Of the many authors who have written of the New York campaign of 1776,

nearly all have followed the narrations given in Sparks's _Washington_

and in the official despatches of the various officers engaged. For

topographical details we have relied upon Des Barres' _Atlantic

Neptune_ (1780-81), with its plans of battles, sieges, etc., and maps

of the seat of war, and upon the recent Coast Survey charts. Local

historians have supplied many minor particulars, which need not be

enumerated, except, perhaps, the one relating to the treason of William

Demont, already referred to in the text. Much new light has been thrown

upon the Burgoyne campaign by works published within the last few

years.[730]

One of the most earnestly disputed points of Burgoyne's campaign is

whether Arnold was personally engaged with the enemy at the battle of

Freeman's Farm, on Sept. 19, 1777. Some authorities, notably Bancroft,

while admitting that Arnold's troops were in the thickest of the fray,

deny that the general himself was on the battlefield; while Stedman,

Irving, Stone, and many others, equally competent to weigh the facts,

maintain that Arnold was the conquering hero of the fight, and that,

but for him, Burgoyne would have marched straight on to Albany.

Just after Gates had superseded Schuyler in the command of the

Northern army, Arnold had returned from the Mohawk valley flushed

with success and impatient to win new laurels. He was incessantly

engaged in skirmishing with the enemy and adding to his reputation as a

brilliant, dashing officer. Gates was envious of Arnold's growing fame,

and resentful of his partiality for Schuyler. Hence arose a coolness

towards Arnold, which rapidly ripened into bitter hostility. That

the action of Freeman's Farm, a five hours' battle, full of skilful

movements, was purely a series of chance operations without a guiding

spirit, is utterly preposterous. As Gates was not engaged, whose was

the directing mind but Arnold's, the second in command?

It seems impossible that one devoid of fear, brave even to rashness,

who even courted danger at the risk of death, and one too who was

filled with ambition and love of military glory, could possibly have

allowed his command to go into action without leading its movements

and sharing its perils. His subsequent heroism amid the carnage of

battle at Bemis's Heights would seem a sufficient refutation of the

charge that he who was always in the thickest of the fight was only

a looker-on while the conflict of September 19th was raging around

Freeman's Farm.

Gates, in his official report of the battle of Freeman's Farm, makes no

mention of Arnold being engaged; and his adjutant-general, Wilkinson,

in his _Memoirs_, written long after Arnold's good name had been

blasted by his treason, says: "Not a single general officer was on the

field of battle on the 19th of September, until evening, when General

Learned was ordered out."

Under ordinary circumstances, the testimony of the commander-in-chief

and his adjutant-general would be considered conclusive; but it must

be borne in mind that both of these officers were inimical to Arnold,

that neither was personally engaged in the battle, and that the wooded

character of the ground precluded either from following any one's

movements through the conflict.

On the other side, we have the contemporary testimony of officers

present on the battlefield, newspaper accounts of the time, and

Arnold's own division order of the day after the battle, in which he

speaks of the zeal and spirit of the company officers engaged, in

a manner which none but a close observer could notice. Besides, we

have the direct evidence of two of Arnold's staff officers—Colonels

Livingston and Varick—that their chief was the hero of the battle of

Freeman's Farm; the former warmly lauding "his conduct during the late

action", and declaring that "to him alone is due the honor of our late

victory." Even the enemy's chief, Burgoyne, said in the British House

of Commons: "Mr. Gates had determined to receive the attack in his

lines. Mr. Arnold, who commanded on the left, foreseeing the danger of

being turned, advanced without consultation with his general, and gave

instead of receiving battle."

Another much-disputed point is whether to Schuyler or Gates is chiefly

due the triumph of our arms in the Burgoyne campaign. Bancroft, in his

_History of the United States_ (vol. ix. ch. 21, orig. ed.), states

that Schuyler lacked military talents, failed to harry the advance

of Burgoyne, wanted personal courage, and had no influence with the

people. All these charges have been triumphantly refuted by his

grandson and by his biographer.[731]

General Schuyler's zeal, energy, ability, and sterling virtues have

been so fully set forth in the preceding narrative of the Burgoyne

campaign that any amplification here is needless; but it may be proper

to add the testimony of some of our most distinguished countrymen as

to the merits of this true gentleman, noble soldier, and patriotic

Fabian hero. Chief Justice Marshall says: "In this gloomy state

of things no officer could have exerted more diligence and skill

than Schuyler." Chancellor Kent writes: "In acuteness of intellect,

profound thought, indefatigable activity, exhaustless energy, pure

patriotism, and persevering and intrepid public efforts, Schuyler had

no superior." Daniel Webster said: "I consider Schuyler as second only

to Washington in the services he rendered to the country in the war of

the Revolution. His zeal and devotion to the cause under difficulties

which would have paralyzed the efforts of most men, and his fortitude

and courage when assailed by malicious attacks upon his public and

private character, _every one of which was proved to be false_, have

impressed me with a strong desire to express publicly my sense of his

great qualities."

Washington, Hamilton, Jay, Jefferson, and most of the great men of the

Revolution had unbounded confidence in Schuyler; and modern historians,

such as Irving, Sparks, Lossing, and others, bear like testimony to

his virtues and services. Even Congress, which had so unjustly removed

Schuyler from his command, when convinced of its error, would not

consent to his resignation from the army till he persistently demanded

it. Though Schuyler's military career did not sparkle with "feats of

broil and battle", he exhibited those great qualities which are as

conducive to the success of war as "the magnificently stern array"

of arms in the heady fight. He was ready in expedients to foil the

enemy, skilful and persevering in executing them, and resolute and

untiring till his end was obtained. Never discouraged by disaster,

and stimulated to higher effort as fortune frowned, he continued

sanguine of success in the darkest hour of adversity. Every assault

upon his reputation fell harmless before his invulnerable patriotism;

no injustice could swerve him from the path of honor; and to him, as to

all true men, the meaning of life was concentrated in the single word

DUTY.

[Illustration]

NOTE BY GENERAL CULLUM.

DISPOSAL OF THE CONVENTION TROOPS.[732]—In accordance with Article

IV. of the convention, the captured army was marched, under guard of

General Glover, to the neighborhood of Boston, where it arrived about

Nov. 6th. The British troops were barracked on Prospect Hill and the

German troops on Winter Hill, the officers being quartered in Cambridge

and the neighboring towns. Much complaint was made of the character

and insufficiency of their accommodations, but considering the limited

supply of houses at the disposal of General Heath, commanding the

Eastern department, he did the best in his power, without the aid of

the State of Massachusetts, to whose Council he appealed for the use

of "at least one of the colleges" for their comfort. At the worst,

however, these captives fared far better than our own troops at Valley

Forge during that winter.[733]

Under Article V. supplies were to be furnished to Burgoyne's army

"at the same rates." This was interpreted by Congress, Dec. 19th, to

mean "that the accounts of all provisions and other necessaries which

already have been or which hereafter may be supplied by the public to

prisoners in the power of these States shall be discharged by either

receiving from the British Commissary of Prisoners, or any of his

agents, provisions or other necessaries, equal in quality and kind to

what had been supplied, or the amount thereof in gold or silver."

Exacting provisions _in kind_, though inconvenient to the British

commissary, was not unreasonable, considering their scarcity; but the

condition that expenditures made in depreciated Continental money

should be liquidated, dollar for dollar, in gold and silver, was a hard

one. As a justification for this latter requirement, it was stated by

Congress "that General Howe had required that provisions should be sent

in for the subsistence of the American prisoners in his possession,

and that for the purchase of such necessaries he had forbidden the

circulation of the currency of the States within such parts as are

subject to his power."

By Article II. General Howe was authorized to send transports to Boston

to receive the troops for their conveyance to England. For its failure

to carry out the obligation imposed upon it by its own general, the

American government, through Congress, justified itself by claiming

that Burgoyne had already evaded the provisions of Article I. of the

convention. Bancroft, in his _History of the United States_, contends

that it had been broken by Burgoyne at the time of the surrender,

by the concealment of the military chest and other public property,

of which the United States were thus defrauded.[734] He therefore

sustains Congress in its subsequent demand for the descriptive lists

"of all persons comprehended in the surrender", and the postponing of

the embarkation of Burgoyne's army "until his capitulation should be

expressly confirmed by Great Britain."

On the other side are many high authorities, among whom is Dr. Charles

Deane, who, Oct. 22, 1877, made an exhaustive report upon the subject

of the Convention of Saratoga to the American Antiquarian Society. He

contends that the acts of Congress "were not marked by the highest

exhibition of good policy or of good faith."[735]

Fair inferences, from the facts in evidence, lead to the belief

that neither party was scrupulous in carrying out its obligations.

Burgoyne, after a preliminary agreement to the terms of the convention,

_was in favor of breaking the treaty_, because, before affixing his

signature to it, he had heard of the success of Sir Henry Clinton

in the Hudson Highlands. He was willing, therefore, to barter his

plighted promise to further his own interest, and actually submitted

to a council of his officers "whether it was consistent with public

faith, and if so, expedient, to suspend the execution of the treaty,

and trust to events." To the honor of the officers of the Anglo-German

army, a decided majority of the council overruled the wishes of the

general-in-chief, whereupon Burgoyne, Oct. 17, signed the convention.

Its second article stipulated that "a free passage be granted to the

army, under Lieutenant-General Burgoyne, to Great Britain, on condition

of not serving again in North America during the present contest."

It seems almost incredible that even Gates could have been guilty of

such fatuity in sacrificing by this article all the fruits of the past

campaign, and jeoparding American independence. It would have been

better to have disarmed and disbanded these demoralized troops on the

spot. He could thus have saved the country much anxiety, inconvenience,

and expense, in guarding, housing, and caring for them till rested from

their fatigues and embarked for England, where they could be exchanged

for an army of fresh troops, which might cross the ocean in the spring

to plague the inventors of such a stupid compact, or convention.

Burgoyne was not slow to avail himself of a _literal_ interpretation

of words he had designedly used in drawing up the convention, for we

find him, only three days after the surrender, writing to his friend,

Colonel Phillopson: "I dictated terms of convention which save the army

to the State for the next campaign."

Was it in the same spirit that Burgoyne carried out the first article

of the convention, by which his "arms and artillery" were to be left

piled on the banks of the Hudson? By a _literal_ interpretation this

might mean only muskets and cannon, but certainly such would not be

the accepted military meaning of that article, especially as it had

to be construed in connection with the sixth article, permitting all

officers "to retain their carriages, bat-horses, and other cattle, and

no baggage to be molested or searched; Lieutenant-General Burgoyne

giving his honor that there are no public stores secreted therein."

But, notwithstanding all this, Madame Riedesel, the wife of General

Riedesel, says in her journal: "Now I was forced to consider how I

should safely carry the colors of our German regiments still further,

as we had made the Americans at Saratoga believe that they were burnt

up—a circumstance which they at first took in bad part, though

afterwards they tacitly overlooked it. But it was only the staves that

had been burned, the colors having been thus far concealed. Now my

husband confided to me his secret, and entrusted me with their still

further concealment. I therefore shut myself in with a right honorable

tailor, who helped me make a mattress in which we sewed every one of

them. Captain O'Connell, under pretence of some errand, was dispatched

to New York and passed the mattress off as his bed. He sent it to

Halifax, where we again found it on our passage from New York to

Canada, and where—in order to ward off all suspicion in case our ship

should be taken—I transferred it into my cabin, and slept during the

whole of the remaining voyage to Canada upon those honorable badges."

She truly called them "honorable badges", for to an army they are the

insignia of nationality and emblems of power, under which the soldier

ventures his life and reputation.

How was it with the British flags? Burgoyne stated that they were

all left in Canada. But it happens that one of them was displayed at

Ticonderoga upon the evacuation of that place by St. Clair; and five

of them were captured at Fort Stanwix from St. Leger, whose detachment

accompanied Burgoyne till just before leaving Canada upon his great

campaign. Further, it is written in the _Historical Record of the

Ninth Regiment_ that Lieutenant-Colonel Hill, of that regiment, "being

anxious to preserve the colors, took them off the staves and concealed

them in his baggage, which he was permitted to retain." Subsequently

these colors, hidden among his baggage, in which Burgoyne had given his

honor that no public property was secreted, Colonel Hill presented "to

George III., who rewarded his faithful services with the appointment of

aide-de-camp to his Majesty, and the rank of Colonel in the army."

As Burgoyne was by Article I. allowed to march to the ground of

surrender "with the honors of war", General Horatio Rogers, with the

sentiment of a true soldier, says in one of his admirable annotations

of _Hadden's Journal_: "Had Burgoyne's officers believed that their

colors were not embraced in the terms of the convention, they would

have flung them to the breeze and proudly marched out under them, as an

indication of how much of their honor they had preserved, especially

when they supposed they were about to embark for England; for soldiers

lay down their lives for their flags, the loss, surrender, or

concealment of which, save in rare instances, is synonymous with defeat

and humiliation."[736]

Though it appears that all of the accoutrements and other public

property of the Anglo-German army were not surrendered and a

considerable part was found unserviceable, it is unnecessary to make

a special point of this minor matter, after presenting the graver

delinquencies on Burgoyne's part.

General Halleck, one of the best authorities on the Laws of War, in

his work on _International Law_, says: "The general phrase, 'with all

the honors of war,' is usually construed to include the right to march

with colors displayed, drums beating, etc.... A capitulation includes

all property in the place not expressly excepted, and a commander who

destroys military stores or other property after entering into such

agreement not only forfeits all its benefits, but he subjects himself

to severe punishment for his perfidy. So, after a capitulation for the

surrender of an army in the field, any officer who destroys his side

arms or his insignia of rank deprives himself of all the privileges of

that rank, and may be treated as a private soldier. The reason of the

rule is manifest. The victor is entitled to all the honors and benefits

of his agreement the moment it is entered into, and to destroy colors,

arms, etc. thereafter is to deprive him of his just rights. Such

conduct is both dishonorable and criminal."

Whether the shortcomings of the British general-in-chief were known

to Washington cannot be determined, but the latter's correspondence

clearly indicates what he believed would be the action of George III.

upon the arrival of the convention troops in Great Britain. Hence

he writes, November 13, to General Heath: "Policy and a regard to

our own interest are strongly opposed to our adopting or pursuing

any measures to facilitate their embarkation and passage home, which

are not required of us by the capitulation."[737] Congress, December

17, concurred in these views, and consequently refused Burgoyne's

application for his army to embark from Newport or some port on Long

Island Sound, to avoid the long and dangerous winter passage around

Cape Cod of the British transports which were to receive the troops.

In this, as in all matters involving the success of the Revolution,

Washington was not only patriotic, but morally right. We had committed

a blunder at Saratoga, but there was no reason why we should increase

the mischievous effect of it by expediting the enemy's movements from

Boston, and thus add to the danger of our destruction by enabling him

to replace Burgoyne's troops in America by others they might relieve

elsewhere, in time for the next year's campaign.

Congress had, November 8th, instructed General Heath to require

descriptive lists of all the convention troops, to secure us against

their reappearing in arms against us during the war. This Burgoyne

resented as impeaching the honor of his nation, but he subsequently

complied with a measure so essential to our protection.

In Burgoyne's complaint of November 14th regarding the quarters for his

officers and men, he inadvertently said, "The public faith is broke",

which unguarded expression was at once seized upon by Congress; when a

committee, of which Francis Lightfoot Lee was chairman, submitted its

report, upon which Congress, then composed "of but a few members, and

all of them not the most suitable for the station", adopted, January 8,

1778, the following resolutions:—

"_Resolved_, that as many of the cartouch-boxes and several other

articles of military accoutrements annexed to the persons of the

non-commissioned officers and soldiers included in the Convention of

Saratoga have not been delivered up, the Convention, on the part of the

British army, has not been strictly complied with.

"_Resolved_, that the refusal of Lieutenant-General Burgoyne to give

descriptive lists of the non-commissioned officers and privates

belonging to his army, subsequent to his declaration that the public

faith was broke, is considered by Congress in an alarming point of

view; since a compliance with the resolution of Congress could only

have been prejudicial to that army in case of an infraction of the

convention on their part.

"_Resolved_, that the charge made by Lieutenant-General Burgoyne, in

his letter to Major-General Gates of the 14th of November, of a breach

of the public faith on the part of these States, is not warranted by

the just construction of any article of the Convention of Saratoga;

that it is a strong indication of his intention, and affords just

ground of fear that he will avail himself of such pretended breach of

the convention, in order to disengage himself and the army under him

of the obligation they are under to these United States; and that the

security which these States have had in his personal honor is thereby

destroyed.

"_Resolved, therefore_, that the embarkation of Lieutenant-General

Burgoyne and the troops under his command be suspended till a distinct

and explicit ratification of the Convention of Saratoga shall be

properly notified by the court of Great Britain to Congress."[738]

Delays followed these resolutions, and finally, February 3, 1778,

General Heath was instructed that the embarkation of the troops was

to be indefinitely postponed, the transports upon their arrival to be

ordered away from the port of Boston, and the guard over the prisoners

to be strengthened. General Burgoyne, of course, was indignant, and

offered that, "should any doubt still subsist that the idea of being

released from the engagement of the convention has been adopted by any

part of the troops", he would give a further pledge of the faith of

every officer in his command, "provided the suspension is immediately

broken off." This frank offer was referred to a committee, which

reported that in their opinion it contained nothing "sufficient to

induce Congress to recede from their resolution of the 8th of January;"

and the report was agreed to March 2, 1778.

This disingenuous resolution of Congress, "that the embarkation be

suspended" until the happening of some further contingent event, was

returning the poisoned chalice to Burgoyne's lips, being exactly in

keeping with his proposition submitted, October 15, 1777, to a council

of his officers, "whether it was consistent with public faith, and if

so, expedient, to suspend the execution of the treaty and trust to

events."

Notwithstanding many members had no confidence in the political

integrity of Great Britain,[739] such holding of the convention troops

as prisoners of war, contrary to the principles of international

law, certainly placed Congress in a most unfavorable light. Even so

distinguished a member as Richard Henry Lee, writing to Washington,

says: "It is unfortunately too true that our enemies pay little regard

to good faith, or any obligations of justice and humanity which render

the Convention of Saratoga a matter of great moment; and it is also,

as you justly observe, an affair of infinite delicacy. The undoubted

advantage they will take even of the appearance of infraction on our

part, and the American character, which is concerned in preserving its

faith inviolate, cover this affair with difficulties, and prove the

disadvantage we are under in conducting war against an old, corrupt,

and powerful people, who, having much credit and influence in the

world, will venture on things that would totally ruin the reputation

of young and rising communities like ours." We would further remark

that the moral standard of even the most civilized nations was not then

as high as in this more advanced age, and that upon the construction

of this convention hung the independence of the United States. Napier

said of the Convention of Cintra in 1808: "A convention implies some

weakness, and must be weighed in _the scales of prudence, not those of

justice_."

General Burgoyne and his staff were allowed by Congress to return to

England on parole. Soon after their departure the British troops were

removed to Rutland, Mass., because of fears of their being rescued by

the British forces then at Newport, R. I. Congress finally directed

that the Convention troops, in order to be more easily subsisted,

should be removed to Charlottesville, Virginia,[740] where they arrived

in January, 1779, and they were detained in the United States till the

conclusion of peace with Great Britain. Most of the officers had in the

mean time been exchanged.

Dr. Deane, in concluding his investigation of this subject, says:

"There can be no doubt that the supreme authority in the State would

always have the right, as it has the power, to revise a treaty made

by its agents, as in the case we have been considering. This follows

from the nature of sovereignty itself. An Arnold might be bribed to

to capitulate to the enemy. But where such treaties are entered into

in good faith, and the obvious powers of the commanders have not been

exceeded, the agreements between the victor and the vanquished are

regarded by the highest authorities as to be sacredly kept. Humanity

demands it; otherwise there would be no cessation of hostilities till

the annihilation of both belligerents."[741]

While Great Britain had just cause to complain of the violation of the

Convention of Saratoga by the American Congress, she might ask herself,

did she always observe strict faith with her revolted colonies.

According to the Articles of Capitulation of Charleston, S. C., May 12,

1780, the garrison were allowed some of the honors of war. They were

to march out and deposit their arms between the canal and the works

of the place, but the drums were not to beat a British march, nor the

colors to be uncased; the Continental troops and seamen, keeping their

baggage, were to remain prisoners of war until exchanged; the militia

were to be permitted to return to their respective homes as prisoners

on parole, and while they kept their parole were not to be molested in

their property by the British troops; the citizens of all descriptions

were to be considered as prisoners on parole, and to hold their

property in the town on the same terms as the militia.

After the capitulation, Sir Henry Clinton sent out three expeditions

and issued three proclamations, all having in view the subjugation of

South Carolina. The butchery which Tarleton inflicted is well known;

and even the British historian, Stedman, who was then an officer under

General Clinton, says of it: "The virtue of humanity was totally

forgot." The enemy's detachments, sent to various parts of the State,

paid little regard to the rights and property of its inhabitants. Sir

Henry, assuming that the province was already conquered, issued, before

his departure to New York, a proclamation discharging all the military

prisoners, except those captured in Fort Moultrie and Charleston, from

their parole after June 20, 1780. Thus, without their own consent, by

Clinton's arbitrary fiat, these paroled persons were converted from

their neutrality into British subjects, and compelled to take up arms

against their neighbors, or, failing to comply with this enforced

allegiance, were treated as rebels. The Whig inhabitants were worried,

plundered, and murdered by Tories, in open violation of all British

pledges; leading men were confined in prison-ships; and patriotic

citizens, who had resumed their swords upon finding all guaranties

violated, had their property sequestrated, and themselves were severely

punished, sometimes with death. The British rule was truly a reign of

terror.

Lord Mahon stigmatizes in the severest language American faith as

utterly derelict in carrying out the Convention of Saratoga,[742] while

of the sequel of the capitulation of Charleston he has no holy horror.

His only remark is: "_Perhaps_ these measures exceeded the bounds of

justice; certainly they did the bounds of policy." This same English

historian, in his account of Arnold's treason, speaks of the death of

André as the "greatest blot" upon the career of Washington. He contends

that it was unjust to arrest André, because he had a safeguard from

Arnold; and sneers at the twelve distinguished American generals upon

the Board which condemned the spy, as incompetent plebeians, drawn

from "the plough-handle and from the shop-board." According to Mahon's

fallacious mode of reasoning, Washington should not only have let André

go free, because protected by the traitor's pass, but should have

given up West Point, its garrison and arms, to Sir Henry Clinton, as

fully agreed upon by Arnold, the duly constituted American commander.

According to such reasoning, Judas Iscariot was justified in betraying

the Saviour, because he had been one of the trusted twelve who sat down

to the Last Supper. The just fate of the spy and betrayer was the same,

except that Judas was his own executioner.

Of the various military conventions, that of Kloster-Zeven, of

September 8, 1757, between the Duke of Cumberland and Marshal

Richelieu, most resembles that of Saratoga. In both the victors had

the vanquished at their mercy; in both the terms of surrender, under

the circumstances, were moderate beyond all necessity; in both the

capitulations were unsatisfactory to the governments concerned; and in

both the treaties were broken from motives of expediency, frivolous

pretexts being used to cover the odium of bad faith.

George II., as Elector of Hanover, "to clear himself", says Sir

Edward Cust, "from the dishonor of the convention, disavowed his son's

authority to sign it", recalled him from his command, and declared

that the hero of Culloden had ruined his father and disgraced himself.

We cannot enter into the reasons assigned by the British ministry for

abrogating this compact, but they were at the least as invalid as those

used by our Congress in suspending the execution of the Convention

of Saratoga. When the Hanoverian army, under Prince Ferdinand of

Brunswick, took the field in contravention of agreement, Marshal

Richelieu declared his own fidelity in keeping the treaty, and that,

should the enemy "commit any act of hostility", he, as authorized

by the laws of war, "would push matters to the last extremity." The

declaration of the French marshal "was seconded", says Smollett, the

British historian, "by the Count de Lynar, the Danish ambassador, who

had meditated the Convention of Kloster-Zeven under direction of his

master to save Hanover from the horrors of war."

EDITORIAL NOTES ON THE AUTHORITIES.

=I.= THE CAMPAIGN AROUND NEW YORK CITY IN 1776.—The Americans had been

early warned of the British plans to secure the line of the Hudson

(_Journal of the Provincial Congress of New York_, 172; Lossing's

_Schuyler_, ii. 16), and on the American side plans of obstructing

and defending the river had been made as early as Sept., 1775, and

they ever after constituted a chief anxiety of the continental and

provincial authorities.[743] Several early maps making record of these

efforts have been preserved.[744]

[Illustration: FORT MONTGOMERY, MAY 31, 1776.]

[Illustration: CHAIN AT FORT MONTGOMERY.

Reduced from the cut in Ruttenber's _Obstructions to the Navigation of

Hudson's River_, p. 64.

KEY. A, Fort Montgomery. B, Fort Clinton. C, Poplopen's Kill. D,

Anthony's Nose. _a_, floats to chain. _b b b_, boom in front of chain.

_c c c_, chain. _d_, rock at which the chain was secured and large

iron roller. _e e_, cribs and anchors. _f_, blocks and purchase for

tightening chain. _g h_, ground batteries for defence of chain. [S,

section showing floats and chain; _c c c_, chain; _f f f_, floats.]

The cut follows the original drawing found in the papers of the secret

committee. There is a plate showing the boom and chain at West Point in

Boynton's _West Point_, p. 70.]

The anomalous condition of New York during the later part of 1775 is

shown from the Tory point of view in Jones's _New York during the

Revolution_. Rivington's press was destroyed in Nov., 1775 (_N. Y. City

Manual_, 1868, p. 813). There was an irruption from New Jersey into

Long Island in Jan., 1776 (Jones, i. 68). In Feb. the military control

appears in Col. David Waterbury's orderly-book (_Mag. of American

Hist._, Dec., 1884, p. 555). Moore gives current published reports,

including Gov. Tryon's proclamation in March (_Diary of the Rev._, i.

216). During the same month Lee made a report on the fortifications of

the city (_N. Y. Hist. Soc. Coll._, 1871, p. 354), and Field, in his

_Battle of Long Island_, traces the measures of Lee to convert New York

into a camp and to root out the Tories on Long Island.

[Illustration: CONSTITUTION ISLAND, 1776.

From the _Sparks Maps_. KEY: "A, Gravel Hill battery, 11 guns. B, Hill

clift battery, 3 in front, not finished. C, Marine battery, 8 guns. D,

Romain's battery, 14 guns. E, Round Tower, 8 guns." These works were

later commanded by those erected at West Point.]

Stirling had also been exercising command in New York (Duer's

_Stirling_, 139), and had seized Gov. Franklin of New Jersey (_N. J.

Archives_, x. 702). In April, 1776, Putnam arrived with instructions

from Washington (Sparks's _Washington_, iii. 337), finding Heath fresh

from a review of the troops (Moore, i. 228).[745]

With the arrival of Washington in the middle of April, 1776, the

campaign may be said to have begun. His batteries soon sent the

few British ships in the harbor down to Sandy Hook, and Benjamin

Tupper, commanding the little American flotilla, tried to destroy the

lighthouse at that point, June 21.[746] Beside the official letters of

this time there are numerous private ones.[747]

Late in June and early in July Lord Howe's fleet arrived in the lower

harbor, and the troops were landed on Staten Island.[748]

The harbor of New York necessarily had more or less hydrographical

treatment in all the early plans. Before the outbreak of hostilities,

this may be seen, not only in the Des Barres series of maps, but in

the chart of 1764,[749] reproduced in Valentine's _Manual_ (1861, p.

597).[750] After the war began, we find several harbor maps worthy of

note.[751]

During June came the plot for assassinating Washington in New

York.[752] Washington was discouraged with the progress of the

recruiting. "Washington and Mercer's camps recruit with amazing

slowness", wrote Jefferson from Philadelphia, July 20th.[753] Mercer

commanded the Flying Camp of militia from Pennsylvania, Delaware, and

Maryland, which were hovering between the British and Philadelphia.[754]

Clinton's expeditionary force returned from Sullivan's Island Aug. 1st,

and the active campaign began when, three weeks later, Howe moved a

large part of his force across from Staten Island[755] to Gravesend,

on Long Island, Aug. 22d, Sir George Collier commanding the fleet

which covered the landing,[756] and the advance then began towards

the lines near Brooklyn which General Greene had had the charge of

constructing.[757]

Respecting the orders antecedent to and during the battle, those

of Washington are in Force; but Johnston adds to them from the

orderly-books.[758] Washington's own account can be found in his

letters to Congress, to Gov. Trumbull, to the Mass. Assembly,[759] and

he probably dictated the letter of Col. Harrison, his secretary, to

Congress.[760]

[Illustration: BATTLE OF LONG ISLAND, 1776.

Sketched from a part of a MS. Hessian map in the library of Congress,

called _Plan générale des opérations de l'armée Britannique contre les

Rebelles_, etc.

KEY: "A, Le camp du Général Howe sur Staten Island à l'arrivée du

général de Heister avec la 1re division des troupes Hessoises le 22

d'Aoust, 1776. B, Le camp qu'on occupa sur Staten Island cette division

après du debarqué. C, L'endroit où les troupes debarquerent sur Long

Island. D, Camp du général Howe près de Gravesend. E, Camp du général

de Heister après la descente sur Long Island le 27 d'Aoust, 1776. F,

Marche de la colonne droite commandée par le général Clinton vers

Bedford dans la nuit du 26 au 27 Aoust. G, Marche de la colonne gauche,

commandée par le général Grant. H, Attaque de l'avant garde du général

Clinton du 27me Aoust. J, Où le général Clinton forma sa colonne pour

continuer l'attaque. K, Attaque du général Grant. L, Attaque du général

de Heister. M, Les lignes des enemis à Brooklin. N, Corps détachés de

l'enemis hors de ses lignes. O, Les redoutes de l'enemis à Readhook. Q,

Les redoutes à Gouverneur island."

The lines (·—·—) represent roads. The blocks, half-black and

half-white, are the Americans; those divided diagonally are the

Hessians; the solid black are the British.

A Hessian officer's map, obtained from Brunswick, and showing Ratzer's

topography, is given in fac-simile in Field's monograph (p. 310), and a

German map of Long Island is given in the _Geographische Belustigungen_

(Leipzig, 1776). There is a somewhat coarse-colored map among the

Rochambeau maps (no. 25), measuring fifteen inches wide by eighteen

high, called _Attaque de l'armée des Provinciaux dans Long Island du 27

Août, 1776_. _Publié, 1776._ A MS. "Plan of the Attack of the Rebels

on Long Island by an officer of the army" is among the Faden maps (no.

56) in the library of Congress. The map used in Stedman is re-engraved,

with additions, in Irving's _Washington_, illus. ed., ii. 309.]

[Illustration: LONG ISLAND, AUGUST, 27, 1776.

Sketched from a large _Plan of the Battle of Long Island and of the

Brooklyn defences, Aug. 27, 1776, compiled by Henry P. Johnston_,

which accompanies his _Campaign of 1776_, and is based, as he says, on

Ratzer's map of Brooklyn (1767-68) and the United States coast survey.

Before daylight on the morning of the 27th, the British advance under

General Grant disturbed the American pickets at the Red Lion, which

is near the westerly angle of the present Greenwood Cemetery area,

marked on the plan with a dotted line. As the day wore on, the conflict

pressed between the British at P and Q and the Americans under Stirling

and Parsons at O and N,—Smallwood's Marylanders holding the extreme

right on the water, and Huntington's Connecticut regiment on the

extreme left. Johnston (p. 165) says Stirling's position was between

18th and 20th streets of the modern Brooklyn, and not as Sparks's map

places him, near the Narrows. Meanwhile, a British column at 9 o'clock

the previous evening had begun to move from Flatlands, and at 3 the

next morning captured an American patrol at B, and at 6 the British

column (marching in this order,—Clinton, Cornwallis, Percy, Howe)

neared the American advance under Miles at C, who retired; and at 9

A. M. the British column was at Bedford and threw out a force to M,

which began to attack the American outposts of D (Miles), E (Wyley),

and F (Chester), forcing them to retire upon Sullivan, who commanded

the forces of Johnston (H), Hitchcock (J), and Little (G), with pickets

at K,—all within or near the present limits of Prospect Park, shown

by the dotted line. Threatened by the British flanking column as well

as by the Hessians in front, approaching from Flatbush under Heister

with the commands of Von Stirn (S), Von Mirbach (T), and Donop (U),

the Americans, after the capture of Sullivan himself, retreated as

best they could across the creek and got within the lines. The column

of the British advancing from Bedford threw out a force under Vaughan

towards L to menace Fort Putnam and that part of the American works,

while Cornwallis advancing towards R had a conflict there round the

Cortelyou house at 11.30 A. M. with Stirling, who was trying to check

this rear attack of the British, while such of his troops as could be

controlled retreated from N and O, and, passing the marsh, crossed

the creek (half a dozen or so being drowned), and reached dry land

near some redoubts within the American line of defence. The point A

represents the position of the present City Hall of Brooklyn. Stirling,

meanwhile, with Smallwood's Marylanders in danger of being crushed

between Cornwallis and Grant, and foiled in the attempt to reach Fort

Box, retreated towards Flatbush, but encountered in that direction Gen.

Heister's Hessians, and gave himself up to that officer.

T. W. Field in his monograph, the _Battle of Long Island_, gives a

large plan showing the relations of the modern streets to the old

landmarks, and marking "the natural defensible line, as nearly as it

could be authenticated by documentary and traditionary evidence."

Field adds that "the routes of the British were generally over country

roads long since abandoned, and now covered with buildings; but their

localities were accurately surveyed by the author before their traces

were lost." Field also says (p. 145) that the American works were at

once levelled by the British, and new ones were erected on interior

lines. (Cf. G. W. Greene's _General Greene_, i. 159.) These latter

lines are shown, as well as the earlier American works, in a _Map of

Brooklyn at the time of the Revolution_, drawn by Gen. Jeremiah Johnson

(Valentine's _Manual_, 1858). A rude map by J. Ewing, made Sept., 1776,

is given in fac-simile in Johnston's _Campaign of 1776_ (Documents, p.

50) and in 2d ser. _Penna. Archives_, x. 194. Dr. Stiles made a rough

plan in his diary, which he based upon a map of the ground and upon the

information given him by one who was at Red Hook at the time. It is

given in fac-simile by Johnston (p. 70).

The plan in Carrington's _Battles_ (p. 214) is extended enough to

illustrate the movements after the British occupation of New York;

that in H. R. Stiles's _Brooklyn_ (vol. i. 250) is an eclectic one,

made with care, and his text attempts to identify the position of the

lines and forts in relation to present landmarks. Gordon acknowledges

receiving from Greene a map improved by that general (_Hist. Mag._,

xiii. 25).

There are other plans in Marshall's _Washington_ (large and small

atlas); Sparks's _Washington_, iv. 68, repeated in Duer's _Stirling_

(p. 162); Guizot's _Washington_; Samuel Ward's lecture on the battle,

1839; J. T. Bailey's _Hist. Sketch of Brooklyn_ (Brooklyn, 1840); W.

L. Stone's _New York City_, p. 246; Henry Onderdonk, Jr.'s _Queens

County_, and _Suffolk and Kings Counties_; Ridpath's _United States_;

Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 806, 809, 810; Lowell's _Hessians_;

_Harper's Monthly_, Aug., 1876. Ratzer's map of Brooklyn is reproduced

in Stiles's _Brooklyn_ (i. 63), with a view of the same date (p. 217).

Cf. map in Valentine's _N. Y. Manual_ (1856). Cf. the bibliography

of Long Island in _Amer. Bibliopolist_, Oct., 1872, and in Furman's

_Antiquities of Long Island_, App.]

Sullivan's letter is in effect a defence of himself,[761] and other

letters from participants and observers are preserved,[762] as well as

journals of actors on the field,[763] and other personal recitals,[764]

and narratives in the public press.[765] On the British side we have

Howe's despatch[766] of Sept. 3, with the comments and inquiry which

it elicited,[767] and the report and journals of Sir George Collier,

in command of the fleet.[768] In addition we have a number of personal

experiences and accounts of eye-witnesses,[769] as well as statements

from the German participants.[770]

The circumstances of the battle and retreat have occasioned some

controversy, in which Bancroft has been criticised by the grandsons of

Gen. Greene[771] and Joseph Reed.[772]

Respecting the armies on both sides and their losses, there is ground

for dispute. It is claimed that the British had about double the

numbers of the Americans, and the losses of killed and wounded were

about equal on both sides, though the Americans also lost heavily in

prisoners.[773] But on this point see the preceding chapter.

Without enumerating at length the treatment of the general

histories,[774] and the biographies of participants,[775] the battle

of Long Island has had much special local[776] and monographic

treatment, particularly at the hands of Field, Johnston, Dawson, and

Carrington.[777] On the English side we have contemporary and later

examples of historical treatment.[778] It was the first substantial

victory for the royal arms, and had little of the disheartening

influence which the forcing of the redoubt at Bunker Hill had brought

with it. The effect was correspondingly inspiriting to the Tories in

America and to the government party in England.[779]

* * * * *

In transferring the scene across the river to New York, it is best

in the first place to trace the topography of the town and island by

the maps of the period, and to follow the cartographical records of

the military movements during the campaign, before classifying the

authorities.

John Hill's large plan of New York, extending as far north as

Thirty-fourth Street, surveyed in 1782, and dedicated to Gov. George

Clinton, was drawn in 1785.[780] He marks all the works of the

Revolution,—coloring yellow those thrown up by the Americans in

1776; orange, those of the Americans which the British repaired; and

green, those later erected by the royal forces. Johnston's map[781]

adopts these yellow lines. Loosing (_Field-Book_, ii. 593, 799), in

describing the New York lines, differs somewhat from Hill's map.

Johnston controverts Jones and De Lancey (Jones's _New York during the

Revolutionary War_), who claim that the American lines were levelled by

the British; he also cites Smythe, who described them in March, 1777,

as was also done by Thomas Eddis in Aug., 1777,[782] and by Anburey

in 1781, and he depends on Hill's draft of them in 1782. Johnston (p.

36) also describes the appearance of the town at the opening of the

war.[783] Johnston (p. 194) claims that his eclectic map is the first

to give the entire island as it was in 1776. He followed the surveys

of Ratzer and Montresor as far north as Fiftieth Street, and from that

point to Kingsbridge he used the map of 1814, made by Randall for the

commissioners to lay out streets. The annexed sketch of Johnston's map

shows the fortifications surrounding the town of New York.

[Illustration: PART OF RATZER'S SMALLER MAP OF NEW YORK CITY.

The following key explains the figures: 1, Fort George; 2, Trinity

Church; 5, Old Dutch Church; 6, New Eng. Dutch Church; 8, Presbyterian

meeting; 10, French Church; 11, Lutheran Church; 13, Calvinist Church;

16, New Scots' meeting; 17, Quakers' meeting; 18, Jews' synagogue;

20, Free English School; 21, Secretary's office; 22, City Hall; 25,

Exchange; 26, Barracks; 27, Fish Market; 28, Old slip; 31, Oswego

Market.

This is the best contemporary map on a large scale of the city of New

York. It is dedicated to Gov. Moore, and made after surveys by Lieut.

B. Ratzer in 1767. The whole map is given in Valentine's _Manual_,

1854; Dawson's _New York City during the Amer. Rev._ (1861); Jones's

_N. Y. during the Rev. War_, i. 388. There is an original in Harvard

College library. Cf. _Map Catal. Brit. Mus._, 1885, col. 2972. It was

reissued in 1776 and 1777. Cf. Lamb's _New York_, i. 757, 760. This

map of the town is a different one from Ratzer's map of the city and

vicinity, which has at the bottom a southwest view of the town.

Thomas Kitchen, the English cartographer, published a map, after

Ratzer's surveys, of New York city and vicinity in the _London Mag._,

1778. It has been reproduced in Shannon's _N. Y. City Manual_, 1869,

and in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, 1885, p. 549.

_A Plan of the City of New York and its Environs_, "surveyed in the

winter of 1766", and dedicated to Gen. Gage by John Montresor, is given

in Jefferys' _General Topog. of North America and the West Indies_

(London, 1768). Another form of it, purporting to be a later work, is

the large folding _Plan of the City of New York and its environs, ...

surveyed in the winter, 1775_, also dedicated to Gen. Gage by John

Montresor, and published in London. It has been reproduced in D. T.

Valentine's _N. Y. City Manual_, 1855, p. 482. It has a corner chart of

the bay from Hoboken to Sandy Hook. Cf. the _American Atlas_, nos. 20

and 25. Montresor's plan was reproduced in Paris by Le Rouge in 1777.

Major Holland, the British surveyor-general, made a plan of the city

of New York, which appeared separately and as a part of his _Map of

New York and New Jersey_ (1776). Cf. Valentine's _Manual_, 1863, p.

533, and the small plan of New York and vicinity, eight miles to an

inch, which is given in _New York City in the Revolution_ (1861). A

plan of part of the city made in 1771 is given in Valentine's _Manual_,

1856, p. 426. There are among the Rochambeau maps several plans of New

York and its environs, rather coarse and faded (nos. 26, 27, 28, 31).

Contemporary printed maps are in Gaine's _Universal Register_ (N. Y.,

1776) and in the _Universal Mag._, 1776.

A survey of the region of Turtle Bay in 1771 is given in Valentine's

_Manual_, 1860, p. 572, and a view at a later day in _Ibid._, 1858,

p. 600. A MS. plan of Fort George (New York) by Sauthier is among the

Faden maps (no. 95) in the library of Congress.]

Howe was much criticised for his dilatoriness and his failure promptly

to use his fleet to get in the rear of Washington's army.[784] There

was a division of counsels among Washington's officers as to the

advisability of attempting to hold the city; but a decision to evacuate

finally prevailed.[785] Washington's army was gradually dwindling,

for Congress and the country had hardly reached a conception of the

necessity of long enlistments.[786] Finally on Sept. 15th the British

passed over from Long Island to Kip's Bay, and the Americans fled in

a panic;[787] and, with loss of many stores, Washington gathered his

forces within the Harlem lines. Johnston's draft of the works on Harlem

Heights follows Sauthier's plan. The site of the fight thereabouts is

west of Eighth Avenue and north of One Hundred and Twenty-fifth Street

of the modern city. Johnston (p. 258) identifies the localities by the

present landmarks, and says (p.264) that "some of the works are well

preserved to-day" (1878). He also says that Randall, when he surveyed

the island in 1812, found the remains of the works agreeing with

Sauthier's drafts.[788]

Sauthier's draft of the conflict at Harlem Plains is reproduced in

the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._, May, 1880. Later plans of the locality,

drawn with reference to the landmarks of the battle, or interesting

for comparison, are the map of 1814 in Valentine's _Manual_ (1856) and

the large folding plan of the upper part of New York, with the modern

streets, upon which, in colors, is superposed a draft of this action.

This last is given, with an account of the fight, in Shannon's _N. Y.

City Manual_, 1868, p. 812.[789] We may note some of the principal

contemporary and later authorities on this action of Harlem Plains.[790]

The origin of the fire of Sept. 21st, by which a considerable part of

New York was burned, has been a subject of dispute, the Tories charging

it upon the Americans;[791] but later authorities, English as well as

American, agree in not believing it the work of incendiaries. It is

known that Washington advocated the burning of the city if evacuation

became necessary, and Jones (i. p. 84) says committees of Congress had

agreed upon it, but that body certainly in the end directed Washington

to spare it (_Journals_, Sept. 3, 1776).[792]

[Illustration: JOHNSTON'S NEW YORK ISLAND, 1776.

A marks the position of Trinity Church; B, the City Hall Park; C,

the Mortier house, the American headquarters; D, Badlam's fort; E,

Spencer's fort; F, the redoubt on Jones's hill; G, Bayard Hill fort; H,

Hospital. Fort Stirling, in Brooklyn, is at K. The figures represent

the batteries and redoubts: 1, Grand battery; 2, Whitehall battery;

3, Waterbury's battery; 4, redoubts; 5, Grenadier battery; 6, Jersey

battery; 7, McDougal's battery; 8, Oyster (?) battery. The other marks

indicate the positions of barricades.

When the British, leaving Newtown Creek, on Long Island, landed at

Kip's Bay, the shore batteries thereabouts were abandoned by the

Americans. Scott, at L, retreated by the broken line (— — —), and

crossed along Bowery Lane, the ground now covered by Union and Madison

squares (shown by the dotted oblongs). Wadsworth and Douglas retreated

from M and N respectively, back upon Parsons at P and Fellows at Q,

and all pursued the Bloomingdale road, just skirting the southwesterly

corner of the area now known as Central Park (the large dotted oblong

E E). Meanwhile, the garrison of the town lines, under Putnam and

Silliman, retreated by the road leading from Fort G towards Greenwich;

and near Bloomingdale the several columns joined and pursued their

march to the lines on the heights above Harlem. Parton (_Life of Burr_,

86) describes how Burr at this time led Knox's brigade successfully

away from Bunker Hill. Howe, who had advanced from Kip's Bay, dallied

at the Murray house at O, and so failed to intercept the fugitives.

Chester (R) and Sargeant (S) also deserted the works at Horn's Hook,

and, striking the Kingsbridge or post read, retreated through McGowan's

Pass at T. Thus all, by one road or another, got within the lines on

Harlem Heights. Farther on in the text this map will be again referred

to, for later movements. Cf. map in Gay's _Pop. Hist. U. S._, iii.

491.]

[Illustration: THE SAUTHIER-FADEN PLAN, 1776.]

The movement of Howe, which now forced Washington off New York Island

and to a position at White Plains, is illustrated by a sketch of the

"Sauthier-Faden plan", herewith given, and which may be explained

by the annexed note[793] in connection with the special original

sources,[794] and later historians.[795]

The reader may now revert to two outline maps already given, namely

_Johnston's New York Island_ and the _Sauthier-Faden plan_, in order to

follow the movements which led to the fall of Fort Washington, using

the annexed descriptive key;[796] but the outline of the original

sources of the fall of Fort Washington, as well as the later accounts,

are much the same as for the earlier events of the campaign.[797]

[Illustration: FORT WASHINGTON AND DEPENDENCIES.]

[Illustration:

A part of the map made by Claude Joseph Sauthier in 1774, by order of

Gov. Tryon, and published by William Faden in London, Jan. 1, 1779, as

a _Chorographical Map of the Province of New York in North America,

Compiled from actual surveys deposited in the Patent Office at New

York_. This section is reproduced from a reduction made in 1849 by

David Vaughan, and published in the _Doc. Hist. N. Y._, vol. i., where

Tryon's report on the province in 1774 is printed. There is a copy of

the original in Harvard College library (portfolio 3520). It was the

basis of the map _Carte des troubles de l'Amérique, par ordre du Chev.

Tryon, par Sauthier et Ratzer, traduite de l'Anglais, à Paris, chez

Le Rouge_, 1778, which is included in the _Atlas Amériquain_, no. 15.

It was also followed in maps published at Augsburg in 1777, and at

Nuremberg, 1778. There is another _Special Karte von den Brittischen

Colonien in Nord America_, showing the New England and Middle colonies,

published in Christian Leiste's _Beschreibung des Brittischen Amerika

zur Ersparung der Englischen Karten_, Wolfenbüttel, 1778. An English

map with a Swedish title, _Krigs Theatre in America_, is found in the

_Beskrifning öfver de Engelska Colonierne i Nord America, 1776-1777_

(Stockholm, 1777). Sauthier's surveys also appear in _A map of the

province of New York by Sauthier, to which is added New Jersey from

the topographical observations of Sauthier and Ratzer_, 1776. Cf.

also _A map of the provinces of New York and New Jersey ... from the

topographical observations of Sauthier_, Lotter, 1777 (_Brit. Mus.

Maps_, 1885, col. 3,666).

Sauthier's drafts may be compared with _A map of the province of New

York with part of Pensilvania and New England from an actual survey by

Captain Montresor, engineer, 1775_, which was published in London, June

10, 1775, by A. Dury, making four sheets, and was republished "with

great improvements", April 1, 1777 (_Brit. Mus. Map Catal._, 1885, col.

2,969). It was reëngraved in Paris and published in 1777 by Le Rouge,

separately, and as nos. 13 and 14 of the _Atlas Amériquain_ in 1778.

Ithiel Town, in the preface of his _Particular services_, etc.,—now

a scarce book, as only seventy copies escaped a fire,—speaks of his

having obtained from a family near London maps of the American war,

mostly about Boston, New York, and Philadelphia, made by Montresor,

which were submitted to Marshall. There is a portrait and account of

Montresor in Scull's _Evelyns in America_, 251.

Another important map is _The Provinces of New York and New Jersey with

part of Pensilvania and the province of Quebec, drawn by Major Holland,

Surveyor-General of the northern district in America, corrected and

improved from the original materials by Govern^r, Pownall, Member of

Parliament_. It was first published in London, June 15, 1775, and in a

second edition, in 1776, there were added to it marginal maps of Amboy

and the city and bay of New York. The _Brit. Mus. Map_, 1885, col.

2,969, shows the plates with different titles, dated 1775, 1776; also

Frankfort, 1777, and London, 1777. Cf. the map in Mills's _Boundaries

of Ontario_; the Evans map as reproduced by Jefferys, 1775 (see Vol.

V. p. 85); the map in the _American Atlas_, and that of the country

from the Chesapeake to the Connecticut, in the _Gent. Mag._, September,

1776.]

The letters of Washington and Greene are still the main source

of information for the evacuation of Fort Lee, which at once

followed.[798]

It may be well now to note some of the contemporary maps of the whole

campaign, as indicating the extent and character of the geographical

knowledge then current. The earliest of these is one which appeared

in the supplement (p. 607) of the _Gentleman's Magazine_, 1776, and

is called a _Map of the Progress of his Majesty's Armies_. Two of the

American household manuals, _Low's Almanac_ (1776) and _Isaac Warren's

Almanac_ (1777), had the same rude cut, a fac-simile of which, with the

key, is shown below.

[Illustration: LOW'S ALMANAC, 1777.

KEY: A, Gen. Washington's lines on New York Island; B, fort at Powles

Hook; C, Bunker Hill, near New York; D, the Sound; E, Kingsbridge; F,

Hell Gate; G, Fort Constitution [Washington]; H, Mount Washington; I,

Governor's Island.]

A popular map (price one shilling) of _The Country twenty-five miles

round New York, drawn by a gentleman from that City_, was also

published in London, Jan. 1, 1777, by W. Hawkes, with a chronological

table of events from Dec. 16, 1773, to Oct. 18, 1776.

Des Barres issued in London, Jan. 17, 1777, a large map, _Plan of the

operations of the army and fleet of Admiral and Lord Howe near New

York, 1776_,[799] and a more popular presentation of the same field was

made in the _Political Mag._, vol. ii. p. 657. The earliest attempt

at historical rendering, Capt. Hall's _History of the Civil War in

America_ (London, 1780), was accompanied by a map, a portion of which

is here given in fac-simile; and Gordon (ii. 310), a few years later,

gave an eclectic map, made in the main from American data.[800]

[Illustration: NEW YORK AND VICINITY.

(_Political Mag._)]

[Illustration: CAMPAIGN OF 1776. (_Hall._)

A, the landing of the British near Utrecht on Long Island, under cover

of the "Phœnix", "Rose", and "Greyhound", with the "Thunder" and

"Carcass" bombs, Aug. 22, 1776; B, pass at Flatbush and field of action

where the rebels were defeated, Aug. 27th; C, British and Hessian

encampment, Aug. 28th; D, encampments of the British army, Sept. 1st;

E, embarkation of the British troops at Newtown Inlet, and then landing

at New York Island, Sept. 15th; F, skirmish on Vanderwater's Height,

the rebels retiring, Sept. 16th; G, route of British in boats to Frog's

Neck, Oct. 12th; H, several corps of British troops in boats go to

Pell's Point, Oct. 18th; I, skirmish, rebels routed, Oct. 18th. Then

followed fighting at Mararo Neck (shown on the full map), the rebels

retreating, Oct. 21st; on the road to Kingsbridge, Oct. 23d; again

approaching White Plains, Oct. 28th; at Brunx's River, Oct. 28th;

followed Nov. 1st by the rebel evacuation of their intrenchments near

White Plains, and by Cornwallis's landing on the Jersey shore, Nov.

18th. Q, attack on Fort Washington, Nov. 16th; R, Fort Lee surprised,

Nov. 20th.]

In giving detailed references for the several stages of the campaign,

the letters from and to Washington have been a source of the first

importance; and beside those given by Sparks in his printed works,

there are others registered in the _Sparks MSS._ (no. xxix.), the

_Heath Papers_ (_Mass. Hist. Coll._, xliv.), not to name less important

gatherings,[801] all of which form a general running commentary on

events of the summer's and autumn's campaign, which could be further

elucidated by the memoirs of Heath and Graydon, the lives of Reed and

Greene, and by various diaries on both sides.[802]

[Illustration: CAMPAIGN ABOVE NEW YORK, 1776.

A section of a large Hessian map in the library of Congress, _Plan

général des opérations de l'armée Britannique contre les Rebelles_,

etc. The lines (·—·—) represent roads. KEY: "3, Marche du général de

Heister et le camp qu'il occupa le 14^{me} Juin.—-S, Les batteries

faites à Remsen's Mill à Hell Gate. T, Lieu du rendezvous donné aux

troupes destinées à faire une descente sur York islande. U, Les

vaisseaux de guerre postes pour proteger cette descente. V, Descente

de l'armée sur York island. W, Position d'une partie de la première

division après la descente. Y, Redoutes de l'armée devant son camp.

Z, Où le général Howe, après avoir laissé le général Percy sur York

island, debarqua et campa avec le général de Heister le 12^{me} Oct.,

1776.—_a_, Descente du général Clinton à Pell's point le 18 Oct. _b_,

Camp de l'armée depuis New Rochelle jusqu'à Pell's Point. _c_, Camp du

général de Knyphausen après son arrivée avec la 2^{de} division des

Troupes Hessoises le 23^{me} Oct. _d_, Marche de la colonne droite

sous les ordres du général Clinton. _e_, Celle de la colonne gauche

commandée par le général de Heister. _f_, Engagement du général de

Heister avec l'enemis aux environs de White Plains [apparently not on

the original map]. _g_, Position de l'enemis après sa retraite. _h_,

Position de l'armée. _i_, Position des généraux Clinton et Heister

à Dobbs' Ferry. _k_, Position de général Cornwallis à Courtland

House. _m_, Campement de toute l'armée après que pleusieurs regiments

laissés dans differents endroits par le général de Knyphausen l'eurent

rejoints. _n_, La colonne droite du général de Knyphausen sous les

ordres du Colonel Rall. _o_, Où le général Cornwallis se placa pour

soutenir l'attaque du Fort Washington. _p_, Corps commandé par le

général Matheu. _q_, Descente des troupes Angloises. _r_, Attaque du

général Sterling vis-a-vis de Morris House. _s_, Batteries faites pour

soutenir l'attaque. _t_, Batteries construites de l'autre coté du creek

d'Harlem. _u_, Le fort du Washington avec ses lignes de defences. _v_,

Attaque du général Percy."

There is among the Rochambeau maps (no. 24), measuring about 16 inches

wide by 18 high, a map of the campaigns of 1776 and 1777, giving detail

with considerable precision, and accompanied by a good key.]

=II.= THE NORTHERN CAMPAIGN, 1776-1777.—Gates had taken command

in Canada early in the summer of 1776, under instructions from

Washington;[803] but as his army fell back within the department which

had been assigned to Schuyler, questions of authority arose between

them.[804]

The condition of the army during the summer is noted in Colonel

Trumbull's _Autobiography_ (p. 302), and in General Gates's returns of

September 22, 1776, in 5 _Force's American Archives_ (ii. 479).[805]

There is a list of armed vessels on Lake Champlain in 1776 in _Letters

and Papers_, 1761-1776 (MSS. in Mass. Hist. Soc.). Arnold received his

instructions from Gates.[806]

Arnold's reports on the fight near Valcour's Island, Oct., 1776, are

dated Oct. 12 (to Gates) and Oct. 15 (to Schuyler).[807]

Waterbury's account to Congress, Oct. 24, is in Dawson (i. p. 173) and

in _Hadden's Journal_ (App.). Gen. Maxwell gave no very flattering

account of Arnold's manœuvres in a letter from Ticonderoga, Oct. 20, in

Sedgwick's _Livingston_ (p. 209).[808]

On the English side, Carleton's despatch, Oct. 14, and Capt. Pringle's,

are in Dawson (pp. 174, 175). The Hanau artillerist Pausch covers the

fight in his journal.[809]

[Illustration: ARNOLD'S FIGHT. (_Sparks's copy._)

KEY: A, schooner "Carleton." B, the "Royal Savage" on shore, and burnt

on the 11th of October. C, the "Inflexible." D, schooner "Maria." E,

gondola "Royal Convert. F, radeau Thunderer." G, Point au Sable is

forty-eight miles from Crown Point. H, The French vessels sunk here in

1759.

The map of the action accompanying _Hadden's Journal_ (p. 23) is very

similar to the Sparks map; and a marginal note says that the gunboats

are from 30 to 36 feet long, and 10, 16, or 18 feet wide. Gen. Rogers

thinks Hadden's map is based on Brassier, whose amended plate is in

the _American Pocket Atlas_ (1776). Rogers objects to the view that

Arnold's retreat was round the north end of Valcour's Island (instead

of the route marked on the map), as has been maintained by Palmer in

his _Lake Champlain_, and by W. C. Watson in the _Amer. Hist. Record_

(iii. 438, 501) and _Mag. of Amer. Hist._ (June, 1881, vol. vi. p.

414).]

The earliest plan of this naval action seems to have been added to the

then recently published plate of Lake Champlain, engraved after surveys

by William Brassier, by order of Amherst, in 1762,[810] which, with

Jackson's survey of Lake George, was published by Sayer and Bennett,

in London, Aug. 5, 1776. Some copies of the map with the same date

show the position of Arnold's fight of Oct. 11. The plate has been

altered at that point, and it is this section of the map which Lossing

copies in his _Field-Book_[811] (i. 163) and in his paper in _Harper's

Monthly_ (vol. xxiii. p. 726). The annexed sketch is based upon a plan

in the Sparks maps (Cornell University), kindly transmitted to the

editor by the librarian.[812]

* * * * *

In the winter of 1776-77, Burgoyne had submitted to the government

some "Thoughts for conducting the war from the side of Canada",—a

paper which, barring some important changes, became the scheme of the

summer's plans.[813]

The stages of the preparation in Canada can be followed in _Force's

American Archives_; and references will be found in the _Index to MSS.

in the British Museum_ (particularly under "Canada" and "Burgoyne", in

those acquired 1854-1875).[814]

The records of the Germans are mentioned in Lowell's _Hessians_ (p.

117), and in the sources indicated by Mr. Lowell in another chapter of

the present volume[815]

In the spring of 1777 St. Clair was designated for the command at

Ticonderoga, the advanced post against the invasion of Burgoyne (_St.

Clair Papers_). The light-headed Sullivan thought it unfair that he

was not selected for the post (_Correspondence of the Rev._, i. 352).

The British onset was appalling. James Lovell, in March, wrote, "It

is plain that we must look forward for another summer's bloody work"

(_Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._, April, 1860, p. 9). Congress was emphasizing

the stories of British brutality (_Journals of Congress_, ii. 97).

On May 22d Schuyler had been confirmed in his command of the Northern

department, and Gates had gone to Philadelphia to lay his grievances

before Congress (Lossing's _Schuyler_, ii.; Irving's _Washington_,

iii.). Burgoyne (Fonblanque, App. E) was talking to his Indians in

June, and two days later he made his famous proclamation to frighten or

allure the country people. Fonblanque (p. 23) is not unmindful of its

unworthy bombast, and Lecky (vi. 64) says it was "greatly and justly

blamed."[816]

There will be occasion later to enumerate the maps illustrating the

successive stages and conflicts of the campaign; but it may be well

at this point to append in a note the principal maps of the entire

movement of the British army, which cover also the field of its actions

on both flanks.[817]

The most important source respecting the siege and evacuation of

Ticonderoga is the _Proceedings of a General Court Martial, held at

Whiteplains, N. Y., for the trial of Maj.-Gen. St. Clair, Aug. 25,

1778_ (Philad., 1778).[818] It was reprinted in the _Collections_ of

the N. Y. Hist. Soc. in 1880. It includes various letters of Schuyler

and St. Clair in June (pp. 14, 101, 121, etc.), the doings of the

council of war, July 5th, which decided upon a retreat (p. 33), and the

letters of St. Clair at Ticonderoga, and one to Hancock, July 14th,

from Fort Edward (p. 69, etc.). Three days later, July 17th, St. Clair

sent an account from Fort Edward to Washington, which, with the letter

of Schuyler, likewise to Washington, is in Sparks's _Corresp. of the

Rev._, i. 393, 400.[819] Much of this material is also included in the

published _St. Clair Papers_.[820] Sparks had earlier added copies of

some of the St. Clair papers to his Collection of Manuscripts.[821]

On the English side, Burgoyne's letters are in Fonblanque's _Burgoyne_

(p. 248), _Gent. Mag._, Aug., 1777, and Dawson's _Battles_. Anburey's

_Travels_ (letter xxx.) throws some light.

For the effect of the evacuation on the country, see _Journals of

Congress_, iv. 719; Wells's _Sam. Adams_, ii. 485, 488; _Diplomatic

Correspondence of the Amer. Rev._, i. 315. The apprehension felt in the

adjacent country is shown in letters of Ira Allen and others in the _N.

H. State Papers_, viii. 632, 633, 643, 644, 648, 651.

We have some contemporary maps of Ticonderoga previous to and during

the siege. In August, 1776, Colonel John Trumbull made a plan which

is engraved in his _Autobiography_ (N. Y., 1841, p. 32),[822] and is

reproduced herewith.[823] The map used at the trial of St. Clair is

engraved in the _Proceedings_; and from a MS. copy made for Sparks, and

now at Cornell University, the annexed sketch (p. 353) is drawn.

On the affair at Hubbardton, July 7th, the official accounts of St.

Clair (July 14th) and Burgoyne (July 11th) are given in Dawson's

_Battles_ (i. 224, 229, 231), and other contemporary accounts in the

_Vermont Hist. Soc. Coll._, i. p. 168, etc.[824]

In Burgoyne's _State of the Expedition_ is a "plan of the action at

Huberton under Brig.-Gen. Fraser, supported by Maj.-Gen. Riedesel, on

the 7th July, 1777, drawn by P. Gerlach, engraved by Wm. Faden", and

published at London, Feb. 1, 1780.[825] Three days later, Burgoyne

(July 10) issued a proclamation to the inhabitants of Vermont, and

Schuyler (July 13) made a counter proclamation.[826]

* * * * *

The chief sources of documentary evidence regarding the movements in

1777 around Fort Stanwix are _5 Force's Archives_ (vols. i., ii.,

and iii.) and the Gansevoort Papers (copies in _Sparks MSS._, lx.),

including a letter of Arnold, August 22, 1777, dated at German Flats,

which Sparks has indorsed "evidently intended to be intercepted." On

the American side, we have further Colonel Willet's letter[827] to

Trumbull, Aug. 11th, in Dawson (i. 248); the account in the _Penna.

Evening Post_, given in Moore's _Diary_ (i. 477); Wilkinson's _Memoirs_

(pp. 204, 212); the _Journals of the New York Provincial Congress_

(vol. i.); and Sparks's _Corresp. of the Rev._ (ii. 578). Gordon gives

some details from eye-witnesses, mainly through reports made to him

by the Rev. Samuel Kirkland. Dwight picked up anecdotes about the

battlefield in 1799, which he prints in his _Travels_ (vol. iii.).

The best eclectic accounts are those by William L. Stone, father and

son,—the elder giving us his _Life of Brant_ (i. ch. 10 and 11), and

the younger, his _Orderly-book of Sir John Johnson during the Oriskany

campaign, 1776-1777, annotated by William L. Stone. With an historical

introduction illustrating the life of Sir John Johnson, by J. Watts

De Peyster. And some tracings from the footprints of the tories or

loyalists in America contributed by Theodorus Bailey Myers_ (Albany,

1882), being no. 11 of Munsell's historical series.[828] The younger

Stone's labors took a wider range in that portion of his _Campaign of

Lieutenant-Gen. John Burgoyne_ which is given to the expedition of St.

Leger, though he followed in the main his father's _Life of Brant_. In

the _Orderly-book_, just mentioned, however he modified some of his

views.

There is rather too much of patriotic fervor for a discriminating

analysis in a monograph, _The Battle of Oriskany, its place in History,

an address at the Centennial Celebration, Aug. 6, 1877, by Ellis H.

Roberts_ (Utica, 1877), but it is in most respects valuable and a

convenient gathering of information, not otherwise found without much

trouble, and is well fortified with notes.[829]

The principal English source is the account by St. Leger.[830]

To illustrate the movements near Fort Schuyler or Stanwix, we have

the plan made by Fleury in Sept., 1777, which is engraved in Stone's

_Life of Brant_, i. p. 230,—the essential portion of which is given

herewith.[831]

[Illustration: TICONDEROGA AND ITS DEPENDENCIES. AUGUST, 1776. J. T.

(_Trumbull's Plan._)]

[Illustration: TICONDEROGA, 1777. (_Sketched from the St. Clair trial

map._)

KEY: A, old fort in very bad condition, wanting repair; could not

be defended with less than 500 men. B, stone redoubt; about 200 men

would defend it; overlooketh the line Y, opposite the Lake, in Fort

Independence. C, block-house for 100 men. D, French redoubt upon the

low ground for about 200 men, commanded by the opposite side. E, new

breastwork for 200 men. F, new fleche for 100 men. G, new redoubt for

150 men. H, new redoubt for 100 men. I, redoubt upon the low ground

for 250 men, commanded by the opposite side. K, Jersey redoubt upon

the low ground for 300 men, commanded by the opposite side. L, redoubt

upon the low ground for 100 men. M, redoubt upon the low ground for

100 men. N, French lines upon the high ground; overlooks all the works

on Ticonderoga side; for 2,000 men and not less, considering the

great length and importance of the place. O, P, Q, R, new works in

addition to the French lines. S, high ground occupied by the enemy,

and overlooks the French lines. T, Mount Hope; overlooks ground, S,

occupied by the enemy. U, block-house burnt by the enemy. VV, high

hill; overlooks Ticonderoga and Mount Independence. X, the bridge [and

boom]. Y, line upon the low ground, commanded by the opposite side (B),

for 800 men. Z, barbet battery.

1, sloops. 2, line only marked upon the ground. 3, picket-fort for

600 men. 4, block-house for 100 men. 5, 6, line with three new-made

batteries for 1,500 men and not less. 7, block-house for 100 men. 8,

battery made by the enemy. 9, road made by the enemy to cut off the

communication from Mount Independence to Skenesborough.

The drawn plan in _Hadden's Journal_ (p. 83) speaks of the lines

protecting Fort Independence on the land side as being made "of logs

thrown up but not completed", from which a "path for cattle" led to

Hubbardton. Mount Defiance is called "Sugar Loaf Hill." The English

are represented as landing at the point marked "Camp", and the Germans

on the opposite shore. Gen. Phillips took the position on Mount Hope.

Lossing (_Field-Book_, i. 131) gives a view from the top of Mount

Defiance. A description of the fortifications about Ticonderoga, from

Riedesel's _Memoirs_, is in Stone's _Campaign of Burgoyne_ (p. 434).]

The position of the ground as shown by Fleury can be compared with

that of a _Topographical map of the country between the Mohawk River

and Wood Creek, from an actual survey taken in Nov., 1758_, which is

engraved from the original MS. (in the N. Y. State library) in the

_Doc. Hist. N. Y._ (quarto ed. iv. p. 324), where will also be found

(p. 327) a detailed plan of Fort Stanwix, as erected in 1758 (see Vol.

V., p. 528).[832]

* * * * *

Respecting the action (Aug. 16th) at Bennington, General Lincoln sent

the first accounts to Schuyler, who transmitted them to Washington

(Sparks's _Corresp. of the Rev._, i. 425). Stark's letter to Gates, of

Aug. 22d, is in Wilkinson's _Memoirs_ (p. 209); _Vermont Hist. Coll._

(i. 206); Dawson's _Battles_ (i. 260). His letter of the same day to

the Council of New Hampshire is in the _N. H. State Papers_, viii. 670.

The papers of Stark were used by Sparks in copies in the _Sparks MSS._

(no. xxxix.).[833]

There is in the Gates Papers (copies in _Sparks MSS._, xx.) an "account

of the enemy's loss in the late action of the 16th Aug., 1777, near

Bennington",—amounting to 991 killed, wounded, and prisoners;

Hessians, Canadians, and Tories. American loss, killed, between twenty

and thirty; wounded, not known.[834]

Burgoyne's original instructions to Baum are in the cabinet of the

Mass. Hist. Soc.,[835] and are printed in their _Collections_ (vol.

ii.).[836]

Letters of Baum and Burgoyne, Riedesel's report to the Duke of

Brunswick, Breymann's report[837] to Burgoyne, and Burgoyne's reports

to Germain, are in the _Documents in relation to the part taken by

Vermont in resisting the invasion of Burgoyne_ (_Vt. Hist. Soc. Coll._,

vol. i. pp. 198, 223, 225); Dawson's _Battles_ (i. 261-264); Eelking's

_Riedesel_ (iii. 184, 210, 261). A long account by Glick, a German

officer, is also in the _Vt. Hist. Coll._ (i. 211). On the jealousy of

the British and Hessians, see a letter by Hagan in the _N. E. Hist.

and Geneal. Reg._ (1864, p. 33).[838] An account "by a gentleman who

was present" is copied from the _Penna. Evening Post_, Sept. 4th, in

Moore's _Diary of the Rev._ (p. 479). A narrative by the Rev. Mr.

Allen in the _Connecticut Courant_, Aug. 25th, is copied in Smith's

_Pittsfield, Mass._[839]

[Illustration: FORT STANWIX OR SCHUYLER.

KEY: A, Fort Schuyler. B, Flagstaff, 3 guns. C, Northwest, 4 guns.

D, Northeast, 3 guns. E, Southeast, 4 guns. F, Powder magazine. G,

Laboratory. H, Barracks. I, Hornwork begun. J, Drawbridge. K, Covered

way. L, Glacis. M, Sally-port. N, Commandant's quarters. O, Willett's

attack. The following are British batteries, etc. 1, three guns. 2,

four mortars. 3, three guns. 4, redoubts to cover the batteries. 5,

lines of approaches. 6, British encampment. 7, Loyalists. 8, Indians.

9, ruins of Fort Newport. There is a copy of the map made for Mr.

Sparks among the Sparks Maps at Cornell University.]

The local aspects of the fight are touched upon in Hall's and other

histories of Vermont,[840] and the general authorities necessarily

enlarge more or less upon it, as an episode.[841] At the first

anniversary of the Bennington fight, in 1778, a speech was made by Noah

Smith, which was printed at Hartford in 1779, and is reprinted in the

_Vermont Hist. Coll._ (i. p. 251). On Oct. 20, 1848, James D. Butler

gave an address before the Legislature of Vermont, which "contained

original testimonies of witnesses now long dead, and notes from papers

since burned in the Vermont State House." When printed at Burlington,

in 1849, it was accompanied by an address by George Frederick Houghton

on the life and services of Col. Seth Warner.[842] The centennial

observances of 1877 produced several memorials.[843]

Gen. Carrington (_Battles_, p. 334) gives one of the best plans of

the Bennington fight. There is among the _Sparks MSS._ (no. xxviii.)

a sketch map, with this indorsement by Mr. Sparks: "Drawn by Mr.

Hiland Hall, Bennington, Oct. 13, 1826. Very accurate. Ground examined

by myself at the time." It shows the Walloomsack River (a branch of

the Hoosick River) with the skirting road to Bennington, three times

crossing the river. On this road, going up stream, are marked (in

order) the beginning of the second action, the hill where the stand was

attempted, the places where Breyman was met by Warner, where the cannon

were posted in the first battle, and the line of Stark's advance.

In Burgoyne's _State of the Expedition_ is a plan called "Position of

the Detachment under Lieut.-Col. Baum, at Walmscook, near Bennington,

shewing the attacks of the enemy on the 16th of August, 1777, drawn by

Lieut. Durnford, engineer; engraved by Wm. Faden", and published at

London, Feb. 1, 1780.[844]

* * * * *

Meanwhile Schuyler was gathering an army as best he could. In July

he wrote to Heath that its spirits were recovering (_Heath Papers_,

i. 300). The militia were called out early in August to assist him

(_Journals of Congress_, ii. 214). W. L. Stone tells the story of Moses

Harris, his faithful spy, in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._ (ii. 414). The

discontent with Schuyler on the part of the politicians was beginning

to be shaped to party measures, and led to his being superseded in

August by Gates, while a battle was imminent, as Schuyler thought.[845]

Bancroft (vol. ix.) does not hold Schuyler free from the responsibility

of the ill success of the campaign up to this time; but he is

controverted by G. W. Schuyler in his _Correspondence and Remarks

upon Bancroft's History of the Northern Campaign_; by Lossing in his

_Schuyler_; and by J. W. De Peyster in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._

(February, 1877, vol. i. 134).[846]

Burgoyne meanwhile (August 26) was writing to Germain that the campaign

was looking badly, and the loyalists not as helpful as he hoped. The

conflict which Schuyler thought impending took place September 19, and

is variously known as the battle of Freeman's Farm, or Stillwater, or

the first battle of Bemis's Heights. Gates had already appealed to

the Green Mountain boys for assistance, as the records of the Vermont

Council of Safety show (Stevens, _Bibl. Geog._, 1870, no. 693). Gen.

Glover's letters to James Warren during Aug. and Sept. are in the

_Sparks MSS._ (no. xlvii.) and in Upham's _Glover_, and his account

of the battle of the 19th is in _Essex Institute Hist. Coll._ (v. no.

3). Col. Varick's letter to Schuyler is in the _Sparks MSS._, lxvi.

Wilkinson gives the best account of any participant (i. ch. 6), and his

letter of Sept. 20 is in Dawson (i. 301). Gates's letter to Congress,

Sept. 22, is also in Dawson (i. 301). Gordon gives the American

loss.[847]

The question of Arnold's participancy in the battle of the 19th, while

the left wing—his own command—was engaged, has been the subject of

controversy.[848]

The attempt of an American force to cut Burgoyne's line of

communications by the lakes is described in the "Fight at Diamond

Island", Sept. 24, by De Costa, who gives the official report of Col.

Brown (_N. E. Hist. and Geneal. Reg._, 1872, p. 147). These evidences

come mainly from the Gates Papers, and are recapitulated in Stone's

_Campaign of Burgoyne_ (App. 10).

Respecting the action of Oct. 7, the earliest official accounts are

in Glover's letter of Oct. 9, and in Gates's to Congress, of Oct.

18,—both of which are reprinted by Dawson (i. 302, 303). James

Wilkinson's letter of Oct. 9 is in the New York Archives, with various

other letters of the campaign (_Sparks MSS._, no. xxix.). A letter of

Oliver Wolcott from Bemis's Heights is in the _Trumbull MSS._ (vol.

vii.). The lives of Arnold (by I. N. Arnold, ch. 10, etc.) indicate his

important influence on the field, where he was wounded.[849]

On the action of Col. Brooks in the field see _Mass. Hist. Soc. Proc._

(vii. 478). There is an account by Samuel Woodruff, an eye-witness, in

the appendix of _An account of Burgoyne's Campaign and the memorable

battles of Bemis's Heights, Sept. 19th, and October 7th, 1777, from

the most authentic resources of information, including many incidents

connected with the same_, by Charles Neilson (Albany, 1844).[850]

The story of Major Acland and Lady Acland has long been one of the

romantic episodes of the campaign. The family account is given by W. L.

Stone in the _Mag. of Amer. Hist._ 1877 (iv. 50), and Jan., 1880, and

in _Lippincott's Mag._, Oct., 1879.[851]

The various stages of the negotiations which resulted in what is

known as the "Convention" can be followed in the documents given in

Fonblanque (p. 306); Wilkinson's _Memoirs_ (pp. 304, 306, 317); Dawson

(i. 303); Stedman's _Amer. War_; Stone's _Campaign of Burgoyne_ (p.

102); and O'Callaghan's _Orderly-Book of Burgoyne_. The original

definitive articles are in the N. Y. Hist. Soc., and fac-similes of the

signatures are in Lossing's _Field-Book_ (i. 79).[852]

Wilkinson carried the news of the surrender to Congress (Wilkinson's

_Memoirs_; Wells's _Sam. Adams_, ii. 494). Gates describes his own

success to his wife (Moore's _Diary_, 511). Chaplain Smith gives some

details of the meeting of Gates and Burgoyne (_Chaplain Smith and the

Baptists_, p. 222). There are reminiscences in Surgeon Meyrick's letter

in Trumbull's _Autobiography_ (p. 301), and papers in _Pennsylvania

Archives_ (vol. v.). Recollections of Gen. Ebenezer Mattoon, an actor

in the scene as written out in 1835, are in the Appendix (no. 13) of

Stone's _Campaign of Burgoyne_. The comment of Wm. Whipple is in _N. H.

State Papers_, viii. 707. Burgoyne's letter from Albany, Oct. 20, to

Germain is in his _State of the Expedition_.[853]

De Lancey (App. p. 674, to Jones's _New York during the Rev._) collates

the authorities on the strength of the respective armies. Gates's

returns of his army (11,098) are in the Gates MSS. Burgoyne, in his

_State of the Expedition_, gives Gates's returns as 18,624,—the

difference may be the number of sick and furloughed men. Burgoyne

praised Gates's men after he had seen them (Fonblanque, 316). The

numbers of Burgoyne's army are given in Appendix D in Fonblanque.

The question is also examined in the App. of Stone's _Campaign of

Burgoyne_. Gordon (_Amer. Rev._, ii. 578) gives the number surrendered

at 5,791; but there is a great difference in the estimates. Alexander

Scammell makes it 10,611 in _Letters and Papers, 1777-80_ (Mass. Hist.

Soc. Cabinet). In the Stark MSS. is a table of Burgoyne's losses

(14,000), covering the whole campaign, and put into verse (_Sparks

MSS._, xxxix.).[854]

Respecting the campaign as a whole, the best contemporary accounts on

the American side are found in the official correspondence as embraced

in Sparks's _Washington_ (iv. 486, etc.) and _Correspondence of the

Revolution_ (vol. ii., App.), and in the letters of the commanding

generals.[855]

Various important letters are put in evidence in the _Proceedings of

the general court martial for the trial of Maj.-Gen. Schuyler, Oct. 1,

1778_ (Philad., 1778).[856]

An account of Alexander Bryan, Gates's chief scout, is in the App. of

Stone's _Campaign of Burgoyne_.

There are among the copies of the Lincoln Papers in the _Sparks MSS._

(xii.) various letters, etc., respecting the campaign against Burgoyne.

The earliest is one from Gen. Schuyler to Lincoln, dated at Saratoga,

July 31, 1777, and the last is one from Lincoln to Gov. Clinton,

Oct. 5, 1777, expressing anxiety lest Putnam should not be able to

resist Gen. Clinton, to whom Burgoyne in his straits was looking for

relief.[857] At a later day Lincoln wrote a long letter from Boston,

Feb. 5, 1781, to John Laurens, recounting his part in this campaign

from the time of Gates's taking command to the date of Lincoln's being

wounded, Oct. 8th (Sparks's _Corresp. of the Rev._, ii. 533).

Various letters of Henry Brockholst Livingston during the Northern

campaign of 1777 (June-Aug.), only parts of which are printed in

Sedgwick's _Livingston_, are among the papers of Gov. William

Livingston, which, when Sparks made his copies in 1832 (_Sparks MSS._,

lii., vol. iii.) were in the possession of Theodore Sedgwick, Jr. Other

letters will be found in the _Trumbull MSS._ (Mass. Hist. Soc.)[858]

The campaign of Burgoyne has necessarily made part of the labors of the

general historians. Gordon and Ramsay were among the earliest, on the

American, and Stedman (i. ch. 16) on the English side. Of the later

writers, Bancroft gives it three chapters (21, 22, 24) in his original

edition, and four in his final revision[859] (10, 11, 12, 13). Lowell

finds it an important section of his history of the German auxiliaries

(_Hessians_, p. 221, etc.). The lives of principal participants, like

Arnold, Lincoln, Gates, and Schuyler on the American side, cover it.

A recent life of Morgan, _The Hero of Cowpens_, by Rebecca McConkey

(N. Y., 1881), would claim for the Virginian the praise which is

usually given to Arnold. The general surveys of Marshall (iii. ch. 5)

and Irving (iii. ch. 9-22) brought it within the scope of their lives

of Washington; and J. C. Hamilton's _Republic of the United States_

includes it. Local aspects are treated in Dunlap's _New York_; Holden's

_Queensbury_ (p. 433); Hollister's _Connecticut_; Hinman's _Connecticut

during the Revolution_ (p. 112); and Mrs. Bonney's _Historical

Gleanings_ (i. 58). Robin's _New Travels_ (letter 12) gives the current

accounts prevailing a little later.

The earliest considerable monographic narrative was Charles Neilson's

_Original, Compiled and Corrected Account of Burgoyne's Campaign, and

the Memorable Battle of Bemis's Heights, September 19, and October 7,

1777, from the most Authentic Sources of Information_, etc. (Albany,

1844).

The most devoted chronicler of the campaign, however, is the younger

William L. Stone (b. 1835), who published _Reminiscences of Saratoga

and Ballston_ in 1875, an article on "Burgoyne in a new light" in _The

Galaxy_ (v. 78), and one on the campaign in _Harper's Monthly_ in 1877

(vol. lv. p. 673), and in the same year the most important work on the

subject yet produced, _The Campaign of Lieutenant-General John Burgoyne

and the Expedition of Lieutenant-Colonel Barry St. Leger_, which draws

from every important help to the study of the military movements which

had been so far brought to light. In the next year (1878), Mr. Stone

prepared the _Memoir of the Centennial Celebration of Burgoyne's

Surrender, Schuylerville, Oct. 17, 1875_. It included an historical

address by Mr. Stone himself, others by Horatio Seymour and George

William Curtis.[860]

The English later writers have been in the main fair in their

statements. Mahon (vi. 191), while praising the army of Gates, denies

him the merit of its successful conduct, giving it essentially to

Stark and Arnold. The American student finds little to question in

the unusually impartial narrative embodied in Edward Barrington De

Fonblanque's _Political and Military episodes in the latter half of the

Eighteenth Century, derived from the life and Correspondence of John

Burgoyne_ (London, 1776).[861]

On the German side the main sources are Max von Eelking's _Die

Deutschen Hülfstruppen im nord-amerikanischen Befreiungskriege,

1776-1783_ (Hannover, 1863,—2 vols.), who gives chapters 7 and

8 to this campaign; the same writer's _Leben und Wirken des

Herzoglich-Braunschweig'schen_ _General-lieutenants Friedrich Adolph

von Riedesel_ (Leipzig, 1856,—3 vols.) and _Generalin von Riedesel's

Berufs-Reise nach Amerika_ (Berlin, 1801), both of which Riedesel

memoirs have been translated by W. L. Stone.[862]

The succession of battles and movements preceding the final surrender

of Burgoyne have been well mapped.[863]

* * * * *

[Illustration]

[Illustration

NOTE.—The main British map of the attack of Clinton and Montgomery

(Oct. 6, 1777) is one made by John Hills, and published in London by

Faden, Jan., 1784, a portion of which, showing the detail, is annexed.

The same map is used by Stedman (i. 362), and there is a reduction in

the _Catal. of Hist. MSS. rel. to the War of the Rev._ (Albany, 1868,

ii. 298), and in the illus. ed. of Irving's _Washington_, iii. 244.

Cf. also the maps in Sparks's _Washington_ (v. 92); _Harper's Mag._,

lii. 648; and in Lossing's _Field-Book_, ii. 166. Original MS. drafts,

showing the attack on the forts, made by Holland, by the Hessian

Wangenheim, and by others, are among the Faden maps (nos. 70-73) in

the library of Congress. Holland's surveys were followed in the plans

of Montgomery and Clinton (1777) by Lieut. John Knight, of the Royal

Navy.]

Respecting the diversion of Clinton in Burgoyne's favor, the letters of

Putnam, whose business it was to hold the passes of the Hudson against

the British, are in Sparks's _Washington_ (v. App. p. 471), and in his

_Correspondence of the Revolution_ (i. 438; ii. App. 536, etc.), and in

the _Western Reserve Hist. Soc. Tracts_, no. 46.[864] Dawson, beside

the despatch of Putnam to Washington on the capture, gives also George

Clinton's to Washington (i. 341, 342).[865] Contemporary American

accounts of the capture and of the burning of Kingston are in Moore's

_Diary_ (p. 506, 510); and a narrative, by G. W. Pratt, of the Kingston

episode is in the _Ulster Hist. Soc. Coll._ (i. 107).

[Illustration]

On the British side, Sir Henry Clinton's despatches are in _Almon's

Remembrancer_ (vol. v.), and that to Howe of Oct. 9th is in Dawson (i.

344), with one from Commodore Hotham to Howe (p. 346).[866]

The maps of the Hudson already enumerated are of use in the study of

this movement.[867] Plans of intended works (1776) and obstructions in

the river near Fort Montgomery are given in the _Calendar of Historical

MSS. relating to the War of the Rev._ (Albany, 1868, vol. i. 474,

616),[868] and a MS. plan of William A. Patterson, first lieutenant,

15th reg., April 22, 1776, is in the _Heath MSS._, i. 246 (Mass. Hist.

Soc.).

The correspondence of the committee of Congress with the commissioners

in France, regarding the effect of the surrender of Burgoyne, is in

_Diplomatic Correspondence_ (i. 338, 355). Cf. Stuart's _Jonathan

Trumbull_. Jonathan Loring Austin, dispatched by the Massachusetts

authorities, carried the first intelligence to France.[869] Schulenberg

wrote to the commissioners from Berlin (_Diplom. Corresp._, ii. 120),

and Izard replied (_Ibid._, ii. 370).[870]

Burgoyne sailed from Rhode Island for England in April, 1778.[871] On

arriving, he had an early interview with Lord George Germain, but the

king refused to see him. He appeared in Parliament,[872] where he had

earlier been a firm but not bellicose upholder of the government,[873]

on May 21st, and on the 26th and 28th made speeches in his own defence,

which were published in London, June 16, 1778, as _The substance of

General Burgoyne's speeches, ... with an appendix containing Gen.

Washington's letter to Gen. Burgoyne_.[874]

The king, piqued at finding Burgoyne on the side of the opposition in

Parliament, ordered him to return to his imprisoned troops, and, rather

than go, the general resigned his civil and military offices, and

printed an explanation in _A letter from Lieutenant-General Burgoyne to

his constituents, with the correspondence between the secretaries of

war and him, relative to his return to America_ (London, 1779).[875]

[Illustration: ATTACK ON CLINTON AND MONTGOMERY.

After the plan in Leake's _Life of Lamb_, p. 176. The legend in

northwest corner of the map reads by error "Halt of the _right_

[should be _left_] column." Other eclectic maps are given in Sparks's

_Washington_, v. 92; in Boynton's _West Point_; and in Carrington's

_Battles_, p. 362.]

Lord George Germain, or, as some have thought, Sir John Dalrymple,

published a _Reply to Lieutenant-General Burgoyne's letter to his

constituents_[876] (London, 1779), pronouncing it a libel upon the

king's government, and this was seconded by an anonymous _Letter to

Lieutenant-General Burgoyne on his letter to his constituents_ (London,

1779).[877]

The further controversy over Burgoyne's failure includes the following

publications:—

_A brief examination of the plan and conduct of the Northern expedition

in America in 1777, and of the surrender of the army under the command

of Lieutenant-General Burgoyne_ (London, 1779),—a severe attack.[878]

_An Enquiry into and remarks upon the Conduct of Lieutenant-General

Burgoyne; the plan of operations for the campaign of 1777; the

instructions from the Secretary of State, and the circumstances that

led to the loss of the northern army_ (London, 1780).[879]

_Essay on modern martyrs, with a letter to General Burgoyne_ (London,

1780),[880]—charging him with being the personal cause of his own

misfortunes.

In addition, there were some publications reviewing the conduct of

Howe's as well as Burgoyne's campaigns in 1777, which will be noticed

in another place.

Burgoyne's main defence against all these charges appeared in his

_A State of the Expedition from Canada as laid before the House of

Commons, with a collection of Authentic Documents, and an addition

of many circumstances which were prevented from appearing before

the House by the Prorogation of Parliament, written and collated by

himself, with plans_ (London, 1780).[881] In his introduction Burgoyne

says, that, being denied a professional examination of his conduct,

and disappointed in a parliamentary one, he was induced to make this

publication.[882]

This publication was followed by _A Supplement to the State of the

Expedition from Canada, containing Gen. Burgoyne's Orders respecting

the Principal Movements and Operations of the Army to the Raising of

the Siege of Ticonderoga_ (London, 1780).[883]

Burgoyne was attacked in return in the following: _Remarks on General

Burgoyne's State of the Expedition from Canada_ (London, 1780),[884]

being a defence of the ministry, and holding that Burgoyne had

forfeited all claims to pity. _A letter to Lieutenant-General Burgoyne

occasioned by a second edition of his State of the Expedition, etc._

(London, 1780).[885] Fonblanque (ch. viii.) portrays the effect in

England of the parliamentary inquiry. Cf. Macknight's _Burke_ (ch. 30).

The Rev. Samuel Peters' reply to Burgoyne in the Appendix of Jones's

_New York during the Revolutionary War_ (vol. i. p. 683).

The _Centennial Celebrations of the State of New York_ (Albany, 1879)

gives the addresses of that period, by M. I. Townshend and John A.

Stevens.[886]