The Campaign of 1776 around New York and Brooklyn / Including a new and circumstantial account of the battle of Long island and the loss of New York, with a review of events to the close of the year

by Henry Phelps Johnston

FOOTNOTES

[1] Outside of Parliament, all shades of opinion found expression through the papers, pamphlets, and private correspondence. Hume, the historian, wrote, October 27th, 1775: "I am an American in my principles, and wish we could let them alone, to govern or misgovern themselves as they think proper. The affair is of no consequence, or of little consequence to us." But he wanted those "insolent rascals in London and Middlesex" punished for inciting opposition at home. This would be more to the point than "mauling the poor infatuated Americans in the other hemisphere." William Strahan, the eminent printer, replied to Hume: "I differ from you toto cœlo with regard to America. I am entirely for coercive methods with those obstinate madmen." Dr. Robertson, author of The History of America, wrote: "If our leaders do not exert the power of the British Empire in its full force, the struggle will be long, dubious, and disgraceful. We are past the hour of lenitives and half exertions." Early in 1776, Dr. Richard Price, the Dissenting preacher, issued his famous pamphlet on the Nature of Civil Liberty, the Principles of Government, and the Justice and Policy of the War, which had a great run. Taking sides with the colonists, he said: "It is madness to resolve to butcher them. Freemen are not to be governed by force, or dragooned into compliance. If capable of bearing to be so treated, it is a disgrace to be connected with them."

[2] "Correspondence with Lord North." Donne.

[3] Upon this point Dr. Price said: "Let it be granted, though probably far from true, that the majority of the kingdom favor the present measures. No good argument could be drawn from thence against receding."

[4] "A View of Society and Manners in France, Switzerland, and Germany." By John Moore, M.D. Lond., 1786. Vol. V., Letter 75.

[5] Respecting sentiment in Europe on American affairs, the English traveller Moore wrote as follows from Vienna in 1775: "Our disputes with the colonies have been a prevailing topic of conversation wherever we have been since we left England. The warmth with which this subject is handled increases every day. At present the inhabitants of the Continent seem as impatient as those of Great Britain for news from the other side of the Atlantic; but with this difference, that here they are all of one mind—all praying for success to the Americans, and rejoicing in every piece of bad fortune which happens to our army."—Moore's View, etc. Letter 96.

[6] "History of England from the Accession of George III. to 1783." By J. Adolphus. Vol. II., p. 326.

[7] Two views have been expressed in regard to this. The English historian Adolphus charges Frederick of Prussia and secret French agents with having changed Catherine's mind, and he gives apparently good authority for the statement. The secret seems to have been known in English circles very soon after Catherine's refusal. On November 10th Shelburne said in the House of Lords: "There are Powers in Europe who will not suffer such a body of Russians to be transported to America. I speak from information. The Ministers know what I mean. Some power has already interfered to stop the success of the Russian negotiation." Mr. Bancroft, on the other hand, concludes (Vol. V., Chap. L., Rev. Ed.) that "no foreign influence whatever, not even that of the King of Prussia, had any share in determining the empress;" and Vergennes is quoted as saying that he could not reconcile Catherine's "elevation of soul with the dishonorable idea of trafficking in the blood of her subjects." But since Catherine, four years later, in 1779, proposed to offer to give England effective assistance in America in order to be assured of her aid in return against the Turks, it may be questioned how far "elevation of soul" prompted the decision in 1775. (See Eaton's "Turkish Empire," p. 409.) In view of England's relations with most of the Continental Powers at that time, Shelburne and Adolphus have probably given the correct explanation of the matter.

[8] Fonblanque's Life of Burgoyne, p. 152.

[9] The site of Fort George is now covered in part by the buildings at the west corner of the Bowling Green block, where the steamship companies have their offices. South and west of this point the Battery is almost entirely made-land. (Compare Ratzer's map of 1767 with the maps recently compiled by the New York Dock Department.) As to other old defences of the city, Wm. Smith, the historian, writing about 1766, says: "During the late war a line of palisadoes was run from Hudson's to the East River, at the other end of the city [near the line of Chambers street], with block-houses at small distances. The greater part of these still remain as a monument of our folly, which cost the province about £8000."

[10] The last census before the Revolution was taken in 1771, when the population of the city and county of New York was returned at 21,863. (Doc. Hist. of N.Y., Vol. I.) At the time of the war alarm, in 1775, this total must have risen to full 25,000. Philadelphia's population was somewhat larger; Boston's, less.

[11] "A Tour in the United States," etc. By J.F.D. Smyth. London, 1784.

[12] "Letters from America, 1769-1777." By Wm. Eddis. London.

[13] "King's Bridge, which joins the northern extremity of this island to the continent, is only a small wooden bridge, and the country around is mountainous, rocky, broken, and disagreeable, but very strong."—Smyth's Tour, etc., vol. ii., p. 376.

[14] Laws and Ordinances of New Netherlands.

[15] The caption to the act in the case passed 1751, and remaining unchanged in 1773, reads: "An Act for mending and keeping in Repair the publick Road or Highway, from the House of John Horne, in the Bowry Division of the Out-ward of the City of New York, through the Bloomendale Division in the said ward, to the house of Adrian Hoogelandt."

[16] The Hon. Henry C. Murphy, who visited this place in 1859, says of it: "The town lies in the midst of a marshy district, and hence its name; for Breukelen—pronounced Brurkeler—means marsh land." "There are some curious points of coincidence," continues Mr. Murphy, "both as regards the name and situation of the Dutch Breukelen and our Brooklyn. The name with us was originally applied exclusively to the hamlet which grew up along the main road now embraced within Fulton Avenue, and between Smith Street and Jackson Street; and we must, therefore, not confound it with the settlements at the Waalebought, Gowanus, and the Ferry, now Fulton Ferry, which were entirely distinct, and were not embraced within the general name of Brooklyn, until after the organization of the township of that name by the British Colonial Government. Those of our citizens who remember the lands on Fulton Avenue near Nevins Street and De Kalb Avenue before the changes which were produced by the filling-in of those streets, will recollect that their original character was marshy and springy, being in fact the bed of the valley which received the drain of the hills extending on either side of it from the Waalebought to Gowanus Bay. This would lead to the conclusion that the name was given on account of the locality; but though we have very imperfect accounts as to who were the first settlers of Brooklyn proper, still, reasoning from analogy in the cases of New Utrecht and New Amersfoort, we cannot probably err in supposing that Brooklyn owes its name to the circumstance that its first settlers wished to preserve in it a memento of their homes in Fatherland. After the English conquest, there was a continual struggle between the Dutch and English orthography.... Thus it is spelled Breucklyn, Breuckland, Brucklyn, Broucklyn, Brookland, Brookline, and several other ways. At the end of the last century it settled down into the present Brooklyn. In this form it still retains sufficiently its original signification of the marsh or brook land."—Stiles' History of Brooklyn, vol. i., App. 4.

[17] [Part II.], [Document 33]. On the other hand, some later English descriptions are not as pleasant; but the wretchedness the writers saw during the war was what the war had caused.

[18] In describing some of the characteristic features of Long Island, Smyth, the traveler already quoted, mentions what seemed to him "two very extraordinary places." "The first," he says, "is a very dangerous and dreadful strait or passage, called Hell-Gates, between the East River and the Sound; where the two tides meeting cause a horrible whirlpool, the vortex of which is called the Pot, and drawing in and swallowing up every thing that approaches near it, dashes them to pieces upon the rocks at the bottom.... Before the late war, a top-sail vessel was seldom ever known to pass through Hell-Gates; but since the commencement of it, fleets of transports, with frigates for their convoy, have frequently ventured and accomplished it; the Niger, indeed, a very fine frigate of thirty-two guns, generally struck on some hidden rock, every time she attempted this passage. But what is still more extraordinary, that daring veteran, Sir James Wallace, to the astonishment of every person who ever saw or heard of it, carried his Majesty's ship, the Experiment, of fifty guns, safe through Hell-Gates, from the east end of the Sound to New York; when the French fleet under D'Estaing lay off Sandy Hook, and blocked up the harbor and city of New York, some ships of the line being also sent by D'Estaing round the east end of Long Island to cruise in the Sound for the same purpose, so that the Experiment must inevitably have fallen into their hands, had it not been for this bold and successful attempt of her gallant commander." The other spot was Hempstead Plains, which presented the "singular phenomenon," for America, of having no trees.

[19] Washington had some misgivings as to his authority to assume military control of New York, and he sought the advice of John Adams, who was then at Watertown. The latter replied without hesitation that under his commission as commander-in-chief he had full authority. To President Hancock, Washington wrote: "I hope the Congress will approve of my conduct in sending General Lee upon this expedition. I am sure I mean it well, as experience teaches us that it is much easier to prevent an enemy from posting themselves, than it is to dislodge them after they have got possession."

[20] "New York in the Revolution." Published by the New York Mercantile Library Association.

[21] [Part II.], [Document 37].

[22] Lee wrote to Washington, February 19th: "I wait for some more force to prepare a post or retrenched encampment on Long Island, opposite to the city, for 3000 men. This is, I think, a capital object; for, should the enemy take possession of New York, when Long Island is in our hands, they will find it almost impossible to subsist."

[23] The location and strength of Fort Stirling, the citadel, and the other works on Long Island, are noted more in detail further along in this chapter.

[24] "Feb. 23^d, 1776.—... General Lee is taking every necessary step to fortify and defend this city. The men-of-war are gone out of our harbor; the Phœnix is at the Hook; the Asia lays near Beedlow's Island; so that we are now in a state of perfect peace and security, was it not for our apprehensions of future danger. To see the vast number of houses shut up, one would think the city almost evacuated. Women and children are scarcely to be seen in the streets. Troops are daily coming in; they break open and quarter themselves in any houses they find shut up. Necessity knows no law."—Letter from F. Rhinelander. "Life of Peter Van Schaack."

[25] Privates present fit for duty: Stirling's regiment, 407; Waterbury's, 457; Ward's, 489; Drake's, 104; Swartwout's, 186; Van Ness', 110; Captain Ledyard's company, N.Y., 64.

[26] In the [chapter on "The Two Armies,"] some further account is given of the troops furnished during the campaign by New York and the Brooklyn villages.

[27] The committee humored Governor Tryon, however, with a few civilities as late as April 4th, when they provided his fleet with "the following articles, viz.: 1300 lbs. beef for the 'Asia'; 1000 lbs. beef for the 'Phœnix,' with 18s. worth vegetables; 2 qrs. beef, 1 doz. dishes, 2 doz. plates, 1 doz. spoons, 2 mugs, 2 barrels ale, for the packet; 6 barrels of beer, 2 quarters of beef for the governor's ship, 'Duchess of Gordon.'"—Journal of the Provincial Congress.

[28] Stirling's orders, March 13th, 1776: "It is intended to employ one half of the inhabitants every other day, changing, at the works for the defence of this city; and the whole of the slaves every day, until this place is put in a proper posture of defence. The Town Major is immediately to disperse these orders."—Force, 4th series, vol. v., p. 219.

The citizens were divided off into reliefs or "beats." In the "N.Y. Hist. Manuscripts," vol. i., p. 267, may be found the "Amount of officers and Privates of y^e 22d Beat at work 17 March"—59 men under Captain Benj. Egbert. Negroes belonging to the 22d Beat—"Pomp, Cæsar, Peter, Sam, Jo, Cubitt, Simms, John, Cato," etc., 11 in all.

[29] MS. Order Book of Colonel Moses Little.

[30] R.I. Hist. Coll. Vol. VI.

[31] Ward's, we have seen, was the first regiment stationed on Long Island. It was there from February 24th until about the end of March. The N.Y. Packet of February 29th, 1776, says: "Saturday last Col. Ward's regiment arrived here from Connecticut, and embarked in boats and landed on Nassau [Long] Island." Lee gave orders that a Pennsylvania battalion, supposed to be on its way to New York, should encamp from the Wallabout to Gowanus, but no Pennsylvania troops are included in Stirling's return, and certainly none were on Long Island until Hand's riflemen came from Boston. It is probable that Colonel Chas. Webb's Connecticut Continentals relieved Ward, as Captain Hale writes that it had been there three weeks, sometime before May 20th. Greene's brigade were the next troops to cross over.

[32] Force, Fourth Series, vol. v., p. 811.

[33] MS. letter from Colonel Silliman to his wife, in possession of Mrs. O.P. Hubbard, New York City.

[34] General Orders, April 16th, 1776: ... "Colonel Prescott's Regiment is to encamp on Governour's Island as soon as the weather clears. They are to give every assistance in their power to the works erecting thereon."...

[35] "Monday night 1000 Continental troops stationed here went over and took possession of Governor's Island and began to fortify it; the same night a regiment went over to Red Hook and fortified that place likewise." New York Packet, April 11, 1776.

[36] General Orders, April 25th, 1776: "The encampment of the Third Brigade to be marked out in like manner, upon Long Island, on Saturday morning. The chief engineers, with the quartermasters, etc., from each regiment, to assist the quartermaster-general in that service. As soon as the general has approved of the encampments marked out, the troops will be ordered to encamp...."

[37] Consult map accompanying this work, entitled "[Plan of the Battle of Long Island, and of the Brooklyn Defences in 1776];" also the note in regard to it under the title "[Maps]," in [Part II.]

[38] "Memoirs of the Long Island Historical Society," vol. ii., p. 494. "Battle of Long Island." By Thomas W. Field.

[39] As the British demolished all the Brooklyn works very soon after their capture, it would be difficult to fix the exact site of some of them, but for data which have been preserved. That they were destroyed is certain. Baurmeister, the Hessian major, states that Howe directed the Hessian division to level the "Brocklands-Leinen," but recalled the order when General De Heister represented that "this could not be done by soldiers without compensation, especially as it would be the work of four weeks." According to tradition, the inhabitants levelled them by Howe's orders. General Robertson testified in 1779 that "there were no vestiges of the lines soon after they were taken." Cornwallis on the same occasion said that, being detached to Newtown after the battle, he had "no opportunity of going to Brooklyn till the lines were nearly demolished." But with the assistance of Lieutenant Ratzer's accurate topographical map of New York and Brooklyn of 1766-7, the Hessian map published in vol. ii. of the Society's Memoirs, the plan of the lines thrown up in the 1812 war, and other documents, the forts of 1776 can readily be located. Ratzer's map shows all the elevations where works would naturally be put; and the Hessian map, which is a reduction of Ratzer's, adds the works. The accuracy of the latter, which heretofore could not be proved, is now established by the fact that the position of the forts corresponds to the location assigned them relatively in Greene's orders. There can be little doubt that this map was made from actual surveys soon after the battle, and that the shape as well as the site of the works and lines is preserved in it. Another guide is the 1812 line as marked out by Lieutenant Gadsden, of the Engineer Corps. A copy of the original plan of this line, furnished by the War Department, shows a close correspondence with the Hessian draft. The same points are fortified in each case. Fort "Fireman" of 1812 occupies the site, or very nearly the site, of Fort Box; Fort "Masonic," that of Fort Greene; Redoubt "Cummings," that of the Oblong Redoubt; and "Fort Greene," that of Fort Putnam. The site of the "redoubt on the left" was inclosed, in 1812, in the outer intrenchment which was carried around the brow of the hill. Although the British obliterated all marks of the Brooklyn defences of 1776, we thus find nature and the records enabling us to re-establish them to-day.

[40] MS. letter of General Greene to Colonel Pickering, August 24, 1779, in possession of Prof. Geo. Washington Greene, East Greenwich, L.I.

[41] "Force," Fifth Series, vol. ii., p. 202.

[42] Mr. Field states that the site of Fort Putnam was unfortunately overlooked by the high ground east of it, Greene and his engineers probably not noticing the fact until after the woods were cut down. The official surveys of the ground, made before it was levelled, show no such commanding elevation, the Fort Putnam Hill being as high as any within range; nor can we credit Greene or his officers with fortifying a point which was untenable, or with not observing that it was untenable. As the engineers of 1812 occupied the same site, it could be safely concluded, were no surveys preserved, that it was entirely defensible.

[43] Some important and interesting information relative to the main line at Brooklyn was brought out in 1779 at the examination of Captain John Montressor, before the Parliamentary Committee which investigated Howe's conduct of the war. Montressor was a British army engineer, acting as Howe's aid on Long Island. Being one of the general's witnesses, he naturally made out the American position as strong as possible, but the main facts of his testimony are to be accepted. The examination was in part as follows:

"Q. Can you give a particular account of the state of those [Brooklyn] lines?

A. Yes—the lines were constructed from Wallabout Bay, on one side to a swamp that intersects the land between the main land and Read Hook, which terminates the lines. The lines were about a mile and a half in extent, including the angles, cannon proof, with a chain of five redoubts, or rather fortresses, with ditches, as had also the lines that formed the intervals, raised on the parapet and the counterscarp, and the whole surrounded with the most formidable abbaties.

Q. Were those lines finished on every part, from the swamp formed by the Wallabout on the left, to the swamp on the right?

A. Yes.

Q. Do you know the particulars of the left part of the line towards the Wallabout? Have you any reason for knowing that?

A. The line runs straight from the rising ground where Fort Putnam was constructed, in a straight line to the swamp that terminates itself at the bottom of Wallabout Bay.

Q. Was there a possibility of a single man's passing round the left part of the line?

A. There was not. After entering the lines, Sir William Howe, on the enemy's evacuating, followed the road to the point, to examine and see if he could get out at that part, which he could not do, and we were obliged to return and go out of a sally port of the lines....

Q. Can you say of your own knowledge, that the right redoubt of the lines at Brooklyn had an abattis before it?

A. I have already said that the whole had an abattis before it.

[He produces an actual survey of the lines.]...

Q. If any one of these redoubts were taken, did not they flank the line in such a manner to the right and left that the enemy could not remain in the lines?

A. I have already said, that they could not be taken by assault, but by approaches, as they were rather fortresses than redoubts."—A View of the Evidence Relative to the Conduct of the American War under Sir William Howe, etc.; second edition; London, 1779. Manual of the Corporation of the City of New York, 1870, p. 884.

The maps in the early London editions of Gordon's and Stedman's histories of the war, each put five fortifications on the line from the Wallabout to Gowanus Creek.

[44] One of Greene's orders refers to this fort as follows: "Camp on Long Island, July 19, 1776.—The works on Cobble Hill being greatly retarded for want of men to lay turf, few being acquainted with that service, all those in Colonel Hitchcock's and Colonel Little's regiments, that understand that business, are desired to voluntarily turn out every day, and they shall be excused from all other duty, and allowed one half a pint of rum a day." Two guns fired from Cobble Hill were to be the signal that the enemy had landed on Long Island.

[45] "Our fort [Defiance] is much strengthened by new works and more troops, and it is in so good a posture of defence, that it would be almost impossible to take it either by attack or surprise. To guard against the latter, each man is every other night on duty."—Memoir of Samuel Shaw, p. 17.

[46] Documents, Col. Hist. of New York, vol. viii., p. 792.

[47] The recollections and incidents preserved by Stiles and Furman go to show that this was not an American-built fort.—Stiles' Brooklyn, vol. i., pp. 314, 315.

[48] A return of the batteries around New York, March 24th, describes Fort Stirling as opposite the "Fly Market" in Maiden Lane [Force, Fourth Series, vol. v., p. 480]. Clark, Pineapple, and Orange streets, Brooklyn, can all be called "opposite" Maiden Lane in New York. The Hessian map puts the fort nearest the line of Clark.

[49] The work, which was to be known as the Citadel, was in all probability the "redoubte commencé," or unfinished fort, indicated on the Hessian map in the rear and to the south of Fort Stirling. The site corresponds with that of the British fort of 1780, corner of Henry and Pierrepont streets, which was then, as it still is, the highest point on Brooklyn Heights, and hence the natural position for a citadel or commanding fortification. Stirling, in his letter to the President of Congress of March 14, says: "The work [Fort Stirling] first begun on Long Island opposite to this city is almost completed, and the cannon carried over. The grand citadel there will be marked out to-morrow, and will be begun by the inhabitants of King's County and Colonel Ward's Regiment."

The list of batteries, March 24th, contains a note to the effect that a citadel covering five acres, called the Congress, was to be built in the rear of Fort Stirling. Major Fish writes, April 9th: "There are two fortifications on Long Island opposite this city, to command the shipping." One of these was Fort Stirling—the other, undoubtedly, the citadel then in process of construction. The latter, though not in as favorable a position for the purpose as the former, could still fire on ships entering the river.

The position of these two works, taken in connection with Lee's plan of forming an intrenched camp on Long Island, fortified with a chain of redoubts, which, according to one of his letters, were to be three in number, indicates quite clearly that this general intended to hold simply the heights along the river. The facts fail to bear out the supposition that the lines, as finally adopted on Long Island, were of Lee's planning. Work on the citadel was probably discontinued, because his plan was so much enlarged as to make that fortification unavailable.

[50] Letter from General Greene written at Fort Lee. Mrs. Williams' Life of Olney.

[51] A history of the Tories on Long Island and in New York—the trouble they gave in the present campaign, and the measures taken for their suppression—properly forms a subject by itself. The scope of the present work admits of but brief allusions to them. However honest this class of the population may have been in taking sides with the British, and whatever sympathy may be expressed for them in their trials, losses, and enforced dispersion during and at the end of the war, there was obviously no course left to the Americans, then in the midst of a deadly struggle, but to treat them as a dangerous and obstructive set. The New York Provincial Congress, in the fall of the year and later, dealt with them unsparingly; and no man wished to see the element rooted out more than John Jay—a fact to be borne in mind by those who condemn Lee and other American officers for attempting to banish the Long Island Tories, as a military precaution, in the early part of the year.

[52] What General Greene thought of the Tories, and what treatment he proposed in certain cases, appears from a report on the subject signed by Generals Heath, Spencer, Greene, and Stirling, and submitted to Washington towards the close of June: "With regard to the disaffected inhabitants who have lately been apprehended," say these officers, "we think that the method at present adopted by the County Committee, of discharging them on their giving bonds as a security for their good behavior, is very improper and ineffectual, and therefore recommend it to your Excellency to apply to the Congress of this province to take some more effectual method of securing the good behavior of those people, and in the mean time that your Excellency will order the officers in whose custody they are to discharge no more of them until the sense of the Congress be had thereon."—Journals of the N.Y. Prov. Congress, vol. ii.

On this subject Colonel Huntington wrote to Governor Trumbull, June 6th, as follows: "Long Island has the greatest proportion of Tories, both of its own growth and of adventitious ones, of any part of this colony; from whence some conjecture that the attack is to be made by that way. It is more likely to be so than not. Notwithstanding the vigilance of our outposts, we are sure there is frequent intercourse between the Asia and the shore, and that they have been supplied with fresh meat. New guards have lately been set in suspected places, which I hope will prevent any further communication."—Force, 4th Series, vol. vi., p. 725.

[53] This was a company of New Jersey Minute-men from Essex County, which had been sent over to Long Island on May 17th.

[54] Colonel Little to his son. [Doc. No. 9].

[55] It is a somewhat singular fact, indicating perhaps the scantiness of our material heretofore, that none of the local accounts of operations on Long Island mention either Hitchcock's, Varnum's, or Little's regiments in any connection, whereas these, with Hand's, formed the permanent garrison on that side and threw up the greater part of the works.

[56] In locating the works in New York City, the writer follows the list of batteries reported March 24th, 1776 (Force, 4th Series, vol. v., p. 480); Putnam's order of May 22d, naming the several works; Knox's artillery returns of June 10th, giving the number of guns in each; and Hills' map of the fortifications, drawn at the close of the war. The first list shows the works as they stood at about the time the Boston troops came down, and which Lee had planned. There are alterations and additions in Putnam's and Knox's lists, which are to be followed where they differ from the list of March 24th. Although many other works were erected, no names appear to have been attached to them, those only being designated which occupied the most important points and were provided with guns and garrisons.

The Hills map is indispensable in this connection. John Hills, formerly a British engineer, surveyed the city and island of New York as far as Thirty-fourth Street in 1782, and in 1785 made a careful map of the same, which John Lozier, Esq., presented to the Common Council in 1847. This is still preserved, and is consulted at times for official purposes. In addition to giving all the streets, blocks, docks, and squares, Hills added all the works thrown up in and around the city during the Revolution, giving their exact location and shape. Part of the lines have a confused appearance, but they become clear on referring to the following memorandum on the map: "All the works colored yellow were erected by the Forces of the United States in 1776. Those works colored Orange were erected by D^o and repaired by the British Forces. Those works colored Green were erected by the British Forces during the War." In the [map of New York] accompanying the present work, Hills' "yellow" line has been followed, showing all the American forts. Their location corresponds precisely with that which Putnam gives, so far as he names them; and by projecting the present streets over Hills' plan, it is possible to ascertain where they stood in the plan of our modern city.

[57] Washington's Headquarters in New York.—This reference creates some uncertainty as to the particular house occupied by Washington in New York during the first part of the campaign. If the site of the Oyster Battery were known exactly the house could be identified. On the other hand, if headquarters, as generally supposed, were at the Kennedy Mansion, No. 1 Broadway, then the battery should have stood still lower down, at the corner of Battery Place and Greenwich Street; but the Grand Battery terminated there, and Hills' map shows no distinct battery at that point. Mr. Lossing states ("Field Book of the Rev.," vol. ii., p. 594, n.) that Washington, on his first arrival in the city, took up his quarters at 180 Pearl, opposite Cedar Street, his informant being a survivor of the Revolution, and that, on his return from a visit to Philadelphia, June 6th, he went to the Kennedy House. That Washington, however, spent the greater part of the summer at the "Mortier House," on Richmond Hill, is well known. He was there on June 22d and probably much earlier, as appears in Force, 4th Series, vol. vi., p. 1157, where one Corbie is described as keeping a tavern "to the south-east of General Washington's house, to the westward of Bayard's woods, and north of Lispenard's meadows." The house referred to was the Mortier. From Mr. Lossing's informant, and the reference in the orders of August 8th, which speaks of the "old head-quarters on the Broadway," we may conclude that Washington first put up at 180 Pearl Street; that if he then went to the Kennedy House at all, it was but for a short time; that it is more likely, from the position of the batteries, that the house he did occupy was one of the two or three next above it; and that in June he moved his quarters to the Mortier House, where he remained until September 14th, when he went to the Morris Mansion at Harlem Heights. The Kennedy House was Colonel Knox's artillery headquarters during part if not all of the time, his wife being with him there up to July 12th. (Drake's Life of Knox.)

[58] Spencer's Brigade probably built both works, as it was stationed in the vicinity of both. Colonel John Trumbull, who was then Spencer's brigade major, and afterwards in the Canada army, says in the "Reminiscences" of his own time: "The brigade to which I was attached was encamped on the (then) beautiful high ground which surrounded Colonel Rutgers' seat near Corlear's Hook."

[59] Force, 4th Series, vol. v., p. 492. Compare, also, [Documents 38] and [41].

[60] This work stood at the foot of East Eighty-eighth Street. See [Document 41]. Some ten years after the war, Archibald Gracie occupied this site, and it became known as Gracie's Point. The writer of a city guide-book in 1807, referring to Mr. Gracie, says: "His superb house and gardens stand upon the very spot called Hornshook, upon which a fort erected by the Americans in 1776 stood till about the year 1794, when the present proprietor caused the remains of the military works to be levelled, at great expense, and erected on their rocky base his present elegant mansion and appurtenances."—The Picture of New York, etc., 1807, New York.

[61] The fortifications erected at the upper part of the island are noticed in [Chapter V]. Mr. Lossing, it should be said, gives a very full list of the Revolutionary works in and around New York ("Field Book of the Rev.," vol. ii., p. 593), from which the list as given here, based on Hills' map, differs in several particulars.

[62] One side of this barricade ran in front of the Times, and the other in front of the Tribune building.

[63] This officer was Lieutenant-Colonel of Jonathan Ward's Massachusetts Regiment, and subsequently became colonel in the Massachusetts Continental Line.

[64] Force, 4th Series, vol. vi., p. 1011.

[65] "Thursday, 13th June.—Here in town very unhappy and shocking scenes were exhibited. On Munday night some men called Tories were carried and hauled about through the streets, with candles forced to be held by them, or pushed in their faces, and their heads burned; but on Wednesday, in the open day, the scene was by far worse; several, and among them gentlemen, were carried on rails; some stripped naked and dreadfully abused. Some of the generals, and especially Pudnam and their forces, had enough to do to quell the riot, and make the mob disperse."—Pastor Shewkirk's Diary, Doc. 37.

[66] The particulars of this plot need hardly be repeated; indeed, they were never fully known. It was discovered that an attempt had been made to enlist American soldiers into the king's service, who at the proper time should assist the enemy in their plans. They were to spike cannon, blow up magazines, and, as at first reported, assassinate our generals; but the latter design seems not to have been proved, though universally believed. Governor Tryon and Mayor Matthews, of the city, were suspected of furthering the plot and furnishing the funds. Matthews was arrested at Flatbush by a party of officers under Colonel Varnum, but the evidence against him was insufficient. Among the soldiers implicated was Thomas Hickey, of Washington's guard, who was tried by court-martial, found guilty of sedition, mutiny, and correspondence with the enemy, and executed in the presence of the army on June 28th. Something of the feeling excited by the discovery of the plot is exhibited in the letter from Surgeon Eustis of Colonel Knox's regiment ([Document 39]). This is better known as the "Hickey Plot."

[67] The following memorandum, preserved among Governor Wolcott's papers, is of interest in this connection:

"An Equestrian Statue of George the Third of Great Britain was erected in the City of New York on the Bowling Green at the lower end of Broadway. Most of the materials were lead but richly gilded to resemble gold. At the beginning of the Revolution this statue was overthrown. Lead being then scarce and dear, the statue was broken in pieces and the metal transported to Litchfield a place of safety. The ladies of this village converted the Lead into Cartridges for the Army, of which the following is an account. O.W.

Mrs. Marvin,	Cartridges	6,058
Ruth Marvin,	"	11,592
Laura Wolcott,	"	8,378
Mary Ann Wolcott,	"	10,790
Frederick "	"	936
Mrs. Beach,	"	1,802
Made by sundry persons	"	2,182
Gave Litchfield Militia on alarm,		50
Let the Regiment of Col. Wigglesworth have		300
		———
		42,088	Cartridges."

[68] "For two or three days past three or four ships have been dropping in, and I just now received an express from an officer appointed to keep a lookout on Staten Island, that forty-five arrived at the Hook to-day—some say more; and I suppose the whole fleet will be in within a day or two."—Washington to Hancock, June 29th.

[69] Extract of a letter from an officer in the Thirty-fifth Regiment at Staten Island, July 9th, 1776: "Our army consisted of 6155 effectives, on our embarkation at Halifax; they are now all safe landed here, and our head-quarters are at your late old friend, Will Hick's Mansion house."—London Chronicle.

[70] The expedition sailed from Cork for the Cape River in North Carolina, where Clinton joined it. It was expected that the loyalists in the State would rise in sufficient numbers to give the expeditionary corps substantial aid; but not over eighteen hundred were mustered, and these under General McDonald were completely defeated by the North Carolina Militia under Colonels Caswell and Lillington at Moore's Creek Bridge on the 27th of February. The expedition then moved against Charleston, S.C., and there met with the famous repulse from Colonel Moultrie off Charleston Harbor on the 28th of June. Clinton and Cornwallis after this could do nothing but join Howe at New York.

[71] Colonel Knox to his wife.—Drake's Life of Gen. Knox, p. 131.

[72] "General Washington was very handsomely dressed, and made a most elegant appearance. Colonel Patterson appeared awe-struck, as if he was before something supernatural. Indeed, I don't wonder at it. He was before a very great man, indeed."—Ibid. p. 132.

[73] Memorandum of an interview between General Washington and Colonel Patterson.—Sparks' Washington, vol. iv., p. 510.

[74] On August 17th Washington requested the New York Convention to remove the women, children, and infirm persons, as the city was likely soon to be "the scene of a bloody conflict." He stated that when the Rose and Phœnix sailed past, "the shrieks and cries of these poor creatures, running every way with their children, was truly distressing." Pastor Shewkirk says: "This affair caused a great fright in the city. Women and children, and some with their bundles, came from the lower parts and walked to the Bowery, which was lined with people."

[75] Captain Nathan Hale, the "Martyr-spy," says in a letter of the 20th of August: "Our situation has been such this fortnight or more as scarce to admit of writing. We have daily expected an action—by which means, if any one was going, and we had letters written, orders were so strict for our tarrying in camp, that we could rarely get leave to go and deliver them. For about six or eight days the enemy have been expected hourly, whenever the wind and tide in the least favored."—[Document 40].

[76] Original in possession of Chas. J. Little, Esq., Cambridge, Mass.

[77] Greene's Life of Greene, vol. i.

[78] General Orders, August 20, 1776.—... "General Sullivan is to take command upon Long Island till General Greene's state of health will permit him to resume it, and Brigadier Lord Stirling is to take charge of General Sullivan's division till he returns to it again."

[79] In a letter to Peter Van Schaack, dated New York, February 23d, 1776, Fred. Rhinelander says: "We are going to raise a new battalion; Colonel Lasher and Gouverneur Morris are candidates for the command. As both the gentlemen have great merit, it is hard to tell which will succeed." The reference here is probably to a plan formed by private citizens in New York to raise a battalion of fifteen hundred men for nine months, on condition that the projectors could appoint the officers. This being refused by the Provincial Congress the plan was abandoned.—Life of G. Morris, vol. i. p. 89, n.

[80] See [Biographical Sketches], [Part II.]

[81] The New York Congress voted that the City and County of New York should furnish twelve hundred men as their quota of the three thousand recently called for, and these were to consist of "the two independent battalions." They were composed of ten companies each, which, however, never reached their maximum strength. In September Lasher's total was 510; Malcom's, 297.

[82] Lewis Morris, one of the Signers of the Declaration, was appointed brigadier-general of the Westchester County militia, but he remained in Congress until later in the fall, when he took the field for a short time with New York militia in the Highlands.

[83] List of the Officers and Men from New Jersey who served in the Revolution. By Adjutant-General W.S. Stryker.

[84] Delaware's Revolutionary Soldiers. By William G. Whiteley, Esq., 1875.

[85] Durkee's Continentals garrisoned Powle's Hook, and Bradley's Connecticut regiment was at Bergen, both being returned on Washington's rolls, but otherwise under Mercer's orders.

[86] At New York, the artillery was increased by Captain Alexander Hamilton's company, and soldiers were detached from the several regiments to act as gunners in consequence of Knox's inability to furnish enough from his own regiment to man all the points.

[87] [Document 43], [Part II.], contains interesting and important extracts from Colonel Putnam's Journal, now published for the first time.

[88] On his promotion to a brigadier-generalship in August, Parsons was succeeded by his lieutenant-colonel, John Tyler.

[89] This was the same officer who came down with Lee in the spring. When his regiment returned home he was put in command of another raised on the continental basis. He joined the army in August, but did not cross to Long Island.

[90] The original letter from Trumbull to Wolcott, among the latter's papers, informing him of his appointment, states that the fourteen regiments had been called out upon "the most pressing application of General Washington." The governor adds: "Having formed raised expectations of your disposition and ability to serve your country in this most important crisis, on which the fate of America seems so much to depend, I trust you will cheerfully undertake the service," etc. General Wolcott proceeded at once to New York, and was with the militia in the city during the fighting on Long Island, and for some time after. As to the number of the regiments that came down, see Colonel Douglas' letter of August 23d ([Document 22]), where he says twelve were on the parade the day before.

[91] When it was proposed to put the Boston army on the new Continental basis on January 1st, 1776, Washington evidently hoped to have it all uniformed. Thus his orders of December 11th, 1775, read: "As uniformity and decency in dress are essentially necessary in the appearance and regularity of an army, his Excellency recommends it earnestly to the officers to put themselves in a proper uniform.... The general by no means recommends or desires officers to run into costly or expensive regimentals; no matter how plain or coarse, so that they are but uniform in their color, cut, and fashion. The officers belonging to those regiments whose uniforms are not yet fixed upon had better delay making their regimentals until they are." The orders of January 5th, 1776, say: "The regimentals, which have been made up, and drawn for, may be delivered to the respective Colonels, by the Quartermaster-General, to the order of those Colonels, who drew them at such prices as they have cost the continent, which is much cheaper than could otherwise be obtained. As nothing adds more to the appearance of a man than dress, and a proper degree of cleanliness in his person, the General hopes and expects that each regiment will contend for the most soldierlike appearance." These "regimentals" were of a brown color. That Little's and Hitchcock's men, or most of them, were in uniform when they came to New York, appears from General Greene's Providence order of April 4th (ante, [p. 62]). A description of the colors of Colonel Joseph Read's Massachusetts Continental regiment refers to the "uniform of the regiment;" so doubtless most of the Boston army was in uniform. But whether they were kept supplied with uniforms may be doubted. The men wore out their clothes fast while throwing up the works, and Washington speaks of the "difficulty and expense" of providing new ones. (Orders, July 24th, 1776.) At this date he does not insist on uniforms, but recommends the adoption of the hunting shirt and breeches as a cheap and convenient dress, and as one which might have its terrors for the enemy, who imagined that every rebel so dressed was "a complete marksman." A valuable article on "The Uniforms of the American Army" may be found in the Magazine of American History, for August, 1877, by Professor Asa Bird Gardner, of the West Point Military Academy.

[92] Force, 5th Series, vol. ii., p. 244.

[93] The last official return of the army before the battle, published in Force's Archives, bears date of August 3d; the next about September 12th. The latter is the proper basis for making an estimate of the numbers for August 27th, as it includes all the regiments except Haslet's known to be then present, and no more. On September 12th the total of rank and file on the rolls, not including the absent sick, was 24,100. To these add 1800 commissioned officers and 2500 sergeants, drums and fifes, and the total strength is 28,400. On the same date, rank and file, fit for duty, numbered 14,700. Add to these 1000 lost on Long Island and 3500 officers, sergeants, drums and fifes fit for duty, and we have, all told, between 19,000 and 20,000 effectives on August 27th; and these figures correspond with Washington's statement of September 2d: "Our number of men at present fit for duty is under 20,000." The army suffered greatly from sickness during August and September. General Heath writes in his Memoirs, under date of August 8th: "The number of sick amounted to near 10,000; nor was it possible to find proper hospitals or proper necessaries for them. In almost every farm, stable, shed, and even under the fences and bushes, were the sick to be seen, whose countenances were but an index of the dejection of spirit and the distress they endured." On the 4th of August, Colonel Parsons wrote to Colonel Little: "My Doctor and Mate are sick. I have near Two Hundred men sick in Camp; my neighbours are in very little better state." And he asks Little to consent to his surgeon's mate remaining with him until his own surgeons were better. [MS. letter in possession of Charles J. Little, Esq.]

[94] General Clinton being absent all summer in the Highlands, the brigade was commanded first by Colonel Read, and afterwards by Colonel Glover.

[95] The figures given here represent the total number of enlisted men on the rolls on September 12, absent sick included. In the case of some of the regiments, especially from the flying camp, under Lutz, Kachlein, and others, only an estimate can be formed. The strength of these is noted in connection with the losses on Long Island in the [next chapter]. The Connecticut militia regiments are credited with 350 men each, as Washington gives the figures.

[96] Glover's regiment did not join the army at New York until August. It was assigned on the 12th to Stirling's brigade, and on the 15th to Fellows'.

[97] Sargent's and Ward's reported on the ground in August. They were probably in Mifflin's brigade.

[98] These regiments were nominally under General Woodhull, but actually under Greene and Sullivan. At the time of the battle of the 27th both were doing duty with Nixon's brigade. (Sullivan's orders, August 25th. [Document 2].) Their strength can only be estimated, but it is probably correct to say that together they were less than five hundred strong.

[99] See Appendix to Drake's Life of General Knox.

[100] The "Highlander" regiments were the Forty-second and Seventy-first. In Stewart's Highlanders, vol. i., p. 354, as quoted in the Memoir of General Graham, the following passage appears: "On the 10th April, 1776, the Forty-second Regiment being reviewed by Sir Adolphus Oughton, was reported complete, and so unexceptionable that none were rejected. Hostilities having commenced in America, every exertion was made to teach the recruits the use of the firelock, for which purpose they were drilled even by candle-light. New arms and accoutrements were supplied to the men; and the colonel of the regiment, at his own expense, supplied broadswords and pistols.... The pistols were of the old Highland fashion, with iron stocks. These being considered unnecessary except in the field, were not intended, like the swords, to be worn by the men in quarters. When the regiment took the field on Staten and Long Island, it was said that the broadswords retarded the men by getting entangled in the brushwood and they were therefore taken from them and sent on board the transports."

[101] General Clinton, quoting from Howe's returns on this date, says he had "24,464 effectives fit for duty; a total of 26,980, officers not included, who, when added, amount to 31,625 men." See General Carrington's Battles of the Revolution, p. 199. To the British force should be added two or three companies of New York loyalists.

[102] The list that follows is copied from what appears to have been the roster-book of Adjutant Gilfillan of the Fifty-fifth Regiment. The book was captured by Captain Nathaniel Fitz Randolph, of New Jersey (see [Document 56]), and is now in the possession of Captain John C. Kinney, of Hartford, a great-grandson of the latter. There is no date attached to the "Order of Battle," but from the few dates that follow it was probably made out in the first part of August, 1776. The list gives the full British strength, and is interesting as naming the majors of brigade, represented by the abbreviation M.B.

[103] An error, evidently, for Battalion.

[104] The arrangement of the Hessian troops, as here given, is compiled from Von Elking's work, Baurmeister's Narrative, and the Hessian map in vol. ii. of the Long Island Historical Society's Memoirs.

[105] "Till of late I had no doubt in my own mind of defending this place."—Washington to Congress, September 2d, 1776.

[106] "Before the landing of the enemy in Long Island, the point of attack could not be known, nor any satisfactory judgment formed of their intentions. It might be on Long Island, on Bergen, or directly on the city."—Washington to Congress, September 9th, 1776.

[107] The Tories gave Howe all the information he needed. One Gilbert Forbes testified at the "Hickey Plot" examination that a Sergeant Graham, formerly of the Royal Artillery, had told him that he (the sergeant), at the request of Governor Tryon, had surveyed the works around the city and on Long Island, and had concerted a plan of attack, which he gave to the governor (Force, 4th Series, vol. vi., p. 1178). On his arrival at Staten Island, Howe wrote to Germaine, July 7th: "I met with Governor Tryon, on board of ship at the Hook, and many gentlemen, fast friends to government, attending him, from whom I have had the fullest information of the state of the rebels, who are numerous, and very advantageously posted, with strong intrenchments, both upon Long Island and that of New York, with more than one hundred pieces of cannon for the defence of the town towards the sea," etc.—Force, 5th Series, vol. i., p. 105.

[108] This storm, which is mentioned by Colonel Douglas, Captain Hale, Chaplain Benedict, and others, hung over the city from seven to ten in the evening, and is described by Pastor Shewkirk as being more terrible than that which "struck into Trinity Church" twenty years before. Captain Van Wyck and two lieutenants of McDougall's regiment and a Connecticut soldier were killed by the lightning.

[109] The landing-place was at the present village of Bath. No opposition by the Americans would have availed and none was attempted. Washington wrote to Hancock, August 20th: "Nor will it be possible to prevent their landing on the island, as its great extent affords a variety of places favorable for that purpose, and the whole of our works on it are at the end opposite to the city. However, we shall attempt to harass them as much as possible, which will be all that we can do." To the same effect Colonel Reed's letter of August 23d: "As there were so many landing-places, and the people of the island generally so treacherous, we never expected to prevent the landing." General Parsons says ([Document 5]): "The landing of the troops could not be prevented at the distance of six or seven miles from our lines, in a plain under the cannon of the ships, just within the shore." An American battery had gone down to De Nyse's, earlier in the summer, to annoy the Asia, but there was none there at this date. The particulars of the debarkation and of subsequent movements of the enemy appear in the reports and letters of the two Howes and Sir George Collier. (Force, 5th Series, vol. i., pp. 1255-6; and Naval Chronicle, 1841.)

[110] "On the morning of the 22d of August there were nine thousand British troops on New Utrecht plains. The guard alarmed our small camp, and we assembled at the flagstaff. We marched our forces, about two hundred in number, to New Utrecht, to watch the movements of the enemy. When we came on the hill we discovered a party of them advancing toward us. We prepared to give them a warm reception, when an imprudent fellow fired, and they immediately halted and turned toward Flatbush. The main body also moved along the great road toward the same place."—Lieutenant-Colonel Chambers, of Hand's riflemen, to his Wife, September 3d, 1776. Chambersburg in the Colony and the Revolution.

[111] Strong's History of Flatbush.

[112] Livingston sent a spy to Staten Island on the night of the 20th, who brought word that the British were embarking, and would attack on Long Island and up the North River. Washington received the information during the storm on the following evening, and immediately sent word to Heath at King's Bridge that the enemy were upon "the point of striking the long-expected stroke." The next morning, the 22d, he wrote again instructing Heath to pick out "eight hundred or a thousand, light, active men, and good marksmen," ready to move rapidly wherever they were most needed; and he promised to send him some artillery, "if," he continues, "we have not other employment upon hand, which General Putnam, who is this instant come in, seems to think we assuredly shall, this day, as there is a considerable embarkation on board of the enemy's boats." (Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll., volume for 1878. The Heath correspondence.) On the same date Washington wrote to Hancock: "The falling down of several ships yesterday evening to the Narrows, crowded with men, those succeeded by many more this morning, and a great number of boats parading around them, as I was just now informed, with troops, are all circumstances indicating an attack, and it is not improbable it will be made to-day. It could not have happened last night, by reason of a most violent gust." (Force, 5th Series, vol. i., p. 1110). On the 21st, Colonel Hand at the Narrows reported three times to General Nixon that the British transports were filling with men and moving down, and the reports were sent to Washington. These facts show how closely the enemy were watched. The embarkation was known at headquarters early on the morning of the 22d, before the landing was made on Long Island.

[113] Washington wrote to Heath the next day: "Our first accounts were that they intended by a forced march to surprise General Sullivan's lines, who commands during the illness of General Greene; whereupon I immediately reinforced that post with six regiments." Miles, Silliman, and Chester's adjutant, Tallmadge, state that their regiments were among the first to cross after the enemy landed. Sullivan's orders of the 25th and other records seem to indicate that Atlee's, Lasher's, and Drake's were the other three battalions sent over at the same time.

[114] See Sullivan's orders, Silliman's letters, Miles' Journal ([Part II.]), and Chambers' letter. [Transcriber's Note: The marker in the text for this footnote is missing in the original.]

[115] Referring evidently to this skirmish, Lieutenant-Colonel Chambers says: "Strong guards were maintained all day on the flanks of the enemy, and our regiment and the Hessian yagers kept up a severe firing, with a loss of but two wounded on our side. We laid a few Hessians low, and made them retreat out of Flatbush. Our people went into the town and brought the goods out of the burning houses. The enemy liked to have lost their field-pieces. Captain Steel acted bravely. We would certainly have had the cannon had it not been for some foolish person calling retreat. The main body of the foe returned to town, and when our lads came back they told of their exploits."

[116] Little's Order Book, [Document 2]. But it seems that Remsen's Long Island militiamen were seized by a panic, either during this skirmish or at a later hour, on the Bedford Road, and ran from their posts. Sullivan rebuked them sharply in his orders of the 24th ([Document 2]), and confined them thereafter to "fatigue" duty. This proved to be only the first of several militia panics experienced in this campaign.

[117] Sullivan's Orders, August 24th. [Document 2].

[118] Washington to Congress, January 30th, 1776.

[119] In regard to the change in the command, the adjutant-general's statement in full is this: "On General Greene's being sick, Sullivan took the command, who was wholly unacquainted with the ground or country. Some movements being made which the general did not approve entirely, and finding a great force going to Long Island, he sent over Putnam, who had been over occasionally; this gave some disgust, so that Putnam was directed to soothe and soften as much as possible." (Sedgwick's Life of Livingston, p. 201.) What movements were referred to, unless it was the random firing of the skirmishers and the burning of houses at Flatbush by some of our men, or how Putnam was to reconcile Sullivan to the change, as he was directed (this evidently being the meaning of Reed's last phrase), does not appear. From subsequent occurrences, the inference is justified that Putnam did not disturb Sullivan's arrangements, but left the disposition of the troops to him. What Sullivan himself says is given in a note further along in the chapter. That Putnam went over on the 24th, and in the forenoon, is evident from a letter from Reed to his wife of that date, in which he says: "While I am writing, there is a heavy firing and clouds of smoke rising from the wood [on Long Island]. General Putnam was made happy by obtaining leave to go over—the brave old man was quite miserable at being kept here." (Reed's Life of Reed.) This firing, as Washington wrote to Schuyler on the same date, occurred in the morning. Putnam had been engaged during the summer, principally, in looking after the defences in the city and the river obstructions. He had charge, also, of the water transportation, boats, pettiaugers, etc. His division was in the city or close to it. Had the enemy, accordingly, attacked the city directly, it would have fallen largely to Putnam to conduct the defence; and this is doubtless the reason why, as Reed says, he was "kept here." But as it now seemed certain that the British were concentrating on Long Island, he evidently wished to be with the troops there, where that morning there was "a heavy firing" going on, and obtained leave to cross. Finding a change desirable, Washington, probably at the same time, gave Putnam the command and "sent" him over.

[120] Mr. Davis, in his Life of Aaron Burr, who was Putnam's aid at this time, states that after crossing to Long Island and making the round of the outposts, he (Burr) urged his general to beat up the enemy's camp, but that Putnam declined, on the ground that his orders required him to remain strictly on the defensive.

[121] Sullivan's Orders, August 25th. [Document 2].

[122] Several writers, Mr. Sparks among them, make the statement that neither Washington nor Putnam went outside of the Brooklyn lines. It would be impossible to credit this without absolute proof of the fact. Washington always reconnoitred the position of the enemy whenever they were near each other; in the last scenes of the war at Yorktown he was among the first at the outposts examining the British works. Undoubtedly he rode out to the Flatbush Pass on the 26th, as stated by the writer of the letter to the South Carolina Gazette ([Document 19]), who says: "The evening preceding the action, General Washington, with a number of general officers, went down to view the motions of the enemy, who were encamped at Flatbush." A letter from a survivor of the Revolution, present on Long Island, published in a newspaper several years since, well authenticated, and preserved in one of Mr. Onderdonk's scrap-books in the Astor Library, New York, confirms this statement. The soldier recollects that he saw Washington and others looking at the enemy with their glasses.

[123] Statement of Colonel Thomas Grosvenor to the late David P. Hall, Esq., of New York, who knew Grosvenor well, and preserved many facts in writing in regard to his military career. Knowlton's captains were Grosvenor and Stephen Brown, of Pomfret, Conn. The detachment was on duty at the outposts on the night of the 26th. The soldier whose letter is referred to in the note preceding this was one of the "Rangers," and he states that their number was about one hundred. That Smallwood's and Haslet's regiments crossed on the 26th, we have from Smallwood himself.—Force, 5th Series, vol. ii., p. 1011.

[124] The regiments were Little's and Ward's, from Massachusetts; Varnum's and Hitchcock's, from Rhode Island; Huntington's, Wyllys's, Tyler's, Chester's, Silliman's, and Gay's, and Knowlton's "Rangers," from Connecticut; Lasher's and Drake's, from New York; Smith's and Remsen's, from Long Island; Martin's, Forman's, Johnston's, Newcomb's, and Cortland's, from New Jersey; Hand's, Miles', Atlee's, Lutz's, Kachlein's, and Hay's, detachment from Pennsylvania; Haslet's, from Delaware; and Smallwood's, from Maryland. Among other artillery officers on that side were Captains Newell and Treadwell, Captain-Lieutenants John Johnston and Benajah Carpenter; Lieutenants Lillie and "Cadet" John Callender. This list is believed to include all the battalions and detachments on Long Island at the time the British attacked.

[125] Parson's own statement, letter of October 5th: "On the day of the surprise I was on duty."—[Document 5].

[126] The site of this breastwork is now within the limits of Prospect Park, and it stood across what is known as "Battle Pass." Dr. Stiles in his History of Brooklyn, and Mr. Field in vol. ii. of the L.I. Hist. Society's Memoirs, put a well-constructed redoubt at this point on a hill-top to the left of the road. The account in the South Carolina Gazette says that the Flatbush Pass guards were posted "near a mile from the parting of the road [i.e., a mile from where the Flatbush Road branched from the Jamaica Road] where an abattis was formed across the road, and a breastwork thrown up and defended by two pieces of cannon." In the original sketch of the "engagement," made by John Ewing, who was Hand's brother-in-law, and with him on the spot, there is this reference: "F. Where a considerable Number of our people were stationed with several Field-pieces & Breast-works made with Trees felled across the Road to defend themselves when attacked." ([Document 15].) Colonel Miles speaks of "a small redoubt in front of the village [Flatbush]" ([Document 20].) The breastwork across the road was doubtless the principal defence here, and this was merely temporary.

[127] The number of men at each of the three passes was about eight hundred, and on the left of these were Miles' two battalions, with perhaps five hundred men on duty. Sullivan's orders of August 25th give the detail which was to mount for picket on the following morning. This detail, therefore, was the one on duty on the night of the 26th. The order runs: "Eight hundred [men] properly officered to relieve the troops on Bedford Road to-morrow morning, six field officers to attend with this party. The same number to relieve those on Bush [Flatbush] Road, and an equal number those stationed towards the Narrows. A picket of three hundred men under the command of a Field Officer, six Captains, twelve subalterns to be posted at the wood on the west side of the creek every night till further orders." (See also [Documents 5], [18], [19].) That Miles was on the extreme left, we well know; that Wyllys was at the Bedford Pass, appears from both Miles' and Brodhead's accounts; that Chester's regiment was with him, appears from an extract quoted below—Chester's lieutenant-colonel being Solomon Wills; that Johnston was at the Flatbush Pass, appears from the same and other authorities; that Henshaw with Little's regiment was there, he himself states; that Cornell was also there with Hitchcock's Rhode Islanders, appears from Captain Olney's narrative as given in Mrs. Williams' Life of Olney, and from the lists of prisoners; that Hand was at the lower road, until relieved, and Major Burd also, the major himself and Ewing's sketch both state; the New York detachment there was probably a part of Lasher's regiment. The extract referred to is from the Connecticut Courant, containing a letter from an officer engaged in the battle, which says: "The night before August 27th, on the west road, were posted Colonel Hand's regiment, a detachment from Pennsylvania and New York; next east were posted Colonel Johnson, of Jersey, and Lieutenant-Colonel Henshaw, of Massachusetts; next east were posted Colonel Wyllys and Lieutenant-Colonel Wills, of Connecticut. East of all these Colonel Miles, of Pennsylvania, was posted towards Jamaica, to watch the motion of the enemy and give intelligence."

[128] Hand's letter of August 27th: "I escaped my part by being relieved at 2 o'clock this morning." ([Document 12].) See John Ewing's letter and sketch.

[129] Extract from a British officer's letter dated, Statton Island, August 4, 1776: ... "We are now in expectation of attacking the fellows very soon, and if I may be allowed to judge, there never was an army in better spirits nor in better health, two very important things for our present business."—Hist. Mag., vol. v., p. 69.

[130] Stedman, the British historian, who served as an officer under Howe, says: "Sir Henry Clinton and Sir William Erskine, having reconnoitred the position of the enemy, saw that it would not be a difficult matter to turn their left flank, which would either oblige them to risk an engagement or to retire under manifest disadvantage. This intelligence being communicated to Sir William Howe, he consented to make the attempt."

[131] Hardly more than a general statement can be made in regard to the attack on the pickets at the lower road. A part of them watched Martense Lane, where, it would appear from Ewing's sketch, Hand's riflemen were posted before being relieved. Major Burd's detachment, on the same authority, was probably on the direct road to the Narrows, both parties communicating with each other at the Red Lion Tavern, which stood near the fork of the roads. Grant's main column advanced by the Narrows Road, and possibly a party of the enemy came through the Martense Lane at about the same time. The skirmish Major Burd speaks of occurred in the vicinity of Thirty-eighth and Fortieth streets, on the Narrows Road, where former residents used to say the Americans had a picket guard stationed. When the enemy came up firing took place and some men were killed; and this firing "was the first in the neighborhood." The pickets retreated, though General Parsons was misinformed when he wrote that they did so "without firing a gun." There was firing, but no stand made.

[132] Parsons' Letters. [Part II.], [Document 5].

[133] Stirling to Washington, Aug. 29th: "About three o'clock on the morning of the 27th I was called up, and informed by General Putnam that the enemy were advancing," etc.—Force, 5th Series, vol. i., p. 1245.

[134] "Col. Huntington is unwell, but I hope getting a little better. He has a slow fever. Maj. Dyer is also unwell with a slow fever. Gen'l Greene has been very sick but is better. Genls. Putnam, Sullivan, Lord Sterling, Nixon, Parsons, & Heard are on Long Island and a strong part of our army."—Letter from Col. Trumbull, Aug. 27th, 1776. [Document 7].

[135] See references on Ewing's sketch, [Document 15]: "H. Fort Putnam where part of Col^o. Hand's men commanded by Lieut C. [Lieutenant-Colonel] Chambers were detached from the Regt. to man the fort.—I. A small upper Fort where [I] was with the Col^o the Day of the Engagement." Lieutenant-Colonel Chambers says: "We had just got to the fort, and I had only laid down, when the alarm-guns were fired. We were compelled to turn out to the lines, and as soon as it was light saw our men and theirs engaged with field-pieces." Nearly all the accounts put Hand and his battalion at the Flatbush Pass during the battle on the 27th. This, as we now find, is an error. The battalion was worn out by its continued and effective skirmishing since the landing of the enemy, and required rest; but of this it was to get very little, even within the lines.

[136] The writer is indebted to the Hon. Teunis G. Bergen, of Bay Ridge, L.I., for an accurate description and sketch of the Gowanus Road, as it lay at the time of the battle. His survey is followed in the "[Map of the Brooklyn Defences]," etc., Title,[ Maps]. [Part II.]

[137] Atlee's Journal. Force, 5th Series, vol. i., p. 1251.

[138] Probably the earliest of modern attempts to identify the site where Stirling formed his line was that made in 1839 by Maj. D.B. Douglass, formerly of the United States Army. Greenwood Cemetery, says Mr. Cleveland in his history of Greenwood, owes its present beautiful appearance largely to this officer's "energy and taste," Douglass having been one of the first surveyors of the ground. He located Stirling's position on what was then known as Wyckoff's hill, between Eighteenth and Twentieth streets; and tradition and all the original documents confirm this selection. This was a lower elevation in the general slope from the main ridge towards the bay. Stirling simply drew his men up in a straight line from the road towards the hill-tops, and beyond him on the same line or more in advance, was Parsons. The map in Sparks' Washington putting Stirling down near the Narrows is erroneous.

[139] The colonels and lieutenant-colonels of both these regiments were detained at New York as members of the court-martial which tried Lieutenant-colonel Zedwitz, of MacDougall's regiment, charged with treasonable correspondence with the enemy. They joined their regiments after the battle.

[140] This name appears in other accounts as Kichline or Keichline. It is properly Kachlein, being so spelled by other members of this officer's family.

[141] Extracts from the Stiles Diary in vol. ii., p. 488, of the Long Island Historical Society's Memoirs.

[142] Haslet to Rodney. Force, 5th Series, vol. ii., p. 881.

[143] Atlee's Journal. Force, 5th Series, vol. i., p. 1251.

[144] Parsons' reference to this affair at or near "Battle Hill" in Greenwood is as follows: "I was ordered with Col. Atlee and part of his Reg't, and Lt. Col. Clark with Col. Huntington's Reg't to cover the left flank of our main body. This we executed though our number did at no time exceed 300 men and we were attacked three several times by two regiments, y^e 44^th and 23^d and repulsed them in every attack with considerable loss. The number of dead we had collected together and the heap the enemy had made we supposed amounted to about 60. We had 12 or 14 wounded prisoners who we caused to be dressed and their wounds put in the best state our situation would admit."—[Document 5].

See Colonel Atlee's journal in Force's Archives for a full account of the part his battalion took in this fighting.

[145] Most of our writers are led into the error of supposing that Sullivan was already at the Flatbush Pass, and that when he went to reconnoitre he started from this point. The general says: "I went to the Hill near Flatbush to reconnoitre the enemy, and with a picket of four hundred men was surrounded by the enemy," etc. He went to the hill—where from? The main camp, necessarily. We already had our pickets well out in front, and had Sullivan gone beyond these he would have come upon the Hessians. Besides his position fully overlooked Flatbush, and no reconnoissance was necessary. Miles states that the general remained at the redoubt. The quotation above means no more than that Sullivan went out from the Brooklyn lines, and afterwards was surrounded and fought with four hundred of the guard who were there at the Pass with him.

[146] [Document 19].

[147] Consult [map of the battle-field], [Part II.]

[148] Hardly one of our modern accounts refers to this patrol or its capture. The incident, however, affected the situation gravely. Howe mentions it in his report as follows: "General Clinton being arrived within half a mile of the pass about two hours before daybreak, halted, and settled his disposition for the attack. One of his patrols falling in with a patrol of the enemy's officers took them; and the General learning from their information that the Rebels had not occupied the pass, detached a battalion of Light Infantry to secure it." Gordon says this: "One of his [Clinton's] patrols falls in with a patrol of American officers on horseback, who are trepanned and made prisoners." The letter in the South Carolina Gazette ([Document 19]) is to similar effect: "Five officers were also sent out on horseback to patrol the last-mentioned road and that leading to Jamaica, ... and were all made prisoners." Still stronger is the testimony of a letter to be found in the Autobiography and Correspondence of Mary Granville, Mrs. Delany, with Interesting Reminiscences of George III. and Queen Charlotte, &c., London, 1862. "The Hon. Mrs. Boscawen to Mrs. Delany.—Glan Villa, 17th Oct. 1776.... To compleat the prosperity of my journey I found on my return to y^e inn the most delightful news of our success on Long Island so that I had a most agreeable supper and drank health to the noble brothers [the two Howes]. We have had a letter from Capt. Evelyn from the field of battle; he was in y^e brigade of light infantry, and took 5 officers prisoners who were sent to observe our motions. He mentions Dr. Boscawen's son being well, for whom we were in great care, being the only child. O! to compleat this by good news from N. York and then peace!" We know who these officers were from several sources, the most authoritative and important being the documents left by one of the party himself, Lieutenant Van Wagenen, and now in the possession of his grandson, Mr. Gerret H. Van Wagenen, of Brooklyn. This officer had been sent down to Philadelphia in charge of prisoners from Canada. At this point his deposition states that "on his return to New York he found the enemy landing upon Long Island, and being a supernumerary he went to Long Island and offered his services to Gen'l Sullivan, who requested him, and four other officers, namely, Robert Troup, Edward Dunscomb, William Guilderland and Jeromus Hooghland, to go and reconnoitre the enemy, who were observed to be in motion, and in the various advances on the enemy, fell in with a body of horse and infantry by whom he and his little party were made prisoners, and continued a Prisoner for about twenty-two months." Respecting the questioning of the officers by Clinton, there is good authority. Lieutenants Troup and Dunscomb, who afterwards rose to the rank of Lieutenant-colonel and Captain respectively, have daughters still living in New York, and from their own recollections and from papers in their possession, the account given in the text is collated. At the time of Captain Dunscomb's death one or more letters were published by friends who had the particulars of the incident directly from him. (See [biographical sketches] of these officers, [Part II.]) The sending out of officers on such duty as was required this night, was not unusual. The British scouts who preceded the expedition to Lexington in 1775 were officers in disguise. Similar instances during the war could be recalled as at Brandywine. Mr. Henry Onderdonk, Jr., of Jamaica, states, in his carefully compiled and valuable collection of Revolutionary Incidents on Long Island, that the patrol was captured under a tree east of Howard's House.

[149] Force, 5th Series, vol. i., p. 1195.

[150] The supposition that Stirling commanded outside of the lines on Long Island is erroneous. He had command of the reserves in camp (Orders of August 25th), and was the proper officer to call upon to reinforce any part of the outer line in case of attack. Sullivan says, "Lord Stirling commanded the main body without the lines;" by which is meant that he was with the principal force that went out, as he was. Until the attack, the general officer of the day was in charge of the outposts. Sullivan governed himself according to circumstances. He was to be second in command under Putnam within the lines, he writes; but the situation soon required his presence outside, where he was also familiar with the dispositions.

[151] The Hessians are usually credited with taking a prominent part in this battle, whereas the day was practically decided before they came up. Necessarily our guards at the Flatbush Pass knew that the British were in their rear as soon or sooner than the Hessians knew it. They therefore turned to meet this unexpected enemy. What Olney and Henshaw say settles this point. Olney states that Cornell marched towards the lines on hearing firing in his rear, leaving Olney to reinforce his pickets in front of the Hessians. Henshaw writes that, finding the enemy between him and the lines, and knowing no orders could come to retreat, he marched for camp. Cornell and Henshaw were old officers, knew the ground thoroughly, and saw at once that they must retreat. No mention is made of the Hessians. Lieutenant Olney was in front of the latter some time before he followed after his regiment. Howe reports that it was the British who took our guns in that part of the field. If there was any such severe fighting at that pass, as Von Elking makes out, would the Hessians have lost but two men killed—all that they lost during the day? There are errors of fact in this writer's account. The most that the Hessians did was to chase, capture, and sometimes bayonet those of our soldiers whom the British had already routed. The real fighting of the day was done by Howe's English troops, and the very best he had, principally the light infantry, grenadiers, dragoons, and Highlanders.

[152] During this fighting by the British infantry, Cornwallis and the reserves moved straight down the Jamaica Road. The Thirty-third Regiment and the grenadiers in their pursuit of some of the American fugitives approached the fortified lines between Fort Greene and Fort Putnam, and showed such eagerness to storm them that, according to Howe's report, it required repeated orders to hold them back. On the part of the Americans, Little reports that the enemy "attempted to force our lines, but soon retreated, being met with a smart fire from our breastworks;" and Little, no doubt, was at Fort Greene, an eye-witness.

[153] The conduct of the Marylanders was soldierly beyond praise. But some accounts subject them to a singular martyrdom, killing every man of the two hundred and fifty-nine reported missing. As there was but one officer wounded, or at the most one killed and one wounded in the party, according to the official returns, the proportion of men killed was doubtless small. The letter in Force, 5th Series, vol. i., p. 1232, referring to this attack, bears every evidence of having been written by Gist himself, and it is quoted as his in the text. In this letter Gist speaks of being surrounded on all sides, and then adds: "The impracticability of forcing through such a formidable body of troops rendered it the height of rashness and imprudence to risk the lives of our remaining party in a third attempt, and it became necessary for us to endeavor to effect our escape in the best manner we possibly could." This shows that there were many left to disperse. Their prudence was equal to their courage.

[154] Before Stirling's fight with Cornwallis took place, the mill and little bridge at the further end of the mill-dam across Gowanus Creek were burned down. Colonel Smallwood charged "a certain Colonel Ward" with the act, and claimed that the destruction of the bridge prevented the escape of Stirling and the Marylanders with him. Mr. Bancroft and Mr. Field repeat the charge. But Smallwood is contradicted both by Stirling and Gist, the former stating that he could not get by the British on the road full half a mile beyond the bridge, and the latter adding that he was driven back into the woods. The charge had no foundation, the bridge not having been set on fire until after the enemy took possession of the road above (see Ewing's sketch). The "Colonel Ward" was Colonel Jonathan Ward, of Massachusetts; and the probability is that he and Colonel Tyler, both of whom lost some men during the day, had been sent out on the Port Road, but, finding Cornwallis there, retreated, burning mill and bridge to obstruct the latter's possible advance in that quarter.

[155] The reinforcements that came over during the forenoon, besides Douglas's regiment, were Sage's and Selden's, which, with Douglas, completed Wadsworth's brigade on that side; Charles Webb's, of McDougall's brigade; and Scott, with Malcom and Humphrey's men, or the rest of his brigade.

[156] "Colonel Huntington's and the Maryland regiment suffered the most. General Parsons says that some of our men fought through the enemy not less than 7 or 8 times that day. He lay out himself part of the night concealed in a swamp, from whence he made his escape with 7 men to our lines about break of day the next morning."—Letter from an Officer, Conn. Journal, September 18th, 1776. "I came in with 7 men yesterday morning, much fatigued."—General Parsons, August 29th, 1776.

[157] Responsibility for the Defeat.—According to some of our more recent versions of this battle, the disaster is to be referred to the wilful disobedience, criminal inattention, and total incapacity of General Putnam. Several writers make the charge so pointedly and upon such an array of fact, that the reader is left to wonder how all this should have escaped the notice of the commander-in-chief at the time, and why Putnam was not immediately court-martialled and dismissed the service, instead of being continued, as he was, in important commands. The charge is the more serious as it is advanced by so respectable an authority as Mr. Bancroft. Mr. Field, Mr. Dawson, and Dr. Stiles, following the latter, incline strongly in the same direction.

Mr. Bancroft first assails Putnam for sending Stirling out to the right when word came in that the enemy were advancing and our pickets flying. This is criticised as "a rash order," because it sent Stirling to a position which was "dangerous in the extreme," with the Gowanus marsh in his rear. But as to this, it only needs to be said that Putnam's written instructions from Washington were imperative to prevent the enemy from passing the hills and approaching the works. It would have been a clear disregard of Washington's intention had Putnam not sent Stirling out precisely as he did. The enemy were coming up from the Narrows and must be checked "at all hazards." Furthermore, the position Stirling took up at about Nineteenth Street was actually safer than any other on the outpost line. His right could not be turned, for it rested on the bay, and he could see every movement of the fleet. His left was well covered by Parsons, and no one could have imagined his rear in danger with the other outposts guarding it for more than three miles. As a matter of fact, Stirling was nearer the lines than either Miles or Wyllys.

Again, it is charged that when Putnam and Sullivan visited the extreme left on the 26th "the movements of the enemy plainly disclosed that it was their intention to get into the rear of the Americans by the Jamaica Road," yet nothing was done. The foundation of this is probably a statement of Brodhead's and another by Miles to the effect that these generals might have themselves observed that the enemy were preparing for the Jamaica move. But if the intentions of the latter were so obvious at that time, it is proper to ask why it was not equally obvious on the next morning that they were actually carrying out their intentions, and why Miles and Brodhead did not so report at an early hour. These officers were rightly impressed with the conviction that the enemy would come by way of Jamaica, but it is certain that the enemy made no observable move in that direction from Flatlands, where they had been for three days, until nine o'clock that night. So says Howe. It was clearly in the plan of the British to give our outposts no ground for suspecting a flanking manœuvre. Their movements were far from being "plainly disclosed." The quotation given by Mr. Bancroft in this connection, namely, that "Washington's order to secure the Jamaica Road was not obeyed," unfortunately appears as original in a "Review of the War" published in 1779 and written by some irresponsible individual in England, who could neither have known what Washington's orders were, nor whether any attempt was made to carry them out.

A further charge is this: "Early in the morning, Putnam was informed that infantry and cavalry were advancing on the Jamaica Road. He gave Washington no notice of the danger; he sent Stirling no order to retreat." This is doubtless on the authority of a letter in Force, 5th Series, vol. i., p. 1195. But how early was Putnam informed? The writer of the letter who brought the word was probably one of Miles' or Brodhead's men, for he tells us that his regiment was dressed in hunting-shirts, and he makes the very important statement that on his way back to his post he met the enemy! The information came too late, for the British were now marching down towards the lines. Sullivan had gone to the Flatbush Pass, where he could understand the situation better than Putnam, and he was the proper officer to give directions to the outposts at that moment.

The charges made by Mr. Dawson have still less foundation. General Putnam is stated never to have reconnoitred the enemy's position. Brodhead, however, states distinctly that he did. "It is also a well-established fact," says this writer, "that no general officer was outside the lines at Brooklyn on the night of the 26th." What is the authority for this? Nixon, Stirling, and Parsons had been successively officers of the day, and presumably did their duty. Parsons, on the morning of the 27th, was on the lower road trying to rally the pickets before Stirling appeared with reinforcements. "The mounted patrols which General Sullivan had established, as well as the guards at some of the passes established by General Greene, were withdrawn." The fact that all the passes were well guarded and a special patrol sent out, is a complete answer to this assertion, so far as the night of the 26th is concerned. In this light the general conclusion arrived at by Mr. Dawson, that "General Putnam paid no attention to the orders of General Washington," cannot be sustained.

With regard to General Sullivan, it is but just to give his own explanation. A year after the battle, he wrote: "I know it has been generally reported that I commanded on Long Island when the actions happened there. This is by no means true; General Putnam had taken the command from me four days before the action. Lord Stirling commanded the main body without the lines; I was to have command under General Putnam within the lines. I was very uneasy about a road through which I had often foretold the enemy would come, but could not persuade others to be of my opinion. I went to the Hill near Flatbush to reconnoitre the enemy, and, with a piquet of four hundred men, was surrounded by the enemy, who had advanced by the very road I had foretold, and which I had paid horsemen fifty dollars for patrolling by night, while I had the command, as I had no foot for the purpose, for which I was never reimbursed, as it was supposed unnecessary." In another letter he adds: "I was so persuaded of the enemy's coming the [Jamaica] route, that I went to examine, and was surrounded by the British army, and after a long and severe engagement was made prisoner." These letters were written when Sullivan was restless under charges brought against him in connection with the defeat at Brandywine—charges which were properly dropped, however—and are not conclusive as to the Long Island affair. His statements are no doubt strictly true, but they in no way affect the main point, namely, did we or did we not have a patrol out on the Jamaica Road on the night of the 26th? We have seen that there was such a patrol, and probably the best that had yet been sent out, and sent out, according to Lieutenant Van Wagenen, by General Sullivan himself.

There are but few references to the question of responsibility in contemporary letters and documents. Gordon blames Sullivan as being over-confident. Miles and Brodhead leave us to infer that this general had much to do with the plan of action, and must be held at least in part responsible. Sullivan, on the other hand, according to Brodhead, blamed Miles for the defeat, as Parsons did. When these officers wrote, they wrote to defend their own conduct, and their testimony is necessarily incomplete so far as others are concerned.

In brief, the case seems to be this: On the night of the 26th we had all the roads guarded. On the morning of the 27th Putnam promptly reinforced the guards on the lower road when the enemy were announced. The arrangements were such that if an attack was made at any of the other points he and Sullivan were to have word of it in ample time. No word came in time from the left, for the reason that those who were to bring it were captured, or surprised, or failed of their duty. Hence the disaster. The dispositions on Long Island were quite as complete as those at Brandywine more than a year later, where we suffered nearly a similar surprise and as heavy a loss. Suppose the very small patrols sent out by Washington and Sullivan to gain information before that battle had been captured, as at Long Island—we should have sustained a greater disaster than at Long Island.

Under this state of facts, to charge Putnam with the defeat of the 27th, in the terms which some writers have employed, is both unjust and unhistorical. That misfortune is not to be clouded with the additional reflection, that it was due to the gross neglect and general incapacity of the officer in command. No facts or inferences justify the charge. No one hinted it at the time; nor did Washington in the least withdraw his confidence from Putnam during the remainder of the campaign.

[158] See [note] at the close of the chapter.

[159] Mr. Onderdonk, Mr. Thompson, and others have gathered and published all the known incidents respecting the fate of General Woodhull, which are doubtless familiar to those interested in the history of Long Island. See General Scott's brief reference to him in [Document 6].

[160] This order was sent at two o'clock through General Wooster, then temporarily in New York, and Mercer received it in the evening near Newark. He sent word at once to the militia at Amboy, Woodbridge, and Elizabethtown to march to Powle's Hook. Force, 5th Series, vol. ii.

[161] A close analysis of the returns of September 12th, estimating all additions or reductions which should be made since the battle, shows that this was about the number on Long Island at this date and at the time of the retreat. The brigades now there were Nixon's, Heard's, Parson's, Wadsworth's, Stirling's, Scott's, two regiments of Mifflin's, one at least of McDougall's (Webb's), Glover's, and Fellows', the Long Island militia, artillery, rangers, and several independent companies. We know at what part of the lines some of these troops were posted. Greene's four old regiments doubtless occupied the forts. Varnum was at Red Hook; Little at Fort Greene; Hitchcock at Fort Putnam, and Hand with him there and in the redoubt on the left. Forman's New Jersey had been at Fort Box. Three of Scott's battalions were assigned to the centre, where the breastworks crossed the Jamaica Road. Magaw, Shee, and Glover guarded the line from Fort Putnam to the Wallabout; Silliman was at the "northern part" of the works, probably on the right of Fort Putnam; Gay's was between Fort Box and the Marsh; Douglas watched the extreme right in the woods at the mouth of Gowanus Creek; and there was a "reserve," which perhaps included among others the remnants of Stirling's shattered brigade. Encircling them a mile or a mile and a half distant in the edge of the woods, lay the British army with tents already pitched in many places. North and south of the Jamaica Road, just below Bedford, was Howe's main column; within and west of Prospect Park were the Hessians; and on the right, Grant's division bivouacked along the Gowanus Road.

[162] In vol. ii. of the L.I. Hist. Society's "Memoirs," the author, Mr. Field, devotes pages 254-258 to the skirmishing of some Connecticut soldiers on the extreme right on the other side of Gowanus Creek, which appears to him to have been rash and foolhardy, and strangely in contrast with what also appears to him to have been an exhibition of cowardice on their part the day before. The narrative from which the incidents are taken (Martin's) shows no such singular inconsistency in the conduct of these men. This was Colonel Douglas' regiment, and, as Martin himself says, it moved promptly under orders from the ferry to the right to cover Stirling's retreat. "Our officers," he writes, "pressed forward towards a creek, where a large party of Americans and British were engaged." They very properly did not halt to help a company of artillerymen drag their pieces along. The skirmish on the following day was nothing remarkable in its way. It was just such brushes as the men engaged in that Washington, on Graydon's authority, encouraged. The regiment displayed no particular rashness on the 28th, nor any cowardice on the 27th—that is, if Martin is to be credited.

[163] See [Document 6], in which General Scott says: "I was summoned to a council of war at Mr. Phillip Livingston's house on Thursday, 29th ult., etc."

[164] Origin of the Retreat.—Precisely when and why Washington came to a determination in his own mind to retreat has been made the subject of a somewhat nice historical inquiry. Gordon gives one story; Mr. William B. Reed, biographer of Colonel Reed, gives another; and Mr. Bancroft, General Carrington, and others indulge in more or less extended criticisms on the point. Gordon's account is the most probable and the best supported.

Whatever Washington may have thought of the situation on Long Island after the defeat, it is enough to know that he immediately reinforced himself there, and that on the 27th and 28th he made no preparations to withdraw to New York. It far from follows, however, that he had concluded to stay and fight it out "on that line" at all hazards. He was acting on the defensive, and was necessarily obliged to guide himself largely by the movements of the enemy. On Long Island, therefore, he could only be on the watch, and, like a prudent general, decide according to circumstances. Up to the morning of the 29th he was still watching—watching not only the enemy, but his own army also. In his letter to Congress, written at "half after 4 o'clock a.m." of this date, he gives no intimation of a retreat, but rather leaves that body to infer that he proposed to remain where he was. He speaks, for instance, of expecting tents during the day to make the troops more comfortable. On the same morning Reed wrote: "We hope to be able to make a good stand, as our lines are pretty strong;" and he doubtless reflected the views of his Chief at the time.

The two particular dangers now to which the army was exposed were the danger of having its communication with New York cut off by the ships, and the danger of being approached by the enemy in front by siege operations, which the army was not prepared to meet. The first danger had existed ever since the arrival of the enemy, and had been provided for. All the batteries on Governor's Island and on both sides of the East River had been built to guard against it. In addition, ships had been sunk in the channel. Washington accordingly must have thoroughly canvassed the risks he ran in regard to his communications. These alone had not decided him to retreat. On the morning of the 29th, however, he first became aware of the second danger. It was not until then that the enemy fully developed their intention of advancing by trenches. After working all night, as Howe reports, they had thrown up by morning, as Little reports, a parallel sixty rods long and one hundred and fifty rods distant from Fort Putnam. Reed wrote, "They are intrenching at a small distance." In twenty-four hours at the farthest they would have come within very close range, and the hazardous alternative would have been forced upon us to attempt to drive them out of their own works. Washington well knew that, in view of the condition of his men and the great disparity of numbers, this could not be done. When, therefore, he became assured of Howe's intentions he acted promptly—he determined to retreat; and this determination he reached early on the morning of the 29th.

This is substantially the theory which Gordon presents as a fact, and it is most consistent with fact. Gordon's account is this: "The victorious army encamped in the front of the American works in the evening; and on the 28th at night broke ground in form about 4 or 500 yards distant from a redoubt which covered the left of the Americans. The same day Gen. Mifflin crossed over from New York with 1000 men; at night he made an offer to Gen. Washington of going the rounds, which was accepted. He observed the approaches of the enemy, and the forwardness of their batteries; and was convinced that no time was to be lost. The next morning he conversed with the General upon the subject, and said, 'You must either fight or retreat immediately. What is your strength?' The General answered, 'Nine thousand.' The other replied, 'It is not sufficient, we must therefore retreat.' They were both agreed as to the calling of a Council of war; and Gen. Mifflin was to propose a retreat. But as he was to make that proposal, lest his own character should suffer, he stipulated, that if a retreat should be agreed upon, he would command the rear; and if an action the van."

The fact that Mifflin was given the command of the rear on the retreat, and the fact that he sent the order to Heath that morning to send down all the boats from King's Bridge, lend the highest probability to Gordon's version of the story. Parsons, who was one of the members of the council, mentions this particularly as one of the reasons for withdrawing, namely, that the enemy were "not disposed to storm our lines, but set down to make regular approaches to us." Reed also puts as much stress on this point as any other. Giving the reasons for the retreat to Governor Livingston, he said: "The enemy at the same time possessed themselves of a piece of ground very advantageous and which they had [fortified]. We were therefore reduced to the alternative of retiring to this place or going out with [troops] to drive them off." Washington, too, is to be quoted. In his letter to Trumbull, September 6th, he writes: "As the main body of the enemy had encamped not far from our lines, and as I had reason to believe they intended to force us from them by regular approaches, which the nature of the ground favoured extremely, and at the same time meant, by the ships of war, to cut off the communication between the City and Island, and by that means keep our men divided and unable to oppose them anywhere, by the advice of the General officers, on the night of the 29th, I withdrew our troops from thence without any loss of men and but little baggage."

William B. Reed's account (Reed's Life of Reed) is to the effect, briefly, that a heavy fog settled over Long Island on the 29th, and that during the day Colonel Reed, Colonel Grayson, and General Mifflin rode to Red Hook inspecting the lines. While at the Hook, "a shift of wind" cleared the fog from the harbor, enabling the officers to catch a glimpse of the fleet at the Narrows. From certain movements of boats they inferred that the ships would sail up with the favorable breeze if it held until the tide turned and the fog cleared off. They immediately hurried to Washington, informed him of the impending danger, and induced him to call a council and order a retreat. Mr. Bancroft, however, has shown very thoroughly that this account cannot be accepted, because the fog did not come up until the morning of the 30th, and no change of wind occurred. Colonel Reed himself says in the Livingston letter, written only the next morning, that the enemy's fleet were attempting every day to get up to town with "the wind ahead"—thus directly contradicting his biographer. The Reed account has several errors of detail, one being the statement that the Red Hook battery had been badly damaged by the guns of the Roebuck on the 27th. It would be nearer the truth to say that it was not hit at all. The fleet could do nothing that day; as Admiral Howe reports, the Roebuck was "the only ship that could fetch high enough to the northward to exchange a few random shot with the battery on Red Hook."

In a word, Washington, after receiving Mifflin's report in regard to the approaches of the enemy, and probably other reports from Grayson, Reed, and others in regard to the general condition of the troops (for instance, Colonel Shee's uneasiness, referred to by Graydon), found that the moment had come for decision. That decision was to retreat that night; and during the forenoon, several hours before the council met, he issued secret orders for the concentration of boats at the ferry, as described in the text.

[165] Memorial of Colonel Hugh Hughes. Leake's Life of General Lamb.

[166] Heath's Memoirs.

[167] There is an interesting letter of Washington's preserved in the Hughes Memorial, which adds light on this point. Eight years after the event, when Hughes needed some official certificate showing his authority to impress all the craft he could find, the general replied to him as follows:

"My memory is not charged with the particulars of the verbal order which you say was delivered to you through Col. Joseph Trumbull, on the 27th, August, 1776, 'for impressing all the sloops, boats, and water craft from Spyhten Duyvel, in the Hudson, to Hell Gate, in the Sound.' I recollect that it was a day which required the utmost exertion, particularly in the Quarter-Master's department, to accomplish the retreat which was intended, under cover of the succeeding night; and that no delay or ceremony could be admitted in the execution of the plan. I have no doubt, therefore, of your having received orders to the effect, and to the extent which you have mentioned; and you are at liberty to adduce this in testimony thereof. It will, I presume, supply the place of a more formal certificate, and is more consonant with my recollection of the transactions of that day." It appears from this that Washington remembered that the entire day of the 29th was devoted to planning and preparing for the retreat, and this fits the theory advanced in the note on the "Origin of the Retreat." As to the delivery of the orders about boats, it is probable that Trumbull crossed to New York with Mifflin's letter to Heath and gave it to Hughes to forward. At the same time he gave Hughes his instructions verbally. Hughes received them, says his biographer, about noon. He then had eight hours to carry them out, which gave him time to send to Heath and for Heath to comply, while he and his assistants scoured the coast everywhere else for boats, from Hell Gate down. Among other sloops impressed was the Middlesex, Captain Stephen Hogeboom, while on its way to Claverack. "I was prevented from proceeding," says the captain, "by Coll Wardsworth and Commissary Hughes who ordered your memorialist over with the sloop to Long Island ferry where she was used to carry off the Troops and stores after the unfortunate retreat, &c."—N.Y. Hist. MS., vol. i., p. 620.

[168] [Document 3]. "General Orders. Head-Quarters Long Island, Aug. 29, 1776. Parole, Sullivan, Countersign, Greene."—Col. Douglas' Order Book.

[169] All our principal accounts follow Graydon, who states that the order to attack the enemy was given "regimentally." Colonel Hand, in his letter describing the night's incidents (Reed's Life of Reed), makes no allusion to such an order, but on the contrary states that he and the other colonels of the covering party were told that they were to retreat. An order to attack would have been a poor disguise for a retreat, for every man must have felt its utter rashness and at once suspected some other move.

[170] A letter from Tilghman, Washington's aid, shows that the troops received the impression that they were to be relieved. The retreat, he says, "was conducted with so much Secrecy that neither Subalterns or privates knew that the whole army was to cross back again to N. York; they thought only a few regiments were to go back."—[Document 29].

[171] Mr. Reed, the biographer, states that the fog rose on the 29th. Dr. Stiles, in his "History of Brooklyn," says: "At midnight a dense fog arose, which remained motionless and impenetrable over the island during the whole of the next day [the 29th]." "A dense fog," writes Mr. Field, "hung over the island and river, when the morning of the 29th dawned." Now nothing is more certain than that the fog did not rise until shortly before dawn of the 30th, full six hours after the retreat had begun. The 28th and 29th, as already seen, were days of rain-storms, not mist, nor fog, but storm, "torrents," such rain at times the like of which could "hardly be remembered." Contemporary writers who mention the rains say nothing of fog on the 29th, whereas they do notice its appearance the next morning. Major Tallmadge writes: "As the dawn of the next day approached, those of us who remained in the trenches became very anxious for our own safety, and when the dawn appeared, there were several regiments still on duty. At this time a very dense fog began to rise, and it seemed to settle in a peculiar manner over both encampments. I recollect this peculiar providential occurrence perfectly well; and so very dense was the atmosphere that I could scarcely discern a man at six yards' distance." This officer's regiment was one of the covering party, and he adds that after leaving the lines by mistake, and receiving orders to return, "Col. Chester immediately faced to the right about and returned, where we tarried until the sun had risen, but the fog remained as dense as ever." "At sunrise a great fog came up," says a spectator (Stiles' MS. Diary). An officer or soldier of either Shee's or Magaw's regiment, also of the covering party, wrote a few hours after crossing: "We received orders to quit our station about two o'clock this morning, and had made our retreat almost to the ferry when Gen. Washington ordered us back to that part of the lines we were first at, which was reckoned to be the most dangerous post. We got back undiscovered by the enemy, and continued there until daylight. Providentially for us, a great fog arose, which prevented the enemy from seeing our retreat from their works which was not more than musket shot from us."—Force, 5th Series, vol. i., p. 1233. So also, Stedman, the British historian, referring to the events of the night of the 29th-30th, says: "Another remarkable circumstance was, that on Long Island hung a thick fog, which prevented the British troops from discovering the operations of the enemy." Washington did not, as often stated in popular accounts, take advantage of a fog to cover his retreat. More than half the army was over before the fog appeared; but it protected the covering party, and saved us the loss of considerable baggage and other material.

[172] An English patrol under Captain Montressor discovered the retreat of the Americans very soon after the latter left the lines, and reported the fact at once. But for some unexplained reason pursuit was delayed until too late. One boat with four stragglers was taken by the enemy.

[173] "The Heath Correspondence," Mass. Hist. Soc. Coll., 1878.

[174] Pastor Shewkirk notes in his diary that immediately after the retreat "a general damp" seemed to spread over the army. "The merry tones on drums and fifes had ceased, and they were hardly heard for a couple of days." The wet clothes, accoutrements, and tents were lying about in front of the houses and in the streets, and every thing was in confusion. But this was to be expected. General Scott, referring evidently to expressions heard among his own men, says that some declared that they had been "sold out," and others longed to have Lee back from the South.—Scott's MS. Letter, September 6th, 1776.

[175] Washington's aids were most of them quite young men.

[176] A large number of changes were made in the organization of the army after the retreat. The Connecticut militia were divided up and formed into brigades with the levies under General Wadsworth, Colonel Silliman, Colonel Douglas, and Colonel Chester. A brigade was given also to Colonel Sargent, of Massachusetts. Putnam's division included Parsons', Scott's, James Clinton's (Glover's), Fellows', and Silliman's brigades; Spencer's and Greene's divisions included Nixon's, Heard's, McDougall's, Wadsworth's, Douglas', Chester's and Sargent's brigades; while Heath had his former brigades, with a change of some regiments, under Mifflin and George Clinton.

[177] "Till of late I had no doubt in my own mind of defending this place, nor should I have yet, if the men would do their duty, but this I despair of. It is painful, and extremely grating to me, to give such unfavorable accounts; but it would be criminal to conceal the truth at so critical a juncture."—Washington to Congress, September 2d, 1776.

[178] Colonel Reed, the adjutant-general, wrote to his wife, September 14th, from New York: "My baggage is all at King's bridge. We expect to remove thither this evening. I mean our headquarters."—Reed's Reed. Washington, writing of the events of the 15th, says: "I had gone the night before to the main body of the army which was posted on the plains and heights of Harlem." These references fail to confirm the common statement that Washington made the Murray House on Thirty-sixth Street his quarters for a short time after leaving the city.

[179] According to the Hessian major, Baurmeister, the 13th had been first named as the date for the attack. "On this day," he writes, "General Howe wished to land upon the island of New York, because 18 years ago on this day General Wulff [Wolfe] had conquered at Quebec, but also lost his life. The watchword for this end was 'Quebec' and the countersign 'Wulff,' but the frigates were too late for this attack as they only sailed out of the fleet at five o'clock on the evening of the 14th."

The sailing up of these ships is described as follows by the Hon. Joshua Babcock, one of the Rhode Island Committee who had come down to consult with Washington in regard to military matters: "Just after Dinner 3 Frigates and a 40 Gun Ship (as if they meant to attack the city) sail'd up the East River under a gentle Breeze towards Hell-Gate, & kept up an incessant Fire assisted with the Cannon at Govern^rs Island: The Batteries from the City return'd the Ships the like Salutation: 3 Men agape, idle Spectators had the misfortune of being killed by one Cannon-Ball, the other mischief suffered on our Side was inconsiderable Saving the making a few Holes in some of the Buildings; one shot struck within 6 Foot of Gen^l Washington, as He was on Horseback riding into the Fort."—MS. Letter in R.I. Public Archives. Also in Force.

Baurmeister preserves the incident that Washington was often to be seen at the East River batteries in New York, and on one occasion "provoked the Hessian artillery Captain Krug [on the Long Island side] to fire off 2 Cannon at him and his suite." "A third shot too would not have been wanting, if the horses of the enemy had been pleased to stay," adds the major.

[180] We know the position of the troops from the statements of their officers. Douglas says: "I lay with my brigade a little below Turtle [Kips] Bay where we hove up lines for more than one mile in length. Gen'l Wadsworth managed the lines on the right and I on the left." Brigade-Major Fish says of Scott's brigade that they were "marched to the lines back of Stuyvesant's," about the foot of Fifteenth Street. Parsons was below at Corlears Hook as appears from [Document 32]. Silliman himself says that he was in the city. Consult [map of New York], [Part II.], where the position at the time of the British attack is given.

[181] "The first landing was of 84 boats with English infantry and Hessian grenadiers under command of Lieut-General Clinton. Commodore Hotham conducted this landing, under cover of 5 frigates anchored close before Kaaps [Kip's] Bay above Cron Point, and maintained a 3 hours cannonade on the enemy's advanced posts in the great wood. The signal of the red flag denoted the departure of the boats, the blue on the contrary the stoppage of the passage, and if a retreat should become necessary, a yellow flag would be shown."—Baurmeister. "Sunday morning at break of day, five ships weighed anchor and fell in close within a musket shot of our lines quite to the left of me. I then moved my brigade abreast of them. They lay very quiet until 10 o'clock and by that time they had about 80 of their boats from under Long Island shore full with men which contained about five or six thousand and four transports full ready to come in the second boats."—Col. Douglas.

Major Fish wrote September 19th that the enemy's ships of war were drawn up "in line of Battle parallel to the shore, the Troops to the amount of about 4000 being embarked in flat bottom Boats, and the Boats paraded."—Hist. Mag.

[182] All accounts agree that it was next to impossible to remain under the fire of the men-of-war. Major Fish says that "a Cannonade from the ships began, which far exceeded my Ideas, and which seemed to infuse a Panic thro' the whole of our Troops, &c." Silliman speaks of the "incessant fire on our lines" with grapeshot as being "so hot" that the militia were compelled to retreat. Douglas's description is as quaint as it is expressive: "They very suddenly began as heavy a cannonade perhaps as ever was from no more ships, as they had nothing to molest them." Martin thought his head would "go with the sound." Lieutenant John Heinrichs, of the Hessian yagers, writes: "Last Sunday we landed under the thundering rattle of 5 men-of-war."

[183] The enemy's boats, says Douglas, "got under cover of the smoke of the shipping and then struck to the left of my lines in order to cut me off from a retreat. My left wing gave way which was formed of the militia. I lay myself on the right wing waiting for the boats until Capt. Prentice came to me and told me, if I meant to save myself to leave the lines, for that was the orders on the left and that they had left the lines. I then told my men to make the best of their way as I found I had but about ten left with me. They soon moved out and I then made the best of my way out."—See further in [Documents], [Part II., p. 71].

[184] [Document 32].

[185] Washington's account of the panic is as follows:

"As soon as I heard the firing, I rode with all possible despatch towards the place of landing, where to my great surprise and mortification I found the troops that had been posted in the lines retreating with the utmost precipitation and those ordered to support them (Parsons' and Fellows' brigades) flying in every direction, and in the greatest confusion, notwithstanding the exertions of their generals to form them. I used every means in my power to rally and to get them into some order; but my attempts were fruitless and ineffectual; and on the appearance of a small party of the enemy, not more than sixty or seventy, their disorder increased, and they ran away in the greatest confusion, without firing a single shot."

There were several stories current after the affair which cannot be traced to any responsible source. One was that the Commander-in-Chief was so "distressed and enraged" at the conduct of the troops that "he drew his sword and snapped his pistols to check them;" and that one of his suite was obliged to seize his horse's reins and take him out of danger from the enemy. Another account represents that he threw his hat on the ground and exclaimed whether such were the troops with which he was to defend America; another states that he sought "death rather than life." Mr. Bancroft has shown how far these statements are to be accepted.

[186] Hezekiah Munsell, a soldier of Gay's regiment in Wadsworth's brigade, says: "We soon reached the main road which our troops were travelling, and the first conspicuous person I met was Gen. Putnam. He was making his way towards New York when all were going from it. Where he was going I could not conjecture, though I afterwards learned he was going after a small garrison of men in a crescent fortification which he brought off safe."—Hist. of Ancient Windsor, p. 715.

[187] Affidavits in Davis' "Life of Burr," vol. i.

[188] The line of Putnam's retreat appears to have been from Bayard's Hill Fort on Grand Street across the country to Monument Lane (now Greenwich Avenue), which led to the obelisk erected in honor of General Wolf and others at a point on Fifteenth Street, a little west of Eighth Avenue. (See Montressor's Map of New York in 1775, "Valentine's Manual.") The lane there joined with an irregular road running on the line of Eighth Avenue, known afterwards as the Abington or Fitz Roy road, as far as Forty-second or Third Street. There Putnam, under Burr's guidance probably, pushed through the woods, keeping west of the Bloomingdale Road, and finally taking the latter at some point above Seventieth Street, and so on to Harlem Heights. (See [Map of New York], [Part II.])

[189] This jealousy disappeared when the army was reorganized and the troops became proficient in discipline. The American soldier was then found to be equal to any that could be brought against him, regardless of the locality from which he hailed. But in the present campaign the sectional feeling referred to came near working mischief, especially as it was kept alive by so prominent an officer as Colonel Reed, the Adjutant-general. New England officers protested against the "rancor" and "malice" of his assertions, and represented their injurious influence to members of Congress. Washington, finding that the matter was becoming serious, took the occasion to send a special invitation to Colonels Silliman and Douglas to dine with him in the latter part of September, when he "disavowed and absolutely disapproved every such piece of conduct" which had been a grievance to these and other Eastern officers.—Silliman's MS. Letter. See also extracts in Gordon's history as to the condition of the army at this time.

[190] "The militia of Pennsylvania and New Jersey, stationed on Bergen and at Paulus-Hook, have behaved in a scandalous manner, running off from their posts on the first cannonade from the ships of the enemy. At all the posts we find it difficult to keep the militia to their duty." (Mercer to Washington, Sept. 17th, 1776.) "I don't know whether the New Eng^d troops will stand there [at Harlem Heights], but I am sure they will not upon open ground," etc.—Tilghman. [Document 29].

[191] The Major of this battalion (Gimat's) was John Palsgrave Wyllys, of Hartford, who, as Wadsworth's Brigade-Major, was taken prisoner at Kip's Bay. Alexander Hamilton and Brigade-Major Fish, of New York, who were swept along in this retreat, also figured prominently at Yorktown. Two young ensigns in the Connecticut "levies," Stephen Betts and James Morris, were captains of Light Infantry in that affair. Lieutenant Stephen Olney, of Rhode Island, who barely escaped capture on Long Island by Cornwallis's grenadiers, led Gimat's battalion as captain, and was severely wounded while clambering into the redoubt; and there were probably a considerable number of others, officers and men, who were chased by this British general in the present campaign, who finally had the satisfaction of cornering him in Virginia in 1781. Scammell, Huntington, Tilghman, Humphreys, and others, could be named.

[192] The American loss in prisoners in the Kip's Bay affair was seventeen officers and about three hundred and fifty men, nearly all from Connecticut and New York. A very few were killed and wounded, Major Chapman, of Tyler's regiment, being among the former.

The officer of highest rank among the prisoners was Colonel Samuel Selden, of Hadlyme, Conn., mentioned on [page 121]. (See [biographical sketches], [Part II.]) One of his officers was Captain Eliphalet Holmes, afterwards of the Continental line, a neighbor of the Colonel's. Being a man of great strength he knocked down two Hessians, who attempted to capture him, and escaped.

[193] Baurmeister's Narrative. Shewkirk's Diary.

[194] The centennial anniversary of this battle was celebrated in 1876, under the auspices of the New York Historical Society. The oration delivered on the occasion by the Hon. John Jay has been published by the Society, with an appendix containing a large number of documents bearing upon the affair, the whole making a valuable contribution to our Revolutionary history.

[195] The Rangers.—The small corps known by this name consisted, first, as already stated, of about one hundred men of Durkee's Connecticut Regiment (Twentieth Continentals), who appear to have accompanied Lieutenant-Colonel Knowlton, of that regiment, when he went on any special service. These he took with him to Long Island. After the battle there the Rangers were formally organized as a separate body, composed of volunteer officers and men from several of the New England regiments. These were borne on their respective regimental rolls as detached "on command." For captains, Knowlton had at least three excellent officers, men from his own region, whom he knew and could trust—Nathan Hale, of Charles Webb's regiment, and Stephen Brown and Thomas Grosvenor, of his own. The rolls in Force show that there were officers and men in the Rangers from Durkee's, Webb's, Chester's, Wyllys', and Tyler's Connecticut; Ward's and Sargent's Massachusetts; and Varnum's Rhode Island. For a time they received orders directly from Washington and then from Putnam, and were of great service to the army in watching the enemy along the Harlem front. They distinguished themselves on the 16th, and later in the season, when Colonel Magaw was in command of Fort Washington, he begged to have the Rangers remain with him, as he declared that they were the only safe protection to the lines. (Greene to Washington.) They remained and were taken prisoners at the surrender of the fort, November 16th. Though probably not over one hundred and fifty strong, their losses seem to have been heavy. Knowlton fell at Harlem Heights; Major Coburn, who succeeded him, was severely wounded a few weeks later; Captain Nathan Hale was executed as a spy; and Captain Brown, a man as cool as Knowlton, was killed at the defence of Fort Mifflin near Philadelphia, in 1777, a cannon-ball severing his head from his body. Grosvenor served through the war, retiring as Lieutenant-Colonel commanding the Fifth of the Connecticut line. These facts are gathered from MS. Order Books, documents in Force and Hist. Mag., and from MS. letter of the late Judge Oliver Burnham, of Cornwall, Conn., a soldier in Wyllys' regiment and one of the Rangers, in which he says: "Soon after the retreat from Long Island, Colonel Knowlton was ordered to raise a battalion of troops from the different regiments called the Rangers, to reconnoitre along our shores and between the armies. Being invited by a favorite officer, I volunteered, and on the day the enemy took New York we were at Harlem and had no share in the events of that day."

[196] The Rangers were thus engaged in a distinct skirmish before the main action of the day. Washington wrote to Congress early on the 16th: "I have sent some reconnoitring parties to gain intelligence, if possible, of the disposition of the enemy." A letter in the Connecticut Gazette, reprinted in Mr. Jay's documents, and which was probably written by Captain Brown, says: "On Monday morning the General ordered us to go and take the enemy's advanced guard; accordingly we set out just before day and found where they were; at day-brake we were discovered by the enemy, who were 400 strong, and we were 120. They marched up within six rods of us and there formed to give us Battle, which we were ready for; and Colonel Knowlton gave orders to fire, which we did, and stood theirs till we perceived they were getting their flank-guards round us. After giving them eight rounds apiece the Colonel gave orders for retreating, which we performed very well, without the loss of a man while retreating, though we lost about 10 while in action." Judge Burnham says substantially the same: "Colonel Knowlton marched close to the enemy as they lay on one of the Harlem Heights, and discharged a few rounds, and then retreated over the hill out of sight of the enemy and concealed us behind a low stone wall. The Colonel marked a place about eight or ten rods from the wall, and charged us not to rise or fire a gun until the enemy reached that place. The British followed in solid column, and soon were on the ground designated when we gave them nine rounds and retreated.... Our number engaged was only about 120."

[197] Captain John Gooch, of Varnum's regiment, wrote September 23d: "On the 16th the enemy advanced and took possession of a hight on our right flank about half a mile Distance with about 3000 [300?] men; a party from our brigade of 150 men, who turned out as volunteers, under the command of Lieutenant-Colonel Crary, of the regm^t I belong to, were ordered out if possible to dispossess them."—[Document 30].

[198] Tilghman's reference to these movements is as follows: "The General rode down to our farthest lines, and when he came near them heard a firing, which he was informed was between our scouts and the outguards of the enemy. When our men [Knowlton's] came in they informed the General that there was a party of about 300 behind a woody hill, tho' they only showed a very small party to us. Upon this the General laid a plan for attacking them in the rear and cutting off their retreat, which was to be effected in the following manner: Major Leitch, with three companies of Col^o Weedon's Virginia regiment, and Col^o Knowlton with his Rangers, were to steal round while a party [Crary's] were to march towards them and seem as if they intended to attack in front, but not to make any real attack till they saw our men fairly in their rear. The bait took as to one part; as soon as they saw our party in front the enemy ran down the hill and took possession of some fences and bushes and began to fire at them, but at too great distance to do much execution," etc.—[Document 29]. See also Washington's letter to Congress, Sept. 18th, 1776.

[199] It is quite clear that Knowlton and Leitch did not form two parties, as some accounts state, one moving against the right flank of the enemy and the other against the left. They acted as one body, the Virginians marching in front, having been ordered on to "reinforce" Knowlton. Thus Captain Brown writes that after retreating they "sent off for a reinforcement," which they soon received; and Colonel Reed confirms this in his testimony at the court-martial of a soldier who acted a cowardly part in the fight. "On Monday forenoon," he says, "I left Colonel Knowlton with a design to send him a reinforcement. I had accordingly ordered up Major Leitch, and was going up to where the firing was," etc. (Force, 5th Series, vol. ii. p. 500.) Reed's letters to his wife show that Leitch and Knowlton fell near him, within a few minutes of each other, which could not have been the case had they been on opposite flanks. The accounts of Tilghman, Marshall, the soldier Martin, and others, leave no doubt as to this point that there was but one flanking party, and that Knowlton commanded it.

[200] Judge Burnham refers to the flank attack briefly as follows: "Passing over we met the enemy's right flank which had been posted out of our sight on lower ground. They fired and killed Colonel Knowlton and nearly all that had reached the top of the height." This reference to the top of the height, taken in connection with Reed's statement that "our brave fellows mounted up the rocks and attacked them as they ran in turn," goes to confirm the selection of the spot where Leitch and Knowlton fell. Burnham states that he was within a few feet of the latter when he was shot.

[201] There appear to have been nine companies of Maryland troops engaged, three under Major Price, three under Major Mantz, and three others of Richardson's regiment. Among these were one or more companies of Colonel Ewing's as yet incomplete battalion. One of his officers, Captain Lowe, was wounded.—Force, 5th Series, vol. ii. p. 1024. Also Capt. Beatty's letter in Mr. Jay's Documents.

[202] Greene wrote at a latter date: "Gen. Putnam and the Adj. Gen. were in the action and behaved nobly." "I was in the latter part, indeed almost the whole of the action."—Gen. Geo. Clinton. (See his two letters in Jay's documents.) "Gen. Putnam and Gen. Greene commanded in the Action with about 15 to eighteen hundred men."—Stiles's MS. Diary.

[203] "A very smart action ensued in the true Bush-fighting way in which our Troops behaved in a manner that does them the highest honor."—Letter from Col. Griffith, of Maryland. Lossing's Historical Record, vol. ii., p. 260.

[204] "The General fearing (as we afterwards found) that a large body was coming up to support them, sent me over to bring our men off. They gave a Hurra and left the field in good order."—Tilghman's Letters, Doc. 29.

The Battle-field.—Recently gathered material seems to settle all doubts as to the several points occupied by the British and Americans during the action. Where did it begin and where did it end? As to the first skirmish, it began near the British encampment at Bloomingdale. Here was Howe's left, and, as Howe reports, Knowlton approached his advanced posts under cover of the woods "by way of Vandewater's Height." This was what we call Bloomingdale Heights. The original proprietor of the greater part of this site was Thomas De Key. From him all or a large part of it passed to Harman Vandewater and Adrian Hogeland, as the deeds on record show. In 1784 the property was purchased by Nicholas De Peyster. The position of Hogeland's and Vandewater's houses as given on the [accompanying map] is taken from old surveys which mark the location and give the names. The Bloomingdale Road at that time stopped at these farms. That part of it above One Hundred and Tenth Street, running through Manhattanville and continuing until recently to the King's Bridge Road at One Hundred and Forty-sixth Street, did not exist during the Revolution, but was opened a few years later. (Hoffman's Est. and Rights of the Corporation of New York, vol. ii.) A lane or road running from Hogeland's by Vandewater's connected the Bloomingdale with the King's Bridge road at One Hundred and Nineteenth Street. Washington himself gives us the general line. Before the battle of Long Island he ordered Heath to have troops ready to march to New York as soon as called for, and he describes the proper route thus: "There is a road out of the Haerlem flat lands that leads up to the hills, and continues down the North River by Bloomingdale, Delancy's, &c., which road I would have them march, as they will keep the river in sight, and pass a tolerable landing-place for troops in the neighborhood of Bloomingdale." (Heath Correspondence, Mass. Hist. Coll. for 1878.) From this topography and the records the position becomes clear: Howe camped around Bloomingdale with his advance posts along the Bloomingdale Road, perhaps as far as its terminus near Hogeland's. They were last seen in this vicinity the night before. Knowlton, next morning, marches out from Harlem Heights, reconnoitres "by way of Vandewater's," and comes upon the British posts on and along the line of the Bloomingdale Road. Then he falls back under cover of the woods and over fences towards the Point of Rocks, the enemy following him.

As to succeeding movements, if we can fix Washington's station and the hill which all agree that the British descended, there is no difficulty in following them after. Point of Rocks was the extreme limit of Harlem Heights. There were our advanced posts overlooking the country south. Washington states that he rode down to "our advanced posts" to direct matters. Where better could he do so than at Point of Rocks? And in a sketch of the field preserved in the Stiles Diary, and reproduced among Mr. Jay's documents, Washington is given just that station where an earthwork had been thrown up. To confirm this and also to locate the next point, we have a letter from Major Lewis Morris (Jay documents), in which he says: "Colonel Knowlton's regiment was attacked by the enemy upon a height a little to the south-west of Days's Tavern, and after opposing them bravely and being overpowered by their numbers they were forced to retreat, and the enemy advanced upon the top of the hill opposite to that which lies before Days's door, with a confidence of success, and after rallying their men by a bugle horn and resting themselves a little while, they descended the hill," etc. In one of Christopher Colles's road maps (published in the N.Y. Corporation Manual for 1870, p. 778), Days's tavern is put directly opposite Point of Rocks on the King's Bridge Road, which fixes the hill occupied by the enemy as the north-east bluff of Bloomingdale Heights, or about One Hundred and Twenty-third Street, between Ninth and Tenth avenues. They ran down this bluff to fences and bushes at the edge of "a clear field." This was part of the Kortwright farm, and the farm lines of 1812 show the same northern boundary that surveys show in 1711. This northerly fence line is given in the [accompanying map], and it will be noticed that it would be the natural line for the British Infantry to take in opposing Crary's party. The soldier Martin speaks of their taking a post and rail fence with a field in their rear. General George Clinton, who gives a clear description of the fighting from this point, also mentions this field and fence, but appears to have been mistaken in stating that the enemy were driven back to that position. They ran down the hill and took up that position. Then, when driven back, they retreated in the general direction of their first advance—that is, towards their camp, passing through a buckwheat field, and orchard to the Bloomingdale Road, and not, as generally stated, to the high ground in Central Park east of Eighth Avenue. General Clinton says they fell back from the orchard "across a hollow and up another hill not far distant from their own lines," which doubtless refers to undulations on Hogeland's place, and possibly to the then hilly ground about One Hundred and Seventh Street and Eleventh Avenue. One of the Hessian accounts states that the Yagers who were sent to support the Light Infantry came into "a hot contest on Hoyland's Hill"—a reference clearly to Hogeland's lands; and this with the fact that the Yagers and Grenadiers afterwards bivouacked "in the wood not far from Bloomingdale," and that the British "encamped in two lines" at the same place, indicates the point where the action terminated—namely, near Bloomingdale, between Hogeland's and Apthorpe's.

In regard to the beginning of the action, General Clinton, in his account, starts with a locality called "Martje Davits Fly," and estimates distances from it. This name, more properly "Marritje David's Vly," strictly described the round piece of meadow at the western end of the Hollow Way close to the Hudson. It formed part of Harlem Cove. Old deeds, acts, and surveys give the name and site exactly. Clinton speaks of the "Point of Martje David's Fly" as if he had reference to a point of land in its vicinity, possibly the Point of Rocks, and from which he gives his distances.

The name of the battle appears perhaps most frequently in modern accounts as that of Harlem Plains. Greene and others speak of it as the action of Harlem Heights or the heights of Harlem. As the movements were directed by Washington from the Heights, and as the fighting was done practically in defence of the Heights, this seems to be the proper name to adopt. Heath says the fighting took place "on the Heights west of Harlem Plains," and Washington, Clinton, and others make similar references to the high ground, showing that the affair was not associated with the Plains.

[205] Heath states that Henley was buried by Knowlton's side, and the spot is indicated in the orders of September 24th: "Thomas Henley will be buried this p.m. from the quarters of Maj. David Henley below the hill where the redoubt is thrown up on the road." During the action of the 16th, troops were throwing up intrenchments across the island at about One Hundred and Forty-fifth Street. This was the first and most southerly of the three lines constructed on the Heights. Sauthier's map, the authority in the case, shows this line with a battery across the King's Bridge Road, just at the top of what is known as Breakneck Hill. It was on the slope of this hill that Knowlton and Henley were buried. Mr. Lossing puts his grave in one of the redoubts on the second line, afterwards included in Trinity Cemetery; but that line had not been thrown up when Knowlton died. (Silliman's letter of September 17th, p.m. [Part II., page 55].) Mr. Jay and others have suggested the erection of a monument to Knowlton and Leitch. No finer site could be found than the spot where they fell in Morningside Park.

Respecting Major Henley, spoken of by Washington as "another of our best officers," see Glover's letter, [Document 35].

[206] The position of the various works at Harlem Heights appears on Sauthier's plan which seems to have accompanied Howe's report of the capture of Fort Washington. Good copies of it may be found in Stedman's history and in the New York Revolutionary MS., vol. i. In 1812, when Randall surveyed the island, many of these works were still traceable. He gives parts of the second and third lines, Fort Washington and the others above, all of which agree with Sauthier's locations. Some of the works remain well preserved to-day.

[207] "Frog's Neck and Point is a kind of island; there are two passages to the main which are fordable at low water, at both of which we have thrown up works, which will give some annoyance should they attempt to come off by either of these ways."—Tilghman to William Duer, October 13th, 1776. MS. Letter. On hearing that they had landed on the Neck, Duer replied from the Convention at Peekskill, on the 15th: "There appears to me an actual fatality attending all their measures. One would have naturally imagined from the Traitors they have among them, who are capable of giving them the most minute description of the Grounds in the county of Westchester, that they would have landed much farther to the Eastward. Had they pushed their imaginations to discover the worst place, they could not have succeeded better than they have done."—MS. Letter.

[208] The Convention's Committee on Correspondence consisted of William Duer, R.R. Livingston, Egbert Benson, and two others. Nearly all of Tilghman's letters to the committee have been published either in Force or in the Proceedings of the N.Y. Provincial Congress. Of Duer's replies, however, but few are in print, the originals being in the possession of Oswald Tilghman, Esq., of Easton, Talbot County, Md., to whom the writer is under obligations for the favor of quoting the extracts given in the text. (See [biographical sketch] of Colonel Tilghman.)

[209] As evidence of the estimation in which Lee was held at this time, Duer writes on the 15th to Colonel Harrison: "I beg my affectionate compliments to Gen^l Lee, whom I sincerely congratulate on his arrival in camp—partly on account of himself as he will have it in his [power] to reap a fresh Harvest of Laurels, and more on account of his Country which looks to him as one of the brave asserters of her dearest rights."—MS. Letter.

Lee had just returned from South Carolina, and was associated by the army with the brave defence of Charleston harbor. The honor of that affair, however, belonged entirely to Moultrie.

[210] In this skirmish Captain Evelyn, the British officer who captured the patrol of American officers on Long Island, was mortally wounded, and died soon after, much regretted. He is supposed to have been buried in New York.

[211] Stirling, who with Sullivan had recently been exchanged as prisoner, was now in command of Mifflin's brigade, Mifflin being absent in Philadelphia.

[212] See letters of these officers, [Documents 17], [22]. Also Tallmadge's account, [Document 26].

[213] "October 29th [28th] the British advanced in front of our lines at White Plains about 10 o'clock a.m. I had just arrived on Chatterton Hill in order to throw up some works when they hove in sight; as soon as they discovered us they commenced a severe cannonade but without any effect of consequence. General McDougal about this time arriving with his brigade from Burtis's and observing the British to be crossing the Bronx below in large bodies in order to attack us, our troops were posted to receive them in a very advantageous position. The British in their advance were twice repulsed; at length, however, their numbers were increased so that they were able to turn our right flank. We lost many men, but from information afterwards received there was reason to believe they lost many more than we. The rail and stone fence behind which our troops were posted proved as fatal to the British as the rail fence and grass hung on it did at Charlestown the 17th of June 1775."—Colonel Rufus Putnam, [Document 43].

[214] Statement of his son, General James Watson Webb, of New York.

[215] The details of the various movements in Westchester County would fill a long and interesting chapter; but in the present connection not more than an outline can be attempted.

[216] Consult "[Map of New York]," etc., [Part II.]

[217] Read the letter Greene wrote to Knox on the following day.—[Document 36].

[218] Testimony of Cornwallis before Parliamentary Committee on Howe's case in 1779.

[219] Washington, who with his officers watched the fighting from Fort Lee, sent over Captain Gooch to tell Magaw to maintain himself until night, when an effort would be made to withdraw the garrison to New Jersey. The captain reached the fort, delivered his message, and, running through the fire of the enemy, got to his boat again and recrossed in safety.

[220] Henshaw's copy of return of prisoners.—[Document No. 59].

[221] Two weeks before the attack on the fort, Magaw's adjutant, William Demont, deserted to the enemy. This fact has lately been established by the recovery, by Mr. Edward F. de Lancey, of the New York Historical Society, of Demont's own letter confessing the desertion. It is dated London, January 16th, 1792, and is in part as follows:

"On the 2d of Nov'r 1776 I Sacrificed all I was Worth in the World to the Service of my King & Country and joined the then Lord Percy, brought in with me the Plans of Fort Washington, by which Plans that Fortress was taken by his Majesty's Troops the 16 instant, Together with 2700 Prisoners and Stores & Ammunition to the amount of 1800 Pound. At the same time, I may with Justice affirm, from my Knowledge of the Works, I saved the Lives of many of His Majesty's Subjects—these Sir are facts well-known to every General Officer which was there."

Mr. De Lancey makes this letter the text of a detailed and highly interesting account of the fall of Fort Washington (published in the Magazine of American History, February, 1877), in which the new theory is advanced that the disaster was due in the first instance to Demont's treason. It is quite probable, as the deserter claimed, that his information was of some use to the British general in making his dispositions for the attack, but beyond this the incident could hardly have affected the situation on either side. Up to the night preceding the assault, Howe did not know whether the Americans would remain in the fort or not. Indeed, he gave them the opportunity to evacuate it by allowing a whole night to intervene between the summons to surrender and the attack. He could not, therefore, have changed his plans, as alleged, in the confident expectation of taking a large garrison prisoners and sending home word of another great victory. Fort Washington was simply in his way, and he would have moved against it under any circumstances, regardless of Demont and his treachery.

[222] This is what Tilghman said upon the occasion: "The loss of the post is nothing compared to the loss of men and arms, and the damp it will strike upon the minds of many. We were in a fair way of finishing the campaign with credit to ourselves and I think to the disgrace of Mr. Howe, and had the General followed his own opinion the garrison would have been withdrawn immediately upon the enemy's falling down from Dobb's Ferry; but Gen'l Greene was positive that our forces might at any time be drawn off under the guns of Fort Lee. Fatal experience has evinced the contrary."—Correspondence in Proceedings of the N.Y. Provincial Congress, vol. ii.

[223] After the battle of White Plains, Howe, we have seen, moved against Fort Washington. On the other hand, Washington, supposing that Howe would aim next for Philadelphia, prepared to cross part of his force into Jersey and endeavor to protect that city. He proposed to continue the policy of "wasting" the campaign. Heath was left to look after the Highlands; Lee with another force remained at Northcastle, and Connecticut troops were posted at Saw Pits and the borders of that State. Washington took with him Putnam, Greene, Stirling, and Mercer, with less than four thousand men, and fell back before the British through Brunswick, Princeton, and Trenton. He wrote several times to Lee to join him, but Lee was full of excuses and utterly failed Washington at this crisis. While marching in no haste by a westerly route through Jersey, Lee was surprised at his quarters at Baskingridge on the morning of December 13th, and made prisoner by Lieutenant-Colonel Harcourt and a party of dragoons. (The account of the capture by Captain Bradford, Lee's aid, not heretofore published, is given in [Document 46]. In Wilkinson's Memoirs there is another account.) Sullivan then took command of Lee's troops and joined Washington, who at Trenton had crossed to the Pennsylvania side of the Delaware, removing all boats to delay the enemy, and had halted in camp a few miles above.

[224] Order of march to Trenton.—Drake's Life of Knox.

[225] Stiles' MS. Diary. Statement of Rhode Island officers engaged at Princeton.

[226] In connection with the battles of Trenton and Princeton, read the interesting letters from Knox, Haslet, Rodney, and Hull in [Part II.] They have all appeared since our general accounts were written.

[227] In another letter Walpole says:

"It is now the fashion to cry up the manœuvre of General Washington in this action [Princeton] who has beaten two English regiments, too, and obliged General Howe to contract his quarters—in short, the campaign has by no means been wound up to content.... It has lost a great deal of its florid complexion, and General Washington is allowed by both sides not to be the worst General in the field."

Again, in a humorous vein:

"Caius Manlius Washingtonius Americanus, the dictator, has got together a large army, larger than our ally, the Duke of Wirtemberg was to have sold us; and General Howe, who has nothing but salt provisions in our metropolis, New York, has not twenty thousand pounds' worth of pickles, as he had at Boston."—Walpole's Letters and Correspondence. Cunningham.

[228] From the Clinton papers as published in E.M. Ruttenber's Obstructions to the Navigation of Hudson's River, etc. Munsell, Albany.

[229] These orders are from the Order Book kept by Colonel Moses Little, of Greene's brigade, while encamped on Long Island during the months of May, June, July, and August, 1776, the original being in the possession of Benjamin Hale, Esq., of Newburyport, Mass. They cover the whole period of active operations there after the arrival of the main army at New York. The book also contains Washington's general orders from headquarters, New York, General Sullivan's orders while in command on Long Island, Colonel Little's regimental orders, and scattering orders from Generals Lee, Spencer, Greene, and Nixon, in September and October, 1776. As all Washington's orders are to be found in Force's Archives, a few only are inserted here to preserve the connection. They are distinguished as "General Orders." Sullivan's and the others are given separately.

[230] General Washington was absent at Philadelphia from May 21st to June 6th, leaving General Putnam in command at New York.

[231] The order breaks off at this point in Colonel Little's book, but it is fortunately preserved entire in an orderly book kept by Captain John Douglass, of Philadelphia. (Hist. Mag., vol. ii., p. 354.) The following order from General Lord Stirling also appears in Captain Douglass's book:

[Long Island] August 25^th 1776.

"The Adjutants of each Corps of this Brigade are to attend Brigade Major Livingston at Gen. Sullivan's Quarters every morning at 9 o'clock to receive the orders of the day. The Weekly Returns are to be brought in this day. Such regiments as have tents are to encamp within the lines as soon as possible."

[232] The series of Washington's general orders in Force's Archives does not contain this order of August 29th, which throws light on the preparations made for the retreat. It is found, abridged, in both Col. Little's and Capt. Douglass's order books; in Col. Douglas's book it appears in the above form. Original in the possession of Benjamin Douglas, Esq., Middletown, Conn.

[233] Harlem Heights, Sept. 16.

[234] At the time of writing this letter, Col. Douglas was Major of Ward's regiment which enlisted for six weeks' service under Lee, and which was stationed by him on Long Island. The fortification they were soon to begin was Fort Stirling.

[235] Col. Hitchcock had been ordered to Burdett's Ferry, opposite Fort Washington, on the Jersey side, but returned to Long Island on the landing of the enemy.

[236] Of Col. Samuel Selden's Conn. Regiment.

[237] Aide-de-Camp to General Washington.

[238] Col. Tyler, commanding the 10^th Regiment of Continentals (from Connecticut) was ordered under arrest by General Washington for "cowardice and misbehaviour before the enemy on Sunday, the 15^th instant." The testimony at the preliminary trial brought out some of the incidents of that day's confusion and panic.

[239] Maj. C.L. Baurmeister, of the Hessian Division.

[240] A part of this diary was published in the Moravian, Bethlehem, Penn., in 1876, with notes prepared by Rev. A.A. Reinke, present pastor of the Moravian congregation in New York. The extracts for 1775 appear in print now for the first time, and, of the whole, only those which bear upon public affairs are given here. In 1776, the Moravian Church stood in Fair street (now Fulton), opposite the old North Dutch Church on the corner of William street.

[241] Capt. Michael Cresap, of Maryland.

[242] Thomas Hickey.

[243] Washington's Chief Engineer in 1776.

[244] Capt. Bradford, of Rhode Island, was Aide-de-Camp to General Lee at the time of the latter's capture, and gave this account of the affair to the Rev. Dr. Stiles, then at Dighton, R.I.

[245] Gen. Wolcott, at this date, was a delegate in Congress from Connecticut.

[246] Sipple afterwards joined the Delaware Regiment under Col. David Hall, and is said to have proved a brave and faithful soldier.

[247] Captain Rodney marched with a Delaware company to the relief of Washington in the dark days of the campaign. Four other companies from Philadelphia, joined with his, formed a battalion under Captain Henry—Rodney being second in command. He was with Cadwallader's force during the battle of Trenton; and his vivid description of the storm that night, and the condition of the river [Force, fifth series, vol. iii.], has frequently been quoted by historical writers. His interesting account of subsequent events, as given above, is now published for the first time. It has been made the subject of a highly interesting paper prepared and read by Cæsar A. Rodney, Esq., of Wilmington, before the Historical Societies of Delaware and Pennsylvania.

[248] Of Colonel Huntington's regiment.

[249] Of Colonel Miles' regiment. The journal, McPherson says, was "wrote at John Lott's, Flatbush, L.I."

[250] Captain Randolph was a very brave officer from Woodbridge, N.J., who, during the war, undertook several hazardous scouting expeditions. He belonged to the Continental army, was five times wounded, twice made a prisoner, and finally killed, in July, 1780, in a skirmish near Springfield, New Jersey. He was the officer who captured the famous Colonel Billop. He appears to have been with Colonel Heard, when the latter was sent to seize tories on Long Island, in January, 1776; in which connection the following letter to his wife will be of interest:

... When we Shall Return Home is unceartain we have Been Busy a Hunting up and Disarming the Tories ever Since we Have Been Here. Have collected upwards of two Hundred Muskits with ammunition &c. We was two nights at Jamaica where I had to take Jonathan Rowland an own uncle to Roberts wife. Likewise Sam^l Doughty an acquaintance of Roberts. Charles Jackson is well and Desires to Be Remembered to his fammily and I Request of you to Show his wife this Letter. I Remain yours &c.,

Nathl. Fitz Randolph.

Hempstead, Jan. 24th, 1776.

P.S. We proceed from Here to Oyster Bay.

[251] Captain James Morris was a Connecticut officer. He first entered the service as ensign in Colonel Gay's Regiment, and was engaged in the battle of Long Island. In the following year, as lieutenant, he fought at the battle of Germantown, where he was taken prisoner, and closely confined in Philadelphia until removed to Long Island. When released, in 1781, he was detailed to Scammell's Light Infantry Corps, and took part in the capture of Yorktown, Virginia. One of his letters, written from Flatbush while prisoner, is as follows:

Flatbush, Long Island, June 30, 1778.

Wednesday, the 17th inst., the American Prisoners of war left Philadelphia. I embarked on board the Sloop Nancy, Capt. Hill. Sailed as far as Billings Port; then went on board the Brig Minerva, Capt. Smith, in order to sail for New York. After a passage of 12 days arrived at New York, being the 28th inst. The 29th I was paroled upon Long Island, and went to live at the House of Mr. John Lott. Our treatment, both officers and soldiers, while on board the shipping, was much better than I expected; our situation was as agreeable as circumstances would admit. We had the liberty of any part of the ship, and both officers and soldiers had a supply of provisions and a gill of Rum per man per day.

[252] The left-hand column, naming the regiments, with the rank and number of officers captured, is taken from the report of Joseph Loring, the British Commissary of Prisoners.—Force, 5th Series, vol i., p. 1258. The names added opposite have been collated from official rolls, published and in manuscript, unless otherwise stated in notes.

[253] Reference has already been made to Gen. Woodhull and Col. Johnston in the [chapter on "The Battle of Long Island."]

[254] [Transcriber's Note: see [previous footnote].]

[255] Huntington's regiment appears to have had no major at this date; certainly none was taken prisoner. In the return of prisoners exchanged Dec. 9, 1776, there is this memorandum in regard to Maj. Browne: "Taken on Long Island, not in arms. It is preposed that he be exchanged for Major Wells, of Connecticut."

[256] There is a discrepancy here. The English give four Captains, while Huntington's return gives six. So also in Lieutenants and Ensigns.

[257] This name does not appear on any roll, but no doubt Johnston was the Captain intended, no other having been taken prisoner.

[258] Bowie was the only Maryland Captain taken, the rest being accounted for. Possibly one of the Lieutenants—six having been taken instead of five, as the English report—was rated by mistake as a Captain.

[259] There was but one Lieutenant taken in Lutz's Battalion. See Rolls in Force, Returns of Col. Haller's regiment.

[260] Lieuts. Van Wagenen and Gilliland did not belong to Lasher's battalion, but were taken with Dunscomb, Troup, and Hoogland, and probably rated with them.

[261] In Onderdonk's Revolutionary Incidents it is stated that Coe was a Lieutenant of the troopers, and was taken the day after the battle. The other Lieutenant was taken at the time of Gen. Woodhull's capture, but his name does not appear.

[262] Callender is doubtless meant. He was rated as a Lieutenant afterwards, and was confined in officers' quarters.

[263] These were two Pennsylvania officers, and it is supposed that they were serving as volunteers at the battle. Their names appear in Force.

[264] The returns of the losses in the Pennsylvania regiments, as here given, are copied from the original manuscript rolls in the public archives of that State. I am indebted to the Hon. John A. Linn, Assistant Secretary of the Commonwealth, Harrisburg, not only for the authenticated copies, but for several of the documents in [Part II.], and for much other information respecting the troops from Pennsylvania.—Ed.

[265] One of these sergeants escaped, but the rolls do not show which one.