[ 252 ] CHARLES H. MCCORMICK his principal supporters was under arrest. Their fate lay in the hands of a belated and long-frustrated Henry Sloughter.87 The tale of Sloughter's coming to America suggests that full explanations of Leisler's Rebellion must include irrational factors and those that transcend the boundaries of New York. The vagaries of English politics and bureaucracy were vital integers in the complex problem called Leisler's Rebellion, as much as were the struggles within the provincial aristocracy, between the aristocrats and common people, and between the English and Dutch New Yorkers. At present, many colonial historians embrace a social-science approach that deempha- sizes individual action and responsibility in the name of writing the history of some statistically reconstituted "common man!' Such an approach has its uses, but the performance of Hicks and Sloughter should remind us that individual action or inaction have affected history, and that leadership, authority, and responsibility have been necessary to human society. Had New Yorkers enjoyed the benefits of wise leadership and legitimate authority from 1689 until 1691, the history of the colony might have taken a different and less factious turn. sxlbid., March 19-21,1691.