, in Watts, Letter Book of John Watts, 205 – 6. 3. Plumsted and Franks to [Gage], December 12, 1763, sec.  7, group 1148, Thomas Gage Papers, William  L. Clements Library, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (hereafter Thomas Gage Papers); Plumsted and Franks to Bouquet, December 12, 1763, Papers of Col. Henry Bouquet, vol. 9, part 2, 174 –75. 4. Gage to Plumsted and Franks, December 15, 1763, sec. 10, group 733, Thomas Gage Papers. 5. Gage to Plumsted and Franks, December 15, 1763 (second letter, same day), ibid. 6. Gage to Plumsted and Franks, December 19, 1763; Gage to Plumsted and Franks, December 22, 1763; [Gage] to Charles Jenkinson, secretary to the treasury, December 9, 1763, all in Carter, Correspondence of Gage, 2:215 –17. 7. John Richard Alden, General Gage in America (Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1948), 11–18, 21–31. 8. Ibid., 34 –47; Daniel  J. Beattie, “The Adaptation of the British Army to Wilderness Warfare, 1755 –1763,” in Adapting to Conditions: War and Society in the Eighteenth Century, ed. Maarten Ultee (Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1986), 70 –71. 9. Alden, General Gage in America, 54 – 63. 10. Gage to Plumsted and Franks, March 5, 1764, sec. 7, group 733, Thomas Gage Papers. 11. Bouquet to Plumsted and Franks, March 7, 1764, David Franks file, Small Collections, AJA; Plumsted and Franks to Bouquet, March 14, 1764, Papers of Col. Henry Bouquet, vol. 10, part 1, 58 –59. 12. Bouquet to Captain Robert Callender, June 6, 1764, and March 13, 1764, Bouquet, Papers, 6:561– 62. 13. Gregory B. Keen, “The Descendants of Jören Kyn, the Founder of Upland: YeatesLathin-Medford-McCall-Inglis-Barkly-Hering-Dow,” PMHB 5 (1881): 335 –39. 14. Bouquet to Callender, June 6, 1764, Bouquet, Papers, 6:561– 62. 15. Gage to Whately, July 11, 1764; “Inclosure” from Gage to Robert Leake, June 22, 1764; “Inclosure” from Gage to Leake, June 22, 1764 (second letter); “Inclosure” from Gage to Plumsted and Franks, June 22, 1764, all in Carter, Correspondence of Gage, 2:231–33.

220

Notes to Pages 76 – 86 16. Gage to Bouquet, July 18, 1764, David Franks file, Small Collections, AJA. 17. Gage to Whately, August 10, 1764, in Carter, Correspondence of Gage, 2:237–39. 18. John Watts to Moses Franks, August 11, 1764, in Watts, Letter Book of John Watts, 279 – 80. 19. Gage to Franks, August 12, 1764, sec. 10, group 690, Thomas Gage Papers; Franks to Bouquet, August 14, 1764, David Franks file, SC 3649, Small Collections, AJA. 20. Franks to Gage, August 15, 1764, sec. 7, group 1150, Thomas Gage Papers. 21. Franks, Inglis and Barkly to Gage, October 1, 1764, David Franks file, SC 9296, Small Collections, AJA. 22. Gage to Inglis, Franks and Barkly, October 8, 1764, ibid. 23. Ibid.

chapter 8 1. Bouquet to Governor Penn and the commissioners of Pennsylvania, June 4, 1764, Bouquet, Papers, 6:554 –56. 2. Bouquet, orders to the contractors’ agents in Philadelphia, June 16, 1764, and June 23, 1764, both in Papers of Col. Henry Bouquet, 13:302 –3 and 304, respectively. 3. Gage to Plumsted and Franks, June 22, 1764, in Carter, Correspondence of Gage, 2:234 –36. 4. “Inclosure” to articles of agreement between Callender and Leake (on behalf of the Crown), July 6, 1764, ibid., 2:250 –52; Bouquet to Gage, c. February 1765 (probably after February 25), Papers of Col. Henry Bouquet, 11:147. 5. Gage to Whately, October 10, 1764, with “inclosure”; Gage to DeLancey and Watts, October 7, 1764, both in Carter, Correspondence of Gage, 2:242 –43. 6. Watts to Moses Franks, October 11, 1764, in Watts, Letter Book of John Watts, 295 –97. 7. Franks, Inglis and Barkly to Gage, October 17, 1764, sec.  7, group 1153, Thomas Gage Papers. 8. Watts to Moses Franks, November 6, 1764, in Watts, Letter Book of John Watts, 305 – 6. 9. Gage to Amherst, November 7, 1764, in Carter, Correspondence of Gage, 2:253 –54. 10. Franks, Inglis and Barkly to Gage, November 28, 1764, sec. 7, group 1153, Thomas Gage Papers. 11. Gage to Inglis, January 17, 1765, sec. 10, group 709, ibid.; Gage to Whately, January 23, 1765, in Carter, Correspondence of Gage, 2:266 – 67. 12. Watts to Moses Franks, January 25, 1765, in Watts, Letter Book of John Watts, 327–28. 13. Articles of agreement between Gage (for the Crown) and Franks and Inglis (for Fludyer, Drummond and Franks), February 4, 1765, sec. 10, group 709, Thomas Gage Papers. 14. Watts to Moses Franks, February 24, 1765, in Watts, Letter Book of John Watts, 335. 15. DeLancey to Susan Warren, February 23, 1765, American Manuscripts in the Gage Papers, Gage Addit, no. 1201, part 2, no. 48, Sussex Archaeological Society. 16. Gage to Inglis, Franks and Barkly, April 4, 1765; Gage to Inglis, Franks and Barclay [sic], May 9, 1765; Gage to Inglis, Barclay [sic] and Franks, December 9, 1765, all in sec. 10, Group 709, Thomas Gage Papers. 17. Savelle, George Morgan, Colony Builder, 18 –19. 18. Ibid., 20; Volwiler, George Croghan and the Westward Movement, 178 –79. 19. Savelle, George Morgan, Colony Builder, 21; Volwiler, Croghan and the Westward Movement, 179 – 80. 20. Savelle, George Morgan, Colony Builder, 21–23. 21. Volwiler, Croghan and the Westward Movement, 181. 22. Savelle, George Morgan, Colony Builder, 20 –37.

221

Notes to Pages 86 – 90 23. Ibid., 48; Grey Cooper to Gage, August 20, 1766, enclosing articles of agreement between Nesbitt, Drummond and Franks (contactors) and the Lords of the Treasury, undated, Thomas Gage Papers. 24. [Baynton, Wharton and Morgan] to Franklin, August 28 (?), 1766, in Clarence Walworth Alvord and Clarence Edwin Carter,  eds., The  New Régime, 1765 –1767 (Springfield: Illinois State Historical Library, 1916), 364 – 66. 25. Baynton, Wharton and Morgan to Sir William Johnson, August 28, 1766, ibid., 366 – 68. 26. Gage to Franks, Inglis and Barclay [sic], December 4, 1766, sec.  10, group 709, Thomas Gage Papers. 27. Baynton, Wharton and Morgan to Lauchlin MacLeane, January 9, 1767, in Alvord and Carter, New Régime, 473 –76. 28. MacLeane to Shelburne, undated, ibid., 478 –79. 29. Morgan to Baynton and Wharton, July 11, 1768, in Clarence Walworth Alvord and Clarence Edwin Carter, eds., Trade and Politics, 1767–1769 (Springfield: Illinois State Historical Library, 1921), 347–51. 30. Gage to Grey Cooper, January 28, 1767, and February 23, 1767, both in Carter, Correspondence of Gage, 407 and 411, respectively. 31. Savelle, George Morgan, Colony Builder, 47–49. 32. Ibid., 55; Marcus, Colonial American Jew, 2:593. 33. Byars, B. and M. Gratz, “Connection of Papers and Events,” 103 –4. 34. B. and M. Gratz to Murray, April 5, 1770, ibid., 110. 35. Charles M. Thomas, “Successful and Unsuccessful Merchants in the Illinois Country,” Illinois State Historical Society Journal 30 (1937–38): 429 –40. 36. George Morgan to Franks and Co., December 29, 1770; I. Morris (for J. Rumsey), “Recap for 951 Blankets,” February 5, 1771; George Morgan and James Rumsey, “Agreement to have Windsor Brown of Kaskaskia make final judgment of disputed items of sale,” February 11, 1771; Windsor Brown, “Decision to have each side name an ‘Honest Man’ to be judges of the acceptability of goods to be sold,” February 13, 1771; Windsor Brown to James Rumsey, February 15, 1771; “Award of Louis Viviat in George Morgan and James Rumsey’s differences relative to saleable Goods,” February 16, 1771; “Windsor Brown’s Award relative to the dis[puted] Goods sold to Messrs. Franks & Co.,” February 16, 1771; “Windsor Brown’s Summary of Accounts for goods sold by George Morgan to James Rumsey & William Murray,” February 23, 1771; Rumsey to Morgan, March 10, 1771; Rumsey to Morgan, March 15, 1771; Morgan to Rumsey, March 15, 1771; power of attorney, James Rumsey to David Franks, April 20, 1771; Thomas Hutchins, deposition regarding sale of goods, November 30, 1771; Rumsey to Baynton, Wharton and Morgan, April 10, 1772; power of attorney from James Rumsey to David Franks, Barnard Gratz, and Michael Gratz, May 15, 1772; John Finley, deposition, October 28, 1772, all in Franks file, Small Collections, AJA. See also “Sequestered Baynton, Wharton and Morgan Papers, 1725 –1827, Correspondence of James Rumsey and Windsor Brown, 1769 –1770,” manuscript group 19, Pennsylvania State Archives, Harrisburg. 37. Savelle, George Morgan, Colony Builder, 73. 38. Thomas Wharton to Samuel Wharton, May 17, 1774, in “Selections from the Letter Book of Thomas Wharton, of Philadelphia, 1773 –1783,” PMHB 33 (1909): 333.

chapter 9 1. O’Toole, White Savage, 269. 2. “Merchants Resist Britain: The Non-Importation Agreement of Philadelphia, October 25, 1765,” in Morris  U. Schappes,  ed., A  Documentary History of the Jews in the United

222

Notes to Pages 90 –100 States, 1654 –1875 (New York: Citadel Press, 1950), 38 –40; Pennsylvania Gazette, November 7, 1765. 3. Gage to Henry Seymour Conway, November 4, 8, and 23, 1765, in Carter, Correspondence of Gage, 1:70 –73. 4. Gage to Conway, October 12, 1765, ibid., 1:69 –70. 5. Franks and Inglis to Gage, December 12, 1765, sec. 7, group 1154, Thomas Gage Papers; Geoffrey Seed, “A British Spy in Philadelphia, 1775 –1777,” PMHB 85 (1961): 3 –37. 6. Wharton to Benjamin Franklin, August 14, 1765, in Alvord and Carter, New Régime, 73 –75. 7. Gage to Conway, December 21, 1765, in Carter, Correspondence of Gage, 1:75 –76. 8. Watts to Moses Franks, June 8, 1765, and August 17, 1765, in Watts, Letter Book of John Watts, 357 and 376 –77, respectively. 9. Marcus, Colonial American Jew, 2:741. 10. “Earliest Extant Minute Books of Congregation Shearith Israel,” 101, 102, September 11 and 19, 1765; Franks to Barnard Gratz, October 10, 1765, David Franks file, SC 3648, Small Collections, AJA. 11. Watts to Moses Franks, October 12, 1765, in Watts, Letter Book of John Watts, 392 –93. 12. Israel Solomons, “The Genealogy of the Franks Family,” PAJHS 18 (1910): 213 –14. 13. Cecil Roth, “Membership of the Great Synagogue, London to 1791,” Transactions and Miscellanies of the Jewish Historical Society of England (1962): 179. 14. Pennsylvania Gazette, January 14, 1768. 15. Hamilton to William Tilghman Jr., April 1779, quoted in Jacobs, “William Hamilton and the Woodlands,” 186, copied from Society Collection, HSP. 16. Jacob Franks to David Franks, transferring power of attorney given to Jacob Franks by Moses Franks of London, March 20, 1767, David Franks file, Small Collections, AJA. 17. Levy and Franks to Gage, March 16, 1768, sec. 7, group 1160, Thomas Gage Papers; Gage to Levy and Franks, March 24, 1768, sec. 10, group 711, ibid. 18. Franks to Barnard Gratz, January 29, 1769, Society Collection, HSP. 19. Letter of administration naming Richa Franks and John Harris Cruger joint administrators of the estate of Jacob Franks, died January 31, 1769, Surrogate’s Court, County of New York, David Franks file, Small Collections, AJA. 20. “Earliest Extant Minute Books of Congregation Shearith Israel,” 102, February 19, 1769. 21. Franks to Gage, February 1, 1769, sec. 7, group 1150, Thomas Gage Papers; Gage to Franks, February 1, 1769, sec. 10, group 690, ibid. 22. Power of attorney, Isaac Levy to David Franks, March 20, 1769, David Franks file, Small Collections, AJA. 23. Jack  M. Sosin, “The Yorke-Camden Opinion and American Land Speculators,” PMHB 85 (1961): 38 –49. 24. Clarence Walworth Alvord, The Mississippi Valley in British Politics, 2 vols. (Cleveland: Arthur H. Clark, 1917), 1:13. 25. George Henry Alden, New Governments West of the Alleghanies Before 1780 (Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1897), 46. 26. Alvord, Mississippi Valley in British Politics, 2:98n. 27. Lewis Indiana Company, 94; Alvord, Mississippi Valley in British Politics, 2:80. 28. Pennsylvania Gazette, March 10, 1773. 29. Ibid., June 9, 1773. 30. Lewis, Indiana Company, 170. 31. Ibid., 183 – 85. 32. JCC, June 17, 1781, 20:704; July 23, 1781, 20:781; July 24, 1781, 20:784.

223

Notes to Pages 100 –109 33. Clarence Walworth Alvord and Clarence E. Carter, eds., The Critical Period, 1763 –1765 (Springfield: Illinois State Historical Library, 1915), xxiv. 34. Byars, B. and M. Gratz, 136 –37. 35. Abernethy, Western Lands and the American Revolution, 116 –22. 36. Lord Dartmouth to Earl of Dunmore, September 8, 1774, Aspinwall Papers, 10:724 –28. 37. “Indian Deed No. 2, Illinois and Wabash Land Companies,” 11th Cong., 3d sess., no. 177, December 10, 1810, American State Papers, 2, Public Lands, 119 –20. 38. Ibid., 2:108ff.

chapter 10 1. Gage to Levy and Franks, January 10, 1770, sec.  10, group 711; Levy and Franks to Gage, January 18, 1770, sec. 7, group 1160; Gage to Levy and Franks, February 9, 1770, sec. 10, group 711; Levy and Franks to Gage, February 19, 1770, sec. 7, group 1160, all in Thomas Gage Papers. 2. Gage to Hillsborough, April 10, 1770, in Carter, Correspondence of Gage, 1:248 –51. 3. Alvord, Mississippi Valley in British Politics, 2:26 –28. 4. Viscount Barrington to Gage, December 12, 1767, in John Shy, “Confronting Rebellion: Private Correspondence of Lord Barrington with General Gage, 1765 –1775,” in Sources of American Independence, Selected Manuscripts from the Collections of the William L. Clements Library, ed. Howard Henry Peckham, 2 vols. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978), 1:32 –33. 5. Gage to Barrington, June 17, 1768, in Carter, Correspondence of Gage, 2:477–78. 6. Byars, B. and M. Gratz, 103 –4. 7. Ibid., 102 –3; Wolf and Whiteman, Jews of Philadelphia, 51–52, 70; Samuel Oppenheim, “The Chapters of Isaac the Scribe: A Bibliographical Rarity, New York, 1772,” PAJHS 22 (1914): 39 –51; Hershkowitz and Meyer, Letters of the Franks Family, letter 29, David Franks to Naphtali Franks, March 14, 1743. 8. Jack M. Sosin, Whitehall and the Wilderness: The Middle West in British Colonial Policy, 1760 –1775 (Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1961), 79 –97; Alvord, Mississippi Valley in British Politics. 9. Alden, General Gage in America, 151. 10. Gage to Hillsborough, October 31, 1768, in Carter, Correspondence of Gage, 2:202 –5. 11. Gage to Bradshaw, September 9, 1769, ibid., 2:522 –23. 12. Carl Bridenbaugh, Cities in Revolt: Urban Life in America, 1743 –1776 (New  York: Knopf, 1955), 145. 13. Wilson and Fiske, Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography, 3:260 – 61; Whitfield J. Bell, Patriot-Improvers: Biographical Sketches of Members of the American Philosophical Society, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1997–99), 1:13. 14. Snyder and Snyder, Naomi Wood Collection and Woodford Mansion, 24 –28; George Englert McCracken, The Welcome Claimants, Proved, Disproved, and Doubtful, with an Account of Some of Their Descendants (Baltimore: Genealogical Publication Co., 1970), 202 –3, 208. 15. Horace Wemyss Smith, Life and Correspondence of the Rev. William Smith, D.D., 2 vols. (Philadelphia: S. A. George, 1879 – 80; reprint, New York: Arno Press, 1972), 1:152. 16. Snyder and Snyder, Naomi Wood Collection and Woodford Mansion, 33, 41–42. 17. Ibid., 41; Pennsylvania Gazette, June 13, 1771. 18. Gage to Levy and Franks, August 16, 1772, sec. 10, group 711, Thomas Gage Papers. 19. Wayne L. Bockelman and Owen S. Ireland, “The Internal Revolution in Pennsylvania: An Ethnic-Religious Interpretation,” Pennsylvania History 41 (1974): 127. 20. Ibid.

224

Notes to Pages 109 –115 21. Richard Alan Ryerson, The Revolution Is Now Begun: The Radical Committees of Philadelphia, 1765 –1776 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1978). 22. Ibid., 29. 23. Ibid., 79. 24. Richard Alan Ryerson, “Political Mobilization and the American Revolution: The  Resistance Movement in Philadelphia, 1765 to 1776,” William and Mary Quarterly, 3d ser., 31 (1974): 573. 25. “Petitions for a New Road—1770,” in Marcus, American Jewry, 85 – 86. 26. Gage to Levy and Franks, February 9, 1771, sec. 10, group 711, Thomas Gage Papers. 27. Hillsborough to Gage, July 31, 1770, in Carter, Correspondence of Gage, 2:107–9. 28. Pennsylvania Gazette, October 25, 1770. 29. Pennsylvania Journal and Weekly Advertiser, October 6, 1771; Pennsylvania Gazette, November 14, 1771; Moses Franks to Franks, February 7, 1772, David Franks file, Small Collections, AJA. 30. Pennsylvania Gazette, July 14, August 10, and September 16, 1772; Moses Franks to Isaac Levy, November 3, 1772, David Franks file, Small Collections, AJA. 31. Franks to Moses Franks, October 5, 1773, David Franks file, Small Collections, AJA. 32. “Bill of Complaint issued by Moses Franks against Robert Cornthwaite, William Stoad, William Thomson, John Waugh, Timothy Bevan, Jr., Gavin Elliot, Joseph Bland, Benjamin Chalie, William Ross, Gilbert Bertram, James Bradley and Thomas Stevenson,” March 15, 1774, C 12/936/245, NA. 33. Robert Brunhouse, The  Counter-Revolution in Pennsylvania, 1776 –1790 (Harrisburg: Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, 1942), 10 –11; David Ammerman, In the Common Cause: American Response to the Coercive Acts of 1774 (Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1974). 34. Elisha  P. Douglass, Rebels and Democrats: The  Struggle for Equal Political Rights and Majority Rule During the American Revolution (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1955), 263; David Freeman Hawke, In the Midst of a Revolution (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1961), 111–79. 35. Brunhouse, Counter-Revolution in Pennsylvania, 12 –13. 36. Ryerson, “Political Mobilization and the American Revolution,” 584.

chapter 11 1. Thomas Wharton to Samuel Wharton, May 17, 1774, “Selections from the Letter Book of Thomas Wharton,” 333. 2. Savelle, George Morgan, Colony Builder, 73. 3. Byars, B. and M. Gratz, 106 –7. 4. Pennsylvania Gazette, May 12, 1773. 5. “Account of the Arrival and Departure of the Tea-Ship at Philadelphia in 1773,” PMHB 14 (1890): 77–79; Frederick D. Stone, “How the Landing of Tea Was Opposed in Philadelphia by Colonel William Bradford and Others in 1773,” PMHB 15 (1891): 385 –93. 6. Samuel Oppenheim, “David Franks’ Interest in Lands in Virginia, in 1774,” PAJHS 25 (1917): 119 –20; petition to Lord Dunmore from Illinois & Ouabache Co., April 19, 1774, CO5/1352/151–55, NA. 7. Dartmouth to Dunmore, September 8, 1774, Aspinwall Papers, 10:724 –28. 8. Gage to Dartmouth, July 18, 1774, in Carter, Correspondence of Gage, 2:360. 9. Quoted in Balch, Philadelphia Assemblies, 70 –77; see also Keith, Provincial Councillors of Pennsylvania, 78 –79.

225

Notes to Pages 115 –121 10. Pennsylvania Gazette, August 24, 1774. 11. Edward L. Clark, Record of the Inscriptions on the Tablets and Gravestones in the Burial Grounds of Christ Church (Philadelphia: Collins, 1864), sec. Q, space 8. 12. Pennsylvania Gazette, February 15, 1775. 13. Deed, Franks to Michael Gratz, March 16, 1775, Lancaster file, Small Collections, AJA; also “Franks, David. Deed to Michael Gratz, Lancaster, Pa: 1796 February 9,” AMs 1225/25, 16, Rosenbach Museum and Library, Philadelphia. 14. Gage to Davis, Strachan  & Co., June 10, 1775, in Carter, Correspondence of Gage, 2:683 – 84; Katherine A. Kellock, “London Merchants and the Pre-1776 American Debts,” Guildhall Studies in London History 1 (1974): 122 –23. 15. R. Arthur Bowker, Logistics and the Failure of the British Army in America, 1775 –1783 (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975), 6, 9. 16. JCC, December 2, 1775, 3:398 –99. 17. JCC, February 7, 1776, 4:116. 18. Chamier to Franks, February 8, 1776, David Franks file, Small Collections, AJA. 19. Washington to the president of Congress, February 9 and February 14, 1776, both in The Writings of George Washington, ed. Worthington Chauncey Ford, 13 vols. (New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1889), 3:404 and 423 –24, respectively; Washington to Major General Philip Schuyler, March 19, 1776, in The  Papers of George Washington, Revolutionary War series, ed.  Philander Chase, 18 vols. to date (Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 1985 –), 3:277–78. 20. Fish, Barnard and Michael Gratz, 154. 21. N. T. Phillips to Frances Parsons Webb, enclosure, February 16, 1950, “David Franks and Joseph Simon, Commissaries for the English and other Prisoners captivated by American armies,” Phillips Family Collection (P-17), box 3, AJHS. Captain Phillips’s letter alludes to “some forty original manuscripts containing invaluable information, and comprising a fairly accurate account of David Franks’ and Joseph Simon’s commissary office from February 1776 to September 1778.” Unfortunately, as in other cases, Phillips did not reveal the location of those manuscripts, which remains a mystery today. Attempts to locate Dr. Fish’s papers have been unsuccessful. 22. JCC, May 21, 1776, 4:370 –73; Pennsylvania Gazette, June 5, 1776. 23. Moses Franks to Franks, May 8, 1775, David Franks file, Small Collections, AJA. 24. Note regarding Cyril Edward Alfred Bedwell’s article, “American Middle Templars,” American Historical Review 25 ( July 1920), Oppenheim Papers (P-255), box 3, Moses Franks folder, AJHS. 25. Frederick B. Tolles, “Town House and Country House: Inventories from the Estate of William Logan, 1776,” PMHB 82 (1958): 400n; Pennsylvania Gazette, November 1, 1775. 26. Pennsylvania Gazette, January 31, 1776. 27. Bridenbaugh and Bridenbaugh, Rebels and Gentlemen, 160. 28. JCC, October 24, 1776, 6:901–2; General Howe’s certificate for rations provided to prisoners, AO 13/102A/147, NA. 29. Simon to Franks, January 13, 1777, with undated enclosure from Rice to Simon, McAllister Collection, HSP. 30. Chamier to Franks, February 25, 1777, Boudinot Papers, HSP. 31. Simon to Franks, March 21, 1777, and April 30, 1777, McAllister Collection, HSP. 32. JCC, June 6, 1777, 8:422; Franks to Board of War, June 6, 1777, Boudinot Papers, HSP; Boudinot to Franks, June 28, June 30, and July 24, 1777, all three letters in Elias Boudinot, “Their Distress Is Almost Intolerable”: The Elias Boudinot Letterbook, 1777–1778, ed. Joseph Lee Boyle (Bowie, Md.: Heritage Books, 2002), 11–12; “A Letter of David Franks to Elias Boudinot, 1777” ( July 4, 1777), Emmett Collection, no. 5840, New York Public Library;

226

Notes to Pages 121 –129 Richard Graham to Franks, July 24, 1777, McAllister Collection, HSP; Pintard to Boudinot, May 19, 1777, and Boudinot to Pintard, August 16, 1777, Boudinot Papers, HSP.

chapter 12 1. Steven Rosswurm, Arms, Country, and Class: The Philadelphia Militia and the “Lower Sort” During the American Revolution, 1775 –1783 (New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987), 134 –38. 2. William  P. Miller, “An Examination of George Washington’s Employment of the Pennsylvania Militia at the Battles of Trenton and Princeton,” USAWC Strategy Research Project, U.S. Army War College, Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania, March 18, 2005. 3. Brunhouse, Counter-Revolution in Pennsylvania, 40 –41. 4. Christopher Ward, The War of the Revolution, 2 vols. (New York: Macmillan, 1952), 1:291–305. 5. Rosswurm, Arms, Country, and Class, 127–35. 6. Ward, War of the Revolution, 1:316. 7. Miller, “Washington’s Employment of the Pennsylvania Militia,” 15. 8. Ward, War of the Revolution, 1:382 – 83. 9. George Otto Trevelyan, The  American Revolution, 3 vols. (New  York: Longmans, Green, 1908), 3:51. 10. Watts, Letter Book of John Watts, 295 –97. 11. Ward, War of the Revolution, 1:361; Scheer and Rankin, Rebels and Redcoats, 241–42. 12. Scheer and Rankin, Rebels and Redcoats, 242; Whitfield J. Bell, “Notes by Jacob Mordecai, 1836,” PMHB 98 (1994): 162 – 63. 13. Philip Shriver Klein and Ari Hoogenboom, A  History of Pennsylvania (New  York: McGraw-Hill, 1973), 51. 14. Jacob  E. Cooke, Tench Coxe and the Early Republic (Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1978), 14, 32; Jacob E. Cooke, “Tench Coxe: Tory Merchant,” PMHB 96 (1972): 48 –49. 15. Willard  O. Mishoff, “Business in Philadelphia During the British Occupation, 1777–1778,” PMHB 61 (1937): 170. 16. James Thomas Flexner, The  Traitor and the Spy: Benedict Arnold and John André (New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1953), 138 –39. 17. Benson Bobrick, Angel in the Whirlwind: The  Triumph of the American Revolution (New York: Simon and Schuster, 1997), 307–9, 315. 18. Frederick D. Stone, “Philadelphia Society One Hundred Years Ago, or The Reign of Continental Money,” PMHB 3 (1879): 367– 68. 19. Rebecca Franks, “A Letter of Miss Rebecca Franks, 1778,” PMHB 16 (1892): 216 –18. See also Gregory A. Stiverson and Phebe R. Jacobsen, William Paca, a Biography (Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1976), 80 – 81; Jean B. Russo, A Question of Reputation: William Paca’s Courtship of Polly Tilghman (Annapolis: Historic Annapolis Foundation, 2000), 42n4. 20. Brunhouse, Counter-Revolution in Pennsylvania, 42 –44. 21. Morris Bishop, “You Are Invited to a Mischianza,” American Heritage, August 1974, 69 –75; John André, “Particulars of the Mischianza in America,” Gentleman’s Magazine 48 (1778): 355. 22. Wharton, Through Colonial Doorways, 23 – 64; André, “Particulars of the Meischianza”; Bishop, “You Are Invited”; Stone, “Philadelphia Society,” 366. 23. Fortescue, History of the British Army, 3:255. 24. Quoted in Wharton, Through Colonial Doorways, 63 – 64.

227

Notes to Pages 130 –137 25. Ferguson, Power of the Purse, 26 –27. 26. Ibid., 32. 27. Mishoff, “Business in Philadelphia,” 165. 28. Rosswurm, Arms, Country, and Class, 150. 29. Mishoff, “Business in Philadelphia,” 176; Ferguson, Power of the Purse, 32. 30. Certificate covering issuance of rations to prisoners by Drummond and Franks, AO 13/102A/147, NA. 31. Simon to Franks, January 13, 1777, McAllister Collection, HSP. 32. Simon to Rice (for Franks), January 24, 1777, ibid. 33. Simon to Franks, March 21, 1777, ibid. 34. Simon to Franks, April 30, 1777, ibid. 35. Simon to Rice (for Franks), May 19, 1777, ibid.; Simon to Rice (addressed to Deputy Commissary of Prisoners), May 23, 1777, ibid. 36. Peters to Washington, November 4, 1777, Papers of George Washington, 12:125 –26. 37. Simon to Franks, November 16, 1777, McAllister Collection, HSP. 38. High Court of Admiralty files, July 15, 1778, 32/325/11, NA. 39. Washington to Laurens, November 1[–3], 1777, Papers of George Washington, 12:78 – 85. 40. JCC, December 19, 1777, 9:1036 –37. 41. JCC, January 21, 1778, 10:74 – 82; Pennsylvania Gazette, January 28, 1778. 42. Certificate of Myer Hart regarding care of prisoners at Easton, Pennsylvania, jail under his care, March 19, 1778, in Notes, PAJHS 3 (1895): 151. The original is in the Boudinot Papers at HSP and a copy is at the AJHS in New York. 43. Brunhouse, Counter-Revolution in Pennsylvania, 47; Pennsylvania Supreme Executive Council to Washington, January 22, 1778, and Lieutenant Colonel William Stephens Smith to George Washington, January 25, 1778, both in Papers of George Washington, 13:315 –16 and 345 –47, respectively. 44. Cooper to Howe, January 10, 1778, Carleton Papers, AJA. 45. Comptrollers of army accounts certificate, January 21, 1778, to David Franks, agent for Nesbitt, Drummond and Franks, AO 17/52/172, NA. 46. Robinson to Howe, March 3, 1778, Carleton Papers, AJA. 47. Royal warrant, March 4, 1778, authorizing payment, AO 17/52/188; royal warrant, March 23, 1778, authorizing payment, AO 17/52/200, NA. 48. Robinson to Nesbitt, Drummond and Franks, and John Henniiker, William Devayne, and George Wombwell, April 17, 1778, Carleton Papers, AJA.

chapter 13 1. Cooke, “Tench Coxe, Tory Merchant,” 65; Cooke, Tench Coxe and the Early Republic; Ethel Elise Rasmussen, “Capital on the Delaware: The Philadelphia Upper Class in Transition, 1789 –1801,” unpublished manuscript dated 1962, p. 147, John Hay Library, Brown University, Providence, R.I. 2. Washington to Laurens, November 1[–3], 1777, Papers of George Washington, 12:78 – 85; JCC, January 21, 1778, 10:74 – 82. 3. Pennsylvania Gazette, January 28, 1778. 4. Simon to Franks, April 9, 1778, McAllister Collection, HSP. 5. Simon to Franks, May 12, 1778, ibid. 6. Rosswurm, Arms, Country, and Class, 151–52. 7. JCC, June 4, 1778, 11:571.

228

Notes to Pages 138 –143 8. Fortescue, History of the British Army, 3:410. 9. Ward, War of the Revolution; Flexner, Traitor and the Spy. 10. Stern, First American Jewish Families, Franks (8). 11. Hersch  L. Zitt, “David Salisbury Franks, Revolutionary Patriot (c.  1740 –1793),” Pennsylvania History 16 (1948): 77–95. 12. Broadside leaflet prepared by Colonel David Solebury Franks, dated June 19, 1778, in A. S. W. Rosenbach, “An American Jewish Bibliography: A List of Books and Pamphlets by Jews or Relating to Them Printed in the United States from the Establishment of the Press in the Colonies Until 1850,” PAJHS 30 (1926): 81. 13. Oath of allegiance to Pennsylvania, in J. B. Linn and W. H. Egle, eds., Pennsylvania Archives, 2d ser., 19 vols. (Harrisburg: E. K. Myers, 1874 –90), 3:6; list of signers, including David Franks, July 24, 1778, ibid., 3:25. 14. Brunhouse, Counter-Revolution in Pennsylvania, 42 – 60. 15. Richard K. Murdoch, “Benedict Arnold and the Owners of the Charming Nancy,” PMHB 84 (1960): 22 –55, esp. 26; Flexner, Traitor and the Spy, 222 –50. 16. Jared Sparks, introduction to “Correspondence of Ambassador Conrad Gérard,” in Sparks, ed., The Diplomatic Correspondence of the American Revolution, 12 vols. (Boston: N. Hale and Gray & Bowen, 1829 –30), 10:233. 17. Ray Thompson, Benedict Arnold in Philadelphia (Fort Washington, Pa.: Bicentennial Press, 1975), 51–58; Brunhouse, Counter-Revolution in Pennsylvania, 64 – 65. 18. Benedict Arnold’s doodling on his financial accounts (undated), Franks Family Papers (P-142), AJHS. 19. Thompson, Benedict Arnold in Philadelphia, 58. 20. Moses Franks to David Franks, August 3, 1778, Tench Coxe Papers, HSP. 21. Richard Graham to Franks, August 25, 1778, McAllister Collection, HSP. 22. Indiana Company letter, dated September 1778, “The Indiana Company,” PMHB 14 (1886): 445 –46. 23. Lewis, Indiana Company, 31, 212 –15. 24. Simon to Franks, September 10, 1778, McAllister Collection, HSP; Richard Peters to the president of Congress, with enclosure from Thomas Bradford, September 19, 1778, Papers of the Continental Congress, reel 147, part 2, fol. 269; JCC, September 19, 1778, 12:933 –34. 25. John F. Roche, Joseph Reed: A Moderate in the American Revolution (New York: Columbia University Press, 1954), 145. 26. Franks to Bradford, October 2, 1778, British Army Prisoners File, Bradford Papers, HSP. 27. New version of the oath of allegiance to Pennsylvania, and list of signers, including David Franks, on October 20, 1778, in Linn and Egle, Pennsylvania Archives, 2d ser., 3:34, 40. Many names, including David Franks’s, were misspelled. Listed as a signer on the same day was William Hamilton. 28. Robinson to Clinton, October 7, 1778, Carleton Papers, AJA. 29. Peters (for the Board of War) to Beatty, commissary-general of prisoners, October 12, 1778, Washington Papers, Library of Congress, copy in Small Collections, no. 1203, AJA. 30. Records of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Eastern District (RG-33), Courts of Oyer and Terminer, box 6, Philadelphia County, 1778 – 82, trial of William Hamilton for treason, October 18, 1778, Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg; Franks to Moore, October 18, 1778, Stauffer Collection, 26:2101, HSP. 31. JCC, October 20 and 21, 1778, 12:1026, 1032 –33; Pennsylvania Gazette, October 22, 1778. 32. JCC, October 22, 1778, 12:1038; Arnold to Henry Laurens, with enclosures of letters to Colonel Nicola and to the keeper of the New Goal [sic], and a letter to Laurens

229

Notes to Pages 143 –149 transmitting the “return” of Colonel Nickola [sic], Papers of the Continental Congress, reel 162, fols. 149 –58. 33. Beatty to Washington, October 26, 1778, Library of Congress, copy in Small Collections, AJA. 34. Towne’s Pennsylvania Evening Post, October 21, 1778. 35. Washington to Laurens, October 26[–27], 1778, in Fitzpatrick, Writings of George Washington, 13:158 – 60. 36. Franks to Laurens, October 28, 1778, Papers of the Continental Congress, reel 78, part 9, fols. 189 –90. 37. JCC, October 28 and 29, 1778, 12:1070, 1076. 38. Simon to Congress, November 5, 1778, Papers of the Continental Congress, reel 78, part 20, fols. 335 –36. 39. JCC, November 6, 1778, 12:1108. 40. JCC, November 7, 1778, 12:1111–12. 41. Franks to Laurens, November 7, 1778, Papers of the Continental Congress, reel 78, part 9, fol. 197. 42. “Resolution of Congress,” November 7, 1778, in Samuel Hazard, ed., Pennsylvania Archives, 1st ser., 12 vols. (Philadelphia: Joseph Severns, 1851– 62), 7:76. 43. Pennsylvania Packet or the General Advertiser, November 17, 1778.

chapter 14 1. Pennsylvania Packet or the General Advertiser, December 12, 1778. 2. Moses Franks to Cooper, December 22, 1778, in Historical Manuscripts Commission, Report on American Manuscripts in the Royal Institution of Great Britain, 4 vols. (London: printed for H.M. Stationery Office by Mackie and Co., 1904 –9), 1:316. 3. Robinson to Clinton, December 28, 1778, ibid., 1:322. 4. Putnam to Franks, January 1, 1779, AO 13/102A/121, NA. 5. List of vouchers for prisoners’ provisions, 1776 –February 1779, AO 13/102A/147, NA. 6. Supreme Executive Council, meeting minutes, January 28, 1779, in Samuel Hazard, ed., Colonial Records of Pennsylvania, 16 vols. (Harrisburg: T. Fenn, 1851–53), 11:678 – 89. 7. Franks to Jay, January 29, 1779, Papers of the Continental Congress, reel 78, part 9, fol. 243. 8. JCC, January 29, 1779, 13:123. 9. Pass for David [sic] Rice to New York, 1779, in Hazard, Pennsylvania Archives, 1st ser., 7:180. 10. Supreme Executive Council, meeting minutes, February 2, 1779, in Hazard, Colonial Records, 11:682 – 83. 11. Rowland to Franks, March 6, 1779, Henry Clinton Papers, 53:35, William L. Clements Library, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor. 12. Moses Franks to David Franks, April 4, 1779, Tench Coxe Papers, HSP. 13. Marcus, American Jewry, 242. 14. “Jon’a D. Sergeant to George Bryan, 1779,” in Hazard, Pennsylvania Archives, 1st ser., 7:395 –96. 15. Pennsylvania Packet or the General Advertiser, April 29, 1779. 16. See appendix A for these letters in their entirety. All were printed originally in the Pennsylvania Packet or the General Advertiser on the dates shown. They were reprinted in Marcus, American Jewry, 245 – 60. Dr. Marcus made appropriate insertions of words and phrases to

230

Notes to Pages 149 –156 help clarify the meaning of the language, which have been used, sometimes in modified form, in appendix A as well. 17. Wolf and Whiteman, Jews of Philadelphia, 90. 18. Sergeant to George Bryan, 1779, in Hazard, Pennsylvania Archives, 1st ser., 7:395 –96. 19. See appendix A. 20. Volwiler, Croghan and the Westward Movement, 324 –27. 21. Cooke, “Tench Coxe, Tory Merchant,” 48, 60, 84 – 87; Cooke, Tench Coxe and the Early Republic, 14, 32. 22. Cooke, Tench Coxe and the Early Republic, 15, 32. 23. Pennsylvania Gazette, June 2, 1779. 24. Lewis, Indiana Company, 220 –21. 25. Pennsylvania Gazette, July 7, 1779. 26. Lewis, Indiana Company, 226. 27. JCC, October 8, 1779, 15:1155. 28. JCC, October 29 and 31, 1779, 15:1224, 1229 –30. 29. Lewis, Indiana Company, 231–34. 30. Illinois & Ouabache Company Papers, meeting minutes, October 30, 1779, 47, HSP; Brunhouse, Counter-Revolution in Pennsylvania, 44, 60 – 62. 31. Franks to André, December 2, 1779, Henry Clinton Papers, 78:31. 32. Supreme Executive Council, meeting minutes, October 20, 1779, in Hazard, Colonial Records, 12:137–41. 33. Rice to Franks, December 4, 1779, in Hazard, Pennsylvania Archives, 1st ser., 8:33; Supreme Executive Council, meeting minutes, December 14, 1779, in Hazard, Colonial Records, 12:198 –99, 206. 34. Pennsylvania Gazette, January 12, 1780. 35. James C. Neagles, Summer Soldiers: A Survey and Index of Revolutionary War CourtsMartial (Salt Lake City: Ancestry, 1986), 44 –47; Flexner, Traitor and the Spy, 244. 36. Neagles, Summer Soldiers, 46; Sheldon  S. Cohen, “Hannah Levy and the General: An Historical Enigma,” Mid-America: An Historical Review 68 (1986): 5 –13. 37. See also Brunhouse, Counter-Revolution in Pennsylvania, 88; Clark, Record of the Inscriptions of Christ Church, 547; quotation in Elizabeth Drinker, “The Journal of Elizabeth Drinker,” ed. Henry Biddle, Pennsylvania Genealogical Magazine 29, no. 4 (1976): 274. 38. Supreme Executive Council, meeting minutes, October 2, 1780, in Hazard, Colonial Records, 12:494 –95. 39. “Extract of Supreme Executive Council Minutes, October 3, 1780,” AO 13/102A/140, NA. 40. Supreme Executive Council, meeting minutes, October 3, 1780, in Hazard, Colonial Records, 12:495 –96. 41. Grace Growden Galloway, “Excerpts from the Diary of Grace Growden Galloway,” PMHB 58 (1934): 159. 42. Supreme Executive Council, meeting minutes, October 6, 1780, in Hazard, Colonial Records, 12:498 –99. 43. Ibid., October 9 and 11, 1780, 12:500 –503. 44. John Cadwalader to William Hamilton, October 16, 1780, Cadwalader Collection, series 2, box 7, folder 10, HSP. 45. Supreme Executive Council, meeting minutes, October 13, 1780, in Hazard, Colonial Records, 12:505; AO 13/102A/140, NA. 46. Supreme Executive Council, meeting minutes, October 17, 1780, in Hazard, Colonial Records, 12:509. 47. Lancaster Records, October 18, 1780, folder 3, SC 6576, Small Collections, AJA.

231

Notes to Pages 156 –162 48. William Moore to Robert Jewell, October 19, 1780, AO 13/102A/141, NA. 49. Franks to Simon [sic], October 20, 1780, Tench Coxe Papers, HSP; Pennsylvania Gazette, November 1, 1780. 50. Franks to Barnard Gratz, November 22, 1780, British army/American loyalists, case 4, box 29, HSP. 51. JCC, November 14, 1780, 18:1054. 52. Matlack to Franks, November 18, 1780, in Hazard, Pennsylvania Archives, 1st ser., 8:611. 53. Franks to Reed, November 21, 1780; deposition of David Franks, November 20, 1780, both in ibid., 8:615 –16. 54. Franks to Reed, November 22, 1780, ibid., 8:617. 55. Reed to Franks, November 23, 1780, ibid.

chapter 15 1. Ward, War of the Revolution, 2:696; John H. Rhodehamel, ed., The American Revolution: Writings from the War of Independence (New York: Library of America, 2001), 814; Thomas William Moore to General Cadwalader, November 7, 1780, Cadwalader Collection, HSP; Thomas William Moore to George D’Erbage [sic], [February 29, 1780], in “Some Papers of the Governor and Council of Georgia, 1780 –1781,” ed. Lilla Mills Hawes, Georgia Historical Quarterly 46 (1962): 281; Gregory Palmer, Biographical Sketches of Loyalists of the American Revolution (Westport, Conn.: Meckler, 1984), 363 – 66. 2. Morris Jastrow  Jr., “Notes on the Jews of Philadelphia from Published Annals,” PAJHS 1 (1893): 55. 3. Cecil Roth, “Some Jewish Loyalists in the War of American Independence,” PAJHS 38 (1948 –49): 97. 4. For certificates attesting to David Franks’s loyalty to the Crown, see loyalty certification for David Franks by John Peter DeLancey, April 10, 1781, AO 13/102A/115; loyalty certification for David Franks by Adam Drummond, undated, AO 13/102A/126; and loyalty certification for David Franks by William Howe, April 11, 1781, AO 13/102A/129, NA. 5. Supreme Executive Council, meeting minutes, February 19, 1781, and April 2, 1781, both in Hazard, Colonial Records, 12:632 –33 and 680 – 81, respectively. 6. JCC, March 16, 1781, 19:264; Lewis, Indiana Company, 244 –46. 7. Illinois & Ouabache Company Papers, meeting minutes, January 1, January 22, and February 20, 1781, 81, 85, HSP. 8. JCC, June 27, 1781, 20:704 – 05; Lewis, Indiana Company, 245. 9. JCC, July 23, 1781, 20:781. 10. JCC, July 24, 1781, 20:784. 11. Lewis, Indiana Company, 249. 12. Illinois & Ouabache Company Papers, 85 –100, HSP. 13. JCC, May 1, 1782, 22:225 –32; Lewis, Indiana Company, 244 –53. 14. David Franks to Mrs. Andrew Hamilton, July 23, 1781, Livingston Family Papers II, Massachusetts Historical Society, Boston. 15. Rebecca Franks to Mrs. Andrew Hamilton, July 23, 1781, ibid. 16. Rebecca Franks, “Letter of Miss Rebecca Franks,” PMHB 23 (1899): 303 –9. 17. Max James Kohler, Rebecca Franks: An  American Jewish Belle of the Last Century (New  York: Philip Cowen, 1894), 23; Wharton, Through Colonial Doorways; “Drawings of Mrs. Henry Knox, including letter from Mr. Charles Hart to Charles Francis Adams, LLD undated,” Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, 2d ser., 11 (December 1896): 197.

232

Notes to Pages 162 –166 18. Galloway, “Excerpts from the Diary,” 159. 19. New York Gazette and Weekly Mercury, January 28, 1782. 20. Wharton, Through Colonial Doorways, 60. See also Charles Ross, ed., Correspondence of Charles, First Marquis Cornwallis, 3 vols. (London: J. Murray, 1859), 3:116. 21. Bedwell, “American Middle Templars,” extract in Oppenheim Papers, box 3, Moses Franks folder, AJHS; David Franks to Andrew Hamilton and Tench Coxe, September 2, 1782, Tench Coxe Papers, HSP. 22. Tench Coxe Account Book, 1781– 86, David Franks accounts, Tench Coxe Papers, HSP. 23. Georgia Gazette, January 3, 1782; Moore to Franks, March 18, 1782, Tench Coxe Papers, HSP. 24. Moses Franks to David Franks, March 5 and 6, 1782, Tench Coxe Papers, HSP. 25. Franks to Coxe and Hamilton, May 10, 1782, ibid. 26. Michael Gratz to William Murray, September 1, 1769, in Byars, B. and M. Gratz, 102. 27. Franks to Hamilton and Coxe, September 2, 1782, Tench Coxe Papers, HSP. 28. Account Book of Priscilla Franks’s travels, File ACC/0775/071, Cooper Family File, London Metropolitan Archives; Arthur Howitt, Richmond and Its Jewish Connections (Richmond, Surrey: privately printed, 1930), 23; Finberg, “Jewish Residents in Eighteenth-Century Twickenham,” 129 –30; Daiches-Dubens, “Eighteenth Century Anglo-Jewry,” 150 –53; Daniel Gahan, The People’s Rising: Wexford, 1798 (Dublin: Gill and Macmillan, 1995), 121–41; David Franks to Andrew Hamilton and Tench Coxe, September 2, 1782, Tench Coxe Papers, HSP; Oliver DeLancey to Robert Watts, June 18, 1784, Robert Watts Papers, box 2, NewYork Historical Society, New York; Solomons, “Genealogy of the Franks Family.” 29. Notes regarding the painting of William Hamilton and Mrs. James Lyle (Ann Hamilton) by Benjamin West, which hangs in the main reading room of the Historical Society Library, HSP; Timothy Preston Long, “The Woodlands: A ‘Matchless Place’ ” (master’s thesis, University of Pennsylvania, 1991), 99 –100. 30. Franks to Coxe, February 3, 1783, Tench Coxe Papers, HSP; David Franks Account, Tench Coxe Account Book, HSP; Illinois & Ouabache Company Papers, 85 –100, HSP. 31. Franks to Barnard Gratz and Jacob Mordicay, March 2, 1783, Barnard Gratz correspondence file, Gratz Family Papers, AJA. David reported receiving a letter from them just as he was departing from London for Bath. Their letter had enclosed one to be forwarded to a third party, apparently a rabbi or a “chochem” (one revered for his wisdom and knowledge of scripture). He had sent the letter by messenger and received a response that he could not read, as it was written in “Daich.” That letter was enclosed with this one. 32. JCC, May 1, 1782, 22:225 –32; Coxe to Moses Franks, identified as c1782/3 but probably after the peace treaty was signed, Tench Coxe Papers, HSP. 33. Wharton to William Trent, November 14, 1782, in Letters of Delegates to Congress, ed. Paul Hubert Smith, 26 vols. (Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1976 –2000), 19:381. 34. Franks to Simon, July 28, 1783, Tench Coxe Papers, HSP. 35. Franks to Mrs. Abby Hamilton (extract), October 6, 1783, ibid.; Jacob Rader Marcus, Early American Jewry, 2 vols. (Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1951–53), 2:112. 36. Claims, American Loyalists, ser. 1, 1784 – 89, AO 12/109/138 –139, NA. 37. Quoted in Long, “Woodlands,” 99 –101. 38. Ibid., 118; notes regarding the painting of William Hamilton, HSP. 39. Account book of Priscilla Franks’s travels, Cooper Family File ACC/0775/071; H. C. G. Matthew and Brian Harrison, eds., Oxford Dictionary of National Biography, rev. ed., 60 vols. (Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004), 19:694 –95.

233

Notes to Pages 166 –173 40. Franks to Coxe, May 30, 1785, Tench Coxe Papers, HSP. 41. Last will and testament of David Franks, July 30, 1785, no. 3642, Small Collections, AJA. 42. Ibid.; memorial of David Franks to the commissioners appointed by Parliament for inquiring into the losses and services of the American loyalists, June 12, 1786, no.  3653, David Franks file, Small Collections, AJA; case of David Franks, memorial read and sworn to, June 12, 1786, AO 13/102A/113, 114, NA; and the following certificates of loyalty for David Franks, all in AO, NA: Thomas Boone, May 3, 1783, 13/102A/128; William Howe, April 21, 1783, 13/102A/130; William Franklin, May 5, 1783, 13/102A/132; Lieutenant General John Vaughan, May 5, 1783, 13/102A/133; Richard Penn, May 6, 1783, 13/102A/135; Thomas Gage, May 6, 1783, 13/102A/137. 43. Franks to Parliamentary Examination Board, June 14, 1786, AO 13/102A/105, NA.

chapter 16 1. Accounts of “David Franks Esq his State Money a/c,” 1781– 89; “John Franks, Current with Tench Coxe,” 1782 – 83; “Real Estates of David Franks, Esq and his Constituents etc, etc,” 1781– 82; “Mssrs. Moses, John, David & Moses, Jr. Franks as owners in Illinois & Ouabache land companies,” 1781– 86, unnumbered pages, reel 117, Tench Coxe Papers, HSP. 2. Etting to Michael Gratz, November 6, 1787, Etting Family Papers, P-143, AJHS; Wolf and Whiteman, Jews of Philadelphia, 416n54; indenture, Simon to Moses Francks [sic], November 6, 1787, Lancaster file, Small Collections, AJA. 3. Franks to the Honorable Commissioners of American Claims, March 20, 1788, AO 13/102A/107; further leave requested by David Franks granted June 6, 1788, AO 13/102A/108, NA. 4. Moses Franks [Sr.] to [Royal Commission on the Losses and Services of American Loyalists], July 20, 1789, AO 13/102A/93, NA. 5. Solomons, “Genealogy of the Franks Family”; Alfred Rubens, Anglo-Jewish Portraits: A Biographical Catalogue of Engraved Anglo-Jewish and Colonial Portraits from the Earliest Times to the Accession of Queen Victoria (London: Jewish Museum, 1935), 35. 6. Jessop, Coats of Many Colours, 93 –94. The original handwritten version of this text is held by the Australian Jewish Historical Society, Victoria chapter. Selected sections were transmitted by e‑mail for incorporation here. See chapter 2, note 15. See also Stern, First American Jewish Families, Franks 1 (1). 7. Franks to Simon, July 6 and September 4, 1789, in “Letters, etc, of David Franks, Samson and Moses Levy, of Philadelphia,” Notes, PAJHS 22 (1914): 188 –91. 8. Franks to Simon, power of attorney, September 4, 1789, Lancaster file, Small Collections, AJA. 9. Lewis, Indiana Company, 274 –76; Pennsylvania Gazette, October 28, 1789. 10. See Illinois  & Ouabache Company Papers, December 18, 1786, 101–2, HSP, and Lewis, Indiana Company, 272 –76, for this and the next several paragraphs. 11. Sherwin McRae, ed., Calendar of Virginia State Papers and Other Manuscripts from August 11, 1792, to December 31, 1793 (Richmond: Public Printing Office, 1886), 1–37. 12. Lewis, Indiana Company, 278 –93; Byars, B. and M. Gratz, 240; Elmaleh and Samuel, Jewish Cemetery, 2; Rev. Sabato Morais, LL.D., “Mikveh Israel Congregation of Philadelphia,” PAJHS 1 (1893): 20 –21. 13. Simon  W. Rosendale, “A Document Concerning the Franks Family,” PAJHS 1 (1893): 103 –4.

234

Notes to Pages 173 –198 14. Illinois & Ouabache Company Papers, March 25, 1793, 110 –11, 157–59, 162 – 67, HSP. 15. Keith, Provincial Councillors of Pennsylvania, 374 –77; “Information Wanted—re: Ding­well,” Pennsylvania Genealogical Magazine 30, no. 2 (1977): 131; John Cadwalader, “To the Public,” July 1782, 1–24, John Cadwalader File, Library Company of Philadelphia; Maryland General Assembly, House of Delegates, meeting minutes, January 11, 1782, Library Company of Philadelphia. 16. Volwiler, Croghan and the Westward Movement, 332 –34. 17. Keith, Provincial Councillors of Pennsylvania, 135 –38. 18. Ibid., 135 –36; Supreme Executive Council, meeting minutes, October 6 and November 21, 1780, February 19 and April 2, 1781, all in Hazard, Colonial Records, 12:498 –99, 548 –49, 632, and 680 – 81, respectively. 19. John  A. Garrity and Mark  C. Carnes,  eds., American National Biography, 24 vols. (New York: Oxford University Press, 1999), 5:90 –92. 20. Roche, Joseph Reed, 218 –19. 21. Asa Matlack Stackhouse, Col. Timothy Matlack, Patriot and Soldier, a Paper (N.p.: privately printed, 1910), 15; Allen Johnson and Dumas Malone,  eds., Dictionary of American Biography, 22 vols. (New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1928 –37), 16:589 –90. 22. John Harvey Powell, Bring Out Your Dead: The Great Plague of Yellow Fever in Philadelphia in 1793 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1949), 234, 250; see also Wolf and Whiteman, Jews of Philadelphia, 192 –94; Alexander Graydon, Memoirs of His Own Time: With Reminiscences of the Men and Events of the Revolution (Philadelphia: Lindsay and Blakiston, 1846), 365. 23. Powell, Bring Out Your Dead; Benjamin Rush, Letters, ed. L. H. Butterfield (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1951), 706, 707, 710, 711; Mathew Carey, A Short Account of the Malignant Fever, Lately Prevalent in Philadelphia (Philadelphia: printed by the author, 1794), 134. 24. Rush, Letters, 714 –15; Carey, Malignant Fever, 134. 25. Marcus, Colonial American Jew, 3:1297–99. Marcus summarizes the life of David Franks, focusing mainly upon his dedication to his profession and to the people he served and loved, and pointing out how badly he was treated by both the British and the colonials, who found him a convenient scapegoat and whipping boy. 26. See appendix B. Franks is not listed as buried at Christ Church; see the church Web site, http://www.christchurchphila.org/Historic_Christ_Church/Burial_Ground/The_Graves/98/, which notes that far fewer tombstones and marked graves survive than have disappeared. 27. Powell, Bring Out Your Dead, 104 –5. 28. Byars, B. and M. Gratz, 246 –47. 29. Probate of David Franks’s will, July 15, 1794, no. 3642, Small Collections, AJA; probate file, PROB 8/187, recording of probate, January 22, 1795, NA.

appendix b 1. Daiches-Dubens, “Eighteenth Century Anglo-Jewry,” 153; Solomons, “Genealogy of the Franks Family”; burial records of All Saints Church, Isleworth, England, 376, in the Borough of Hounslow Records, Chiswick, England. 2. Correspondence of Robert Winder Johnson, Phillips Family Collection (P-17) box 7, AJHS. 3. Robert Winder Johnson, The Winders of America: John Winder of New York, Thomas Winder of New Jersey, John Winder of Maryland (Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1902); Robert

235

Notes to Pages 198 –204 Winder Johnson and Lawrence Johnson Morris, The Johnson Family and Allied Families of Lincolnshire, England, Being the Ancestry and Posterity of Lawrence Johnson of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania (Philadelphia: privately printed, 1934). 4. Probate of Franks’s will, July 15, 1794, no. 3642, Small Collections, AJA. 5. Probate file, PROB 8/187, recording of probate, January 22, 1795, NA, provided via e‑mail by John Wood, then customer relations manager, Public Services Development Unit, British National Archives, July 3, 2007. 6. M.  L.  E.  Moreau de St.-Mery, Moreau de St.-Mery’s American Journey (1793 –1798), trans. and ed. Kenneth Roberts and Anna M. Roberts (Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1947), 192. The  Catholic priest refused to bury Moreau’s mother-in-law in 1795, as she had not attended services or taken communion.

appendix c 1. Ellis Paxson Oberholtzer, Philadelphia, a History of the City and Its People: A Record of 225 Years (Philadelphia: S. J. Clarke, 1912), 1:272 –77. 2. Randolph Shipley Klein, Portrait of an Early American Family: The Shippens of Pennsylvania Across Five Generations (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1971), 185, 190 –93, 305 – 6. 3. Wolf and Whiteman, Jews of Philadelphia, 38. 4. Fish, Barnard and Michael Gratz, 49. 5. Wolf and Whiteman, Jews of Philadelphia, 33. 6. Wharton, Through Colonial Doorways, 212. 7. Kohler, Rebecca Franks, 9. 8. Morais, Jews of Philadelphia, 36 –37. 9. Murray Friedman, Jewish Life in Philadelphia, 1830 –1940 (Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues, 1983), 291. 10. Oberholtzer, Philadelphia, 1:276. 11. Bobrick, Angel in the Whirlwind, 315. 12. “Jewish Obituary Notices, Gentleman’s Magazine,” PAJHS 37 (1936): 419. 13. Winfield Scott, Memoirs of Lieut.-General Scott, Written by Himself, 2 vols. (New York: Sheldon, 1864), 1:171–74. 14. Stiverson and Jacobsen, William Paca, 80 – 81; Franks, “Letter of Miss Rebecca Franks,” PMHB 23 (1899); John Golder, Life of William Tilghman (Philadelphia: Thomas Town, 1829), 12 –15; Joanne Loewe Neel, Phineas Bond: A  Study in Anglo-American Relations, 1786 –1812 (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1968), 17; Keith, Provincial Councillors of Pennsylvania, 375; Nathanael Greene to John Cadwalader, November 10, 1778, and Cadwalader to Greene, December 5, 1778, Papers of Nathanael Greene, 3:56 and 103, respectively. 15. JCC, May 21, 1776, 4:371–72. 16. Killarney, Ireland. 17. “Mrs.  Cad” was Williamina Bond Cadwalader, daughter of Dr.  Phineas and Williamina Moore Bond and later the second wife of General John Cadwalader. She was born on February 26, 1753, and died on September 9, 1837. In her single days, she was known as “Willy Bond” and was an attractive and popular young woman. She and Rebecca Franks were both ladies of the Mischianza celebration honoring General Howe at his retirement. Major John André selected the fourteen ladies who attended as the “foremost in youth, beauty and fashion” in the Philadelphia social scene. André and Oliver DeLancey Jr. organized the event. Smith, Life and Correspondence of Rev. William Smith, 2:541–43; Scharf and Westcott, History of Philadelphia, 1:377– 81.

236

Notes to Page 204 18. Rebecca is clearly nostalgic for the social whirlwind of Philadelphia. Essentially confined to a musty old castle in Ireland, deprived of her friends and active social life, Rebecca lays the blame for her frustration at the feet of her new husband. Four years later, with Rebecca comfortably ensconced at Bath, Johnson directed the defense of New Ross against the Irish rebel army and was instrumental in stopping the rebel advance and turning the tide of the war in the southern region of fighting. The following year, with the rebellion suppressed, the new viceroy and commander in chief, Lord Cornwallis, removed Johnson from the post on the grounds that Johnson, in Cornwallis’s opinion, was a “wrong-headed blockhead.” In later years Johnson was promoted to the rank of general and made a baronet. See Bernard Burke, A Genealogical and Heraldic Dictionary of the Peerage and Baronetage of the British Empire (London: Harrison, 1863), 1323; Townsend Ward, “A Walk to Darby,” PMHB 3 (1879): 150 – 66; Gahan, People’s Rising, 121–41; Ross, Correspondence of Charles, 3:116. 19. Rebecca chides Willy Bond for complaining about “grandeur and dissipation,” which were apparently discussed in her earlier letter and refer to the Philadelphia/Delaware social scene in which she was prominent. Rebecca wants Willy to feel sorry for her current isolation from the parties and balls she had enjoyed as a girl, and in London before the transfer. 20. “Becky” was Rebecca Cadwalader (1746 –1816), one of the six daughters (one died in infancy) of Dr. Thomas Cadwalader and a sister of both Willy Bond’s husband, General John Cadwalader, and Colonel Lambert Cadwalader. Keith, Provincial Councillors of Pennsylvania, 374. 21. Billy Hamilton was William Hamilton (1745 –1813). He and Rebecca had grown up as neighbors and childhood friends, and later as flirtatious teens. Billy had a penchant for public speaking and at the age of fourteen recited lengthy English verses at the 1759 commencement exercises at the College of Philadelphia (later the University of Pennsylvania), when Reverend William Smith was building the school’s reputation. He also delivered a tribute at Willy and the general’s wedding, to which Rebecca alludes. Ibid., 135 –36; Smith, Life and Correspondence of Rev. William Smith, 1:210 –13; Samuel Hazard, ed., Minutes of the Provincial Council of Pennsylvania, 16 vols. (Philadelphia: Joseph Severn, 1851–53), 12:495, 499. 22. Mrs.  Arnold was the former Peggy Shippen, who had married General Benedict Arnold before his desertion and subsequent exile and who moved to England with him in 1781. Peggy Shippen and Rebecca had been best friends as girls and as young women and continued to correspond and maintain their friendship after the war ended. Lewis Burd Walker, “The Life of Margaret Shippen, Wife of Benedict Arnold,” PMHB 25 (1892): 29 –41; Flexner, Traitor and the Spy, 318. 23. Rebecca used the term “confin’d” to describe the physical restrictions imposed by the advanced stages of pregnancy. 24. As in Philadelphia, social relationships were bound and reinforced in England by mutual visits between ladies and gentlemen as well. Visits usually included tea service and some kind of snacks and were the means of acknowledging friendship or, very often, deference and respect for the hostess. Very high social esteem was easily detectable by great numbers and high status of visitors, whereas a paucity of visitors would be read as social weakness or failure. It was not unusual for individuals to make frequent visits to leaders of the social circle. Rebecca observes the success enjoyed by Peggy Shippen Arnold with something like pride. This is her best friend, and she is delighted by Peggy’s reception in London society. Oberholtzer, Philadelphia, vol. 1, 387. 25. Mrs.  R.  Penn was Mary (Polly) Masters Penn (1756 –1829), wife of Richard Penn (1735 –1811), the younger brother of Pennsylvania governor John Penn. Richard came to Pennsylvania from England in 1763 and obtained, through his brother’s largesse, a series of administrative positions in which he served until 1769. He returned to England but shortly thereafter was offered the position of lieutenant governor of Pennsylvania, which he accepted,

237

Notes to Page 204 returning to America in 1771. Two years later, having been replaced by his brother, he returned to England, where he remained for most of the rest of his life. Though part of the prestigious Penn family, Richard never enjoyed the social advantages of his wealthier and more highly placed relatives. During his last two years in America, he met and married Polly Masters (May 1772); he was thirty-seven and she sixteen. Polly’s father, William Masters, died when she was just four years old, leaving his widow, Mary Lawrence Masters, with two daughters, a considerable fortune, and much real property. Over the next several years Mrs. Masters had a house built, which she gave to Polly and Richard Penn as a wedding gift. The Penns, Mrs. Masters, and her other daughter, Sarah, spent the war years in England, where they remained until this letter was written. The house in Philadelphia went through a succession of famous occupants, including General Howe, Benedict Arnold, French consul John Holker, Robert Morris, and George Washington. Rebecca expresses some dislike for Polly Penn but does not go into detail. See Howard M. Jenkins, “The Family of William Penn: Richard Penn and His Descendants,” PMHB 22 (1898): 71–97; Samuel H. Needles, “The Governor’s Mill and Globes Mill of Philadelphia,” PMHB 8 (1884): 279 –300; Thomas H. Shoemaker, “A List of the Inhabitants of Germantown and Chestnut Hill in 1809,” PMHB 16 (1892): 46; Jacob Hiltzheimer, “Excerpts from the Diary of Jacob Hiltzheimer of Philadelphia,” PMHB 16 (1892): 96. 26. A pun on Polly’s maiden name. 27. Polly’s sister, Sarah Masters (1758 –1825), comes in for some negative comment regarding her lack of suitors. Eleven years later, Sarah Masters married Turner Camac, scion of one of the oldest Irish families and owner of extensive landholdings and a copper mine. The couple moved to Pennsylvania, where Camac managed the farmland Sarah had inherited from her parents. William Masters Camac, Memoirs of the Camacs of County Down (Philadelphia: W. M. Camac, 1913), 100 –126. 28. Mrs. Bingham was Ann Willing Bingham (1764 –1801), the reigning queen of Philadelphia society, regarded by many as the most beautiful woman in the colonies and in Europe as well. Her husband, William Bingham (1752 –1804), was probably the richest man in America from his successes in banking and land speculation. At their wedding in 1780, William was twenty-eight, Ann sixteen. In May 1783 the Binghams went to London for a combined business and pleasure trip that lasted three years and included visits to the Continent. Ann delivered her second child in London in December 1783. In later years Ann Bingham was admired as an extremely charming hostess. William Bingham built a huge mansion that became the hub of social activity in Philadelphia. It has been said that Washington and Jefferson were in Bingham’s social set, rather than the reverse. Ann Bingham had not been one of Rebecca’s closest friends, but they were surely acquainted through a variety of connections. Margaret Brown, “Mr. and Mrs. William Bingham of Philadelphia,” PMHB 61 (1937): 286 –324; Oberholtzer, Philadelphia, 1:383 – 84. 29. Rebecca alludes to having been “confin’d” in 1783. The first of her two sons, Henry Allen Johnson, was born in September 1785, fully nineteen months after this letter was written. Rebecca appears to have suffered a miscarriage, though this is not mentioned in any of the surviving letters. Burke, Peerage and Baronetage of the British Empire, 1323; Hershkowitz and Meyer, Letters of the Franks Family, 129n. 30. Mrs. Hare was Margaret (Peggy) Willing Hare (1753 –1816), daughter of Charles and Ann Shippen Willing and a first cousin of Ann Willing Bingham, with whom she appears to have enjoyed a close personal association, though eleven years her senior. Her husband was Robert Hare (1752 –1810), owner of one of the major breweries in the colonies. His porter ale was sought from great distances; George Washington sent his carriage from Virginia to pick up a supply and later wrote from New York City (through Clement Biddle, who handled distribution for Hare) and from Mount Vernon to have shipments made to him. After the brewery burned down in 1790, Hare served in the Pennsylvania State Senate alongside William

238

Notes to Pages 204 –205 Bingham. The Hares traveled to England with the Binghams in May 1783 and were quartered close to each other. The Hares returned to America much earlier than the Binghams. Rebecca had enjoyed the same social circles as the Hares prior to her marriage and they were well acquainted. Smith, Life and Correspondence of Rev.  William Smith, 2:150; Stanley Wade Baron, Brewed in America (Boston: Little, Brown, 1962), 59, 109, 114 –17; Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, The Pennsylvania Manual, 118 vols. to date (Harrisburg: Commonwealth, 1977), 88:512; Brown, “Mr. and Mrs. Bingham,” 288 – 89. 31. The reference to a paucity of visitors was an outright putdown of Ann Bingham— there is a touch of enjoyment in the telling. Three or four years later, however, this charge could not have been leveled, as Mrs. Bingham became, after her return to America, the epicenter of Philadelphia society. 32. Possibly “Hope,” although no Colonel Hope is mentioned in other Franks family documents. 33. Colin Campbell (1754 –1814), a Scot, entered the British army as an ensign in March 1771 and was promoted to lieutenant in 1774. He accompanied the 71st Regiment of Foot to America and, while stationed in New York, married Mary, the eldest daughter of Colonel Guy Johnson. He and Henry Johnson probably served together in the New York–New Jersey area during the war. In later years Campbell achieved the rank of lieutenant general and became lieutenant governor of Gibraltar. Leslie Stephen and Sidney Lee,  eds., Directory of National Biography, 22 vols. (New York: Macmillan, 1885 –1901), 3:801–2; Burke, Peerage and Baronetage of the British Empire, 419. 34. Sir William Johnson (1715 –1774), a British subject, came to America in 1738 and established himself in the Mohawk Valley, where he earned the respect and admiration of the Mohawk Indian tribe, who elected him a sachem. Governor George Clinton appointed him superintendent of Indian affairs with the Six Iroquois Nations. His nephew, Guy Johnson (1740 –1788), was taken under William’s wing and trained for diplomatic service with the Indians. Guy married William’s daughter Mary (Polly) in 1763, and upon William’s death was appointed to replace him as superintendent of Indian affairs. (The family name is spelled both Johnson and Johnston in family records, and the names were apparently used interchangeably.) A loyalist during the war, Guy Johnson fled to Canada in 1775. During the trip, his wife died in childbirth. An older daughter married Colin Campbell. David Franks’s extensive activity in the fur trade with George Croghan, William Murray, and others brought him into frequent contact with both William and Guy, and this acquaintance accounts for Rebecca’s knowledge of the families. Burke, Peerage and Baronetage of the British Empire, 1325, 419; Johnson, Papers of Sir William Johnson, 1:xxxv–xxxviii. 35. General Philemon Dickinson (1739 –1809) and his first wife, Mary Cadwalader Dickinson (1744 –1791). Mary was a first cousin of General John Cadwalader, Willy Bond’s husband, and an intimate within Rebecca’s social circle. Mary was the older sister of General Dickinson’s second wife, Rebecca (Becky), with whom Rebecca Franks maintained a correspondence. The second marriage took place after this letter was written. Keith, Provincial Councillors of Pennsylvania, 374, 390 –91; W. Jay Mills, Historic Houses of New Jersey (Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1902), 270 –76. 36. Colonel Lambert Cadwalader (1743 –1823) and Mary McCall Cadwalader (1760 –?). Colonel Cadwalader, though just a year younger, was a nephew of General John Cadwalader, and Mary McCall was from one of the most prominent families in the community. Keith, Provincial Councillors of Pennsylvania, 374, 387– 89. 37. Willy Bond did in fact give the general another son, John, born May 1, 1784. Unfortunately, the baby lived only fourteen months and died on July 10, 1785. Ibid., 377. 38. B. Tilghman is William Tilghman (1756 –1827), who was born in Maryland. The family moved to Philadelphia when he was six years old and he grew up in the Philadelphia/

239

Notes to Page 205 Germantown milieu. He attended the College of Philadelphia and studied law under Benjamin Chew. Mr. Chew had eleven daughters (one died in infancy), several of whom were close friends of Rebecca Franks. Margaret Oswald Chew (known as Peggy Chew, one of the ladies of the Mischianza and a favorite of Major André) was one of these and was among Rebecca’s best friends. Tilghman spent a lot of time with the Chew girls and Rebecca, and they were very close friends. Ibid., 409 –12.

240

Bibliography

archives American Jewish Archives, Cincinnati, Ohio (AJA) Carleton Papers Gratz Family Papers, ledger book, 1759 – 63 Small Collections Washington file (copy of file in Library of Congress) American Jewish Historical Society, New York (AJHS) Etting Family Papers Franks Family Papers Oppenheim Papers Phillips Family Collection Borough of Hounslow Records, Chiswick, England Burial Records of All Saints Church, Isleworth, England Christ Church, Philadelphia Archives of Old Christ Church (copies at HSP) Historical Society of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia (HSP) British Army/American Loyalists File Boudinot Papers Bradford Papers Cadwalader Collection Etting Collection Henry Papers Illinois & Ouabache Company Papers McAllister Collection Society Collection Stauffer Collection Tench Coxe Papers Library Company of Philadelphia John Cadwalader File Maryland General Assembly minutes London Metropolitan Archives Account Book of Priscilla Franks’s travels, Cooper Family File ACC/0775/071

Bibliography Massachusetts Historical Society, Boston Franks Family File Livingston Family Papers II National Archives, Kew, England (NA) Audit Office files Chancery files Colonial Office files High Court of Admiralty files War Office files National Archives, Washington, D.C. Papers of the Continental Congress, 204 microfilm reels New-York Historical Society, New York Horatio Gates Papers Robert Watts Papers New York Public Library, New York Emmett Collection Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, Harrisburg Records of the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, Eastern District, Courts of Oyer and Terminer, RG-33, box 6 Pennsylvania State Archives Rosenbach Museum and Library, Philadelphia Gratz Family Papers (including the Byars notebooks) Sussex Archaeological Society, Lewes, England American Manuscripts in the Gage Papers, 1731–1874 Letters from Oliver DeLancey to Susan Watts United States Army War College, Carlisle Barracks Strategic Research Project, Manuscripts William L. Clements Library, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor Henry Clinton Papers Thomas Gage Papers

primary sources “Account of the Arrival and Departure of the Tea-Ship at Philadelphia in 1773.” PMHB 14 (1890): 77–79. Alden, John Richard, ed. The War of the Revolution. 2 vols. New York: Macmillan, 1952.

242

Bibliography Alvord, Clarence Walworth, and Clarence Edwin Carter, eds. The Critical Period, 1763 –1765. Collections of the Illinois State Historical Library 10. Springfield: Illinois State Historical Library, 1915. ———. The New Régime, 1765 –1767. Collections of the Illinois State Historical Library 11. Springfield: Illinois State Historical Library, 1916. ———. Trade and Politics, 1767–1769. Collections of the Illinois State Historical Library 16. Springfield: Illinois State Historical Library, 1921. André, John. “Particulars of the Mischianza in America.” Gentleman’s Magazine 48 (1778): 355. Aspinwall Papers. Ed. Thomas Aspinwall. Collections of the Massachusetts Historical Society, 4th ser., vols. 9 and 10. Boston: Massachusetts Historical Society, 1871. Bailey, Kenneth P., ed. The Ohio Company Papers, 1753 –1817: Being Primarily Papers of the “Suffering Traders” of Pennsylvania. Ann Arbor: Edwards Brothers, 1947. Bell, Whitfield J. “Notes by Jacob Mordecai, 1836.” PMHB 98 (1994): 162 – 63. Boudinot, Elias. “Their Distress Is Almost Intolerable”: The Elias Boudinot Letterbook, 1777–1778. Ed. Joseph Lee Boyle. Bowie, Md.: Heritage Books, 2002. Bouquet, Henry. Papers. Ed. Sylvester K. Stevens, Donald H. Kent, and Autumn L. Leonard. 6 vols. Harrisburg: Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, 1951– 84. ———. The Papers of Col. Henry Bouquet: Series 21631 and Series 21632. Ed. Sylvester K. Stevens and Donald H. Kent. 15 vols. Harrisburg: Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, 1940 –43. Cadwalader, John. “Selections from the Military Papers of General John Cadwalader, from a Collection Donated to HSP.” PMHB 32 (1908): 149 –74. Carey, Mathew. A Short Account of the Malignant Fever, Lately Prevalent in Philadelphia. Philadelphia: printed by the author, 1794. Carter, Clarence Edwin, ed. The Correspondence of General Thomas Gage with the Secretaries of State, and with the War Office and the Treasury, 1763 –1775. 2 vols. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1933. Colden, Cadwallader. Letters and Papers of Cadwallader Colden. 9 vols. New York: NewYork Historical Society, 1919 –37. “Drawings of Mrs. Henry Knox, including letter from Mr. Charles Hart to Charles Francis Adams, LLD, undated.” Proceedings of the Massachusetts Historical Society, 2d ser., 11 (December 1896): 197. Drinker, Elizabeth. “The Journal of Elizabeth Drinker.” Ed. Henry Biddle. Pennsylvania Genealogical Magazine 29, no. 4 (1976): 266 – 88. “The Earliest Extant Minute Books of the Spanish and Portuguese Congregation Shearith Israel in New York, 1728 –1786.” PAJHS 21 (1913): 1–171. Ford, Worthington Chauncey, et al. Journals of the Continental Congress. 34 vols. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1904 –37. Franks, Abigaill Levy. The Letters of Abigaill Levy Franks, 1733 –1748. Ed. Edith B. Gelles. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2004. Franks, Rebecca. “Letter of Miss Rebecca Franks.” PMHB 23 (1899): 303 –9. Galloway, Grace Growden. “Excerpts from the Diary of Grace Growden Galloway.” PMHB 58 (1934): 35 –94. Graydon, Alexander. Memoirs of His Own Time: With Reminiscences of the Men and Events of the Revolution. Philadelphia: Lindsay and Blakiston, 1846.

243

Bibliography Greene, Nathanael. The Papers of Nathanael Greene. Ed. Richard K. Showman. 13 vols. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1976 –2005. Hamilton, Stanislaus Murray, ed. Letters to Washington. 5 vols. Boston: Houghton Mifflin, 1898 –1902. Hawes, Lilla Mills, ed. “Some Papers of the Governor and Council of Georgia, 1780 –1781.” Georgia Historical Quarterly 46 (1962): 280 –95. Hazard, Samuel, ed. Colonial Records of Pennsylvania. 16 vols. Harrisburg: T. Fenn, 1851–53. ———. Minutes of the Provincial Council of Pennsylvania. 16 vols. Philadelphia: Joseph Severns, 1851–53. ———. Pennsylvania Archives. 1st ser. 12 vols. Philadelphia: Joseph Severns, 1851– 62. Hershkowitz, Leo, and Isidore S. Meyer, eds. The Lee Max Friedman Collection of American Jewish Colonial Correspondence—Letters of the Franks Family (1733 –1748). Waltham, Mass.: American Jewish Historical Society, 1968. Hildeburn, Charles R. “Records of Christ Church, Philadelphia: Baptisms, 1709 –1760.” PMHB 16 (1892): 111–17. Hiltzheimer, Jacob. “Excerpts from the Diary of Jacob Hiltzheimer of Philadelphia.” PMHB 16 (1892): 93 –102. “Jewish Obituary Notices, Gentleman’s Magazine.” PAJHS 37 (1936): 419. “Jewish Owners of Ships Registered at the Port of Philadelphia, 1730 –1775.” PAJHS 26 (1918): 235 –36. Johnson, William. The Papers of Sir William Johnson. Ed. James H. Sullivan, Alexander Clarence Flick, and Almon Wheeler Lauber. 14 vols. Albany: State University of New York Press, 1921– 65. Linn, J. B., and W. H. Egle, eds. Pennsylvania Archives. 2d ser. 19 vols. Harrisburg: E. K. Myers, 1874 –90. Marcus, Jacob Rader, ed. American Jewry: Documents—Eighteenth Century. Cincinnati: Hebrew Union College Press, 1959. McRae, Sherwin, ed. Calendar of Virginia State Papers and Other Manuscripts from August 11, 1792, to December 31, 1793. Richmond: Public Printing Office, 1886. Morais, Rev. Sabato, LL.D. “Mikveh Israel Congregation of Philadelphia.” PAJHS 1 (1893): 13 –24. Moreau de St.-Mery, M. L. E. Moreau de St.-Méry’s American Journey (1793 –1798). Trans. and ed. Kenneth Roberts and Anna M. Roberts. Garden City, N.Y.: Doubleday, 1947. O’Callaghan, Edmund Bailey, ed. Documents Relative to the Colonial History of the State of New York. 15 vols. Albany: Weed, Parsons, 1853 – 87. Oppenheim, Samuel. “The Will of Henry Benjamin Franks, December 13, 1758, and Inventory of His Estate.” PAJHS 25 (1917): 125 –27. Peckham, Howard Henry, ed. Sources of American Independence: Selected Manuscripts from the Collections of the William L. Clements Library. 2 vols. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1978. “The Record Book of the Reverend Jacob Raphael Cohen.” Comp. Alan D. Corré. American Jewish Historical Quarterly 59 (1969): 23 – 82. Rhodehamel, John H., ed. The American Revolution: Writings from the War of Independence. New York: Library of America, 2001. Rosenbach, A. S. W. “An American Jewish Bibliography: A List of Books and Pamphlets by Jews or Relating to Them Printed in the United States from the Establishment

244

Bibliography of the Press in the Colonies Until 1850.” Broadside leaflet prepared by Colonel David Solebury Franks, dated June 19, 1778. PAJHS 30 (1926): 1–468. Ross, Charles, ed. Correspondence of Charles, First Marquis Cornwallis. 3 vols. London: J. Murray, 1859. Rush, Benjamin. Letters. Ed. L. H. Butterfield. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1951. Schappes, Morris U., ed. A Documentary History of the Jews in the United States, 1654 –1875. New York: Citadel Press, 1950. Scott, Winfield. Memoirs of Lieut.-General Scott, Written by Himself. 2 vols. New York: Sheldon, 1864. Smith, Paul Hubert, et al., eds. Letters of Delegates to Congress, 1774 –1789. 26 vols. Washington, D.C.: Library of Congress, 1976 –2000. Sparks, Jared, ed. The Diplomatic Correspondence of the American Revolution. 12 vols. Boston: N. Hale and Gray & Bowen, 1829 –30. Stewart, Irene, ed. Letters of General Forbes Relating to the Expedition Against Fort Duquesne in 1758. Pittsburgh: Allegheny County Committee of the Society of Colonial Dames of America, 1938. Stone, Frederick D. “How the Landing of Tea Was Opposed in Philadelphia by Colonel William Bradford and Others in 1773.” PMHB 15 (1891): 385 –93. Trent, William. Journal of Captain William Trent from Logstown to Pickawillany, a.d. 1752. Ed. Alfred Thomas Goodman. Cincinnati: Robert Clarke, 1871. U.S. Congress. American State Papers, Legislative and Executive, of the Congress of the United States. 38 vols. Washington, D.C.: Gales and Seaton, 1832 – 61. Wainwright, Nicholas B., ed. “‘ A Diary of Trifling Occurrences,’ Philadelphia, 1776 –1778.” PMHB 82 (1958): 411– 65. Washington, George. The Papers of George Washington. Revolutionary War Series. Ed. Philander Chase. 18 vols. to date. Charlottesville: University of Virginia Press, 1985 –. ———. The Writings of George Washington. Ed. Worthington Chauncey Ford. 13 vols. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1889. ———. The Writings of George Washington, from the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745 –1799. Ed. John C. Fitzpatrick. 39 vols. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office, 1931–44. Watts, John. Letter Book of John Watts: Merchant and Councillor of New York, January 1, 1762 –December 22, 1765. Ed. Dorothy Barck. New York: New-York Historical Society, 1928. Wharton, Thomas. “Selections from the Letter Book of Thomas Wharton, of Philadelphia, 1773 –1783.” PMHB 33 (1909): 319 –339.

secondary sources Abernethy, Thomas Perkins. Western Lands and the American Revolution. New York: Russell and Russell, 1937. Adams, John Arthur. “The Indian Trader of the Upper Ohio Valley.” Western Pennsylvania Historical Magazine 17 (1933): 163 –74. Alden, George Henry. New Governments West of the Alleghanies Before 1780. Madison: University of Wisconsin Press, 1897.

245

Bibliography Alden, John Richard. General Gage in America. Baton Rouge: Louisiana State University Press, 1948. Alvord, Clarence Walworth. The Mississippi Valley in British Politics. 2 vols. Cleveland: Arthur H. Clark, 1917. Ammerman, David. In the Common Cause: American Response to the Coercive Acts of 1774. Charlottesville: University Press of Virginia, 1974. Anderson, Fred. The War That Made America: A Short History of the French and Indian War. New York: Viking, 2005. Aquila, Richard. The Iroquois Restoration. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1997. Bailey, Kenneth P. The Ohio Company of Virginia and the Westward Movement, 1748 –1792. Glendale, Calif.: Arthur H. Clark, 1939. Balch, Thomas Willing. The Philadelphia Assemblies. Philadelphia: Allen, Lane, and Scott, 1916. Beattie, Daniel J. “The Adaptation of the British Army to Wilderness Warfare, 1755 –1763.” In Adapting to Conditions: War and Society in the Eighteenth Century, ed. Maarten Ultee, 56 – 83. Tuscaloosa: University of Alabama Press, 1986. Bell, Whitfield J. Patriot-Improvers: Biographical Sketches of Members of the American Philosophical Society. 2 vols. Philadelphia: American Philosophical Society, 1997–99. Bishop, Morris. “You Are Invited to a Mischianza.” American Heritage, August 1974, 69 –75. Bobrick, Benson. Angel in the Whirlwind: The Triumph of the American Revolution. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1997. Bockelman, Wayne L., and Owen S. Ireland. “The Internal Revolution in Pennsylvania: An Ethnic-Religious Interpretation.” Pennsylvania History 41 (1974): 125 –56. Bowker, R. Arthur. Logistics and the Failure of the British Army in America, 1775 –1783. Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1975. Bridenbaugh, Carl. Cities in Revolt: Urban Life in America, 1743 –1776. New York: Knopf, 1955. Bridenbaugh, Carl, and Jessica Bridenbaugh. Rebels and Gentlemen: Philadelphia in the Age of Franklin. New York: Reynal and Hitchcock, 1942. Brown, Margaret. “Mr. and Mrs. William Bingham of Philadelphia.” PMHB 61 (1937): 286 –324. Brunhouse, Robert. The Counter-Revolution in Pennsylvania, 1776 –1790. Harrisburg: Pennsylvania Historical and Museum Commission, 1942. Burke, Bernard. A Genealogical and Heraldic Dictionary of the Peerage and Baronetage of the British Empire. London: Harrison, 1863. Byars, William Vincent. B. and M. Gratz, Merchants in Philadelphia, 1754 –1798. Jefferson City, Mo.: Hugh Stephens, 1916. Camac, William Masters. Memoirs of the Camacs of County Down. Philadelphia: W. M. Camac, 1913. Clark, Edward L. Record of the Inscriptions on the Tablets and Gravestones in the Burial Grounds of Christ Church. Philadelphia: Collins, 1864. Cohen, Robert. “Jewish Families in Eighteenth-Century New York: A Study in Historical Demography.” Seminar paper, Brandeis University, 1972. Copy in American Jewish Archives, Cincinnati. Cohen, Sheldon S. “Hannah Levy and the General: An Historical Enigma.” MidAmerica: An Historical Review 68 (1986): 5 –13. 246

Bibliography Cooke, Jacob E. Tench Coxe and the Early Republic. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1978. ———. “Tench Coxe: Tory Merchant.” PMHB 96 (1972): 48 – 88. Daiches-Dubens, Rachel. “Eighteenth Century Anglo-Jewry in and Around Richmond, Surrey.” Transactions and Miscellanies of the Jewish Historical Society of England 18 (1953 –55): 144 –53. Dennis, Jessie McNab. “Franks Family Silver by Lamerie.” Antiques Magazine, May 1968, 636 –41. ———. “London Silver in a Colonial Household.” Metropolitan Museum of Art Bulletin 26 (1967– 68): 174 –78. Dorr, Benjamin. A Historical Account of Christ Church, Philadelphia, from Its Foundation, a.d. 1695 to a.d. 1841. New York: Swords, Stanford; Philadelphia: R. S. H. George, 1841. Douds, Howard C. “Merchants and Merchandising in Pittsburgh, 1759 –1800.” Western Pennsylvania Historical Magazine 20 (1937): 121–32. Douglass, Elisha P. Rebels and Democrats: The Struggle for Equal Political Rights and Majority Rule During the American Revolution. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1955. Dulles, Charles Winslow. “Sketch of the Life of Dr. Thomas Cadwalader.” PMHB 27 (1903): 262 –78. Ellis, Franklin, and Samuel Evans. History of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Philadelphia: Everts and Peck, 1883. Elmaleh, Leon H., and J. Bunford Samuel. The Jewish Cemetery, Ninth and Spruce Streets, Philadelphia. Philadelphia: Congregation Mikveh Israel, 1906. Evans, Samuel. “Sketch of Joseph Simon.” Papers Read Before the Lancaster County Historical Society 3 (1899): 165 –72. Ferguson, E. James. The Power of the Purse: A History of American Public Finance, 1776 –1790. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1961. Finberg, Hilda F. “Jewish Residents in Eighteenth-Century Twickenham.” Transactions and Miscellanies of the Jewish Historical Society of England 16 (1945 –51): 129 –30. Fish, Sidney Meshulam. Barnard and Michael Gratz: Their Lives and Times. Lanham, Md.: University Press of America, 1994. Fisher, George Harrison. “Brigadier-General Henry Bouquet.” PMHB 3 (1879): 121–35. Flexner, James Thomas. The Traitor and the Spy: Benedict Arnold and John André. New York: Harcourt, Brace, 1953. Fortescue, John William. A History of the British Army. 14 vols. London: Macmillan, 1910 –30. Friedman, Murray. Jewish Life in Philadelphia, 1830 –1940. Philadelphia: Institute for the Study of Human Issues, 1983. Gahan, Daniel. The People’s Rising: Wexford, 1798. Dublin: Gill and Macmillan, 1995. Garrity, John A., and Mark C. Carnes, eds. American National Biography. 24 vols. New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. Gillingham, Harold. “Indian Silver Ornaments.” PMHB 58 (1934): 97–126. Gipson, Lawrence Henry. The British Empire Before the American Revolution. 15 vols. New York: Knopf, 1939 –70. Golder, John. Life of William Tilghman. Philadelphia: Thomas Town, 1829. Gough, Deborah Mathias. Christ Church, Philadelphia. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1995.

247

Bibliography Griswold, Rufus Wilmot. The Republican Court, or American Society in the Days of Washington. New York: Appleton, 1864. Hackenbroch, Yvonne. English and Other Silver in the Irwin Untermeyer Collection. New York: Metropolitan Museum of Art, 1969. Hawke, David Freeman. In the Midst of a Revolution. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1961. Henderson, Archibald. Dr. Thomas Walker and the Loyal Company of Virginia. Worcester, Mass.: American Antiquarian Society, 1931. Hirsh, Monroe B. “The Early Jewish Colony in Lancaster County.” Papers Read Before the Lancaster County Historical Society 5 (1901): 91–105. Historical Manuscripts Commission (Great Britain). Report on American Manuscripts in the Royal Institution of Great Britain. 4 vols. London: printed for H.M. Stationery Office by Mackie and Co., 1904 –9. Howitt, Arthur. Richmond and Its Jewish Connections. Richmond, Surrey: privately printed, 1930. Hühner, Leon. “The Jews of Virginia from Earliest Times to the Close of the Eighteenth Century.” PAJHS 20 (1912): 85 –105. Jacobs, James A. “William Hamilton and the Woodlands: A Construction of Refinement in Philadelphia.” PMHB 130 (2006): 181–209. Jastrow, Morris, Jr. “Notes on the Jews of Philadelphia from Published Annals.” PAJHS 1 (1893): 49 – 61. Jenkins, Howard M. “The Family of William Penn: Richard Penn and His Descendants.” PMHB 22 (1898): 71–97. Jessop, Wilfred S. Coats of Many Colours—an Account of the Joseph Families in the English Speaking World. Chicago: privately printed, 1951. Johnson, Allen, and Dumas Malone, eds. Dictionary of American Biography. 22 vols. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1928 –37. Johnson, Robert Winder. The Winders of America: John Winder of New York, Thomas Winder of New Jersey, John Winder of Maryland. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1902. Johnson, Robert Winder, and Lawrence Johnson Morris. The Johnson Family and Allied Families of Lincolnshire, England, Being the Ancestry and Posterity of Lawrence Johnson of Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. Philadelphia: privately printed, 1934. Keen, Gregory B. “The Descendants of Jören Kyn, the Founder of Upland: YeatesLathin-Medford-McCall-Inglis-Barkly-Hering-Dow.” PMHB 5 (1881): 335 –39. Keith, Charles Penrose. The Provincial Councillors of Pennsylvania Who Held Office Between 1733 and 1766. Philadelphia: printed for the author, 1883. Kellock, Katherine A. “London Merchants and the Pre-1776 American Debts.” Guildhall Studies in London History 1 (1974): 109 –49. Klein, Philip Shriver, and Ari Hoogenboom. A History of Pennsylvania. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1973. Klein, Randolph Shipley. Portrait of an Early American Family: The Shippens of Pennsylvania Across Five Generations. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1971. Kohler, Max James. Rebecca Franks: An American Jewish Belle of the Last Century. New York: Philip Cowen, 1894. Lewis, George E. The Indiana Company, 1763 –1798: A Study in Eighteenth Century Frontier Land Speculation and Business Venture. Glendale, Calif.: Arthur H. Clark, 1941.

248

Bibliography Long, Timothy Preston. “The Woodlands: A ‘Matchless Place.’ ” Master’s thesis, University of Pennsylvania, 1991. Marcus, Jacob Rader. The Colonial American Jew, 1492 –1776. 3 vols. Detroit: Wayne State University Press, 1970. ———. Early American Jewry. 2 vols. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1951–53. Markens, Isaac. The Hebrews in America: A Series of Historical and Biographical Sketches. New York: published by the author, 1888. Matson, Cathy D. Merchants and Empire: Trading in Colonial New York. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press, 1998. Matthew, H. C. G., and Brian Harrison, eds. Oxford Dictionary of National Biography. Rev. ed. 60 vols. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 2004. McCracken, George Englert. The Welcome Claimants, Proved, Disproved, and Doubtful, with an Account of Some of Their Descendants. Baltimore: Genealogical Publication Co., 1970. Megginess, John F. Biographical Annals of Lancaster County, Pennsylvania. Chicago: J. H. Beers, 1903. Miller, William P. “An Examination of George Washington’s Employment of the Pennsylvania Militia at the Battles of Trenton and Princeton.” USAWC Strategy Research Project, U.S. Army War College, Carlisle, Pennsylvania, March 18, 2005. Mills, W. Jay. Historic Houses of New Jersey. Philadelphia: Lippincott, 1902. Mishoff, Willard O. “Business in Philadelphia During the British Occupation, 1777–1778.” PMHB 61 (1937): 165 – 81. Morais, Henry Samuel. The Jews of Philadelphia: Their History from the Earliest Settlements to the Present Time. Philadelphia: Levytype, 1894. Murdoch, Richard K. “Benedict Arnold and the Owners of the Charming Nancy.” PMHB 84 (1960): 22 –55. Neagles, James C. Summer Soldiers: A Survey and Index of Revolutionary War CourtsMartial. Salt Lake City: Ancestry, 1986. Necarsulmer, Henry. “The Early Jewish Settlement at Lancaster, Pennsylvania.” PAJHS 9 (1901): 29 –43. Needles, Samuel H. “The Governor’s Mill and Globes Mill of Philadelphia.” PMHB 8 (1884): 279 –300. Neel, Joanne Loewe. Phineas Bond: A Study in Anglo-American Relations, 1786 –1812. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1968. Nivin, Septimus Evans. Genealogy of the Evans, Nivin, and Allied Families. Philadelphia: International Printing, 1930. Oberholtzer, Ellis Paxson. Philadelphia, a History of the City and Its People: A Record of 225 Years. 2 vols. Philadelphia: S. J. Clarke, 1912. Oppenheim, Samuel. “The Chapters of Isaac the Scribe: A Bibliographical Rarity, New York, 1772.” PAJHS 22 (1914): 39 –51. ———. “David Franks as an Insurance Broker, 1757 and 1758.” PAJHS 26 (1918): 268 –70. ———. “David Franks’ Interest in Lands in Virginia, in 1774.” PAJHS 25 (1917): 119 –20. ———. “Jewish Owners of Ships Registered at the Port of Philadelphia, 1730 –1775.” PAJHS 26 (1918): 235 –36. 249

Bibliography O’Toole, Fintan. White Savage: William Johnson and the Invention of America. New York: Farrar, Straus and Giroux, 2005. Palmer, Gregory. Biographical Sketches of Loyalists of the American Revolution. Westport, Conn.: Meckler, 1984. Pencak, William. “The Beginning of a Beautiful Friendship: Franklin, Whitefield, the Dancing School Blockheads, and a Defense of the Public Sphere.” Proteus 19 (2002): 45 –50. ———. Jews and Gentiles in Early America, 1654 –1800. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press, 2005. Powell, John Harvey. Bring Out Your Dead: The Great Plague of Yellow Fever in Philadelphia in 1793. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1949. Roach, Hannah Benner. Colonial Philadelphians. Philadelphia: Genealogical Society of Pennsylvania, 1999. Roche, John F. Joseph Reed: A Moderate in the American Revolution. New York: Columbia University Press, 1954. Rosendale, Simon W. “A Document Concerning the Franks Family.” PAJHS 1 (1893): 103 –4. Rosswurm, Steven. Arms, Country, and Class: The Philadelphia Militia and the “Lower Sort” During the American Revolution, 1775 –1783. New Brunswick: Rutgers University Press, 1987. Roth, Cecil. The Great Synagogue, London, 1690 –1940. London: E. Goldston, 1950. ———. “Membership of the Great Synagogue, London to 1791.” Transactions and Miscellanies of the Jewish Historical Society of England (1962): 175 – 83. ———. “Some Jewish Loyalists in the War of American Independence.” PAJHS 38 (1948 –49): 81–107. Rubens, Alfred. Anglo-Jewish Portraits: A Biographical Catalogue of Engraved Anglo-Jewish and Colonial Portraits from the Earliest Times to the Accession of Queen Victoria. London: Jewish Museum, 1935. Russo, Jean B. A Question of Reputation: William Paca’s Courtship of Polly Tilghman. Annapolis: Historic Annapolis Foundation, 2000. Ryerson, Richard Alan. “Political Mobilization and the American Revolution: The Resistance Movement in Philadelphia, 1765 to 1776.” William and Mary Quarterly, 3d ser., 31 (1974): 565 – 87. ———. The Revolution Is Now Begun: The Radical Committees of Philadelphia, 1765 –1776. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 1978. Savelle, Max. George Morgan, Colony Builder. New York: AMS Press, 1967. Scharf, J. Thomas, and Thompson Westcott. History of Philadelphia, 1609 –1884. 3 vols. Philadelphia: L. H. Everts, 1884. Scheer, George F., and Hugh F. Rankin. Rebels and Redcoats: The American Revolution Through the Eyes of Those Who Fought and Lived It. Cleveland: World Publishing, 1957. Schwartz, Seymour I. The French and Indian War, 1754 –1763. New York: Simon and Schuster, 1994. Seed, Geoffrey. “A British Spy in Philadelphia, 1775 –1777.” PMHB 85 (1961): 3 –37. Shoemaker, Thomas H. “A List of the Inhabitants of Germantown and Chestnut Hill in 1809.” PMHB 16 (1892): 42 – 63. Slick, Sewell Elias. William Trent and the West. Harrisburg: Archives Publishing, 1947.

250

Bibliography Smith, Horace Wemyss. Life and Correspondence of the Rev. William Smith, D.D. 2 vols. Philadelphia: S. A. George, 1879 – 80. Reprint, New York: Arno Press, 1972. ———. Nuts for Future Historians to Crack. Philadelphia: Horace W. Smith, 1856. Snyder, June Avery, and Martin P. Snyder. The Story of the Naomi Wood Collection and Woodford Mansion in Philadelphia’s Fairmont Park. Wayne, Pa.: Haverford House, 1981. Solomons, Israel. “The Genealogy of the Franks Family.” PAJHS 18 (1911): 213 –14. Sosin, Jack M. Whitehall and the Wilderness: The Middle West in British Colonial Policy, 1760 –1775. Lincoln: University of Nebraska Press, 1961. ———. “The Yorke-Camden Opinion and American Land Speculators.” PMHB 85 (1961): 38 –49. Stackhouse, Asa Matlack. Col. Timothy Matlack, Patriot and Soldier, a Paper. N.p.: privately printed, 1910. Stephen, Leslie, and Sidney Lee. eds. Directory of National Biography. 22 vols. New York: Macmillan, 1885 –1901. Stern, Malcolm Henry. First American Jewish Families. Cincinnati: American Jewish Archives, 1978. Stiverson, Gregory A., and Phebe R. Jacobsen. William Paca, a Biography. Baltimore: Maryland Historical Society, 1976. Stone, Frederick D. “Philadelphia Society One Hundred Years Ago, or The Reign of Continental Money.” PMHB 3 (1879): 361–95. Story, Duncan Albert. The DeLanceys: A Romance of a Great Family. London: Thomas Nelson, 1931. Thomas, Charles M. “Successful and Unsuccessful Merchants in the Illinois Country.” Illinois State Historical Society Journal 30 (1937–38): 429 –40. Thompson, Ray. Benedict Arnold in Philadelphia. Fort Washington, Pa.: Bicentennial Press, 1975. Tolles, Frederick B. “Town House and Country House: Inventories from the Estate of William Logan, 1776.” PMHB 82 (1958): 397–410. Trevelyan, George Otto. The American Revolution. 3 vols. New York: Longmans, Green, 1908. Volwiler, Albert Tangeman. George Croghan and the Westward Movement, 1741–1782. New York: AMS Press, 1926. Wainwright, Nicholas B. George Croghan, Wilderness Diplomat. Chapel Hill: University of North Carolina Press, 1959. Ward, Christopher. The War of the Revolution. 2 vols. New York: Macmillan, 1952. Ward, Townsend. “The Germantown Road and Its Associators.” PMHB 5 (1881): 1–18. ———. “A Walk to Darby.” PMHB 3 (1879): 150 – 66. Wharton, Anne Hollingsworth. Through Colonial Doorways. Philadelphia: J. B. Lippincott, 1900. Wilson, James Grant, and John Fiske, eds. Appletons’ Cyclopaedia of American Biography. 6 vols. New York: D. Appleton, 1887– 89. Wolf, Edwin, II. “Abigail Evans Franks’ Bible.” PAJHS 58 (1941): 137–38. Wolf, Edwin, II, and Maxwell Whiteman. The History of the Jews of Philadelphia from Colonial Times to the Age of Jackson. Philadelphia: Jewish Publication Society of America, 1957. Zitt, Hersch L. “David Salisbury Franks, Revolutionary Patriot (c. 1740 –1793).” Pennsylvania History 16 (1948): 77–95.

251

Index

Adams, John Arthur, 26 Adams, Samuel, 117 adventure system, 18, 36, 37, 52, 84, 100 Alden, John, 72 Allen, Andrew, 109, 124, 142, 180, 188 Allen, William, 124 Allen family, 3, 136 All Saints Anglican Church (Isleworth, England), 92, 197 American Jewish Historical Society (AJHS), 198 American Philosophical Society, 16 Amherst, Jeffrey, 54, 69, 76, 78, 81; biographical information, 34, 56 –57, 59, 60, 68; economy actions, 49, 57, 58, 63, 64; impressment of ships, 51, 53; military actions, 36, 42, 47, 72; obstinacy, 48, 52, 55, 58, 65, 66; relations with David Franks, 65; relations with Indians, 42, 57, 59, 63; victualing contract issues, 34 –35, 41, 50 –51, 55, 67, 73 Amphitrite (snow), 20 André, John: aide to General Clinton, 127, 148, 152, 153, 158; Mischianza, 128; prisoner, 125, 201 Aquila, Richard, 27 Arnold, Benedict, 4, 146, 162, 203, 237n22, 237–38n25; biographical information, 137, 138; relations with David Franks, 143; relations with radicals, 139, 140, 143, 153, 154; West Point treason, 158 Arnold, Margaret (Peggy) Shippen (wife of Benedict): friendship with Rebecca Franks, 125, 127, 143, 237n22, 237–38n24; Mischianza, 128; relationship with Benedict Arnold, 140, 146, 153 Auchmuty, Frances Tucker, 128 Ayer, Peter, 9 Ayres (captain), 113, 114 Bache, Richard, 41, 120 Baker, Kilby and Baker, 34, 36 –38, 43 –44, 49 Baker, Richard, 34, 35

Baker, William, 32, 34, 35, 38 Barclay, Alexander, 24, 60, 74, 106, 107 Barclay, Ann (Alexander’s first wife), 24 Barclay, David, 24 Barclay, Rebecca Evans (Margaret Franks’s sister; Alexander’s second wife), 24 Batho, Charles, 41 Bayard, John, 139 Bayard, Stephen, 12 Bedford, 4th duke of ( John Russell), 62 Beekman, William, 9 Beekman family, 7 Belle (cargo ship), 111 Bevan, Davis, 149 Bingham family, 238 –39nn30, 31 Blane, Archibald, 53 Bloch, David, 6 Blouin, Daniel, 88 Board of War, 132, 136 –37, 141–42, 144 –45 Bond, Phineas, 120, 127, 164, 236n17 Bond, Phineas, Jr., 124 Bond, Rebecca (Becky), 128, 140 Bond, Thomas, 140 Bond, Williamina (Willy). See Cadwalader, Williamina (Willy) Bond Boone, Daniel, 62 Boone, Thomas, 168 Boudinot, Elias, 121, 133, 136 Boudinot, Nancy (wife of Elias), 140 Bowker, R. Arthur, 116 Braddock, James, 31, 33, 72 Bradshaw, Thomas, 106 Bremmer, James, 120 Bridenbaugh, Carl, 106 Brown, Windsor, 88, 89 Bruce, Thomas, 40 Bryan, George, 112, 139, 145, 149 Bush, Matthias, 56, 113, 132, 169 Bush, Nathaniel (Nathan), 113 Bush Hill (mansion), 175, 176 Bushy Run, battle of, 59, 63, 64, 66 Bute, 3rd earl of ( John Stuart), 57 Byrd, William, III, 54

Index Cadwalader, John, 107, 175; biographical information, 2, 3, 173, 207n5; David Franks’s arrest and trial, 2, 145; disputes with Joseph Reed, 3 –4, military life, 123; political participation, 1, 109, 174; William Hamilton’s arrest and trial, 4, 106, 142, 156 Cadwalader, Lambert, 106, 237n20, 239n36 Cadwalader, Thomas, 22, 207– 8n5, 237n20 Cadwalader, Williamina (Willy) Bond, 125, 128, 174, 236n17, 237n19, 239n37 Callender, Robert, 28, 82; biographical information, 80; connection with Colonel Bouquet, 74; David Franks’s employee, 18, 64, 66, 80, 84; land speculations, 97, 100; partnership with Baynton, Wharton and Morgan, 84 – 85; Suffering Trader, 29, 30, 43, 61 Camden, 1st earl of (Charles Pratt), 96 Campbell, John, 199, 114 Cannon, Abraham, 9 Cannon, James, 112, 139 Carey, Mathew, 199 Carroll, Charles, 101 Castles, George, 100 Chamier, Daniel, 117, 118, 121 Charleton, Thomas, 16 Chase, Samuel, 101, 160, 174 Chatham, 1st earl of (William Pitt), 57, 98 Chew, Margaret Oswald (Peggy), 125, 127, 128, 239 –40n38 Chew, Sally, 128 Chew family, 136 Christ Church, Philadelphia, 120, 126; baptisms, 15, 19, 20; burials and gravestones, 19, 115, 154, 176, 197, 199; Evans family affiliation, 14; Franks family affiliation, 14, 15, 107; not baptized, 32; partners of David Franks as members, 28, 46, 74; steeple bells, 21, 22 Clarke, Gedney, 69 Clarke family, 7 Clarkson, Matthew, 138, 154 Clifford, Thomas, 53 Clinton, George, 239n34 Clinton, Henry, 145, 152; Amherst’s staff, 127; commander in chief, 137; David Franks’s imprisonment, 142; military campaign, 158; prisoner ration issues, 141, 142, 144; victualing claims, 147, 148, 149, 153 Clive, Kitty, 6 Clymer, George, 1, 2, 5, 106, 109, 175 Coffin, Alexander, 110

Cohen, Jacob, 177 Colden, Cadwallader, 12 Colebrooke, George, 35, 38 Colebrooke, James, 35, 202 Colebrooke, Nesbitt, Colebrooke and Franks, 37, 50, 54, 80, 216n4 Coleman, William, 106, 107 College of Philadelphia: attendees, 41, 106, 124, 237n21, 239 –40n38; headmaster, 101; trustees, 16, 46, 74 Congregation Mikveh Israel, Philadelphia, 132, 172, 177 Congregation Shearith Israel, New York, 17; Captain Phillips’s activities, 198; David Franks’s membership, 8, 13, 15, 40, 94; Hebrew school, 8; Jacob Franks’s membership, 7, 92, 94; Joseph Simon’s connection, 18 Constable, William, 139, 154 Continental Congress: David Franks’s services, 117, 119, 129; land issues, 99; members, 3, 4, 101, 112, 126, 175; relocated to Lancaster, 124; resistance to Britain, 109 Conway, Henry, 91 Conway, Thomas, 3 Cooper, Grey, 134, 147 Cornwallis, 1st marquess (Charles Cornwallis), 124, 162, 237n18 Coxe, Catherine McCall (wife of Tench), 136 Coxe, Tench: David Franks’s lawyer, 156, 158, 162, 163, 165, 166, 169; David Franks’s will, 167; land issues, 160, 164; loyalist, 124, 150, 151; marriage, 136; Mischianza, 128 Craig, Janet, 128, 140 Creek Indians, 40, 45 Croghan, George, 51, 56, 69, 80, 86, 105, 212n67; arrested and tried as Loyalist, 150; biographical sources, 213n9; David Franks’s partner, 18; dealing with Indians, 29, 57, 84; death, 164, 174; friend of Indians, 27, 57; General Gage displeased, 85; Illinois and Ouabache Company activity, 100; Illinois venture, 85; Indiana Company activity, 97, 160; London trips, 60 – 61, 84, 96; losses in 1754, 29; no formal education, 28; partnership with Baynton, Wharton and Morgan, 84; peace treaty of Lancaster, 53; promoted western growth, 27; spoke Indian tongues, 28; Suffering Traders of 1754, 30, 60, 63; Suffering Traders of 1763, 60, 63; William Trent’s partner, 28

254

Index Cruger, John Harris (Oliver DeLancey’s sonin-law), 94, 104, 158 Cummins, Robert, 37, 43, 66 Cuyler, Henry, 10 Cuyler, Philip, 39 Daiches-Dubens, Rachel, 197 Dalrymple, William, 103 Dartmouth, 2nd earl of (William Legge), 100, 114, 115 Davis, Strachan and Company, 116 Debermier, John, 89 De Fries, Abraham ben Baruch (Richa Franks’s husband), 170, 209n15 De Fries, Mordicai (Modcha) (Richa Franks’s stepson), 170, 209n15 De Fries, Richa (Rachel) Franks, 158, 164; acquainted with William Murray, 88; birth date (estimated), 11; co-administrator of father’s estate, 94; David Franks’s sister, 7; extolled by “Isaac the Scribe,” 105; good friend of sister Phila, 11; harpsichord and flute player, 8; impressed by Moses Jr., 92; London trip, 104; marriage, 170, 209 –10n15; suitors not acceptable, 11 DeLancey, Anne Van Cortlandt (wife of Stephen), 12 DeLancey, Elizabeth Colden (wife of Peter), 12 DeLancey, James (brother of Oliver), 12 DeLancey, John Peter (nephew of Oliver), 159 DeLancey, Oliver (David Franks’s brotherin-law), 36, 74, 94, 142; Abigaill Franks’s resentment, 12; David Franks’s covert letter, 1; DeLancey political power, 12; family history, 12; financial advisor to sister, 31; living in London, 164; marriage, 11; militia general, 33, 34, 124, 158; money problems, 83; partner with John Watts, 13; relationship with Jacob Franks, 32; reputation, 12; seeks victualing contract, 35; settles brother’s estate, 42 –43 DeLancey, Oliver, Jr., 127, 236n17 DeLancey, Peter (Oliver’s brother), 12 DeLancey, Phila Franks (David Franks’s sister), 1, 104; Cruger as son-in-law, 94; home burned down, 158; living in London, 164; marriage, 10, 11, 173; relationships with parents, 12, 35, 94; relationships with siblings, 7, 11 DeLancey, Stephen (Etienne) (Oliver’s father), 12 DeLancey and Watts: problems, 49, 50, 52, 80; victualing, 35, 54, 70, 73, 74, 76

DeLancey family, 7, 12, 27, 32, 36 Delaware (cargo ship), 111 De Lucena, Abraham, 9 De Peyster, Abraham, 12 Deveze, Jean, 175, 176 Dickinson, John, 109, 112 Dingwell, Anne, 174 Dinwiddie, Robert, 62 Donellan, Thomas, 37 Douds, Howard, 41 Drake (schooner), 16, 106 Drummond, Adam, 73, 86, 159, 202 Dunmore, 4th earl of ( John Murray), 100, 114, 160 Dutches of Gordon (ship), 105 Duyckinck, Everett, 9 East India Company, 96, 114 Ecuyer, Simeon, 59, 74 Egremont, 2nd earl of (Charles Wyndham), 59, 60, 63 Ellis, Robert, 18 Esther (brig sloop), 40, 132 Etting, Solomon, 169, 170, 172 Evans, John (lieutenant governor, Pennsylvania), 14 Evans, John (Supreme Court justice, Pennsylvania), 146 Evans, John (Margaret Franks’s brother), 18 Evans, Mary Moore (Peter’s wife), 14 Evans, Peter (David Franks’s father-in-law), 14, 18, 19, 46 Ewetse, 31 Ewing, James, 123 Fauquier, Francis, 49 Ferguson, E. James, 129, 130 Field, Robert, 84, 85 Fisher, John Abraham, 166 Fitzroy (colonel), 35 Fludyer, Drummond and Franks, 77, 80, 81, 83 Fludyer, Samuel, 73, 202 Forbes, Gordon, 88 Forbes, John, 33 –34, 36, 47, 65 Fort Bedford, 65, 66; carriage, 44; residual stores, 37; service contracts, 35; victualing, 43, 64, 68, 70; visits of Plumsted and Franks, 47, 53 Fort Carlisle, 66, 85; carriage, 35, 44, 68, 73; personnel, 36, 43, 63, 67; victualing, 37, 53, 59 Fort Chartres, 86 – 87, 93, 102, 104, 106, 113 Fort Cumberland, 43, 54, 83

255

Index Fort Duquesne (Fort Prince George), 26, 33, 34 Fortescue, John William, 129, 137 Fort Ligonier, 35, 44, 48, 52, 53 Fort Loudoun, 47, 59, 64, 80, 82, 83 Fort Niagara, 58, 104 Fort Pitt, 42, 70, 98; Amherst’s orders, 63, 67; carriage, 35; contracts, 54, 75, 76, 79, 80, 83; Gage calming, 82, 93; Indian issues, 57,59; Pontiac uprising, 58; problems, 48, 50, 66, 67, 69; residual stores, 37, 44, 47, 78, 80; strategic importance, 42; victualing, 36, 53, 66, 73, 86, 107; visits by Plumsted and Franks, 47, 52, 53 Fort Stanwix, 62, 96, 97 Foulke, Judah, 107 Fox, Joseph, 53 Franklin, Benjamin, 106, constitutional convention, 112; Dancing Assembly, 19; England, 61, 96; experiments, 16; land speculation, 86, 93, 98 –99, 159; Library Company, 22; militias, 122 Franklin, William, 62, 86, 97, 168 Franks, Aaron (David Franks’s brother; died in infancy), 7 Franks, Aaron (David Franks’s child; died in infancy), 20 Franks, Aaron (David Franks’s uncle), 6, 8, 92, 119 Franks, Abigail (Abby) (David Franks’s daughter). See Hamilton, Abigail Evans (Abby) Franks Franks, Abigail (Poyer) (David Franks’s sister), 7, 104, 158 Franks, Abigail (Sarah Phila) Bloch (David Franks’s grandmother), 6 Franks, Abraham (Naphtali Hart) (David Franks’s grandfather), 6, 7 Franks, Bilah Hart (uncle Aaron Franks’s wife), 6 Franks, Bilhah Abigail[l] Levy ( Jacob’s wife; David’s mother): biographical information, 7, 31; family issues, 16, 209n15; letters, 8, 15, 104, 209n7; mother activities, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 32; reader, 8; social life, 12, 14 Franks, David: adventure system, 18, 37; Andrew Hamilton’s death, 166; arrests and trials, 1, 2, 143, 146, 149 –50, 154 –55; bailed out, 2, 5; banished from Pennsylvania, 155; bar mitzvah, 8; Becky’s wedding, 162; bereavement for father, 94; candle manufacture, 32, 113; carried little

256

money, 23; charity, 30, 31; Christ Church membership, 15, 19, 21, 22; children born, 15, 19, 20, 21, 31, 32; competitors, 29, 41, 85 – 87, 113; Croghan partnership, 27, 30, 41, 85; Dancing Assembly, 19, 20, 32, 115; death, 176; debt collection, 140; depositions as Jew, 40, 173; exchange rates, 116; executor of wills, 40; father’s death, 94; fur trade, 41; Hebrew ledgers, 24; illegal letter, 1, 2, 142 –43; Illinois and Ouabache Co., 100, 114, 140, 152, 163, 169, 173, 212n67; Indiana Company, 140 –41, 151–53, 159, 171–72; Indian trade, 18, 43, 55; insurance business, 39; Jacob Jr. in college, 41; Kaskaskia store, 100; knowledge of Judaism, 15; Lancaster, 17, 21, 53; land speculation, 17, 61– 62, 96 –101; leadership, 18, 212n67; legal services, 17, 40; Library Company member, 22; London trips, 159, 163; losses to Indians, 30, 60, 67; loyalist’s pension, 159, 167– 68; loyalty, 2; marriage, 14; mentor of merchants, 23; militia member, 9 –10; Mischianza, 128; Moses Jr. in college, 41; mother’s death, 31; mother’s rejection, 15, 31; Mount Regale club, 41; move to New York, 157; new contracts, 44, 54, 73 –74, 76, 83; nonimportation agreement, 90; oaths of allegiance, 138, 141; owned carriages, 41; partnership with Inglis and Barkly, 74, 81, 88; partnership with Isaac Levy, 88, 91; partnership with Moses Franks, 13; partnership with Nathan Levy, 15, 16, 17, 21, 22; partership with Plumsted, 35, 36, 46 –47, 91; payment issues, 120, 130, 132 –34, 141–42, 147–48, 152; Polly’s death, 115; problem issues, 45, 48, 50, 54, 58, 67, 73 –74; prosecution by Reed, 3, 146, 149; relationship with Amherst, 41, 48, 52, 54 –55, 58, 63, 65; relationship with Bouquet, 47–48, 51, 63 – 64, 67– 68, 91; relationship with Gage, 75 –95; relationship with Gratz brothers, 15, 22, 23, 39,116; relationship with Simon, 2, 17–18, 21, 30, 41, 53, 85, 137, 165; relationship with Trent, 28, 30, 41, 62; return to America, 168; residual stores, 37, 38, 80, 88; Shearith Israel, 13, 15, 17–19, 21, 31, 40, 92; shipbuilding, 110, 111; ship ownership, 16, 17, 20, 24; Stamp Tax, 55; “Sufferers of 1754 and 1763,” 30, 61, 63, 69, 104; supplies order from George

Index Washington, 33; supplies prisoners, 117, 118, 121; town house, 120; victualing ends, 135; violin, 8, 41, 120; visits to forts, 44, 47, 52, 53; will, 166 – 67; wife’s death, 154; Woodford, 106, 120, 125, 201, 203 Franks, David Salisbury (Solebury), 138, 154, 155, 176, 197, 199 Franks, Henry Benjamin, 40 Franks, Inglis and Barkly, 74, 77, 81, 82, 86 Franks, Isaac (David Franks’s uncle), 6, 7 Franks, Jacob (David Franks’s father): biographical information, 7, 10, 32, 94, 107; business activities, 13, 35, 107; cemetery acquisition, 9; family life, 11–12, 14, 31, 93, 95, 104; lawsuits, 9; militia membership, 9; relationship with DeLancey and Watts, 13, 74; Shearith Israel activities, 7, 92 Franks, Jacob/John ( Jacob Jr.) (David Franks’s son): biographical information, 41, 119, 120, 167, 197, 198; childhood, 9, 19, 20, 32; England, 92, 163, 164, 166; land speculation, 97, 100, 101 Franks, Margaret Evans (David Franks’s wife), 22; children, 15, 19, 20, 21, 31, 32; death, 154, 162; family, 34, 107, 124, 125; marital relationship, 15, 32, 40, 143; marriage, 14; social life, 32, 115, 128, 136 Franks, Mary (Polly) (David Franks’s daughter), 20, 32, 115 Franks, Moses (David Franks’s brother): appeal for compensation, 170; business with Baker, Kilby and Baker, 37, 38; business with DeLancey and Watts, 35, 76; business with Oliver DeLancey, 1, 35; claims of “Sufferers”, 60, 61, 69; death, 170; first victualing contract, 37, 118; friendship with John Watts, 36, 74, 81– 83; friendship with Oliver DeLancey, 32, 34; Gage letter, 116; land company partner, 100; living in Teddington, 110; marriage, 91; Moses Jr. law school issue, 119, 120; new victualing partnership, 73; offending letter, 1, 2, 142; partnership with David Franks, 9, 13; prisoner payments, 134; shipbuilding, 109, 110, 111; visited Naphtali Franks, 9; youthful skills, 8 Franks, Moses (“Moses Jr.”) (David Franks’s son), 124, 163, 175; army activity, 164; childhood, 21, 23, 32; David Franks’s will, 167; land speculation, 100, 101, 169; schooling, 41, 119, 120 Franks, Naphtali (Heartsey) (David Franks’s brother), 158; childhood, 7; England, 13;

Jacob Franks’s estate, 104; land speculation, 97; letters from New York, 8, 11, 12, 15, 16, 31; marriage and family, 10, 164, 210n17; Moses Franks’s visit, 9; wedding gift, 14 Franks, Phila (David Franks’s sister). See DeLancey, Phila Franks Franks, Phila Franks (Aaron Franks’s daughter; Moses Franks’s wife), 6, 91, 92 Franks, Phila Franks (Isaac Franks’s daughter; Naphtali Franks’s wife), 210n17 Franks, Priscilla Franks (Aaron Franks’s daughter; Jacob/John Franks’s wife), 6, 92, 163, 164, 166, 197 Franks, Rebecca (Becky) (David Franks’s daughter). See Johnson, Rebecca (Becky) Franks Franks, Rebecca (David Franks’s sister; died in infancy), 7 Franks, Richa (David Franks’s daughter; died at six months old), 31 Franks, Richa (Ritchie, Rachel) ( David Franks’s sister). See De Fries, Richa (Rachel) Franks Franks, Sara (David Franks’s sister), 7 Franks, Simha Frances Hart (Isaac Franks’s wife), 6 Franks, Simons, Gratz, Levy Group, 113 Franks, Trent, Simon and Company, 37 Franks, Trent, Simon and Levy, 36, 85, 140 Franks family, 4, 8, 10, 24 Frederick the Great, 123 French and Indian War (Seven Years’ War), 60, 95, 98, 105, 108; battles, 26, 27, 50, 53; business issues, 24, 31, 202; officers, 33, 43, 65, 72 Friendship (cargo ship), 52 Gage, Margaret Kemble (Thomas Gage’s wife), 72 Gage, Thomas, 68, 85, 94, 110; Amherst relations, 60, 81; Baynton, Wharton and Morgan relations, 87; biographical information, 59, 71, 72; carriage issues, 70, 76; contracts, 75, 77, 79, 80, 83; David Franks relationship, 65, 70, 78, 83 – 84, 86, 93, 167; dislike for David Franks, 75, 76, 77; early career, 71, 72; friendship with John Watts, 74, 81, 82, 83; land issues, 69, 98; Plumsted and Franks issues, 73, 75, 81, 82; public unrest, 90, 91, 102, 103, 106; relations with George Washington, 72; relations with Indian, 115; relations with

257

Index Gage, Thomas (cont’d) John Inglis, 82, 91; relations with Levy and Franks, 93; residual stores, 70, 87; strategic planning, 104; victualing, 70, 102, 106, 107, 116 Gage, William (Billy) (Thomas Gage’s son), 105 Galloway, Joseph, 3, 109, 111, 124, 130, 150; Indiana Company, 99, 140, 151 Galloway, Grace Growden ( Joseph Galloway’s wife), 155, 162 Gardiner (major), 128 Gates, Horatio, 2, 28, 136 George II (king of England), 57 George III (king of England), 24, 57, 96, 123, 138, 193 Gloucester (cargo ship), 110, 111 Goldsborough, Robert, 101 Gomez, David, 11 Gordon, duchess of ( Jane Maxwell), 105 Gordon, Henry, 83 Graham, Richard, 132 Gratz, Barnard, 113; account ledger, 212n67; business visits to Lancaster, 23; coming to America, 22; daughter’s marriage, 172; employed by David Franks, 22, 23; executor of George Croghan’s estate, 174; frugal, 22; his own business, 23; Illinois and Ouabache Company, 100, 171; Mikveh Israel leader, 172; payment issues, 132; relationship with David Franks, 15, 39, 40, 92, 156, 165; trip to London, 105; Virginia episode, 56 Gratz, Michael: coming to America, 23; employed by David Franks, 23; executor of George Croghan’s estate, 174; Illinois and Ouabache Company, 100, 212n67; Indiana Company, 172 –73; marriage, 105; relationship with David Franks, 15, 116, 163; Virginia episode, 56 Gratz, Miriam Simon, ( Joseph Simon’s daughter; Michael Gratz’s wife), 105 Gratz brothers, 94, 169, 177 Gray (sergeant major), 131 Great Synagogue of London, 6, 92, 210n17 Greenbrier Company, 62 Greene, Nathanael, 3, 137, 140 Greenleaf, Joseph, 110 Grymes, Benjamin, 41 Halkett, Peter, 72 Hamilton, Abigail (Abby) Evans Franks, 19, 32, 107, 146, 158, 170, 176; born and baptized, 15; considered Loyalist, 93;

Dancing Assembly, 115; David Franks’s arrests and trials, 143; David Franks’s will, 167; husband’s death, 166; marriage, 92; mother’s death and burial, 155; neighbor of Benjamin Rush, 198; relationship with David Franks, 161, 162, 165, 174, 177; William Hamilton’s trial, 4, 142 Hamilton, Andrew, I, 92 Hamilton, Andrew, II, 19 Hamilton, Andrew, III (Abigail’s husband; David Franks’s son-in-law), 4, 158, 174; business issues, 93, 163; considered Loyalist, 93; death, 166; Illinois and Ouabache Company, 100, 159; marriage, 92; relationship with David Franks, 161 Hamilton, Andrew, IV (David Franks’s grandson), 164 Hamilton, Arthur, 47 Hamilton, James (lieutenant governor of Pennsylvania), actions as governor, 51, 52, 53, 58; considered Loyalist, 146; Mount Regale club, 41; William Hamilton’s trial, 4, 142 Hamilton, James (David Franks’s grandson), 164 Hamilton, Margaret (Peggy) (David Franks’s granddaughter), 161 Hamilton, William (Billy): banishment and return, 155, 159; biographical information, 237n21; Illinois and Ouabache Company, 100; trial for treason, 1–2, 4, 142, 146, 154 –56, 180, 188 – 89; uncle to David Franks’s grandchildren, 164, 166; Woodlands, 93 Hamilton family, 4, 93, 159 Hancock, John, 118 Hare, Margaret (Peggy) Willing, 238n30 Hare, Robert, 120, 238n30 Harmony (brigantine), 110 Harrison, Anne (Nancy). See Paca, Anne (Nancy) Harrison Harrison and Ives, 54 Hart, Moses, 6, 121 Hart, Myer, 133 Hays, Samuel, 172 Henry, Jacob, 22 Henry, Solomon, 23 Hershkowitz, Leo, 12, 15 Hessians, 123, 131, 132 Hillegas, Michael, 41, 120 Hillsborough, Earl of (Wills Hill), 98, 102, 110 Hockley, Richard, 40 Holker, John, 101, 160, 237–38n25

258

Index Honeyman (lieutenant), 143 Hood, Thomas, 107 Hoops, Adam, 37, 43 –45, 47, 68, 216n22 Hopkinson, Francis, 41 Hopkinson, Thomas, 16, 106 Howe, Richard, 127 Howe, William: retires from army, 127, 128, 137; social activities, 125, 126; support of David Franks, 159, 168; victualing issues, 121, 131, 133, 134; war actions, 3, 123, 124, 127, 130, 132 Howell, Joshua, 36 Hughes, Barnabas, 43 Humphreys, Charles, 112 Hutchins, Thomas, 89 Hutchinson, Thomas, 91

Johnson, Robert Winder, 198 Johnson, William, 56, 85; biographical information, 27; land speculation, 84; relationship with Amherst, 63; relationship with Baynton, Wharton and Morgan, 86; relationship with David Franks, 67; relations with Indians, 29, 57, 61– 62, 90, 96, 115 Josephson, Manuel, 172

Illinois and Ouabache Company, 162, 163, 165; claims, 114, 140, 159, 161, 171–73; formation and leaders, 100, 117, 124, 152; Tench Coxe participation, 160, 164, 169 Indiana Company: claims and appeals, 99, 141, 152, 159, 160, 171–72; European activities, 105; formation and leaders, 96, 97, 109, 140, 151, 153 Indian nations: Delaware, 26, 28, 53; Huron, 58; Iroquois, 26, 27, 28, 57, 239n34; Kickapoo, 53; Miami (Twightwees), 26, 53; Mingo, 26; Ottawa, 58; Ojibwa, 58; Potawatamie, 58; Shawnee, 53; Wyandot, 26 inflation, 2, 130, 131, 155 Inglis, John, 21, 90, 174; Dancing Assembly, 19; land speculation, 100; partnership with David Franks, 74, 77, 81– 83, 88, 91 Inglis family, 136 Innes, James, 174 Isaac the Scribe, 105 Isleworth, England, 6, 92, 163, 166, 167, 197

Lamerie, Paul de, 14 Lapwing (sloop), 17, 20 Lardner, Lynford, 19 Laurens, Henry, 4, 144, 145, 207– 8n5 Lawrence, Thomas, 30, 104 Leake, Robert, 51, 75, 77, 80, 82 Lee, Arthur, 152 Lee, Thomas, 61 Levy, Benjamin, 104 Levy, Hannah, 154 Levy, Hayman (or Heyman), Jr., 92, 156 Levy, Isaac (Abigaill Franks’s brother; David Franks’s partner), 88, 95, 111, 174, 210n17 Levy, Judith, 164 Levy, Levy Andrew: partnerships, 23, 29, 36, 41; Indian episodes, 56, 59; land speculation, 100, 140, 151 Levy, Moses (Abigaill Franks’s father), 7, 9 Levy, Myer, 39 Levy, Nathan (Abigaill Franks’s brother; David Franks’s partner): biographical information, 15, 88, 174, 212n63; David Franks’s partner, 10 –11, 15, 17, 106; death, 21–22; organized Jewish cemetery, 16, 172; trip to Europe, 20 Levy, Sam[p]son, 19 Levy, Solomon Etiel, 9 Levy and Franks (I) (Nathan Levy partnership): land speculation, 29; mercantile successes, 18, 19, 29, 212n67; ship owners, 17; partnership formed, 10, 16; trip to London, 21 Levy and Franks (II) (Isaac Levy partnership), 88, 89, 92, 93, 102 Lewis, Anthony, 9 Lewis, John, 62

Jefferson, Peter, 62 Jefferson, Thomas, 62, 238n28 Jenkinson, Charles, 70 Johnson, Guy, 115, 239n33, 239n34 Johnson, Henry (David Franks’s son-in-law), 129, 155, 162, 164, 237n18, 239n33 Johnson, Rebecca (Becky) Franks (David Franks’s daughter; Henry’s wife), 155, 156, 157, 164, 198; childhood, 32, 93; family life, 143, 149, 158, 167, 237n23, 238n29; Mischianza, 128, 129; social life, 125 –26, 146, 153, 161, 162, 237n18, 237n19

Kemble, Stephen, 83 Kemble family, 72, 136 Kilby, Christopher, 34, 35, 36, 41, 42 Knights of the Blended Rose, 128, 129 Knights of the Burning Mountain, 128, 129 Knox, Henry, 173 Kuhn, Adam, 41

259

Index Liberty Bell, 22 Library Company of Philadelphia, 16, 22, 46 Lieben, Israel, 132 Liecestershire (cargo ship), 111 Livingston, Robert, 12 Livingston family, 12 Logan, James, 21, 28, 120 Logan, William, 120 Loudoun, 4th earl of ( John Campbell), 56, 72 Lowrey, Alexander, 17, 18, 24, 29 Lowrey, Daniel, 29 Loyal Company, 62, 97 Lunan, Alexander, 47, 217n9 Lyle, Ann Hamilton (David Franks’s granddaughter), 164 Lyon, Solomon, 172 MacLeane, Lauchlin, 87 McCall, George, 116 McCall, Samuel, 74 McCall family, 74, 239n36 McKean, Thomas, 112, 117, 146, 150 McKee, William, 56, 150 Marcus, Jacob Rader, 8, 166, 179, 230n16, 235n25 Mars (cargo ship), 111 Marshall, Richard, 39 Martin, Isaac, 40 Martin, Samuel, 38 Mason, George, 171 Matlack, Timothy, 112, 139, 145, 149 Maxwell, William, 148 Metcalfe, John, 45, 47, 48, 67 Metropolitan Museum of Art, New York, 14 Michael, Eberhart, 120 Middleton, 5th baron of (Henry Willoughby), 65 Mifflin, James, 22 Mifflin, Thomas, 112 militia, New York, 9, 33, 34 militia, Pennsylvania: Amherst’s feelings about, 66, 79; Cadwalader’s leadership, 2, 123, 142; conscription, 122, 138, 155; Trent as member, 28 militia, Virginia, 28, 33 Milligan, James, 100 Milne, Edmund, 100, 101, 152 Minshall, Thomas, 100 Mischianza, 128, 129, 130, 137, 155, 162 Mitchell, Thomas, 61, 177 Monckton, Robert, 28, 42, 49, 74; contracting agent, 37, 44, 68, 70 –71, 78 – 80; in Martinique, 52; victualing issues, 36

Montaigut, David, 163, 165 Montgomery (Montgomerie), Richard, 120 Montour, Andrew, 28 Montresor, John, 125, 128 Moore, Frances, 14 Moore, John, Jr. (Peter Evans’s brotherin-law), 14 Moore, John, Sr. (Peter Evans’s father-in-law), 14 Moore, Thomas William: David Franks’s letter, 1, 142 –43, 180, 183, 187– 88, 193; DeLancey’s brigade, 34, 124, 158; Savannah, 163 Mordicay (Mordicai), Jacob, 165 Morel and Hooper, 40 Morgan, Daniel, 137 Morgan, George: Illinois and Ouabache; partnership with Baynton and Wharton, 29, 84 Company, 100; Illinois country activities, 86, 87, 102; Indiana Company, 97, 141, 151, 159 – 60, 171–72 Morris, Joseph, 53, 104 Morris, Robert (financier), 90, 101, 112, 160, 171, 174 Morris, Robert Hunter (governor of Pennsylvania), 31 Morris, Staats, 105 Moses, Michael, 32, 54, 113 Mount Regale Fishing Company, 41, 52, 74, 217n9 Murdoch, George, 137 Murray, Daniel, 101 Murray, William: Fort Pitt activities, 67; Illinois and Ouabache Company, 152, 171; Illinois country activities, 100, 101, 114; residual stores issues, 89 Myrtilla (ship), 20, 22 Nesbitt, Arnold, 35, 86 Nesbitt, Drummond and Franks, 106, 118, 134, 148 Newkirk, John, 9 Noble, Thomas, 9 Norris, Isaac, 21 Oglethorpe, James, 13 O’Hara (colonel), 128 Ohio Company of Virginia, 62, 97, 98 Ormsby, John, 48 Ourry, Lewis, 47, 64 – 65, 68 –70, 74 Paca, Anne (Nancy) Harrison (William’s wife), 125, 126, 146

260

Index Paca, William, 126, 146 Page, Joseph, 101 Paine, Thomas, 112 Parthenope (ship), 20 Paxton Boys (Brown Boys), 85 Penn, John: as governor, 68 – 69, 79, 85, 109 –10, 215n11; Stanwix Treaty, 62; violinist, 41 Penn, Mary (Polly) Masters (Richard’s wife), 237–38n25 Penn, Richard, 168, 215n11, 237–38n25 Penn, Thomas, 15 Penn, William, 24, 28, 108, 120 Penn family, 14, 24, 93, 146 Perthuis, Francis, 101 Peters, Richard: appointed pastor, 14; secretary of province, 40; violinist, 41, 120; war office activities, 132, 142 Phila (ship), 20 Philadelphia Dancing Assembly, 21, 45, 74, 124; Franks family participation, 19, 115, 202 Philipse, Adolph, 12 Philipse family, 7 Phillips, Francis, 14 Phillips, N[aphtali] Taylor, 198, 226n21 Pintard, Lewis, 121 Pitt, William. See Chatham, 1st earl of Plumsted, William: biographical information, 74; criticized Adam Hoops, 44; death, 91, 174; diplomatic, 46, 81; ex-mayor of Philadelphia, 36; illness, 74, 91; impressment of ships, 51, 53; joins partnership, 35; Martinique campaign, 47, 51, 52; register general, 46; retires from partnership, 74; signs nonimportation agreement, 90; visits forts, 63 – 64, 68; visits General Gage, 81 Plumsted and Franks: authorized agents, 64; begin victualing, 36, 44; contract for live cattle, 37, 44, 79; dealing with Amherst, 55, 58, 63 – 66; dealing with Gage, 70, 71, 73, 75; delivery problems, 45, 48 –50, 58, 70; Gage’s anger, 75; hiring drovers, 45; Kilby disappointed, 36; management complexities, 50 –52, 59, 66 – 67; new contract, 54, 80; new partnership, 35; payment issues, 48 –49, 52, 54, 64, 73; pleasing Colonel Bouquet, 47, 58, 63, 66 – 69; purchasing problems, 52, 59; representatives, 43, 47–48; residual provisions, 37; visits to forts, 47, 53, 63 Plumsted family, 136 Polly (ship), 113

Pontiac (chief ), 58, 90 Pontiac’s Uprising, 58, 60, 65, 84, 85 Portland (ship), 164 Powell, John Harvey, 175 Powell, William, 174 Preston, Thomas, 102, 103 Quakers: practices, 19, 122, 124, 127, 141; politics, 108 –9 Ranger (sloop), 56 Rauzzini, Venanzio, 166 Read, John, 37, 53, 68 Redman, Nancy, 128, 140, 201 Reed, John, 86, 87 Reed, Joseph: Benedict Arnold issues, 140, 154; Bristol episode and aftermath, 1, 2 –5; David Franks’s trials, 149, 157; death, 175; lawyer for Indiana Company, 99; radicalism, 4, 99, 112, 139 Revere, Paul, 109 Rice, Patrick: David Franks’s key employee, 118, 131, 163; claim collection efforts, 120, 121, 147, 148, 152, 153 Richa (brigantine), 20 Ricus, Isaac Nunas, 17 Rittenhouse, David, 112, 139 Robinson, John, 134, 141, 147 Robinson, Peter (Margaret Franks’s brotherin-law), 18 Roebuck (ship), 52, 53, 54 Ross, Alexander, 100, 107 Ross, George, 101 Royal American Regiment, 51, 65, 83 Royal Botanical Society, 8 Rumsey, James, 88, 89 Rush, Benjamin, 175, 176, 197, 198, 199 Rush, Julia Stockton (Benjamin’s wife), 175, 176, 197 Ryerson, Richard Alan, 112 St. Catherine (cargo ship), 111 St. Clair, Arthur, 171 St. Clair, James, 39 St. Clair, John, 48, 52, 171 St. Martin, Nicholas, 101 St. Michael’s Church (Bath, England), 198 St. Peter’s Church (Philadelphia), 46, 199 Savage, John, 111 Savelle, Max, 29 Schuyler, Philip, 9, 118 Seagrove[s], James, 139, 154, 155 Seixas, Gershom Mendes, 173

261

Index Sergeant, Jonathan, 139, 141, 149, 150, 175, 184 Sheftall, Moses, 172 Shelburne, 2nd earl of (William Petty), 87 Shelby, Evan, 47–48 Shewell, Robert, 139 Shippen, Edward, Jr., 104 Shippen, Joseph, 115 Shippen, Margaret (Peggy). See Arnold, Margaret (Peggy) Shippen Shippen family, 128, 136, 140 Shute, Joseph, 107 Simon, Joseph: biographical information, 17–18, 177, 211n49; Board of War, 136, 137; friendship with David Franks, 17–18, 156, 164 – 65, 170 –71; Illinois and Ouabache Company, 100; Indiana Company, 140, 171; landowner, 18, 21; ledgers and memory, 24; losses to Indians, 30, 60; Mikveh Israel trustee, 172; partnership with David Franks, 18, 22 –23, 29 –30, 85, 169; posted bail for David Franks, 2, 145; supplying prisoners, 118, 121, 131, 132, 141, 144 Simon, Levy, Trent and Franks, 36, 41, 85 Simon and Levy, 29, 140 Six Nations: 53, 62, 96, 151, 160; Cayuga, 26; Mohawk, 26, 27, 239n34; Oneida, 26; Onondaga, 26; Seneca, 26; Tuscarora, 26. See also Iroquois Slough, Mathias, 63, 141 Slough and Simon, 63 Smallman, Thomas, 174 smallpox, 31, 59 Smith, Jonathan B., 139 Smith, Richard, 117 Smith, William, 101, 120, 127, 128, 152 Smith, Williamina, 128 Smith and Nutt, 35, 36 Spain (captain), 111 Sproat, David, 100 Stamp Tax, 55, 83, 90, 91, 105 Stanwix, John, 28, 43 Steadman, 52 Stephen, Adam, 45 Stockton, Richard, 175 Story, Enoch, 124, 130 Sufferers of 1754, 30, 60, 62 – 63, 80, 96 –97, 104 Sufferers of 1763, 60, 62 – 63, 96 –97, 104 Swift, John, 19 Teaffe, Michael, 28, 29, 30, 51 Teddington (cargo ship), 110, 111

Teller, Mary, 9 Thompson, John (“Honest Jno”), 176 Thompson, William, 100 Thompson and Pearis, 50 Townshend Acts (Intolerable Acts), 105 Treaty, Easton, 40 Treaty, Fort Harmar, 171 Treaty, Lancaster, 53 Treaty, Paris, 60, 97 Treaty, Stanwix, 62, 96, 97, 98, 104, 151 Trent William: biographical information, 28 –29, 80, 213n13; England, 97; friendship with David Franks, 28, 171; Indiana Company, 97, 99, 140 –41, 151, 160; partnership with Croghan, 29; partnership with David Franks, 18, 36 –37, 41, 63, 169; relationships with Indians, 27, 51, 53; smallpox blankets, 59; Sufferers of 1754, 30, 61– 62; Sufferers of 1763, 60 – 62; Vandalia Company, 98, 165 Tulleken, John, 28 Two Brothers (snow), 24 Van Cortlandt, Frederick, 12 Van Cortlandt, Jacobus, 12 Vandalia Company, 97–98, 100, 153, 159 – 60, 163, 165 Van Dam, Rip, 7 van Laer, Garrett, 9 van Vleck, Abraham, 9 Vaughan, John, 168 violin, 8, 15, 41 Viviat, Louis, 89, 101 Wabash Land Company, 100 Walker, Thomas: biographical information, 43; Loyal Company member, 62; payment problems with Amherst, 52; subcontracting for David Franks, 37, 44, 49 –50; Vandalia Company member, 100 Wallace, John, 19 Walpole, Horace, 6 Walpole, Thomas, 97–98 Walpole Company, 97 Warder, Terence, 169 Warren, Peter, 7, 12, 27, 31–32 Warren, Susannah (Peter’s wife; Oliver DeLancey’s sister), 31, 34 Washington, George: Benedict Arnold, 137, 153, 154, 155; continental money, 134; criticized by General Forbes, 34; David Franks’s problems, 144, 147; French and Indian War, 26, 33, 43; Gage relationship,

262

Index 71–72; land speculation, 95; New Jersey campaign, 2, 3, 122, 123; Ohio Company, 61– 62; plot to replace him, 2 –3; prisoner management, 118, 132, 133, 136, 142; supplies from David Franks, 33; support of Cadwalader, 4, 207– 8n5; Valley Forge, 123, 126 Washington, Lawrence, 61 Watts, Anne DeLancey ( John Sr.’s wife), 13, 36 Watts, John, Sr.: contract problems, 76, 83; David Franks connection, 69; DeLancey connection, 36; friend of General Gage, 81– 82; friend of General Monckton, 74; friend of Moses Franks, 36, 74, 81, 91–92; moved to England, 124, 158, 174; partnership, 13 Wayne, Anthony, 129, 155 Weasel (sloop), 68 Webb, John, 9 Webber (captain), 111 Welshman (captain), 111 Westmoreland (cargo ship), 111 Wharton, Joseph, 128 Wharton, Samuel: David Franks owed money, 89, 113; Indiana Company, 96 –99, 159,

165; Morgan relationship, 86; Sufferers of 1763, 104 Wharton, Thomas, Jr., 127, 139 Wharton, Thomas, Sr., 113, 127, 140, 141 Whately, Thomas, 75, 76 White, Nancy, 128, 140 Wier, Daniel, 116 Wilkins, John, 86, 89, 102 Willing, Anne (Thomas’s wife), 47 Willing, Thomas, 19, 47, 90, 112 Willing family, 115, 136 Winn, Isaac Lascelles, 105 Wolcott, Oliver, 117 Wolfe, James, 57 Wood, John, 198 Woodford: 60, 106, 107, 175; Franks family residence, 120, 125, 201, 203 Wrottlesly, John, 128 Wynkoop, Jacobus, 9 Yeates, Jasper, 120 yellow fever, 91, 175, 176, 197, 199 Yorke, Charles, 96 Young, Thomas, 112 Zenger, John Peter, 92

263