A close associate of Alexander Hamilton and John Jay, James Duane played a key role in the establishment of policy in New York as the movement for American independence took shape. He served as a delegate from New York to the Continental Congress (1774-83).

Duane was born in New York City on 6 February 1732 or 1733,—the third son of Anthony Duane, an Irish emigrant who was a merchant in New York City, and his second wife, Althea (née Kettletas) Duane. According to historian Samuel W. Jones, Anthony Duane was born in the village of Cong, in County Galway, Ireland, and as a youth joined the British navy as a purser. During one stopover in the port of New York, Duane was so taken with what he saw that when he returned home to Ireland he left the navy, took a ship back to New York, and became a lifelong resident of that city, opening a small business and becoming a merchant. He then married Eva Benson, the daughter of another merchant. The couple married and had two sons: Abraham and Cornelius. Born in 1680, Eva Duane died of some unknown disease, leaving her widowed husband to care for two young children. Anthony Duane remarried, this time to Althea (also spelled “Altea”) Kettletas, or Ketaltas, a daughter of Abraham Kettletas, a politician and Alderman in New York City. This couple had one child, James Duane, before the second Mrs. Duane’s death in 1736 when he was around three or four years old. [1] In 1741, Duane married for a third time, to Margaret Riker, a native of a part of Queen’s County on New York’s Long Island. This time, one of Anthony Duane’s wives survived him: he died in 1757, and James Duane’s stepmother lived until 1775. [2]

Despite his father’s wealth, the opportunities for an education in New York at that time were few; James Duane, instead of attending a college like Columbia, which did not open for several years, was given private tutoring. He then studied the law under James Alexander, a noted city attorney, and was admitted to the New York colonial bar on 3 August 1754. Opening his own law practice, Duane soon became one of the most influential attorneys in the city, arguing cases before courts on appeal. In one of his most famous cases, Forsey v. Cunningham (1764), Duane handled the appeal that allowed the Acting Royal Governor, Cadwallader Colden, and his Council of advisors, to overrule court findings and institute their own decisions; the appealed decision eventually held that Governor Colden could not overrule the courts, a landmark in legal thinking for the American colonies as well as English law. [3] Earning the respect that came with such arguments, in 1762 Duane was named as the clerk of the Chancery Court, where he served for five years. In 1767, Duane was appointed as the attorney general for the New York colony, serving during this period in additional positions, such as a boundary commissioner (1768, 1784).

In October 1759, Duane had solidified his status in New York’s hierarchy of power and privilege when he married Mary Livingston, the daughter of Robert Livingston, one of the members of one of New York’s most prominent political families. At the same time, Duane was using his own wealth, both earned and acquired, to make large land purchases in upstate New York, near what is now the city of Schenectady, helping to found the city of Duanesburgh, west of Schenectady. In 1797, when Duane’s health began to fail, he retired here, to spend his final days.

The revolutionary movement in the colonies began not in New York, but in Massachusetts, and from his writings at the time we can surmise that Duane, as a colonial official, was not happy with the movement that challenged the royal officials and the governmental structure directed from London. In early 1774, he was named as the colonial Indian commissioner, and it appeared that he would be content to leave the colonial structure in place. However, he soon came to find fault with all things run by London and the Crown; he served as a delegate to the New York Provisional Convention, and, in 1775, as a member of the Revolutionary Committee of One Hundred, also known as the Committee of One Hundred. In 1776 and 1777, he served as a member of the New York Provisional Congress. [4]

By 1774, however, as the opening shots at Lexington and Concord between British troops and the “Minute Men” gave way to the establishment of a Continental Congress held in Philadelphia among all of the colonies, Duane took sides—and he sided with his fellow colonists.

On 28 July 1774, Duane was elected to a seat in the Continental Congress, sometimes known as the First Continental Congress. He was subsequently reelected on 22 April 1775, initially attending sessions of that body from 5 September to 26 October 1774, 10 May 1775 to 2 August 1775, and from 13 September 1775 to about 3 June 1776. [5] Duane would eventually serve in the Continental Congress until 1784, one of the longest tenures in that body. During this period, the record of speeches, notes taken, correspondence, and other writings by Duane during this period is voluminous. For instance, aside from John Adams’ diary of his trip from Boston to Philadelphia to attend the opening days of the Continental Congress, the notes of John Duane demonstrate the earliest written opinions of the men who dared to challenge the King of England and his administration of the colonies. On 5 September 1774, Duane wrote:

The Members of the Congress met at Smith’s Tavern. The Speaker of the Pensylvania Assembly having offered the Congress the use of the State house; and the Carpenters the use of their Hall. It was agreed to take a View of each. We proceeded to the Carpenter’s Hall. Mr. Lynch proposed the Question whether as that was in all respects suitable it ought not to be fixed upon without further Enquiry. I observed that if the State house was equally convenient it ought to be preferred being a provincial and the Carpenter’s Hall a private House. And besides, as it was tendered by the Speaker it seemed to be a piece of respect which was due to him, at least to enquire whether the State House was not equally convenient. The Question was however called for; and a great Majority fixed upon the Carpenters [sic] hall. The names of the Members were then called over; after which Mr. Lynch proposed that we shoud elect a President or Chairman, and named Mr. Payton Randolph, Speaker of the Assembly of Virginia, who was unanimously approved and placed in the Chair. A Question was then put, what Title the Convention should assume, and it was agreed that it should be called the Congress. Another Question was put, what shoud be the stile [sic] of Mr. Randolph, and it was agreed that he should be called the President. The next point was to fix on a Clerk or Secretary. Mr. ____Thompson [sic] was proposed by Mr. Lynch. The next point was to fix on a Clerk or Secretary. Mr. ____ Thompson [sic] was proposed by Mr. Lynch. Mr. Jay observed that he had Authority to say that one of the members of the Congress was willing to accept the office, and he conceived the preference was due to him. To which it was answered, that such an appointment woud deprive the Congress of a Member, as he woud be too much incumbered by the Duties of a Clerk, to attend to the Trust for which he was chosen. The objection being thought Reasonable, Mr. Thompson [sic] was appointed by the Stile of Secretary of the Congress. [6]

The following day, Duane took additional notes of the first meeting and debates and votes of those members who were in attendance:

The Congress met, [a]nd the first Question debated was whether the Congress should Vote by Colonies and what weight each Colony should have in the determination? Mr. [Patrick] Henry from Virginia insisted that by the oppression of Parliament all Government was dissolved, and that we were reduced to a State of Nature. That there were no longer any such distinction as colonies, that he conceived himself not a Virginian but an American. That one of the greatest Mischiefs to Society was an Unequal Representation. That there might and probably woud be further Occasions for a Congress and that it was time to form such a System as woud give each Colony a Just Weight in our deliberations in proportion to its opulence and number of inhabitants its Exports and Imports. He was answered by Mr. [Samuel Ward] of Rhode Island, who insisted that every Colony shoud have an equal Vote. That we come if necessary to make a Sacrifice of our all and that the weakest Colony by such a Sacrifice woud suffer as much as the greatest. Col. [Benjamin] Harrison from Virginia insisted strongly on the injustice that Virginia should have no greater Weight in the determination than one of the smallest Colonies. That he should be censured by his constituents and unable to excuse his want of attention to their Interest. And that he was very apprehensive that if such a disrespect should be put upon his Countrymen we shoud never see them at another Convention. The debate then took a different Turn. It was observed that if an equal Representation was ever so Just, the Delegates from the several Colonies were unprepared with Materials to settle that equitably. This was an objection that coud not be answered. The Question was then put and

1. Resolved, that the Sense of the Congress shall be taken by Voting in Colonies, each to have one Vote.

2. Resolved, that no person be permitted to speak twice on the same point, unless with the Leave of the Congress . . .

7. A question was put whether this Congress shoud be opened tomorrow morning with prayer. Mr. Samuel Adams proposed the revnd. Mr. Duche [sic] for this Service. Debates arose on this Subject, Those who were for the Motion insisting on the propriety of a Reverence and Submission to the Supreme Being and supplicating his Blessing on every undertaking, on the practice of the Romans, the British Parliament and some of the Assemblies on the Continent. [7]

Continuing with his notes of the proceedings, on 7 September 1774 Duane penned:

The Congress was opened with prayers by the revnd Mr. Dutché [sic], which he Concluded with one suitable to the occasion. He was much admired both for his Eloquence and Composition, and Mr. Ward of Rhode Island moved that the thanks of the Congress be given him for his Services, which was unanimously agreed to; and Mr. [Thomas] Cushing [of Massachusetts] and Mr. Ward were appointed a Committee for the purpose. It was then moved that he should be requested to print the prayer: But it being objected that this might possibly expose him to some disadvantages, it was out of Respect to him waived. The Appointment of a Committee to state the Rights of the Colonies and the several Instances in which they have been violated and infringed, and the means most proper to obtain Redress, was then taken into Consideration. Mr. Lynch of Virginia [8] moved that the Appointment might be made out of the Members at large without Regard to Colonies, aledging that in. this way the Gentlemen who had made this point their study and were best qualified woud be fixed upon. This occasioned much debate-the difficulty of knowing who possessed this Qualification in the highest degree—The different Rights of the several Charter Governments and their Infringements, which must be best known to their respective Representatives, were insurmountable objections; and it was accordingly:

Resolved, that this Committee shall be composed of two members from each Colony,’ to be recommended by their associates . . .

Resolved that one Member from each Colony form the Committee to state and report the several statutes respecting the Trade and Manufactures of the Colonies . . . [9]

One of Duane’s first committee assignments in the Continental Congress was as a member of the Committee to State the Rights of the Colonies. On 8 September 1774, he gave a speech before this group:

The task assigned to this Committee is no less important than it is difficult. It may be reduced to these heads:

It is necessary that the first point, our Rights, should be fully discussed and established upon solid Principles: because it is only from hence that our Grievances can be disclosed; and from a clear View of both, that proper Remedies can be suggested and applied. To ascertain the Constitution of the Colonies has employed the Thoughts and the Pens of our ablest Politicians. But no System which has hitherto been publishd s is solid or satisfactory. During the Disputes, which arose from the Stamp Act, an Exemption from Internal Taxes seemed to give general Content. The Regulation of Commerce was submitted to Parliament. Their Authority to alter the police of our respective Governments was not in Contemplation because it had not been exercised. Upon the Repeal therefore of the Stamp Act, we had Reason to Con[c]lude that the Blessings of Security in our Liberties and Harmony with the Parent State woud be placed on a permanent Basis, But short was our Repose and fleeting our Expectations. A despotic Minister soon discovered that under the Idea of a commercial Regulation our Property might still be invaded, and that by a guileful Change of a name we might still be oppressed at his Pleasure.

Hence arose Mr. Townsend’s project of loading british Commodities (which we are restrained from importing from any other nation) with American duties-As if this poor evasion coud blind the colonists, and conceal the Evil which was cloaked under so thin a disguise. The Resentment and Vigorous opposition of this Country, and the immense Loss to which it exposed the British Manufacturers compeled the Repeal of this detested Law, Excepting the article of Tea, which has been the fatal Cause of our present Misfortunes.

It is now, Sir, essential to place our Rights on a broader and firmer Basis, to advance and adhere to some solid and Constitutional Principle which will preserve us from future Violations-a principle clear and explicite and which is above the Reach of Cunning and the arts of oppression. I hope if we have the happiness to rest upon such a principle, we shall have the Fortitude and the Strength to maintain it. Let it be founded upon Reason and Justice, and satisfy the Consciences of our countrymen, Let it be such as we dare refer to the Virtuous and Impartial Part of mankind, and we shall and must in the issue of the Conflict be happy and triumphant.” [10]

Duane wrote of the powers of the Continental Association in a missive to Samuel Chase, 29 December 1774:

I think you may rely that the Inhabitants of this province will adhere to the Association with inflexible Integrity, That they will give it all the Time and opportunity to operate that can be desired, and if pacific measures finally prove ineffectual that they never will surrender up their Liberties. At the same time as far as my information extends they are universally of your opinion that the rights of regulating our Trade bona fide [sic], as the Basis of an accommodation ought to be ceded in the most express terms. The Maryland Arguments, in which you had so great a share, on this essential point were unanswerable-they never were attempted to be answered, yet unhapily they produced no conviction. Tell me then my dear Sir how a plan of Union is to be adopted which will be acceptable in every colony? You have not I see altered your opinion; If the Question comes to be proposed to you in your Legislative Capacity do you think you will? If not is it reasonable to expect that this Colony will at once recede from what they have always laid down as a fundamental principle of their constitution. For my part I candidly confess that had this cardinal point been properly ascertained on a great occasion I should have been much more happy than I am at present. Finding it would not be yielded in any terms which could give Satisfaction or even elude suspicion I listened to a certain plan ‘ which chiefly on that account made a deep Impression. I have not yet been fortunate enough to hear any objections against it which weigh in my Judgment. I ask the favour of you who were averse to it and will not determine but on good grounds to state them. In the mean time suffer me to explain the light in which it strikes me. The plan is calculated to secure to every colony its own exclusive interest, Legislation and form of Government except in matters which respect Great Britain and the Colonies jointly, such for instance as war and commerce, the new Council were to have no authority; and in all cases the Representatives of the people were to be vested with a complete negative. [11]

A letter to the delegates of the New York Provisional Congress, 17 June 1775, clearly outlined monetary troubles, as well as announcing that General George Washington had been appointed as the head of the Continental Army:

You have by this conveyance two packets from the President of the Congress, on the subjects to which they relate. I need make no remark. As it was found that you made no progress in raising men, the Congress have thought fit that the posts directed to be taken in our Government should immediately be occupied by the Troops of Connecticut, which are ready for service, and unemployed. We enclose you, by order of the Congress, a certified copy of their Resolution on that head. Your great complaint of the want of money will, I hope, be soon removed. For your present satisfaction, we have obtained leave of the Congress to inform you that the General Committee of the whole body have reported a Resolution to emit, in Continental paper currency, a sum not exceeding the value of two millions of Spanish dollars, for the redemption of which all the Colonies are to be pledged. Upon revolving the effect of this Resolution, you will find to agree in the main point the stability of the fund, with your own judicious system. We hope soon to furnish you with the particulars of this important transaction. We are likewise at liberty to acquaint you that the Congress have agreed to raise, at the Continental expense, a body of fifteen thousand men—ten thousand for the defence of the Massachusetts, and the remainder to be employed in New York for keeping open the communication between the Northern and Southern Colonies; and that Colonel George Washington is appointed Captain-General and Commander-in-Chief of all the forces raised and to be raised in the common cause. You are under no further obligation of secrecy on that subject, than to prevent their being might arise. The letters for Governour [sic] [Jonathan] Trumbull and General [David] Wooster relate to the removal of the Connecticut Troops into our Government, and are to be forwarded with your despatches on that subject; but they are only from their Delegates, and not authoritative, the Congress having referred it to you to make the application to that Government. I have retired from the Congress at the request of my brethren to send off these despatches; for which reason I have done the honour of subscribing myself, with the greatest respect, gentlemen, your most obedient and very humble servant. [12]

In 1782, Duane was elected to a seat in the New York state Senate, serving until 1785, and, then, again, in the same body, this time from 1788 to 1790. Historian Lewis Boutwell wrote in 1890 in a biography of Alexander Hamilton, “On the 3rd of September, 1780, at the request of James Duane, then a member of Congress from New York, [Alexander] Hamilton addressed a letter to that gentleman, pointing out the defects of the existing government, and indicating the manner in which they might be remedied. He was imprelled [sic] to this by the failure of Congress to provide the means for carrying on the war, and by the danger, unless there was a change in government, that the struggle with England would come to an untimely end.” [13] In a letter from Duane to General John Morin Scott, dated 21 September 1782, Duane explained:

Tho’ I have scarcely time, I feel too sensibly your polite attention to the excused from acknowledging the Receipt of your favor of the 1st Instant by Major Story. I have given this young Gentleman the best advice in my power, and if Mr. [Robert] Morris inclines, to employ him, will go as far in his Commendation as your Letter, and the acquaintance I have with him, can justify. I am obliged to you for your account of Weeks’s adventure. It happened too near home not to be interesting; and yet whatever may be the appearance from the passivity of the British and the Despair of the Tories; I do not think peace; no[,] not even the evacuation of our native City, so near as is generally apprehended. The naval success of the enemy have hardened the Heart of the British Pharoah and rekindled his expiring wishes for our subjugation. The Treaty at Paris goes on feebly and all eyes are fixed on the military Operations which will give a Complection to its further Progress at the close of the Campaign and not sooner. But I need not enlarge. Mr. Secretary [Robert] Livingston has obtained permission to attend for a few works on his private Affairs in our State. He will open the Budget and gratify your Curiosity in all points, and I wish you to see him. [14]

Despite his misgivings as to the existing structure of the American government under the Articles of Confederation, Duane did not serve as a delegate to the Constitutional Convention, held in Philadelphia in the summer of 1787. Duane did, however, win a seat as a delegate to the Annapolis Commercial Convention, held in Maryland in 1786, but he did not attend. During this period, Duane served as the mayor of New York City (1784-89), during which he served as a delegate to the state constitutional convention that ratified the US Constitution in 1788. After leaving the mayorship, Duane accepted a position as a district judge for the district court of New York, where he sat until 1794. [15]

After leaving the bench, Duane retired to his home near Schenectady, in the village of Duanesburgh. Duane died there—on 1 February 1797, five days shy of his 64th birthday. He was buried in the Christ Episcopal Church, now in Duanesburg, in Schenectady County. The Gazette of the United States, a Philadelphia newspaper, said upon announcing his death, “Died at Schenectady, on the 1st instant, James Duane, Esq. late Mayor of this city, and afterwards District Judge of the United States for the District of New York—in which capacities he was highly esteemed by the gentlemen of the profession, but as a man of great legal acquirements and of firmness and integrity in all his decisions. American is also highly indebted to him for his patriotic and able exertions during the late war.” [16] Mary Livingston Duane outlived her husband by nearly a quarter of a century; after her death in 1821, she was laid next to her husband in the Duane family vault.