Chapter 20

[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.Document7.

[135]See references on Ewing's sketch,Document 15: "H. Fort Putnam where part of Colo. 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 Colothe 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 ofGreenwood, 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'Washingtonputting 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 Diaryin vol. ii., p. 488, of the Long Island Historical Society'sMemoirs.

[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, ye44thand 23dand 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."—Document5.See Colonel Atlee's journal inForce's Archivesfor a full account of the part his battalion took in this fighting.

See Colonel Atlee's journal inForce's Archivesfor 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]Document19.

[147]Consultmap 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 theSouth Carolina Gazette(Document19) 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 theAutobiography 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 yeinn 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 yebrigade 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. (Seebiographical sketchesof 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 ofRevolutionary 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 theBritishwho 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 inForce, 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 inForce, 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 Putnamhad 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 Roadon 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.

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 inForce, 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 Putnamhad 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 Roadon 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]Seenoteat 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 inDocument6.

[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]SeeDocument6, 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'clocka.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 windahead"—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 exchangea few random shotwith 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.

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'clocka.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 windahead"—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 exchangea few random shotwith 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 theentire dayof 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.

"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 theentire dayof 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.

Back to Index Next