To aid the war effort and fill the void of civil government left when British colonial institutions collapsed, the Continental Congress recommended each colony establish a committee of safety to execute resolutions – especially when the legislature adjourned.1 Smaller than the cumbersomely large Provincial Congress, the New York Committee of Safety could act more efficiently. Occupying a somewhat vague position within both the civil government and military hierarchy, the short-term Committee worked with General George Washington to preserve order amidst the ongoing struggle. Commencing July 11, 1775, the Committee received ambiguous orders and tentatively assumed it responsibilities: responding to government letters, executing resolutions, obliging Continental Army officials “as far as…[the Committee] shall think proper,” directing the military when in New York, and administering finances.2 In fact, as civil bulwarks, the Committee and later the Council of Safety (the slight nomenclature alteration came after independence) even operated until early 1778 – well after New York ratified a constitution. These bodies helped stabilize the state until the formal government initiated. Originally conceived as executive bodies, the Committee and Council eventually received all the Convention’s powers.
Specifically designated as New York’s civil authority, the Committee needed to act efficiently – especially in regards to aiding Washington’s war effort. Regularly corresponding with the Provincial Congress and Committee of Safety, Washington notified officials of potential invasions to at risk areas so necessary defensive preparations could commence. Recognizing the Committee’s authority and, more importantly, the necessity of working with executive bodies, Washington even solicited the Committee’s aid procuring military supplies and recruits. Despite Washington’s desires and the Committee’s strives to meet demands, the executive institution was not always successful.3 Facing mounting obstacles, the Committee and its successor endeavored to meet Washington’s demands for weapons through a variety of means. Arguably one of the executive body’s more controversial methods called upon local boards to disarm both loyalists and inhabitants who refused the Association as well as impress materials for the military’s use.
More…
