Civil wars like the American Revolution can divide families in ways none of them would ever imagine, and lead those who would not normally be considered soldiers to fight battles not for grand causes, but simply to keep their families together. Such is Mary Watts Johnson’s story.
Mary Watts was born in 1751. Her family was one of the prominent families in New York City who had in typical fashion intermarried with other prominent city families, most notably, the DeLancys. Her father John Watts served on the city council, had been a member of the provincial legislature and served as the first president of the New York City Hospital, among other distinctions.
Born into a life of prosperity, comfort and high society, Mary (who was nicknamed “Polly”) had no way of knowing as she grew into a young woman, how quickly her life would change forever. The first thing which would bring about this change was her engagement to Sir John Johnson, the son of Superintendent of Indian Affairs for the Crown, Sir William Johnson. While John had taken a young Mohawk Valley girl as his common law wife in 1765, Sir William continuously badgered his son to find a woman of proper social status to be his wife. 18th century social customs dictated that a man inheriting a knighthood and supreme political and military power in Tryon County needed a wife of similar standing. As New York City was the closest place to find this, John went “shopping” during the winter of 1772-1773.
Mary and John had first met when he had stayed with the Watts family prior to embarking on a two-year tour of England in 1765. This may have been one of the factors which led to their engagement, but whatever brought it about, the couple was married in New York City on June 30, 1773. Mary was now “Lady Johnson” and it was clear to Sir John early on that he was marrying a strong, determined woman. He had noted prior to their marriage that she was “An engaging lass, but at times her willfulness bedevils her beauty.” What Sir John considered as “willfulness” would serve Mary well in the crisis to come.
This crisis, the second thing which would change Lady Mary’s life forever, was the American Revolution. With Sir John maintaining his staunch loyalty to the Crown, and his family’s influence with the Six Nations Indians, it was only a matter of time before the rebels would attempt to remove him from power.
The blow fell on May 19, 1776, when troops from the 3rd New Jersey Regiment arrived in Johnstown to arrest him. Having been warned of their approach, Sir John had just enough time to bury some family valuables and prepare himself and a group of followers for a trek through the Adirondack Mountains to reach Canada. As Lady Mary was now a mother of two children under the age of three, and was pregnant with a third, there was no possibility of her joining her husband. As Sir John left, Lady Mary had no idea if she would ever see him again.
Some of those on the rebel side who knew her before the war considered her to be “…a Lady of great art & Intrigue…” and she demonstrated that now. Questioned as to the whereabouts of her husband, she informed the rebel officers that Sir John and his party were on their way to Niagara, the more usual Mohawk Valley route to Canada, so no other possible escape routes were considered by the rebels. She may have also inflated the size of his party and hinted that Sir John was going to double back to attack. Captain Joseph Bloomfield of the 3rd New Jersey recorded in his journal on May 20, “our Detachment paraded in the Evening and took Possession of the Court-House, Goals (jail), & Church for the security of the Troops in case Sr. John & his party should attack us & who we are informed are embodied to the number of 500 in the woods about five Ms. (miles) off…” (In actuality, Sir John had only around 170 followers with him and was nowhere in the area).
Bloomfield would have some of the closest contact with Mary Johnson of all the rebels over the next few days and she quickly made an impression on him. Eager to tour Johnson Hall, he used as an excuse that his purpose was to pay his respects to Mary’s sister Margaret who was at the hall at the time and whom he had known previously. Bloomfield records that “Lady Johnson received and treated me with the greatest Politeness talked freely upon the present unhappy Times & seemed to have the greatest fortitude for a Woman considering the situation her Houshd.(household) was in…I returned…greatly pleased with Johnson-Hall and the worthy Lady Indeed.”
The “worthy Lady” continued to use her position and influence to weave a story to throw off any pursuit of her husband, and to remain in the hall for as long as possible. When Bloomfield was sent to request the keys of the hall and to inform Lady Mary that she must prepare to leave he recorded “Lady Johnson treated us all with the greatest complaisance & Politeness, and begged of the Coll. (Colonel) to let her stay in the Hall for the present, assureing him that it was not in her power to send Sr. John any supply of Provisions, that she heard from Sr. John a Monday last…& that Sr. John informed her by Letter, He should make the best of his way with his Party to Niagara, which the Coll. Had reason to believe true as the Testimony of several…both Wigs & Tories confirmed the same &therefore He permitted Lady Johnson to stay in the Hall for the Present.” Obviously, Lady Mary’s “great art & Intrigue” was serving her well.
She could not delay her departure indefinitely however, and on May 27, Bloomfield relates that “By order of the Coll. waited this morning on Lady Johnson with a Letter directing her to prepare to go to Albany tomorrow morning.” When asked what officer she wished to accompany her, “she desired me to attend her…she was most acquainted with & therefore preferred me before any other officer.” The next day Bloomfield records that “At viii (8:00) sett out on horseback, with Lady Johnson & Mrs. Mulligan in a Phaeton (an open-air carriage). Attended by two Servants in livery & the overseer, Her two Children with the Nurse in a Waggon. Dined in Schenactady where a Pack of Tories came to visit her Ladyship.”
Lady Mary’s ultimate destination was Albany where she was put under “house arrest” in the home of an elderly aunt. Her next move was very clear: getting herself and her children into a safer situation. Bypassing all the local rebel authorities, she wrote directly to General Washington on June 16 stating frankly that “I take the Liberty of Complaining to you as it is from you I expect redress. I was Compell’d to leave home much against my inclination & am detained here by General Schuyler, who I am Convinced acts more out of ill nature to Sr John than from any reason that either he, or I have given him, as I am not allowed to return home & my situation here made as disagreeable as it Can be by repeated messages & Threats from General Schuyler… I shou’d wish to be with my friends at New York, & wou’d prefer my Captivity under your Excellencys protection to being in the power of General Schuyler…” Lady Mary’s feelings concerning General Schuyler we not without merit. Perhaps anticipating an appeal to Washington by Lady Mary, Schulyer had written to Washington the day before. In his letter he stated ” It is the General Opinion of the People in Tryon County and here that whilst Lady Johnson is kept a Kind of Hostage, Sir John (who can by Means of the Mohawks receive Intelligence from her as often as she may please to send It) will Not Carry Matters to Excess, and I have been Intreated to keep her here… Besides the above Reasons I was the more induced to this request as I was informed from Good Authority that she exults in the Prospect she has of soon hearing that Sir John will ravage the Country on the Mohawk River… I find that since It has been hinted that she is a Good security to prevent the Effects of her Husbands Virulence, That she is very anxious to go down & which induces Me to wish to keep her here.” So essentially, Lady Mary and her children were to be kept as hostages to ensure the “good behavior” of Sir John. Schuyler’s mention of her sending intelligence by way of Indians may have indeed been true. Most general histories of Lady Mary include stories of her coordinating an intelligence gathering system to send her husband word of the rebel’s activities and movements.
Still in Albany, Lady Mary gave birth to her third child, a son she named John, on October 7, 1776. Having a newborn did not lessen her attempt to escape rebel captivity. Continuing to write various rebel authorities, she finally received permission to move to Fishkill and live with the former Royal Lieutenant Governor of New York, Cadwallader Colden, a friend of both the Johnson and Watts families. It was here that Lady Mary finally took matters into her own hands and escaped to British held New York City in January of 1777. Johnson family histories are understandably tainted by the rebel treatment of Lady Mary. They tell a story of Lady Mary, her three children, their nurse and a faithful family slave on a flight through bitterly cold, snowy winter weather. Traveling by sleigh and on foot, hounded by pursuing Continental Soldiers and crossing the ice choked Hudson River by boat, they reached the British lines. Here Lady Mary, her newborn in her arms, hurled herself into her waiting husband’s arms just in time for them both to see the newborn expire from cold and exposure.
Wonderful family melodrama. But while there were no doubt some harrowing and uncomfortable instances involved in Lady Mary’s flight, the truth is probably closer to Johnson biographer Earle Thomas’ summary: “One winter’s day disguised and aided by Loyalist friends and a good team of horses she and her party made it to Paulus Hook across the river from Manhattan. Sir John was waiting for her on the other side.” While it is true that John Johnson Junior would die prematurely, it would not be until September of 1778 when the family was in Montreal. The family spent the winter in New York City and traveled to Canada in the spring.
Strong, determined, courageous and “willful” Lady Mary Johnson had won her battle. Her family was together once again.
Image Credit: A profile sketch of Lady Mary Johnson done in 1797 by Charles Balthazar Julien Févret de Saint-Mémin.
|
March 10, 2023
|
Last updated: March 10, 2023