Leisler's rebellion

Statue of Jakob Leisler in New Rochelle

Known as the Leisler's Rebellion , the conflict arose in the Province of New York in colonial North America in the late 17th century . The eponymous German-American businessman and militia officer Jacob Leisler gained as a result, control of the southern areas of the colony and ruled it from 1689 to 1691. The starting point of the uprising were the British Glorious Revolution and the 1689 Boston revolt in the Dominion of New England to which also owned New York; politically, the rebellion was directed against the policies of King James II, deposed in the course of the revolution .

Royal authority could not be restored to the colony until 1691, when English troops reached New York together with a new governor. This had Leisler arrested and charged with treason . Leisler was executed, but even after that the colony was split into two rival factions due to the rebellion.

background

→ Main articles : Glorious Revolution , Dominion of New England,  and Boston uprising in 1689

After English troops had gained control of Nieuw Nederland in 1664 , the English King Charles II handed the area over to his brother Jakob , at that time Duke of York , at his free disposal. Jacob separated East Jersey and West Jersey from it and assigned them other administrators, while he himself built what remained of an essentially autocratic government with a powerful governor and colonial council, but not an elected legislature .

Jacob succeeded his brother to the throne in 1685 and established the Dominion of New England the following year . In May 1688 he added New York and the Jersey territories that had been separated up to that point. Governor Edmund Andros arrived in New York that summer and introduced Francis Nicholson as his lieutenant governor and administrator of the new Dominion territories. Nicholson ruled with the support of a local advisory body but without a legislative assembly, which is why he was viewed by New Yorkers as just one more governor in a long line of officials who "most arbitrarily undermined our historic privileges." Nicholson justified himself by calling the colonists "subjugated people" who "have fewer rights and privileges than the English".

At the end of 1688 the Catholic Jacob II was in the course of the Glorious Revolution by the Protestant Wilhelm III. and Maria II , who shared the throne. Andros was extremely unpopular, especially in Massachusetts , and when the news of the revolution reached Boston , his opponents seized the opportunity and organized a rebellion . On April 18, 1689, a mob formed and arrested Andros and other Dominion officials. This led to a number of other events in which Massachusetts and the other New England colonies restored their administrative structures to the way they had existed before the Dominion was founded.

Before the rebellion broke out

Lieutenant Governor Francis Nicholson

Lieutenant Governor Nicholson learned of the Boston uprising on April 26th. However, he did not pass this or the news about the revolution in England on to the public because he feared that this could also lead to a rebellion in New York. When news of the events in Boston reached Long Island , Dominion officials came under increasing pressure; By mid-May, many of you were expelled from a wide variety of communities. At the same time, news of France's declaration of war on England reached Nicholson , which significantly increased the danger of French and Indian attacks on the northern border of New York. He had only a few soldiers, since most of them had been sent to Maine by Governor Andros to take action against the Indians. Nicholson also found that he could no longer trust even his closest associates, as they were influenced by populists and believed that he was planning to introduce Catholic rule in New York. He tried to reassure the panicked population over rumors of Indian raids by inviting militias to join the regular troops at Fort Amsterdam on Manhattan Island .

With New York's defenses in poor shape, Nicholson's advisory staff agreed to import tariffs to improve the situation . This met with immediate opposition from local merchants who refused to pay these duties. One of them was the German-born, Calvinist immigrant Jakob Leisler , who was also a captain in the militia. He publicly opposed the Dominion regime, which he saw as an attempt to establish papism in the province. It is believed that he was involved in influencing Nicholson's associates. On May 22nd, the militia petitioned the Nicholson Advisory Board for access to the gunpowder magazine in the fort to further enhance the city's defensive capabilities. This was rejected, however, causing concern among the population that the city did not have sufficient supplies of gunpowder. Those fears were compounded when senior officials searched for additional supplies across the city.

Course of the uprising

A minor incident on May 30, 1689 in which Nicholson told a militia officer that he "would rather the city burn than be commanded by you," led to the open outbreak of the rebellion. From this sentence rumors arose that the lieutenant governor intended to set fire to the city. The next day, Nicholson summoned the officer in question and demanded that he resign. Abraham de Peyster , one of the richest men in the city and at the same time the superior of the officer who had been called upon to resign, then fought a heated argument with Nicholson and then left the council chamber together with his brother Johannis, also captain of the militia, furious.

The militias were summoned and then occupied Fort Amsterdam. An officer was sent to the city council to request the keys to the powder magazine. Nicholson finally gave in to the request to "avoid bloodshed and avert further disaster." The following day, a committee made up of militia officers asked Jakob Leisler to take command of the city militias. He complied, and the rebels issued a statement stating their intention to occupy the fort on behalf of the two new kings until a legally accredited governor was dispatched.

Leisler's role during the militia uprising remains unexplained to this day, but a number of observations suggest his involvement in the events. So he presented the petition together with Militia Captain Charles Lodewick on May 22nd. Jost Stoll, one of his officers, led the militia to the gates of Fort Amsterdam, and another of his officers asked the city council to hand over the keys to the powder magazine.

Leisler takes over government

This 19th century engraving shows Nicholson's advisers trying to end the uprising.

At this point, the militias were in control of the fort and were in control of the New York harbor. Arriving ships were surrounded and the passengers and crews were immediately brought into the fort to prevent communication with Nicholson and his advisors. On June 6th, Nicholson decided to leave the colony for England and began collecting affidavits that he would use in London. On June 10th he left the city to meet with Thomas Dongan and shortly afterwards to sail with him to England.

Leisler's control of the province was initially severely limited as Nicholson's advisors - the Dutch landowners Nicholas Bayard , Stephanus van Cortlandt and Frederick Philipse - were still in the city and did not recognize his authority. The entire civil administration of the city, whose mayor was van Cortlandt, followed this view. When both sides heard the news that the enthronement of the two new kings had been announced in Hartford , a race developed between them to become the messenger who was on his way to New York with this news. Leisler's agents won this race, so he was able to publish the announcement on June 22nd. Two days later, van Cortlandt received official news that the kings wanted to appoint Edmund Andros as the new governor.

However, the transmission of the document was delayed due to tactical intervention by Massachusetts officials in London. It was explicitly stated in it that all non-Catholic officials could keep their positions until further notice. It also legitimized the council to run government business in the absence of Nicholson. Van Cortlandt acted accordingly, dismissing the Catholic customs collector and replacing him with Bayard and others who henceforth supervised the customs operations. Leisler was against this accumulation of power and moved a group of militias to the customs building. There was almost a riot, and Bayard barely escaped a lynch mob . He fled to Albany, where van Cortlandt followed him a few days later. Philipse withdrew from politics, which eventually led Leisler to take control of the city.

On June 26, an assembly made up of delegates from a number of New York and East Jersey parishes established a Security Council to regulate the affairs of the province. The council, which later became the core of the government structures under Leisler, appointed Jakob Leisler as commander-in-chief of the province "until new orders arrive from London". Leisler's handpicked militias - funded with taxpayers' money that Nicholson had deposited in the fort - de facto took control of the city. Leisler was supported by sympathizers from Connecticut, who sent their own militia to help secure the fort. Nicholson's regular army was formally disbanded on August 1st. At about the same time the official news of the beginning of the war between France and England reached the province.

To consolidate his position with the government in London, Leisler sent Jost Stoll and Matthew Clarkson to England on August 15. They carried documents which, on the one hand, supported the allegations against Nicholson that he had conspired against the residents of New York and, on the other hand, were intended to justify Leisler's measures against Nicholson's "repressive" rule. Stoll and Clarkson had also received the order to apply for a new charter for the province and to make it credible that the united colonies can defeat New France without support from their home country. Leisler did not explicitly demand that the new charter should contain any form of democratic structure.

In October, a public vote took place in the province on an instruction to the Security Council to formally remove Van Cortlandt from office and to extend Leisler's jurisdiction to all of New York with the exception of the Albany region. The turnout in New York City was extremely low with just under 100 votes cast. On October 20, Bayard and Philipse issued a proclamation calling Leisler's government illegal and calling on foreign militia commanders to end their support for Leisler. However, the document was completely ignored and had no effect.

Resistance in Albany

Leisler's opponents controlled the city of Albany and its immediate vicinity. On July 1st they formally proclaimed Wilhelm and Maria as new kings and on August 1st they set up the Albany Convention as the acting governmental body. The gathering included the Albany City Fathers, wealthy Hudson River Valley landowners, and local militia leaders. It became the core of a provincial counter-movement to Leisler's rule and did not recognize his leadership until he could present an official mandate from the new kings.

Tensions in Albany heightened in September when Indians spread rumors of an imminent attack from New France . Since Leisler had banned the transport of military equipment on the Hudson River , the Albany officials sent a request for help to him. He then sent his close confidante and future son-in-law Jacob Milborne with a group of militias to Albany in November to take over military control of the city. The Albany Convention, however, rejected the terms Milborne demanded in return for his support and denied him entry to the city and Fort Albany . Milborne was warned by an Iroquois woman that he was viewed by many Indians around Albany as a threat to their friends within the city and that they would react should he attempt to gain military control of Albany. Milborne then returned to New York City. The convention also sought military assistance from neighboring colonies, and Connecticut dispatched an 80-man militia to Albany in late November.

In early 1690, Leisler finally gained control of Albany. In order to divide neighboring communities, Leisler called elections in Schenectady in January 1690 . In early February, the city was attacked by French and Indians in the course of the King William's War , which went down in history as the Schenectady massacre . This attack exposed the Albany Convention's weak position. Although Albany and Leisler blamed each other for the city's poor defense, Leisler was able to capitalize on the situation. He convinced Connecticut to pull its militia out of Albany and dispatched its own militia north to gain control. Since the Albany Convention received no significant outside support, it eventually capitulated.

Reign of Leisler

In December 1689, a letter from the new kings reached the colony, which was addressed to Nicholson or "in his absence to those who are currently keeping the peace and observing the law in the province of New York". With this letter, the recipient was authorized to "take over the government of the named province". The messenger was supposed to deliver this message to van Cortlandt and Philipse, but was arrested by Leisler's militias. Leisler took the letter as legitimation for taking over the government, appointed himself lieutenant governor and set up a board of governors to replace the security council.

He then began collecting taxes and duties. He was only partially successful with this, however, as he encountered considerable resistance from representatives of the colony who were directed against him. He had some of them arrested, but most of those who defied his instructions were released and replaced with loved ones. As of April 1690, virtually every ward in New York had officials personally appointed by Leisler. They represented all walks of life and also included prominent Dutch and English residents. There was continued opposition to his policies, however, which led to the attack on Leisler on June 6th by a mob demanding the release of political prisoners and refusing to pay the taxes Leiser had introduced. In October 1690, several parishes - from Harlem in the Netherlands to Queens County in Protestant England to Albany - protested against his government.

In order to increase his reputation and to consolidate his position, Leisler organized a campaign against New France in 1690 . He first presented the idea at a meeting in May with representatives of the neighboring colonies. To supply the New York troops, he ordered the merchants to hand over their wares; if they didn't, he would break into their department stores by force. He kept precise records of these actions so that many traders could later be compensated. Connecticut officials refused to accept Leisler's chosen commander, Jacob Milborne, citing the experience of their own commanders. Leisler finally submitted to their choice and appointed Fitz-John Winthrop to lead the campaign. However, this was a complete failure due to illnesses and difficulties with transportation and supplies. Winthrop was nevertheless able to avenge the Schenectady massacre to some extent by raiding La Prairie with a small troop in February 1690 . Leisler made him personally responsible for the failed campaign and briefly jailed him, which promptly provoked the protest of Connecticut Governor Robert Treat .

Reaction of the British Crown

The new King Wilhelm III. appointed Colonel Henry Sloughter as the new governor of the province towards the end of 1690 , but due to a variety of circumstances he was initially unable to leave England. The ship's departure was further delayed due to bad weather, so that his lieutenant governor Major Richard Ingoldesby reached the province before him in January 1691. Ingoldesby did not have any official certificates of appointment, as they were on Sloughter's ship, but insisted that Leisler should transfer the business of government and the fort to him. Leisler stubbornly refused to accept this request, and Ingoldesby just as stubbornly insisted on his demands. There were always minor skirmishes, and after six weeks the town was divided into armed military posts, with the fort occupied by several hundred supporters of Leisler. Ingoldesby was helped in his efforts by members of the old Dominion Council. In mid-March, Ingoldesby's troops surrounded the fort and threatened to take it over with an assault. Leisler had the fort's cannons fired from time to time, but only a few colonists were killed.

Sloughter arrived in New York at the height of these tensions. On March 19, he announced his appointment and asked Leisler to give up the fort. He was not initially sure that Sloughter was actually the person named in the certificate of appointment, but was convinced of the truth by Jost Stoll, who had been in London and knew Sloughter. Leisler then sent negotiators to Sloughter to negotiate with him about the surrender of the fort. The new governor made it clear that he was not prepared to negotiate and had the negotiators arrested. Leisler continued to deny Sloughter's demands, but was eventually persuaded - most likely by his own militias - to give up. Sloughter then had Leisler and ten other people arrested for treason and locked up in the fort that they had just occupied.

Trial and death sentence

Governor Sloughter signs Leisler's death sentence. Portrayal of Howard Pyle .

Sloughter established a special circuit court ( court of oyer and terminer a) to negotiate Leisler and other defendants. Certain individuals, including the apparent leaders of the first militia operations, Abraham de Peyster and Charles Lodewick, were not charged. The judges included many opponents of Leisler, including Richard Ingoldesby. Former Dominion official Joseph Dudley chaired the meeting . The court read the indictment against Jakob Leisler on March 31. The main focus of the indictment was the refusal to give Ingoldesby control of the town and fort. Leisler and his son-in-law Jacob Milborne both did not recognize the legality of the jury court and accordingly refused to defend themselves before it. Although English law did not provide that those charged with treason should receive legal advice, Leisler asked for and was awarded legal advice. Most of the other defendants recognized the court and pleaded not guilty. On April 1, Leisler was questioned on a murder charge relating to an incident during his reign.

On April 9th, Governor Sloughter convened a new colonial assembly. Despite Leisler advocates attempting to take control of the gathering, on April 17 it passed a law condemning Leisler's government and actions, and even blaming him for the Schenectady massacre . After several unsuccessful attempts by the court to get Leisler and Milborne to deliver a defense speech, it sentenced them both to death on April 17 by "hanging, stretching, and quartering, and their property confiscated." However, no date for the execution was set.

The proceedings dragged on until mid-May. At the beginning of the month the court had heard 32 charges, found 8 men (including Leisler and Milborne) guilty and sentenced to death, and either acquitted or pardoned the remaining defendants. However, there were still partisans active in the province. Leisler's opponents increasingly demanded his execution, and in late April there were riots on Staten Island , allegedly instigated by Leisler's supporters.

Sloughter took the view that the executions should be postponed until the king's will on the matter was known. On May 7th, he sent a letter to the King and the Board of Trade describing the current situation. While attaching the transcripts of the trial to the letter to the Board of Trade, he described Leisler in a very negative way; none of the documents contained the verdict. On May 14, the court refused to allow Leisler and Milborne to be transferred to England, and the Leisler-dominated Board of Governors demanded the execution of both men. Sloughter finally gave in to the pressure and signed the death warrants that evening. Nicholas Bayard and others complained that the governor was drunk, or at least heavily intoxicated, by the time, and rumors circulated in the days that followed that he had been bribed. On May 16, Leisler and Milborne were executed by hanging . Leisler used the last words he was entitled to for a long speech in which he stated that he had acted “for the glorious Protestant interests and in the interests of the current government” and also wanted to protect the province from outside attacks. The remains of both men were buried by the gallows and their properties were confiscated as a result of a capital crime . On May 19, Governor Sloughter announced an amnesty for all defendants, except for 20 people.

consequences

Their execution made Leisler and Milborne martyrs and in no way contributed to bringing the two deeply divided camps of supporters and opponents of Leisler closer together. His supporters sent messengers to London, which his son Jacob also joined, seeking compensation from the government. In January 1692, her petition was presented to the king, and in April the Board of Trade recommended that the convicts be pardoned. On May 13, 1692, Queen Maria instructed the new Governor Benjamin Fletcher to pardon the six remaining prisoners.

The sudden death of Governor Sloughter on July 23, 1691 sparked speculation in certain circles that he had been poisoned, although the autopsy confirmed that he had died of pneumonia . He left a letter describing the considerable external pressure under which he had ordered the execution. There were other incidents during his tenure; he was accused by Ingoldesby, who took office after Sloughter's death, of having pocketed the sum of 1,100 pounds (around 224,400 pounds today) intended to pay the militia. He is also said to have confiscated a ship that had been captured and auctioned off and then sold it a second time.

One of Leisler's proponents traveled to England via Boston , where he was offered assistance by Sir William Phips, the new Governor of the Province of Massachusetts Bay . The Massachusetts representatives in London then campaigned on behalf of the Leisler heirs to restore civil rights and return the family's property. In 1695, with the support of Henry Ashurst and Constantine Henry Phipps, a corresponding bill was introduced into the British Parliament. Although the draft passed the House of Lords quickly, Leiser's opponents were able to successfully get it forwarded to the House of Commons for deliberation. Only after intensive and lengthy hearings, in which Joseph Dudley, among others, defended his actions, was the law passed on May 2, 1695. The king signed it the very next day.

However, Leisler's heirs were not actually compensated until 1698. In 1695, the new governor Richard Coote , who had always supported Leisler in parliament, reached the province. During his tenure, he placed Leisler supporters in key positions in his government, supervised the restoration of the family seat and had the remains of Leisler and Milborne reburied in the cemetery of the Dutch Reformed Church .

At the provincial level, Leisler's supporters and opponents continued to argue until the new governor Robert Hunter arrived in 1710 . As time went on, Leisler's supporters grew to join the Whigs , while his opponents supported the Tories . Hunter - a Whig himself - managed to largely eliminate the bitterness between the two parties.

interpretation

Some historians see the uprising as a Dutch revolt against the supremacy of the English. However, Leisler did not succeed in winning the support of the Dutch Reformed Church . The son of a German Reformed pastor took advantage of the popular aversion to the Catholic Church and was supported by craftsmen and small traders who were against the rich merchants. His followers saw themselves as successful refusers of Anglicanization and as the true heirs of the Dutch religion.

Seen in context with other uprisings at the time - Bacon's Rebellion (Virginia 1676), Culpeper's Rebellion (North Carolina 1677), Gove's Rebellion (New Hampshire 1683), Boston (Massachusetts 1689) and Coode's Rebellion (Maryland 1689) - follows the Leisler Rebellion, however, a pattern. In all of the uprisings mentioned, small and medium-sized plantation owners, traders and merchants rebelled against an established elite who claimed the monopoly of power for themselves. In none of the cases was the rebellion directed against British rule, but rather against the local officials who were accused of blocking access to greater wealth or power in the British system.

At the same time, the increased presence of British soldiers on colonial soil, combined with the enforcement of the navigational acts rejected by the colonial administration, led to increasing tensions between colonists and British troops. In this context, the Leisler Rebellion - like the other uprisings - can be viewed as an early forerunner of the American Revolution that began in the 1760s.

literature

• Andrews, Charles M .: Narratives of the insurrections, 1675-1690 (=  Original narratives of early American history . Vol. 16). Charles Scribner's Sons, New York 1915, OCLC 698030 ( limited preview in Google Book search).
• Archdeacon, Thomas J .: New York City, 1664-1710: conquest and change . Cornell University Press, Ithaca, NY 1976, ISBN 0-8014-0944-6 .
• Balmer, Randall: Traitors and Papists: The Religious Dimensions of Leisler's Rebellion . In: New York State Historical Association (Ed.): New York History . Vol. 70, No. 4 , October 1989, ISSN  0146-437X , p. 341-372 , JSTOR : 23178499 .
• Doyle, John Andrew: The middle colonies (=  English in America . Vol. 4). Longmans, Green, and Co., London 1907, OCLC 6613699 ( limited preview in Google Book search).
• Dunn, Randy: Patronage and Governance in Francis Nicholson's Empire . In: Steele, Ian Kenneth; Rhoden, Nancy L. (Ed.): English Atlantics revisited . essays honoring Ian K. Steele. McGill-Queen's University Press, Montréal, Québec, London 2007, ISBN 978-0-7735-3219-9 , pp. 59-80 .
• Lovejoy, David: The Glorious Revolution in America . Wesleyan University Press, Middletown, Conn. 1987, ISBN 0-8195-7260-8 .
• Lustig, Mary Lou: Privilege and prerogative: New York's provincial elite, 1710–1776 . Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, Madison, NJ 1995, ISBN 0-8386-3554-7 .
• Lustig, Mary Lou: The Imperial Executive in America: Sir Edmund Andros, 1637–1714 . Fairleigh Dickinson University Press, Madison, NJ 2002, ISBN 0-8386-3936-4 .
• McCormick, Charles H .: Leisler's rebellion (=  Outstanding studies in early American history ). Garland Pub., New York 1989, ISBN 0-8240-6190-X .
• Reich, Jerome R .: Leisler's Rebellion . a study of democracy in New York, 1664-1720. University of Chicago Press, Chicago 1953, OCLC 576417231 .
• Schnurmann, Claudia: Representative Atlantic Entrepreneur: Jacob Leisler, 1640–1691 . In: Postma, Johannes; Enthoven, V. (Ed.): Riches from Atlantic commerce . Dutch transatlantic trade and shipping, 1585-1817 (=  Atlantic world (Leiden, Netherlands) ). Vol. 1. Brill, Leiden, Boston 2003, ISBN 90-04-12562-0 .
• Van Rensselaer, Mariana Griswold: History of the city of New York in the seventeenth century . Vol. 1: New Amsterdam. Macmillan, New York 1909, OCLC 257772163 ( limited preview in Google Book Search).
• Waterman, Kees-Jan: Leisler's Rebellion, 1689–1690: Being Dutch In Albany . In: History Dept., University of Maryland (Ed.): The Maryland Historian . Vol. 22, No. 2 . History Dept., University of Maryland, Dec 1991, ISSN  0025-424X , OCLC 2385885 , pp. 21-40 .
• Webb, Steven Saunders: The Strange Career of Francis Nicholson . In: Sheppard, Donna C. (Eds.): The William and Mary quarterly . Third Series, Vol. 23, No. 4 . Omohundro Institute of Early American History and Culture, Williamsburg, VA October 1966, OCLC 17341204 , p. 513-548 , JSTOR : 1919124 .
• Webb, Steven Saunders: Lord Churchill's coup . the Anglo-American empire and the Glorious Revolution reconsidered. Syracuse University Press, Syracuse, NY 1998, ISBN 0-8156-0558-7 .

Web links

• New York University : The Jacob Leisler Papers Homepage - virtual archive of the documents on Jakob Leisler of the University of New York
• New-York Historical Society : What Was Leisler's Rebellion? - Video about the Leisler's Rebellion

Individual evidence

1. ↑ cf. Lovejoy, p. 98 f.
2. ↑ cf. Lovejoy, pp. 99, 106 f.
3. ↑ cf. Dunn, p. 64.
4. ↑ cf. Webb (1966), p. 522.
5. ↑ cf. Dunn, p. 65.
6. ↑ cf. Lovejoy, pp. 180, 192 f., 197.
7. ↑ cf. Lovejoy, pp. 240-250.
8. ↑ cf. Lovejoy, p. 252.
9. ↑ cf. Lovejoy, p. 253.
10. ↑ ^{a b} cf. Webb (1966), p. 523.
11. ↑ cf. Lustig (2002), p. 199.
12. ↑ cf. Webb (1966), p. 524.
13. ↑ ^{a b} cf. Webb (1998), p. 202.
14. ↑ cf. McCormick, p. 175 f.
15. ↑ cf. McCormick, p. 179.
16. ↑ cf. Lovejoy, p. 255.
17. ↑ cf. McCormick, p. 181.
18. ↑ cf. Webb (1998), p. 203.
19. ↑ cf. McCormick, p. 183.
20. ↑ cf. McCormick, p. 210.
21. ↑ cf. Van Rensselaer, pp. 370, 393.
22. ↑ ^{a b} cf. Van Rensselaer, p. 399.
23. ↑ cf. Lovejoy, p. 228.
24. ↑ cf. Doyle, p. 195.
25. ↑ cf. Van Rensselaer, p. 399 f.
26. ↑ ^{a b c} cf. McCormick, p. 221.
27. ↑ cf. Doyle, p. 196.
28. ↑ cf. Van Rensselaer, p. 406.
29. ↑ cf. McCormick, p. 222.
30. ↑ cf. McCormick, p. 224 ff.
31. ↑ cf. Doyle, p. 250.
32. ↑ cf. McCormick, p. 236.
33. ↑ cf. McCormick, p. 228.
34. ↑ cf. Doyle, p. 251.
35. ↑ cf. McCormick, p. 264.
36. ↑ cf. McCormick, p. 237.
37. ↑ cf. McCormick, p. 239.
38. ↑ cf. McCormick, pp. 236,240.
39. ↑ cf. McCormick, p. 265.
40. ↑ cf. McCormick, p. 266.
41. ↑ cf. McCormick, pp. 267-271.
42. ↑ cf. McCormick, pp. 240 f.
43. ↑ cf. McCormick, p. 245.
44. ↑ cf. Van Rensselaer, p. 472.
45. ↑ cf. Van Rensselaer, p. 495.
46. ↑ cf. Van Rensselaer, p. 467.
47. ↑ cf. Van Rensselaer, p. 476 f.
48. ↑ cf. Van Rensselaer, p. 482.
49. ↑ cf. Van Rensselaer, pp. 482-488.
50. ↑ cf. Van Rensselaer, p. 489.
51. ↑ ^{a b c} cf. Lovejoy, p. 339.
52. ↑ cf. Lovejoy, p. 340.
53. ↑ cf. Doyle, p. 276.
54. ↑ cf. Van Rensselaer, p. 528.
55. ↑ cf. McCormick, p. 347 ff.
56. ↑ cf. McCormick, pp. 349-352.
57. ↑ cf. McCormick, p. 354 ff.
58. ↑ ^{a b} cf. McCormick, p. 357.
59. ↑ cf. McCormick, p. 360.
60. ↑ cf. McCormick, pp. 358 f.
61. ↑ ^{a b c} cf. McCormick, p. 361.
62. ↑ cf. Van Rensselaer, p. 553.
63. ↑ cf. Van Rensselaer, p. 559 f.
64. ↑ cf. McCormick, p. 362.
65. ↑ cf. Van Rensselaer, p. 562.
66. ↑ cf. McCormick, p. 363.
67. ↑ cf. McCormick, pp. 364 f.
68. ↑ ^{a b} cf. McCormick, p. 364.
69. ↑ cf. Van Rensselaer, p. 563.
70. ↑ cf. Van Rensselaer, p. 524.
71. ↑ cf. McCormick, p. 367.
72. ↑ cf. McCormick, p. 369.
73. ↑ cf. McCormick, pp. 370 f.
74. ↑ cf. Lustig (1995), p. 11.
75. ↑ cf. Lustig (1995), p. 20 ff.
76. ↑ cf. Waterman.
77. ↑ cf. Balmer, pp. 341-372.