Y.

York, corporation of, votes address on news from Long Island,199.

Page 37, line 26—The old City Hall stood at the corner of Nassau and Wall streets, site of present Sub-Treasury Building.

Page 119, line 1—Lieutenant-Colonel Cornell became member of the Board of War, not Commissary-General.

Page 243, line 10—But one of the regiments suffered as much as any other.

Page 280, line 21—Rall's column reached Fort Washington first.

Page 289, line 31—Read December 25th.

Page 291, line 5—Read December 25th.

Page 295, line 23—Read Cadwallader'sandMercer's men.

Part II., page 99, third line in Glover's letter—Read [Randall's] for (Ward's).

[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 youtoto cœlowith regard to America. I am entirely for coercive methods with those obstinate madmen." Dr. Robertson, author ofThe 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 theNature 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 themajorityof 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 themarshorbrook 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, calledHell-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. 23d, 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 thechapter 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 ye22d 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.

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 ye22d 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. TheN.Y. Packetof 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," inPart 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'sMemoirs, 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 anywithin 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 putfivefortifications on the line from the Wallabout to Gowanus Creek.

"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 putfivefortifications 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 theCitadel, 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 theCongress, was to be built in the rear of Fort Stirling. Major Fish writes, April 9th: "There aretwofortifications 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.

The list of batteries, March 24th, contains a note to the effect that a citadel covering five acres, called theCongress, was to be built in the rear of Fort Stirling. Major Fish writes, April 9th: "There aretwofortifications 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.

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 Doand repaired by the British Forces. Those works colored Green were erected by the British Forces during the War." In themap of New Yorkaccompanying 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.

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 Doand repaired by the British Forces. Those works colored Green were erected by the British Forces during the War." In themap of New Yorkaccompanying 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 inForce, 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 38and41.

[60]This work stood at the foot of East Eighty-eighth Street. SeeDocument 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 calledHornshook, 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.

Back to Index Next