America Untold:
Forgotten heroes, Forgotten Stories
Scarlet Ingstad
Christian, Independent Author, Historian
Christian, Independent Author, Historian
James Rivington, known for being a “detestable Tory” and infamous printer of the rumor-spreading Gazetteer, might have actually been a member of the Culper Spy Ring, the very same spy network created by George Washington and Benjamin Tallmadge. “Might have” is the key phrase. For years, historians have debated the accuracy and validity of the sources that claim Rivington was a member of the “Culper Gang.” Some of the accounts read like something out of an espionage novel, the dramatics ramped up and the claims outlandish. But are they? After all, many of the documented exploits and correspondence of the Culper Ring are quite extraordinary. Who’s to say some of the tales about Rivington aren’t at least partially true? In this blog post, I analyze the main sources of Rivington’s alleged spy activity and weigh them against the known information, potential bias of the persons reporting, and analysis of other historians who have weighed in on the issue since the 1800s. Buckle up, because it’s time for a trip back to the secret world of 18th century espionage. The Custis Account In 1860, George Washington Park Custis, grandson to Martha Washington and adopted grandson of George Washington, released his memoirs. In the midst of his revelations, Custis included a story about a printer, a notorious Tory, who dealt primarily in libel against the patriots: James Rivington. Many patriots referred to Rivington as a traitor, a “Judas.” Alexander Hamilton had a strong opinion of Rivington, stating in a 1775 letter to John Jay: “… I am fully sensible how dangerous and pernicious Rivington’s press has been, and how detestable the character of the man is in every respect…” However, about seventy-five years after the war, George Washington Park Custis asked the public to consider a very different view of James Rivington. Custis was unable to pin-point exactly when he believed Rivington joined the cause, but according to his memoir, he estimated it was likely near the end of 1776. Custis also stated that Washington asked two of his officers if they could visit Rivington during his 1783 return to New York. The officers were startled by the request, but allegedly accompanied Washington on the venture. Rivington, shortly after Washington arrived, insisted he and Washington step into a private room nearby. Rivington explained the need to speak with Washington alone because he had a list of “agricultural pieces” he wanted to order from London on Washington’s behalf. As the story goes, one of Washington’s soldiers reported hearing “the chinking of two heavy purses of gold” placed on a table. The officer also said he heard Rivington tell Washington on his way out: “Your Excellency may rely upon my especial attention being given to the agricultural works, which, on their arrival, will be immediately forwarded to Mount Vernon, where I trust they will contribute to your gratification amid the shades of domestic retirement.” Custis’ account explains how Rivington would have been an incredible spy because the Tories trusted him implicitly. His paper, which frequently belittled Washington and his troops, established the perfect cover story. Benson J. Lossing, the editor of the Custis Recollections, believed the account and even provided an additional secondary source. Lossing said Custis received the information about Rivington from Henry “Light Horse” Harry Lee, who in turn had received the tale from an officer who accompanied Washington on the visit with Rivington. Lossing also heard the story from Senator John Hunter, whose source was Rear Admiral Thomas White, a midshipman under Rear Admiral Graves. These secondary and tertiary sources combined were enough for Lossing to believe Custis’ claim that Rivington was likely a spy for Washington. Additional contemporaries who believed the Rivington story included Colonel Stephen Moore of New York, William Hooper of North Carolina, Justice James Iredell of South Carolina, and Ashbel Green, the future president of Princeton. However, these accounts and beliefs were not enough to convince modern-day historians. Since all of Custis’ account came from secondary and tertiary sources, the validity of the story is difficult to prove. Lorenzo Sabine wrote that Rivington was a loyal Tory and denounced any claims to anything that said otherwise in his book Biographical Sketches of Loyalists. Douglass Southall Freeman, the author of the multi-volume series on George Washington, completely threw out the account of Washington’s visit to Rivington, believing it to have been a complete falsehood. But despite their doubts, there is a decent amount of evidence that adds enough suspicion and speculation to make one wonder…was Rivington truly a part of the Culper Ring? Claims and Evidence Near Christmas of 1783, the Massachusetts Gazette printed the details of Washington’s farewell to his officers at Fraunces Tavern in New York. On this same page, under “Springfield, Dec. 16,” they also printed: “It is reported as an undoubted fact, that Mr. JAMES RIVINGTON, Printer at New-York, was, as soon as our troops entered the city, protected in person and property, by a guard, and that he will be allowed to reside in the country, for reasons best known to the great men at helm.” This obviously drew the attention of the Massachusetts inhabitants, and created a significant amount of speculation regarding Rivington’s role as a double-agent for Washington. This paragraph was later reprinted in the 1783 Christmas publications of the Massachusetts Spy (Worcester, MA), Continental Journal (Boston), and the Salem Gazette (Salem, MA). Two weeks later, Rivington officially shut down his printing press after some well-known Sons of Liberty forcefully encouraged him to do so. About eight and a half years ago, Rivington put up a fight against the Sons of Liberty when they destroyed his original press, but this time, he willingly obeyed. Ashbel Green, a chaplain to the U.S. Congress from 1792 through 1800 and president of Princeton, added to the gossip through his letter to “My Dear A” in 1840: “At the commencement of our Revolution, and indeed through the whole of its progress, the patriots of the day made great use of the press, in operating on the public mind. The tories attempted the same, as long as they were permitted to do it, which was till about the time of the declaration of our independence. After that, they could circulate nothing, except what was printed within the British lines, and sent forth and handed about privately… “Rivington remained in the city of New York after it was abandoned by the American troops, and became king’s printer during the whole of the ensuing war, and nothing could exceed the violence of his abuse of the rebels, as he delighted to call the Americans, and the contempt with which he affected to treat their army, and Mr. Washington, its leader. It was, therefore, a matter of universal surprise, on the return of peace, that this most obnoxious man remained after the departure of the British troops. But the surprise soon ceased, by its becoming publicly known, that he had been a spy for General Washington, while employed in abusing him, and had imparted useful information, which could not otherwise have been obtained. He had, in foresight of the evacuation of New York by the British army, supplied himself from London with a large assortment of what are called the British classics, and other works of merit; so that, for some time after the conclusion of the war, he had the sale of these publications almost wholly to himself.” Why was Rivington allowed to remain in New York when the rest of the British forces fled? And why would so many contemporaries continue to share this story if there was no truth to it at all? Why did Alexander Hamilton take Rivington’s part in 1789? Why would Rivington sell books to Hamilton, as indicated by correspondence between the two parties in May of 1791, if Hamilton still held Rivington in the same contempt that he did in 1775? Why did Washington remove a segment of a letter to Governor Clinton in 1783 that spoke negatively about Rivington? Perhaps, just perhaps, the answer to these questions is simply that Rivington used his position as the King’s printer as the ultimate cover-story for pro-patriot espionage activities. It would explain the changing attitudes and writings of Washington and Hamilton, and answer the questions regarding Rivington’s post-war activities and location. Rivington was often described as an opportunist. This would explain why he was allegedly approached by Culper Spy Ring member Robert Townsend. Ashbel Green described Rivington as “the greatest sycophant imaginable; very little under the influence of any principle but self-interest.” Additionally, British Major Francis Duncan claimed Rivington started assisting the rebels with information when he realized the French alliance would turn the tide of the war in the rebel’s favor. Could it be said that Rivington, a man who seemed to change with the tide, became a spy not only for potential financial gain, but also self-preservation? This would, of course, counter Custis’ account which stated Rivington joined the rebel cause as a spy in late 1776. The scant evidence and hearsay make the truth of the matter difficult to uncover, but the evidence does point to the fact that it is very possible Rivington could have been involved in the Culper Ring, for a short amount of time, or sporadically as it benefited him. Additional evidence in Allan McLane’s memoirs points to the probability of Rivington’s espionage exploits. McLane was one of Washington’s most valuable informants, so valuable in fact, that he acquired the code of signals of the British Naval fleet from—Rivington himself. In 1781, the Board of War dispatched McLane to Long Island in an effort to obtain intelligence on the British fleet’s movements. Rivington gave McLane the information he requested. McLane recounts this venture in his memoir, stating: “After I returned in the fall was imployed by the board of war to repair to Long Island to watch the motion of the Brittish fleet and if possible obtain their Signals which I did threw the assistance of the noteed [sic] Rivington.” It is without a doubt, at least in this one instance, that Rivington did conduct some espionage activity for the patriots. The question remains, however, as to whether or not Rivington’s activities remained only in 1781, or if, according to other aforementioned accounts, he began earlier in either 1776 or 1778. Was he an actual member of the Culper Ring? Or was this instance a one-off oddity? Culper Connections The Sons of Liberty destroyed Rivington’s original press, forcing Rivington to flee to England in early 1776. He returned to New York after it was under British control, and opened a new press in 1777 under the banner of “Printer to His Majesty.” His newspaper began again on October 4, 1777 under the new title of Rivington’s New-York Gazette. However, starting in 1779, his business began to decline. During this time, Rivington also opened up a coffee house to supplement his declining printing business. British officers frequented the shop and Rivington used their gossip as fodder for his papers. It is easy to see how this could quickly turn into an espionage effort, had Rivington truly decided to assist the patriots. The kicker? Robert Townsend partially funded his coffee house. Robert Townsend: also known as, Culper Jr., a prominent member of the Culper Spy Ring. Austin Roe, another member of the spy ring, also purchased Rivington’s paper by the half ream at Rivington’s store. It is said that Rivington’s paper was used to send messages throughout the Culper Spy Ring, using invisible ink. These messages were referred to by George Washington in his correspondence to Major Benjamin Tallmadge, the Culper Spy Ring founder and leader. The opportunity would have been almost impossible to resist for Robert Townsend: a coffee house full of gossiping British officers, a printing press, and a man who had a reputation for being an opportunist. James Rivington was a spy’s dream. Knowing this, it is easy to believe the possibility that Townsend approached Rivington with a proposal, and that Rivington took it. An interesting note is that Rivington did not have both a codename and a code number in Tallmadge’s code book. Rivington’s number was 726, but many other non-British agents also had code numbers in Tallmadge’s book. The majority of the spy ring itself had corresponding codenames. Ralph E. Webster explained in his book, United States Diplomatic Codes and Ciphers: 1775-1938 that this meant Rivington did not possess the same double-protection that Tallmadge, Townsend, Woodhull, and others had. It also provides evidence that Rivington, if he was a true Culper Ring member, likely did not join the group before July of 1779 – when Benjamin Tallmadge created the code. If Rivington was not an agent in the ring as of mid-1779, it makes sense as to why Tallmadge would have just given Rivington a number in the book, just like the other non-agents. While there is plenty of circumstantial evidence to point to Rivington being one of the Culper Ring spies, there is also evidence to the contrary. A letter from Townsend to Washington on July 15, 1779 points to his concerns about Rivington discovering the Culper Ring. This concern originated from a newspaper article that Rivington published five days prior to Townsend’s letter. It reads: “Still the rebels cherish one another with assurances, of eating their next Christmas dinner in New-York… Indeed Mr. Washington has declared he will very soon visit that Capital with his army, as it is confessed, without the least reserve, there are many Sons of liberty in New-York, that hold a constant intercourse and correspondence with the Commander in Chief of the Rebel army, from whom he is supplied with accurate communications of all arrivals and departures, and of every thing daily carrying on there, both in the military and civil branches.” Conclusion? In my opinion, based on the available evidence, circumstantial and otherwise, Rivington was involved in the Culper Spy Ring, but not before 1779. His opportunistic personality lends me to believe that, combined with the evidence and hearsay accounts, he would have likely remained a loyal Tory until right around when the French aid was assured. Tallmadge’s codebook also points to mid-to-late 1779 being the time period where Rivington may have started working as a spy. I also believe he could have played both sides as the direction of the war ebbed and flowed from one side to the other; he was ever the opportunist, after all. Rivington’s motivation was clearly self-preservation rather than patriotism, or any sort of real conviction for either the American or British cause. Additionally, the circumstantial evidence points to 1779 as “the year” Rivington would have conducted espionage work in some fashion. The absolute earliest I can see Rivington toying with the idea of spy work for Washington would have been around mid-1778, with him not taking any actual action until 1779. The truth of the matter is, we will likely never know for sure exactly when Rivington decided to engage in espionage with the patriots, or the extent to which he did. But that is the trouble with studying the history of 18th century espionage—these men and women were very good at what they did. We just discovered a year ago that Benjamin Tallmadge’s desk contains a secret compartment. Perhaps we will also one day uncover new evidence about Rivington’s connection to the Culper Ring. Sources and Additional Reading: Alexander Hamilton to James Rivington, May 26, 1791. www.founders.archives.gov Alexander Hamilton to John Jay, Nov. 26, 1775, www.founders.archives.gov Alexander Hamilton to Robert R. Livingston, March 13, 1789, Robert R. Livingston Collection. Alexander Rose, Washington’s Spies: The Story of America’s First Spy Ring (New York: Bantam Books), 2006. Ashbel Green to “My Dear A.” June 30, 1840, The Life of Ashbel Green, ed. Joseph H. Jones (New York, 1849), p 45.Isaiah Thomas, The History of Printing in America (Worcester, 1810), 112. Benjamin Tallmadge, The Memoirs of Benjamin Tallmadge. (Columbia, 2016). Catherine Snell Crary. “The Tory and the Spy: The Double Life of James Rivington,” The William and Mary Quarterly, Vol. 16 No. 1, January 1959, 61-72. Charles R. Hildeburn, Sketches of Printers and Printing in Colonial New York. (New York, 1895), 132. George Washington and Benjamin Tallmadge correspondence from 1778-1783, Founders Online. https://founders.archives.gov/; June 27, 1779; July 25, 1779; July 27, 1779. George Washington Parke Custis, Recollections and Private Memoirs of Washington, ed., Benson J. Lossing (New York, 1860), 293-299. John A. Nagy Invisible Ink: Spycraft of the American Revolution (Yardley: Westholme Publishing), 2010. Kara Pierce, “A Revolutionary Masquerade: The Chronicles of James Rivington,” Binghamton Journal of History, Spring 2006. http://www2.binghamton.edu/history/resources/journal-of-history/chronicles-of-james-rivington.html. Lorenzo Sabine, Biographical Sketches of Loyalists of the American Revolution (Boston, 1864). Massachusetts Gazette (Springfield, MA), December 16, 1783. Massachusetts Gazette (Springfield, MA), January 27, 1784. Morton Pennypacker, General Washington’s Spies on Long Island and in New York (Brooklyn, 1939). Philip Ranlet, The New York Loyalists, (Knoxville, 1986), p 59. Gouverneur Morris, Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789, vol 12, (Washington: 1904-1937), p 1061. Ralph E. Weber, United States Diplomatic Codes and Ciphers: 1775-1938 (New Jersey: Transaction Publishers, 2010), p 109. Royal Gazette, July 10, 1779. Samuel Culper, Jr. to Major Benjamin Tallmadge, July 15, 1779, The Papers of George Washington, The Revolutionary War Series, William M. Ferraro, ed., (Charlottesville and London: University of Virginia Press, 2012) vol 21, p 714-15. Todd Andrlik, “James Rivington: King’s Printer and Patriot Spy?” Journal of the American Revolution, March 3, 2014. https://allthingsliberty.com/2014/03/james-rivington-kings-printer-patriot-spy/.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |
Details
Scarlet Ingstad
I am an independent author and historian seeking to uplift the stories of the lesser-known heroes and heroines of the American Revolution, alongside modern-day heroes and heroines who have served in the U.S. military and continue their service through their historical work. Archives
March 2022
Categories |