America Untold:
Forgotten heroes, Forgotten Stories
Scarlet Ingstad
Christian, Independent Author, Historian
Christian, Independent Author, Historian
Welcome to a brand new article series all about the life of Banastre Tarleton! This content was originally part of a biography I was working on, but after some "soul-searching," I realized my passion is in writing my blog posts and historical fiction novels. So, instead, every so often I'll release another chapter of what would have been the bio for you all to read for free! This series will cover Tarleton's life from this segment, the intro and history of the Tarleton family line, through the Battle of Waxhaws. Enjoy! Introduction Bloody Ban, The Butcher, The Green Dragoon. These are all monikers applied to Banastre Tarleton both during his life and after his death. For centuries, Banastre inspired both fear and rage, becoming the quintessential villain of the American Revolutionary War. But does Banastre Tarleton deserve some of these colorful nicknames? What did he do to earn these labels, who assigned them, and why do we still view him this way today? While the Americans vilified him, the British hailed him as a darling of the American Revolution, and to this day, describe him as victorious, daring and courageous. Much of Banastre’s time during the American Revolution is well-documented, but by very biased sources. Banastre exalts himself in his own memoirs for his efforts during the Southern Campaign, criticizing his superiors and expressing his frustrations with the rebel forces of General George Washington. These rebel forces frequently wrote about Banastre as well, describing him as a terror, a hellion, and a man filled with uncontrollable rage and a thirst for blood. However, many of these rebel officers and soldiers wrote these words after losing to Banastre in battle. So, what is the truth? Is Banastre Tarleton truly the horrific individual we’ve come to accept? Or are the descriptions simply exaggerated tales from bitter, defeated enemies? Perhaps the truth lies somewhere in the middle. I posit that both reputations are true, but they have both been exaggerated to extremes. Banastre Tarleton was brutal and ruthless in defending the Crown, making him a true villain to the American forces and simultaneously a hero to England. In 1835 a man by the name of Moses Hall appealed to the United States government for a pension due to his service during the American Revolution. He claimed to remember the events that took place in the Southern Campaign with startling clarity, recounting events in great detail. Hall explained that one day, a detachment of North Carolina militiamen discovered an abandoned British Legion campsite. Hall tripped over something, realizing a moment later it was a sixteen year old boy, barely alive. The British thought the boy was a spy and allegedly ran him through with a bayonet, leaving him to die slowly. The boy spoke as he bled, and in the words of Hall: “The sight of this unoffending boy, butchered rather than be encumbered...on the march, I assume, relieved me of my distressful feelings for the slaughter of the Tories, and I desired nothing so much as the opportunity of participating in their destruction.” This single account became the foundation for Banastre Tarleton’s long-standing reputation. The movie The Patriot has also done Tarleton no favors with his modern-day reputation and legacy. The fictional character, Colonel William Tavington, portrayed by Jason Isaacs, is loosely based on the rumors, legends, and true stories of Banastre Tarleton’s actions during the Southern Campaign of the American Revolution. In June of 2020, Dr. Craig Bruce Smith published an article analyzing The Patriot, including how the British Legion, specifically Colonel Tavington, are portrayed. According to Dr. Smith, The Patriot managed to capture the brutality and terror of 18th century combat in the southern states. It also questioned the concepts of honor and morality, debating the meaning behind how one defines civilized warfare and patriotism. Tavington even asks the main protagonist, South Carolina planter Benjamin Martin, “Would you like a lesson, sir, on the rules of war?” This question remains present in every analysis of the real Banastre Tarleton. Later in the film, Col. Tavington makes another problematic statement as he orders the burning of a church full of men, women and children: “The honor is found in the end not the means. This will be forgotten.” Utilizing this concept of “bloody virtue,” Tavington justified all of his violent actions, claiming that after the war ended everything he did would be understood and accepted. While this is a fictional rendition of Tarleton and the Southern Campaign, it does exemplify the reputation assigned to him over the past couple centuries as well as an interesting notion of “bloody virtue,” a concept this study center around. The British Legion burned towns and killed their enemies with precision, speed, and efficiency. But does this warrant their reputation? What exactly are these “rules of war” in the 18th century world? Analyzing both Tarleton’s actions, and the actions of those he fought against will provide a complete understanding of warfare in the south during the Revolution and a better understanding of who Banastre Tarleton truly was. Christopher Ward's opinion of Tarleton is worthy of additional analysis. Ward was a notable historian who served as president of the Historical Society of Delaware who also worked with the Federal Writer’s Project. Ward’s 1941 two volume publication, The War of the Revolution, was hailed as an instant modern classic of American historical scholarship and a masterpiece of narrative nonfiction Revolutionary War history. Regarding Tarleton, Ward stated: “He was shrewd, sudden, and swift to strike. As a leader of cavalry, he was unmatched on either side for alertness and rapidity of movement, dash, daring, and vigor of attack. As a man, he was cold-hearted, vindictive, and utterly ruthless. He wrote his name in letters of blood all across the history of the war in the South.” Anthony Scotti cites this in his 2019 study on Tarleton and posits that: “It is necessary ‘to move beyond the prevailing posture of contempt’ for Banastre Tarleton. Indeed, the man is a controversial subject even to this day, but understanding him is undoubtedly more useful to historical inquiry than merely condemning him.” As the author and historian of this particular work on Tarleton, I readily agree and intend to achieve this very goal. The only complete biography about Banastre Tarleton was written in the 1950’s by a man named Robert Bass. His book, The Green Dragoon: The Lives of Banastre Tarleton & Mary Robinson, provides a full analysis of Tarleton’s life, but it is not a perfect book. There are many instances where Bass makes definitive claims with little to no evidence. Additionally, the stories of Tarleton’s actions in the 1780 and 1781 Southern Campaign are embellished, adding to the legends and myths behind what truly happened during this time period. Portions of this book color Tarleton’s reputation and are partially responsible for the modern-day view of who Banastre Tarleton and the British Legion were. One of the most recent books about Banastre was released in 2020 by John Knight, War at Saber Point: Banastre Tarleton and the British Legion. Knight’s extensive research aided in revealing a different side to the demonized-Tarleton, demonstrating how many of his peers, subordinates, and supervisors viewed him. Additionally, Knight explored Tarleton’s incredible battle tactics and examined the actions of those he interacted with, comparing and contrasting them to Banastre’s own actions. Knight’s research is thorough, making his analysis considerably more reputable than many others. Banastre Tarleton interacted with numerous well-known figures from 1770 until his death in 1833. This study analyzes these interactions and provides a new perspective into events that transformed both America and England. In addition to revealing a more complete assessment of Tarleton, this article series will also lend new insights into the historiography of the time period, the perspective of the British during the American Revolution, and the Southern Campaign. 1. The Tarleton Family
Banastre Tarleton was born on August 21, 1754 to an upper-middle class family in England. To fully understand Banastre’s life, it is imperative to take a gander at where his family came from. Tudor registrars were the first to record the Tarleton family and referred to them as yeomen and “stubborn [Roman Catholic] Recusants” during the reign of King George II. By the time King George III took the throne, the Tarletons transitioned from farmers and defenders of Rome to merchants and traders. The Tarletons originated from Fazakerley and Aigburth near Liverpool, a town built on the shipping industry, specifically the cargo the ships carried. This cargo consisted of sugar, Indigo, rice, cotton, and enslaved persons. In 1771, there were 23 slaver ships that sailed from Bristol, 58 from London, and 107 from Liverpool alone. The slave trade essentially created Liverpool and turned it into a prosperous town whose dependence on the trade shaped both its culture and politics. In the early seventeenth century, Aigburth Hall served as the family seat, but how Aigburth Hall came to the Tarletons possession remains unknown. In the late seventeenth century, Aigburth Hall transferred to the Harringtons due to the lack of a male Tarleton heir in the senior branch of the family. Dorothy Tarleton married John Harrington of Huyton Hey, thereby transferring the Tarleton possession of Aigburth Hall to the Harrington family. Over the course of the next century, the possession of the property changed multiple times until John Tarleton IV and his son, Thomas, purchased it just before the onset of the American Revolutionary War. John Tarleton IV and Thomas Tarleton represented a junior family line called the Bolesworth branch which had just begun to settle in Liverpool during the seventeenth century. This junior line began with John Tarleton I, the son of Edward Tarleton I. John was not mentioned in Edward Tarleton’s will upon his death at Aigburth in 1626. John then died shortly after his father, leaving behind his son, Edward Tarleton II born in 1628. Edward died in 1690 after serving as mayor of Liverpool in 1682, marking the first of a long line Tarletons serving as mayors of the city. Edward was also a ship-owner and the owner of multiple residences in town, specifically the Church Stile house in the Chapel Yard, a fish house on Chapel Street, and a rope house on the Heath. Essentially, Edward Tarleton served as the cornerstone of the Bolesworth Tarleton fortune. His property, specifically his ships, would shape the Tarleton legacy for many generations. In the eighteenth century, Edward’s children continued adding to the Tarleton wealth. His oldest son, John Tarleton II, became a popular physician in Lancaster and later Fenwick Street. Edward’s second son, Edward Tarleton II, became mayor of Liverpool in 1712. Carefully arranged marriages also began to shape the Tarleton name and fortune. Anne Tarleton, daughter of John Tarleton II, married Ralph Williamson. Their children became very successful slave traders and West India merchants about halfway through the eighteenth century. Through a series of marriages, the Tarleton family drew closer to the Clayton and Houghton families, who had very strong ties to the Atlantic trade. The slave trade during the eighteenth century became the backbone for the Tarleton fortune. The Liverpool Tarletons participated in the African and West Indian trades over the span of several generations. In 1720, Thomas Tarleton I prepared ships for numerous trips to Africa. Along with his brother John Tarleton III, he even commanded voyages to Africa himself. However, with their premature deaths, the Tarleton family’s trade activity declined in the 1730s through the early 1740s. Thomas’ son, John Tarleton IV, revived the family trade business in ways that would change the trajectory of the Tarleton fortunes. John IV invested in multiple forms of trade with several countries, to include Ireland, Rotterdam, Hamburg, and Greenland for whale fishery business. However, John’s trade endeavors primarily centered around Africa and the West Indies due to the sheer prosperity of the slave trade and sugar plantations from 1763 through 1776. The “silver age of sugar” encouraged many planters at this time to expand their output of sugar, which in turn led to an increase in demand for slave labor. John IV took full advantage of the situation and began to build up the Tarleton family fortune based on the trade of both sugar and enslaved persons. The last half of the eighteenth century became a fortuitous era for African and West Indian merchants and traders. John IV became a manager and part-owner of several slave ships, to include the Swan and the Tarleton in the 1750s, and the John in the 1760s. These ships frequently unloaded their cargo of enslaved persons in Jamaica. The Tarleton, according to the Liverpool Registry of Merchant Ships, could carry over 500 enslaved persons per voyage. John IV also held multiple shares in various West Indian traders, especially within the Leeward Islands, specifically Antigua. Following the Seven Years War, John expanded this trade to the Ceded Islands. During the cessation of Grenada by France to Britain, John IV purchased a house and store at St. George’s, Grenada to assist with his business. Prior to his death in 1773, he also owned the Belfield Estate at Dominica. John followed his fellow traders regarding their motivation to trade with foreign colonies like Cuba and Martinique during the Seven Years War. During the 1750s, John Tarleton’s wealth lay primarily in ships and goods, but after purchasing the sugar house in Castle Street near the end of the decade, a new era began to emerge for the Tarleton family fortune. The purchasing of estates both at home and overseas began to add significant funds to the Tarleton wealth, especially the estates in the West Indies. In 1770 John was even able to purchase a portion of the Aigburth Hall estate, the original family house. Upon his death in 1773, approximately one-third of John Tarleton IV’s fortune lay in real estate acquired from 1763 through 1773. From 1748 through 1773, John’s fortune grew from approximately £6,000 to about £80,000. At the time of his death. John’s fortune amounted to the equivalent of 8 million dollars by today’s standards. Through John Tarleton IV’s endeavors, the Tarletons emerged as one of the most prominent merchant families in Liverpool during the mid-to-late-eighteenth century. He also served as mayor of Liverpool in 1764 and, three years later was asked to serve as a parliamentary candidate for the Liverpool constituency. Prominent African and West Indian merchants underwrote his candidacy. Despite John’s decision to decline this offer (allegedly after whale-men rioted and prevented his appearance at the Liverpool hustings), the offer itself reveals how society at this time viewed John and the Tarleton name. He was so well-liked he was even given the nickname “The Great T.” This societal notoriety is also noted in other ways, including the fact that he sent three of his sons to Oxford colleges to study the law, and the drastic change in the composition of his wealth in the final ten years of his life. John Tarleton established an amicable business relationship with Henry Laurens of South Carolina. In 1760 the Charles Town company, Austin, Laurens, and Appleby, frequently filled John Tarleton’s brigantine Fanny with a variety of cargo, primarily food-related items, supplies for making clothes, and household items bound for Jamaica and other islands in the West Indies. Henry Laurens considered John Tarleton a vital customer. He wrote to John IV, saying that he was “always glad to receive your commands,” thanked him for his politeness and many favors, and mentioned that he looked forward to meeting John in Bristol. The irony of this friendly work relationship is that both men are the fathers of Revolutionary War heroes on opposing sides of the war. Henry Laurens was the father if John Laurens, an important member of George Washington’s inner circle who history hailed as a hero, and John Tarleton IV was the father of Banastre Tarleton, a man whom history would remember for his less-than-savory actions during the war. John Tarleton IV married Jane Parker of Cuerden, Lancashire and they had seven children in total. They lost their first child, a girl named Jane, when she was an infant. The fourth son, William Tarleton, died at a young age in 1778. The remaining children, four sons and one daughter, added to the family legacy in very different ways. John V, Clayton, and Thomas decided to continue the family business of trading enslaved persons and investing in property. Later on, John V would become a Member of Parliament and stand opposed to his own brother, Banastre, while Thomas inherited the majority of his father’s property, including the Bolesworth Castle, the family seat at the time, making him the central figure of the Tarleton family. Thomas also became a notable sugar refiner, while his brothers John and Clayton married wealthy women from prominent families. Bridget, the only surviving daughter of John and Jane Tarleton, married Edward Falkner, another wealthy Liverpool merchant who also served as a Justice of the Peace and High Sheriff of Lancashire in 1788. The joining of the Tarletons and Falkners through this marriage added wealth and notoriety to both families. John, Clayton, and Thomas all partnered with Daniel Backhouse in the African and West Indian trading firm they named Tarleton & Backhouse. Clayton later became mayor in 1792 after leaving the firm the year prior. John allegedly left the firm just before Clayton did after a “very violent quarrel” with Backhouse over terms of renewal. Despite these changes, Thomas reportedly remained with the firm. Whether partnered together or on their own, the three brothers continued the legacy left behind by their father. Clayton’s correspondence during the 1790s provides additional evidence that the Tarleton family remained heavily vested in the African slave trade. In March of 1790, the investment in Liverpool ships and cargo totaled over £1 million, £85,000 of which accounted for the Tarleton & Backhouse firm. Tarleton & Backhouse, at this point in time, was the third largest firm engaged in the Liverpool slave trade. However, unlike his siblings, Banastre Tarleton, second son of John IV and Jane, had no interest in the family business. Instead, Banastre squandered some of the family’s fortune (his inheritance to be exact) through his actions shortly after his father’s death. These actions eventually led Banastre playing a leading role in the American Revolution as commander of the British Legion in the southern colonies, where his name became synonymous with death, terror and destruction. Stay tuned for the next segment of the “Bloody Valor” series, where we’ll learn about Banastre’s early years in England and how he found himself in the midst of the American Revolution. Sources: John C. Dann, ed., The Revolution Remembered; Eyewitness Accounts of the War for Independence. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1980), 201-203. Craig Bruce Smith, “Revolution then: The Patriot stands alone.” The Spectator, June 29, 2020. https://spectator.us/book-and-art/revolution-then-patriot-stands-alone/. Christopher Ward, The War of the Revolution. NewYork: Skyhorse Publishing, 2011. Anthony J. Scotti, Brutal Virtue: The Myth and Reality of Banastre Tarleton. Berwyn Heights: Heritage Books, Inc., May 1, 2019. Robert Bass, The Green Dragoon: The Lives of Banastre Tarleton & Mary Robinson, 1957. John Knight, The War at Saber Point: Banastre Tarleton and the British Legion. Yardley: Westholme Publishing, December 18, 2020. British History Online, “Aigburth” and “Fazakerly,” www.british-history.ac.uk. Tarleton Family Archives, Liverpool Records Office, ref NRA 7189 Tarleton. “European Traders,” International Slavery Museum, Liverpool. www.liverpool-museums.org.uk/history-of-slavery/europe. P.D. Richardson, "American Material from the Tarleton Papers in Liverpool Record Office.” British Records Relating to in Microform (BRRAM) Series, 1974 https://microform.digital/map/guides/R96797.pdf. Robert Craig and Rupert Jarvis, Liverpool Registry of Merchant Ships. Manchester: Chetham, 1967. Robert Hamilton Vetch, “John Tarleton.” Dictionary of National Biography, 1885-1900, Vol. 55. “The Henry Laurens Papers, 1747-1860,” The South Carolina Historical Society, SCHS 37/3, Microfilm Roll #45/132 Letter book, 1762-1764. 1 vol. Nora McMillan, “Mrs. Edward Bury (Priscilla Susan Falkner), Botanical Artist,” The Nook, Vol 5: pgs 71-75. https://www.euppublishing.com/doi/pdfplus/10.3366/jsbnh.1968.5.1.71
1 Comment
Welcome back to Revolutionary Voices, a series aimed at highlighting the lesser-known figures of the American Revolution era. This month, I introduce you to Deborah Sampson, the woman soldier. *Be sure to check under the "Sources" section for a sneak-peek at the special edition article that's coming out for Women's History Month! A Difficult Start Deborah Sampson was born on December 17, 1760 in Plympton, Massachusetts near Plymouth. Her father abandoned the family when she was five, and her mother was unable to care for all seven of her children on her own. To mitigate this issue, Deborah was sent away to live with relatives until she was ten years old. When those relatives died, she was sent to the Thomas family in Middleborough to become an indentured servant. Deborah was forced to remain an indentured servant until the age of eighteen. Once free, she began to support herself by teaching and using the skill sets she learned during her years as a servant, to include weaving, carpentry, and mechanics. Deborah also sold goods to her neighbors in an effort to make ends meet. Becoming a Soldier After spending her entire life in extreme poverty, Deborah decided to join the Continental Army in 1782 at the age of twenty-one. Because women were not permitted to fight during this era, Deborah opted to dress as a man and sneak her way into the army. Her first attempt failed, but she succeeded the second time in May of 1782. She enlisted under the name "Robert Shirtliff" and joined the Light Infantry Company of the 4th Massachusetts Regiment under the command of Captain George Webb. Their primary purpose was to provide rapid flank coverage, rearguard, and forward reconnaissance duties. Deborah fought in many skirmishes, but it was during her first real battle near Tarrytown, New York where she was injured. Deborah was shot through the thigh twice and received a gash to her forehead. She begged her fellow soldiers to not give her any medical attention for fear of her gender being discovered, but one soldier did not listen. Deborah was taken to receive treatment and she allowed the doctor to tend to her head injury, but refused to allow him to treat her thigh wounds. Instead, she removed one of the musket balls herself using a penknife and a sewing needle. The other musket ball would was far too deep for her to reach and would remain a part of her forever. Her leg would never fully heal from this injury, but she would go on to continue fighting in the war for seven more months. Identity Revealed In the summer of 1783, Deborah became very ill while she was in Philadelphia and was seen by a doctor named Barnabas Binney. When he removed Deborah's clothing to treat her, he discovered the cloth she used to bind her chest. Instead of reporting her to the authorities right away, he hid her in his house where his wife, daughters, and a nurse cared for her until she recovered. After the signing of the Treaty of Paris, signaling the end of the American Revolution, officials chose November 3, 1781 as the day the soldiers were to muster out. It was then that Dr. Binney chose to reveal Deborah's identity to authorities. He drafted a note and told Deborah to deliver it to General Patterson as she reported to muster out. Deborah feared that she would be reprimanded for her actions. Instead, Patterson provided Deborah with her discharge notice and some money to use for her journey home. Deborah Sampson was honorably discharged at West Point, New York by General Henry Knox on October 25, 1783. A Lasting Legacy After the war, Deborah married a farmer named Benjamin Gannett in 1784. The couple had three children and adopted a fourth. Later, in 1792, Deborah successfully petitioned the Massachusetts State Legislature to acquire retro-pay for her service. In 1797, she then petitioned Congress through a disability claim due to her injury, but this petition failed. In 1802, Deborah began a new endeavor: traveling around Massachusetts, Rhode Island, and New York to speak about her experiences during the Revolution. Deborah Sampson was the first woman in American history to conduct a speaking tour, and she often spoke while dressed in full military attire. Following the tour, Deborah petitioned Congress again in 1805, but this time with the help of her friend Paul Revere. She was then successfully placed on the pension list for disabled veterans. Deborah died in 1827 at the age of sixty-six, and her husband, Benjamin, petitioned Congress for pay as the spouse of a deceased American soldier. Ten years later, the committee finally determined that throughout the Revolution there was no other "example of female heroism, fidelity, and courage" like that of Deborah Sampson. They awarded Benjamin the money and, although he passed away before he received it, he was listed as the first man awarded money for being married to a woman who served as a soldier. The town of Sharon memorialized Deborah Sampson with a statue in front of their public library, named a park the "Deborah Sampson Park," and preserved the Deborah Sampson Gannett house. The land surrounding the building is now protected so that no additional development will occur around her former home. The Daughters of the American Revolution honored Deborah in 1906 by placing a boulder on the town green, adding a bronze plaque with details regarding her service to America. Later, in World War II, the S.S. Deborah Gannett was named in her honor. Deborah Sampson defied the expectations and societal restrictions placed on her gender in choosing to fight for something greater than herself. After having a significantly difficult childhood, she decided to try and fight her way out of poverty by disguising herself as a man and joining the army. Although Deborah would never be able to escape the grasp of poverty, she left behind a lasting legacy for women in America. There were many other women who came before Deborah who also dressed as men in order to blend in with patriarchal society and even fight in wars (Joanne of Flanders, Joan of Arc, and the women-pirates Anne Bonny and Mary Read, to name a few). But Deborah's legacy resides in how she was able to demonstrate how women in early America were capable of a lot more than what society assumed and dictated. Deborah Sampson is an American heroine and a Revolutionary Voice worth remembering. Sources and Recommended Reading
Next Month's Heroines: March is Women's History Month, and "Revolutionary Voices" is celebrating by giving you all a special extended-length blog post, featuring some of the first women to spy for America!! If you are a TURN: Washington's Spies fan, you're going to want to read this one. Stay tuned! Welcome back to Revolutionary Voices! The blog series that seeks to uplift stories of lesser-known figures from the American Revolution. These days, John Laurens is a more-popular household name thanks to a certain Broadway musical, but many still do not know much about this incredible man. Join me as I introduce you to the revolutionary abolitionist who helped America achieve independence and also made strides in the effort to end slavery. Revolutionary Beginnings John Laurens was the son of Henry Laurens, a prominent businessman and one of the wealthiest slavers in South Carolina. It is likely that John's beliefs regarding the institution of slavery were greatly influenced by what he witnessed while growing up on one of the largest plantations in America. In fact, he wrote this in 1776: "We have sunk the Africans & their descendants below the Standard of Humanity and almost render'd them incapable of that Blessing which equal Heaven bestow'd upon us all." John went to England in 1771 to begin his education, then went to Switzerland in 1772 to study science and medicine. Two years later, John returned to England to begin studying law. However, when the American Revolution broke out back home, John left his studies, his wife, and their two children, and returned to South Carolina. He joined General George Washington's staff in August of 1777 and quickly earned the admiration and respect from others in Washington's inner-circle, especially that of Alexander Hamilton and the Marquis de Lafayette. Relationship with Hamilton John Laurens' relationship with Alexander Hamilton is still highly contested today. Some historians believe that they were very close friends, while others believe there is a possibility the two men may have formed an even closer, more intimate attachment to one another. One of the reasons behind this belief is a letter from Hamilton to Laurens in April of 1779: "Cold in my professions, warm in ⟨my⟩ friendships, I wish, my Dear Laurens, it m⟨ight⟩ be in my power, by action rather than words, ⟨to⟩ convince you that I love you. I shall only tell you that ’till you bade us Adieu, I hardly knew the value you had taught my heart to set upon you. Indeed, my friend, it was not well done. You know the opinion I entertain of mankind, and how much it is my desire to preserve myself free from particular attachments, and to keep my happiness independent on the caprice of others. You sh⟨ould⟩ not have taken advantage of my sensibility to ste⟨al⟩ into my affections without my consent. But as you have done it and as we are generally indulgent to those we love, I shall not scruple to pardon the fraud you have committed, on condition that for my sake, if not for your own, you will always continue to merit the partiality, which you have so artfully instilled into ⟨me⟩." It was very commonplace during this time for men to express their affection toward one another in what we would consider today to be romantic language. Therefore, it is very possible that they were just very close friends. However, the language in their correspondence does occasionally surpass what was considered to be normal at this time as well. It cannot be confirmed whether or not they were romantically involved and, in my opinion, it would be inappropriate to make such definitive statements. Their relationship, whatever it may have been, is something that only they knew details about. And, perhaps, that's how they wanted it to remain. War and Abolition While many of John's contemporaries were solely focused on the war effort, John was also focused on the issue of slavery. That is not to say that John did not fight with valor on the battlefield. In fact, at the Battle of Brandywine he nearly lost his life, promoting the Marquis de Lafayette to wrote to John's father: "It was not his fault he was not killed or wounded, he did every thing that was necessary to procure one or t'other." John sustained an injury during the Battle of Germantown, and had his horse shot out from under him during the Battle of Monmouth. He even challenged the famous Continental General Charles Lee to a duel after Lee made disparaging comments about George Washington and his closest supporters. John emerged from the duel unscathed, but seriously injured General Lee. While he was fighting in these battles and working as one of Washington's aides-de-camp, John also advocated for the cause that was closest to his heart: abolition. He believed that the first step in this effort was to allow enslaved persons to earn their freedom through service in the Continental Army. John's father was very influential in Congress and John attempted to use this to his advantage. He managed to convince Congress to pass a resolution, however, Congress left the follow-through up to South Carolina and Georgia. These states stood adamantly opposed to John's ideas, and neither legislature would sign any agreements on the recruitment of Black soldiers. John was deeply troubled by the outcome of his efforts and wrote to Hamilton, expressing his frustration and desire to continue pursuing his dream of recruiting Black soldiers and the end of the slave trade: "...but it appears to me that I shd be inexcusable in the light of a Citizen if I did not continue my utmost efforts for carrying out the plan of black levies into execution, while there remains the smallest hope of success." Tragedy and Legacy At the end of 1780, John and Thomas Paine, the famous author of Common Sense, departed for France to obtain loans and soldiers for the 1781 southern campaign of the war. John managed to return to America just in time for the Battle of Yorktown and the surrender of General Cornwallis. Washington thought so highly of John that he selected him to be the lead negotiator for the official terms of surrender. However, after the Battle of Yorktown, John was no longer satisfied with his place in the army. Never abandoning his dream of leading an all-Black battalion, John returned to the Carolinas and joined General Nathanael Greene's forces as an officer. Here, where the war raged on, John engaged in small skirmishes and intelligence-gathering operations. On August 27, 1782, A British force of Tories and regulars began an expedition to gather supplies. John and fifty of his men were ordered to reinforce a position behind the British to cut off their retreat, while the rest of the contingent attempted to intercept them. The British discovered John's plan and sprung a trap. Two Americans were killed in the ambush...one of them was John Laurens. Devastated, Hamilton wrote to General Greene: "The world will feel the loss of a man who has left few like him behind, and America of a citizen whose heart realized that patriotism of which others only talk. I feel the loss of a friend I truly and most tenderly loved, and one of a very small number." George Washington later added his own sentiments: "...in a word, he had not a fault that I ever could discover, unless intrepidity bordering upon rashness could come under that denomination; and to this he was excited by the purest of motives." John Laurens died and was buried on the battlefield. His remains were later moved to Mepkin Abbey near his father's plantation. On his headstone are the words: "Dulce et decorum est pro patria mort," which translates to: "It is sweet and fitting to die for your country." John Laurens was born and raised on one of the largest plantations in all of America. And yet, at a very young age, he realized the horrors and hypocrisy of slavery in the midst of a revolution which stood upon the ideal that "all men are created equal." Instead of ignoring these hypocrisies (like many of his contemporaries chose to do), John dedicated his short life to fighting for the freedom of ALL Americans. His fearlessness and tenacity in battle, coupled with his extreme passion and empathy, made him stand out among the rest. John died at the age of twenty-seven, giving his life for not one, but two causes--both of which he saw as inextricably intertwined. Sources:
Books and Articles:
Today's blog post is a bit different. After witnessing some pretty crazy feedback on other historians' work (and on some of my recent work as well), I started doing some thinking on the topic of feedback and criticism--which sparked this post. If you're dealing with negative responses to your work and feeling pretty down about it, I hope this helps.
What do we do when we get some pretty terrible reviews? How do we differentiate between good criticism and poor criticism? How do we respond to both? And, finally, how do we in turn become better critics ourselves? Here are my (rambling) thoughts: The Bad Review We've all had it happen. You create a product, whether its a book, article, artwork, etc. and receive feedback that throws you for a loop. What you thought was some of your best work has suddenly, unexpectedly, been torn apart by another person. It doesn't matter how used to receiving criticism you are, we all have to admit those words sink in deep and they hurt in one way or another. You could receive dozens of fabulous emails or reviews and then that one comes in that just hits you the wrong way. So how do we deal with this? Because we certainly cannot prevent these criticisms and, if you're putting any sort of content into the world, criticism is 100% inevitable. Here are some things I've learned from my own experience and advice I've received from mentors in various fields: Consider the Source. Who is it that is criticizing you? Is it a fellow expert in the field or practice? If the answer is automatically no, or the critic is anonymous, remember that this individual is critiquing something they likely know very little about---or at least considerably less than you know. After all, chances are you're probably well-versed in your product or subject matter. These reviews shouldn't be taken with a grain of salt, they should be taken with an entire block of it. Maybe even a mountain. Or better yet, these reviews can typically be completely disregarded. But what happens if the critic is a colleague, or a fellow expert in what you've produced? Let's dig into that a bit. To start, just because the person also creates similar content does not automatically make them an authoritative voice. Or, if they are genuine, respected expert, remember they CAN still be wrong too. Also, how did they choose to deliver their review? Did they bash your work on the internet in an open forum so that others can see? I'll be very honest with you all---the moment an "expert" does this, I question their motives. Do they actually care about helping you or bettering the field if they're essentially calling for a public shaming? Even if they are right, this behavior says a lot about them as a person. However, if the expert contacts you privately, such as through an email or private message, perhaps they are truly wanting to better the field or your own work. These are the critics to pay attention to. These are the people who truly care and are not looking for self-glorification. Now, how do we mitigate the automatic negative feelings that these criticisms create? Like I said, even if you are fairly familiar with being criticized, we are all at risk of having words genuinely hurt us. We all work hard to create our content. We spend days, weeks, months, even years perfecting our writing, art, creativity, study, research, and more. When someone steps on that, it hurts. It makes us angry. It reverberates in our brains until sometimes we start thinking maybe they're right and our work isn't so great. We compare ourselves to others, start questioning our legitimacy, and maybe even face the temptation to stop creating. Here are a few ways to break out of those darker thoughts: 1) Reach out to a trusted mentor, colleagues, or friends: Sometimes venting is the most cathartic thing when we get bad reviews. I love reaching out to a couple historians I trust and telling them the crazy takes I get on my posts or books. Sometimes just saying what you are feeling out-loud to a sympathetic party who has been there and completely understand what you are feeling helps so much. These contacts can also help us put the review into context, and help us move beyond that initial sting. 2) Read back over the positive feedback: Chances are, you probably received quite a bit of positive responses to your work before you got that nasty one. Go back over those reviews and remind yourself that while some people may not have appreciated what you put together, plenty of others did. It is easy to forget the GOOD feedback we get when we get ourselves wrapped up in the ugly comments. 3) You can't make everyone happy: No matter how good you are at what you create, you will ALWAYS have a critic. Funny example: within a 24 hour period I was "accused" of being a conservative and then a liberal as criticisms of one of my articles. See what I mean when I say you literally cannot win? People will read into your work whatever they want to read into it. They bring their own worldviews into what you present and make assumptions based on their personal beliefs, current mood, and they way they read or viewed the tone of your work. We cannot control how others CHOOSE to perceive us. That's another good thing to keep in the back of your mind when you read those less-than-helpful reviews. The Good Review Now let's move away from those "bad" reviews into what I call the GOOD reviews, or constructive reviews. I briefly touched on this at the beginning of the post. If we determine that the critic is an expert, they have genuinely reached out and presented problems they perceive in your product, then we have to approach this criticism differently. It still stings. Any review containing corrections or calling us out for something we messed up on stings, regardless of intent. This is where we have to do the hard part of switching gears, taking a deep breath, and accepting that we are NOT perfect and that sometimes correction is needed. Here are some things that have helped me with the good critiques: 1) Read the review in its entirety then walk away. You don't have to respond right away. I struggle with this because I go straight into "defend" mode and want to explain why I said what I said. Instead, the smart thing to do is to take a breath, make a snack, take a walk, or simply close your computer for a few minutes. Let the initial frustrated feelings run their course. 2) Go back to the review and read it again, paying attention to the most important parts. Pick out the main criticism(s) and highlight them. Then go back to your product and read back through it with these corrections in mind. Maybe do some additional research to see if the critic is indeed correct. 3) Write up your response without worrying about editing. Just get your thoughts out and respond to the various elements they picked out. It's best to do this all at once and just put it on the paper. Then, walk away again. 4) Share the response with a trusted friend or mentor. Let them check the tone before you send it. You don't want to accidentally burn bridges if you're still heated or defensive in your response. Trust me--this is a struggle for me. I am very grateful for colleagues and mentors who help me frame my responses so they are professional and not--well--the latter. Becoming the Critic Finally, let's talk about what to do when WE are the ones providing the feedback. For the purposes of this post, I'm going to focus on our responses to something we see in passing as opposed to a professional, paid review. This means an article, or a book, or even artwork we see that evokes a negative response. If we are the expert in the field, or we know for a fact the information being presented is inappropriate or incorrect, there are a few things to keep in mind: 1) Remember what it felt like the times you've received negative feedback: this is important. We cannot forget that awful feeling of receiving criticism. Remember the person you are about to critique is going to likely feel a very similar way. 2) Write out your response to their product, then walk away from it: Just like before when we respond to negative feedback, we also need to pause before we submit our critique, especially if the product evoked a VERY negative emotion in us. Walking away from the write-up and coming back a little while later can help us mitigate our initial emotional reaction. Many times I have re-read an email before I sent it and thought "Oh that would have been awful if I sent it in that tone!" Also, like before, consider sharing your feedback with a trusted friend or colleague before sending it out. 3) Consider the mode of feedback: try to avoid the public correction method if the feedback is negative. This isn't to hide the fact you disagree or dislike the product, but rather to be respectful of the creator. When we correct someone in public (i.e. social media) then we come off as arrogant, self-serving, and we encourage cyberbullying. I get it. It's very hard to not do this, especially for something that sets us off. I've been guilty of doing this myself and have since made an active effort to avoid repeating it. It's not worth it. Hurting people or shaming them is almost always a terrible idea for so many reasons. Don't damage your own reputation--I have seen VERY popular historians do this and it immediately changed the way I viewed them as a professional. We don't want to lose our audience by indulging in self-righteous behavior. Additionally, when we correct someone in private messages, as we discussed in the earlier section, we demonstrate not only our own competence and maturity, but we also demonstrate that we honestly care about the field and the person putting the content into the world. None of us are above criticism, but we should all be above the pettiness and tearing each other to pieces in a vain effort to prove how "intelligent" we are. 4) Content of the feedback: Make sure if you're correcting something that is wrong, you do cite sources. Simply stating "that was incorrect" is not constructive feedback. Like I said, we want to be taken seriously and we want to help the fields of study we care so much about. Final Thoughts This blog post was in no way comprehensive. There are many other ways to deal with criticism, both receiving and giving. These are just some thoughts I had rattling around the past couple weeks after receiving weird feedback, and witnessing several historians and artists I follow also get some interesting criticisms. Furthermore, take it easy on yourself. The holiday season doesn't bring out the best in everybody so chances are feedback is especially chaotic right now. Remind yourself that your work matters, and that those who dislike it are not your whole audience. Plenty of people love what you do and what you do matters. Be willing to take breaks when you need to. I am currently on a break from writing my historical fiction books based on the American Revolution era. I write American Revolution content for work and run the Friends of Mount Vernon Book Club, but aside from that I am stepping back. That world seems to be getting more and more toxic (sadly) as time goes on. It's okay to step away and take care of yourself or explore other fields of study. Heck I'm over here reading about the Persian Empire and working on a novella about that time period! For those who can't 100% escape your creations because they are part of your work duties, try and take more time for yourself. Go on hikes, hang out more with friends, do what helps you clear your mind. We cannot create our best content when our brains are all muddled with negativity. Finally, PLEASE SEND ME YOUR CONTENT!!! Especially if you are in the history or self-published worlds. I would love to promote your work! Send me an email at [email protected] or on twitter @Scarlet_Writes. Thanks as always for reading! - Scarlet The story of America's beginning is a fascinating tale, full of heroics and revolutionary ideals. However, there are many people during this era who were not held in the same light as others, and were excluded from the general narrative. We owe our freedom to many whose names we do not know--and it is my goal to help change that. This month, I introduce you to William "Billy" Lee, George Washington's enslaved valet. Those who are familiar with Lin Manuel Miranda's hit Broadway Musical might recall that Alexander Hamilton is often credited as being Washington's right-hand man. While in some instances this was true, Washington's real right-hand man was not a free man whom he employed--he was an enslaved man whom he owned. By His Side For two decades, William Lee was by George Washington's side everywhere he went. He was purchased as a teenager by Washington in 1768, along with his brother, Frank Lee. While his brother became the enslaved butler at Mount Vernon, William became Washington's enslaved valet, or manservant .This meant that William was responsible for Washington's daily needs, including bathing, assisting in powdering and tying his hair back into a queue, laying out his clothes, as well as accompanying him on fox hunts, surveying expeditions, and later, the American Revolution. It was likely that during these quiet moments, especially the vulnerable ones, William Lee and George Washington formed a bond of some kind. Martha Washington's grandson recalled: "Will, the huntsman, better known in Revolutionary lore as Billy, rode a horse called Chinkling, a surprising leaper, and made very much like its rider, low, but sturdy, and of great bone and muscle. Will had but one order, which was to keep with the hounds; and, mounted on Chinkling, a French horn at his back, throwing himself almost at length on the animal, with his spur in flank, this fearless horseman would rush, at full speed, through brake or tangled wood, in a style at which modern huntsmen would stand aghast...He also accompanied Washington when he was surveying, both locally and on the frontier." During the war, William not only continued with his manservant duties, he also took on some very unique roles as well. Thanks to the recollections and memoirs from several eye-witnesses, we know William was by Washington's side at all times, including in battles like the Battle of Monmouth. Additional evidence from the memoir of a soldier named Joshua Smith (who was court-martialed regarding his potential involvement in the Benedict Arnold treachery) reveals exactly how close William was to Washington during this time. One line in particular hints that William was privy to secretive information: "...one of Washington's domestics, who daily brought me provisions, and who was a confidential servant of the general's." Washington trusted William enough to task him with providing provisions for a prisoner. Smith's writings also indicated that William was present in Washington's military inner circle and that he felt comfortable in dealing with sensitive situations and highly-educated persons. It makes one wonder how much William also knew about various espionage operations, such as Benjamin Tallmadge's Culper Spy Ring. After the War During the war, William married a free black woman named Margaret Thomas (also known as Peggy Lee) from Philadelphia who became part of Washington's military household. About seven months after they returned to Mount Vernon, William asked Washington to let his new wife move in with him. Washington was not thrilled by the idea, stating that he "never wished to see her more," but he could not refuse William. They had just endured eight years of war together; this was the least Washington could do for his enslaved valet. There is, however, no historical record of whether or not Margaret Thomas ever made it to Mount Vernon. However, William and Washington's attachment to one another is apparent after in the war in the records we do have. Whether this was a genuine, affectionate attachment on William's part cannot be known and should also not be assumed. William was, after all, considered property of George Washington. After the war, William suffered sever back-to-back knee injuries that left him crippled. William insisted on joining Washington in Philadelphia after he became president, but his injuries were too substantial, and Washington ordered him to be returned to Mount Vernon in 1790. Nine years later, Washington drafted a new will--one that demonstrated his own personal attachment to William. Washington wrote that the people he owned were to be emancipated upon the death of both himself and his wife, Martha Washington--all except for William Lee: "...And to my Mulatto man William (calling himself William Lee) I give immediate freedom; or if he should prefer (on account of the accidents which have befallen him, and which have rendered him incapable of walking or of any active employment) to remain in the situation he now is, it shall be optional in him to do so: In either case however, I allow him an annuity of thirty dollars during his natural life...& this I give him as a testimony of my sense of his attachment to me, and for his faithful services during the Revolutionary War." William ultimately chose to remain at Mount Vernon, likely due to his injuries and the fact that his family still lived here as enslaved persons. He became a minor celebrity due to his proximity to Washington. Visitors came to visit Mount Vernon after Washington's death in 1799 to pay their respects, and to speak to the enslaved man who was by his side the entire time. Sadly. William developed a drinking problem, likely due to the pain of his knee injuries, and passed away. The year of his death is unknown. Some historians believe he died in 1810, others believe he died in the 1820s. Legacy
Historian Fritz Hirshfeld said: "If Billy Lee had been a white man, he would have had an honored place in American history because of his close proximity to George Washington during the most exciting periods of his career. But because he was a black servant, a humble slave, he has been virtually ignored by both black and white historians and biographers." Thankfully, that is changing. William Lee's story is unique for an enslaved person. The majority of enslaved persons during this era were barely recorded, and when they were, it was for the property records of their enslavers. However, due to William's proximity to Washington, we known more about his particular story. William Lee was by Washington's side every day for over twenty years--something even Martha Washington cannot claim. After being born into a world where slavery was readily accepted, Washington went from thinking little of the practice, to expressing a desire to "be quit" of it. Washington did not end slavery in America (that would take another generation and another war to accomplish). What he did do was alter his will to free those he owned after the death of himself and his wife, setting an example for other enslavers of his generation. William Lee was likely a major reason behind this decision. Stories like that of William Lee and James Armistead Lafayette provide a unique look into Revolutionary America and the institution of slavery. There are dozens upon dozens of stories during the Revolution period that have gone largely untold. Until the day comes that their names are as well known as George Washington, we must keep telling their stories. Please pay particular attention to the "Want to Learn More" section below--lot's of excellent material here, including a brand new podcast series by Mount Vernon! Episode 3 stars William Lee, and it was released TODAY! Sources: - MacLeod, Jessie, "William (Billy) Lee." - Thompson, Mary V. "William Lee & Oney Judge: A Look at George Washington & Slavery." - Thompson, Mary V. The Only Unavoidable Subject of Regret, 2019. - Lossing, Benson J. Recollections and Private Memoirs of Washington, by His Adopted Son, George Washington Parke Custis. - Washington, George, October 20, 1770, The Diaries of George Washington, 2: 294. - Ferraro, William M. "A Glimpse of William 'Billy' Lee: George Washington's Enslaved Manservant." - Smith, Joshua Hett, An Authentic Narrative of the Causes Which Led to the Death of Major Andre, 1809 (reprinted in 1969). - Washington, George, The Last Will and Testament of George Washington and Schedule of his Property, to which is appended the Last Will and Testament of Martha Washington, Fourth Edition, edited by Dr. John C. Fitzpatrick. Want to Learn More? Television and Podcasts: - Check out Mount Vernon's BRAND NEW podcast, "Intertwined," available wherever you prefer to get your podcasts. Narrated by Brenda Parker, "Intertwined" explores the lives of the enslaved persons at Mount Vernon. New episodes are posted weekly. TODAY, William Lee's episode was posted. Visit www.georgewashingtonpodcast.com for more information! - TURN:Washington's Spies: William Lee, portrayed by Gentry White, is in this show regularly beginning in season 2. I cannot say enough good things about Gentry White's portrayal of William. Absolutely phenomenal! William is also the star of the Valley Forge episode in season 2--it's a must-watch! Books: - The Only Unavoidable Subject of Regret by Mary V. Thompson - Lives Bound Together: Slavery at George Washington's Mount Vernon, edited by Susan P. Schoelwer, introduction by Annette Gordon-Reed - By His Side: The Story of George Washington and William Lee, by Jinny Powers Berten - An Imperfect God: George Washington, His Slaves, and the Creation of America, by Henry Wiencek - Never Caught: The Washington's Relentless Pursuit of Their Runaway Slave, Ona Judge, by Erica Armstrong Dunbar - The General's Cook, by Ramin Ganeshram - Amazing Grace: An Anthology of Poems About Slavery: 1660-1810, edited by James Basker - Espionage and Enslavement in the Revolution: The True Story of Robert Townsend and Elizabeth, by Claire Bellerjeau and Tiffany Yecke Brooks Preview of Next Month's Hero: Did you know that Alexander Hamilton's closest companion was also one of the loudest voices in the abolition movement during the American Revolution? Learn all about the life of John Laurens in January's edition of Revolutionary Voices! Welcome back to Revolutionary Voices! This series highlights the lesser-known stories of American Revolution heroes, shedding light on myths, as well as revealing the truth behind the more popular stories we grew up hearing. America is a diverse and beautiful nation, and it's history should reflect this fact. We owe our freedom to many whose names we do not know--and it is my goal to help change that. This month I introduce you to the stories of three teens who braved the dangers of enemy territory to deliver urgent messages, saved American lives, and helped secure the ultimate outcome of the American Revolution. Meet Sybil Ludington, Emily Geiger, and Susanna Bolling. Sybil Ludington Sybil is often hailed as the "female Paul Revere" because of the story about her alleged-daring ride through Putnam and Dutchess counties to warn the patriot militia that British troops were burning down Danbury, Connecticut. It should be noted at this point that this story cannot be completely confirmed because the evidence all comes from secondary sources. The story itself did not emerge until much later after Sybil's death, so whether this story is half-true, all true, or completely fictitious is unknown. Sybil was the oldest of 12 children and her father was Colonel Henry Ludington, the commander of the 7th Regiment of the Dutchess County Militia, who later became an aide to General George Washington. In April of 1777, a force of 2,000 British soldiers commanded by General Tryon moved through Danbury, destroying private property and stores of supplies for the American forces. A messenger arrived from Danbury to deliver the news of this incident to Sybil's father. Henry Ludington wanted to organize his militia to respond, but they were scattered all over the state. The messenger was also exhausted from his ride and was unfamiliar with the territory. This is where sixteen-year-old Sybil Ludington is said to have stepped in. Sybil knew the area well, having grown up in the region. She was also familiar with many of the members of her father's militia. Armed with knowledge, courage, and determination, Sybil left that night, in the middle of the storm, atop her father's horse. She traveled over forty miles from her home in Kent, south to Mahopac, and north to Stormville, then returned home the next day. She dodged British soldiers, loyalists, and outlaws during her journey to rouse the militia. Although the troops would arrive too late to save Danbury, they were able to attack the British as they left the area. Today, historical markers trace her route throughout Putnam County, and a statue commemorating her story stands near Lake Gleneida. Emily Geiger Shortly after the siege of Ninety Six, South Carolina, General Nathanael Greene crossed Broad River. He was eager to send a message to General Thomas Sumter who was on the Wateree River, ordering him to join them so they could launch an attack against the British Lord Rawdon. The only problem? The entire region was full of British soldiers and Tories--no one was willing to volunteer for this dangerous assignment. No one that is except for young Emily Geiger. General Greene was surprised by the sixteen-year-old's insistence on serving her country as a courier, risking life and limb to deliver his message. A young girl traveling by horse would be a lot less suspicious than a full-grown man, so he agreed to her offer. He drafted the letter and gave it to Emily, who then quickly saddled up and began her journey. On the second day of the trip, Lord Rawdon's scouts intercepted Emily and questioned her as to why she was coming from the direction of General Greene's forces. They were suspicious of Emily's story, so they captured her and confined her to a room for further questioning. While the British began looking for a woman to physically search Emily, she quickly tore up the letter and ate it. By the time the British found a woman to search her, the evidence was long-gone. Emily was later released and she resumed her mission, having memorized the letter prior to eating it, and delivered the message verbally to General Sumter. Today, Emily Geiger is remembered through her burial location in the Geiger Cemetery between Calhoun and Lexington counties, and three South Carolina chapters of the Daughters of the American Revolution which are named in her honor. Susanna Bolling
In May of 1781, the British General Cornwallis and his men invaded the home of Susanna Bolling and her family in Hopewell, Virginia. During their occupation of the family's home, Susanna overheard Cornwallis discussing his plans to capture the Marquis de Lafayette who was staying at the Half Way House in Chesterfield at the time. Susanna knew that the capture of Lafayette would be a devastating blow to General George Washington and the rebel cause. In fact, had this event transpired, it could very well have meant the end of the war. And so, armed with this understanding, sixteen-year-old Susanna began her perilous journey. Susanna snuck out of her family home, rowed across the Appomattox River, borrowed a friend's horse, and rode ten miles to the Half Way House to warn Lafayette. Her actions spared Lafayette's life and the American cause. The Frenchman was able to escape and continue on with the fight against the British forces. Had Susanna been caught, she would have likely been hanged as a spy and a traitor. Five months later, General Cornwallis surrendered to General George Washington, an event that would never have happened if it were not for Susanna. Susanna's name is on the list of lesser-known American heroes and heroines whose actions saved the American cause. Today, she is remembered through the Half Way House Restaurant, still in operation in North Chesterfield, Virginia. In 2019, the Virginia General Assembly officially named December 5th, Susanna's birthday, "Susanna Bolling Day." Patriotic, Independent, Courageous The stories of Sybil, Emily, and Susanna embody the core ideals of the American Revolution. They felt a deep sense of dedication to a cause far greater than themselves, and were willing to risk everything to see it through. Unlike Paul Revere, who rode 14.5 miles on horseback with the support of several others along a courier-line, these teenagers operated independently. Revere was part of a very complex warning system which consisted of several other people, unlike the tale we've all probably heard at some point in our childhood of "The Midnight Ride of Paul Revere." Sybil, Emily, and Susanna traveled farther than Revere, and did so without any assistance from others. This is not to discredit Paul Revere, but to put into context the courage and tenacity these young women exhibited--and the fact that we all know who Revere was, but very few know who these young women were. Three women, sixteen years old, accomplished feats that many of us adults cannot even fathom. Thanks to them, patriot lives were saved and the cause for liberty remained steadfast. Sybil Ludington, Emily Geiger, and Susanna Bolling are heroines of the American Revolution and their names, and Voices, are worth remembering. SCROLL DOWN TO SEE A PREVIEW OF NEXT MONTH'S HERO!! I'm quite excited about him... Sources and Further Reading: - "Sybil Ludington," Historic Patterson, New York: https://www.historicpatterson.org. - Debra Michaels, PhD. "Sybil Ludington," Women's History, https://www.womenshistory.org - "Emily Geiger: Teenage Revolutionary War Hero," History's Women. https://www.historyswomen.com. - Percy Geiger, The Geigers of South Carolina, 1945 - Greg McQuade, "How a 16-Year-Old Girl from Hopewell Helped Win the Revolutionary War," https://princegeorgecountyva.gov. - "House Joint Resolution No. 649: Susanna Bolling Day in Virginia," https://lis.virginia.gov. - Women Heroes of the American Revolution by Susan Casey - Spies, Soldiers, Couriers, & Saboteurs: Women of the American Revolution, by K. M. Waldvogel - Sybil Ludington's Midnight Ride, by Marsha Amstel - Emily Geiger's Dangerous Mission, by Dyana Stan - Susanna's Midnight Ride: The Girl Who Won the Revolutionary War, by Libby Carty McNamee Next Month's Hero: Did you know that George Washington's enslaved valet fought by his side in the American Revolution from start to finish? Or that he played a pivotal role in changing Washington's views on slavery? Find out more about the life of William Lee in next month's post!!! Welcome back to Revolutionary Voices! An article series that seeks to uplift the stories of heroes and heroines of the American Revolution who aren't quite as well-known as others. This month, I would like to introduce you all to America's first allies--and no, they were not from a foreign nation. In fact, they were some of the original inhabitants of America: The Oneida Nation. Joining the Patriots The Oneida Nation is one of the Six Nations Iroquois (Haudenosaunee), and are the only one of these Nations that openly declared their support for the patriot cause. George Washington stated: "The Oneidas have manifested the strongest Attachment to us throughout this Dispute." The Oneida, throughout the Revolution, provided American forces with troops, scouts, and spies, starting with the Battle of Oriskany (depicted in the above painting by Jon Troiani) in New York in August of 1777. But why did the Oneida choose to side with the Americans when the rest of the Six Nations Iroquois sided with the British? This was partially due to their relationship with a patriot missionary named Samuel Kirkland. However, what solidified the Oneida support of the patriot cause was the proclamation from the British that they intended to cross through Oneida land to attack Fort Schuyler. The Oneida did not consider themselves to be subservient to the British, and they viewed this action as an offense that required a response. The Battle of Oriskany On August 2, 1777, after receiving information regarding an imminent British attack on Fort Schuyler, Tyonajanegen ("Two Kettles Together") rode out on horseback to warn the American forces. Four days later, the Oneida fought alongside the patriot militia to defend Fort Schuyler. The troops were ambushed by the British and their Mohawk allies, but the Oneida forces and patriot militia managed to turn them back. On September 3, 1777, the newspaper Pennsylvania Journal & Weekly Advertiser described the actions of Tyonajanegen, her husband (Han Yerry), and her son (Cornelius), during the battle: "...a friendly Indian, with his wife and son, who distinguished themselves remarkably on that occasion. The Indian killed nine of the enemy, when, having received a ball through his wrist that disabled him from using his gun, fought with his tomahawk. His son killed two and his wife, on horseback, fought by his side with pistols during the whole action." Tyonajanegen helped her husband after he was injured, loaded his pistol, and joined him in the six-hour-long battle. The Battle of Oriskany was one of the bloodiest in the Revolution. Despite their success, American and Oneida forces sustained significant losses, including the loss of an Oneida village due to revenge-looting. This battle also set the stage for the Saratoga campaign. Larry Arnold, chairman of the Friends of the Saratoga Battlefield, stated: "In the 1777 campaign, the Oneidas were instrumental. People don't realize the staggering losses the Oneidas sustained during the Revolutionary War." Valley Forge and Barron Hill Following the Saratoga campaign in October of 1777, the Oneida encamped with George Washington's troops at Valley Forge. Oneida leaders dined with Washington, who gave each of them a leather belt in gratitude for their assistance. Not only did the Oneida bring troops to Valley Forge, they also brought food. Polly Cooper, an Oneida woman, gave white corn to the troops and showed them how to cook it. She spent the rest of the winter at Valley Forge, serving as Washington's cook. Despite these life-saving contributions to the American forces, the Oneida refused to accept payment for their services. During this time, the Oneida also operated as scouts and spies for Washington, patrolling the area of Valley Forge. Shortly after, in May of 1778, Oneida scouts stayed behind during the Battle of Barron Hill to ensure that the Marquis de Lafayette and his troops were able to escape. The Oneida fought alongside the American forces in many skirmishes and battles throughout the Revolution. Ten Oneida soldiers even obtained officers' commissions in the Continental Army, with one rising to the rank of lieutenant colonel. After the War The end of the war could not come soon enough for the Oneida tribe. They lost a significant number of their homes and had very few resources to fall back on. It would not be until 1794 before the American government provided any sort of assistance. The U.S. government later sent five-thousand dollars to the Oneida and Tuscarora who lost homes and property due to their direct support of the American cause. On November 11, 1794, now-President George Washington signed the Treaty of Canandaigua (also known as the Pickering Treaty) between the U.S. government and the American Indian Nations of the Haudenosaunee Confederacy (Iroquois). This treaty addressed many issues, including government acknowledgement of the lands reserved for the Oneida people and a commitment to boundary lines. It states: "The United States acknowledges the lands reserved to the Oneida...and the United States will never claim the same, nor their Indian friends, residing theoron and united with them, in the free use and enjoyment thereof..." This treaty also marked Congress' official recognition of the sovereignty of the Six Nations Confederacy, and asserted the tribe's authority to oversee their own lands and affairs without government interference. Although it has been debated and challenged since 1794, the treaty still stands to this day. Much of what we understand of Tyonajanegen's life comes from the 19th century historian, Lyman Draper. We know that Tyonajanegen and her husband Han Yerry eventually returned to what was left of their home in in Oriska after the war. Loyalist raiders had looted and destroyed most of their home and farmland following the Battle of Oriskany, leaving Tyonajanegen, Han Yerry, and their children to rebuild. The historical record of Tyonajanegen and her family ends here, aside from Han Yerry's death around 1794 and Tyonajanegen's death in 1822. We can only imagine the struggles the family endured in the years after the Revolution in context of what happened to the rest of their tribe. Battles between the Oneida and the state of New York over their land, alongside divisions within the Six Nations Confederacy due to the different tribes choosing opposite sides of the war, would plague the Oneida and other Native American tribes for years to come. In many ways, the Oneida and other Native American tribes are still recovering from the effects of the American Revolution. The Oneida Nation made significant sacrifices in becoming America's first allies. They are forgotten heroes and heroines of the American Revolution who, alongside their descendants, should be honored, remembered, and respected. Scroll down to learn how you can help the Oneida Nation today! Sources:
- "From George Washington to the Commissioners of Indian Affairs, 13 March 1778," Founders Online, National Archives: The Papers of George Washington, Revolutionary War series, vol 14. - James Kirby Martin. "Forgotten Heroes of the Revolution: Han Yerry and Tyona Doxtader of the Oneida Indian Nation," in Revolutionary Founders: Rebels, Radicals, and Reformers in the Making of the Nation, 203. - Joseph T. Glattharr and James Kirby Martin. Forgotten Allies: The Oneida Indians and the American Revolution (New York: Hill and Wang, 2006): 156-285. - "Oneida," Mount Vernon, George Washington Library. https://www.mountvernon.org/library/digitalhistory/digital-encyclopedia/article/oneida/. - "The Revolutionary War: Oneida's Legacy to Freedom," The Oneida Indian Nation. www.oneidaindiannation.com. Want to Learn More? Get Involved: - Missing and Murdered Indigenous Women (MMIW): Native American women often face substantially higher rates of homicide and assault than other groups of people in America. Visit MMIW sites to learn more about Native American women and how we can all help today. - Research what Native American tribe(s) reside in your particular region, as well as nearby museums and historical sites. Many reservations and historical locations have their own resource groups, volunteer opportunities, and informational programs! Take a History Road Trip: - The Smithsonian Museum of the American Indian in Washington, D.C. has several Oneida artifacts, including the 19-foot bronze statue, "Allies in War, Partners in Peace," depicting George Washington, Polly Cooper, and Chief Shenendoah. - The National Archives Museum in D.C. has the original copy of the Treaty of Canandaigua. - The Museum of the American Revolution (MOAR) in Philadelphia has a very strong relationship with the Oneida tribe. One exhibit in their museum depicts Tyonajanegen and Han Yerry, honoring their service in the Battle of Oriskany. In addition to museum exhibits, MOAR actively partners with the Oneida tribe for new virtual and in-person events to educate the public and promote equality initiatives. Books: - Forgotten Allies: The Oneida Indians and the American Revolution by Joseph T. Glattharr and James Kirby Martin - The People of the Standing Stone: The Oneida Nation from the Revolution through the Era of Removal, by Karim Tiro - Rebellious Younger Brother: Oneida Leadership and Diplomacy, 1750-1800, by David Norton Preview of Next Month's Heroines: Did you know that three teenage girls, on three separate occasions, rode on horseback to warn Americans of approaching British forces? All three of these young women also traveled much farther than Paul Revere, and did so without any assistance! Learn more in November's edition of Revolutionary Voices! In Case You Missed It: - Benjamin Tallmadge: America's First Head of Military Intelligence - James Armistead Lafayette: America's First Double-Agent - King's Printer, or Washington's Spy: The Story of James Rivington - Anna Smith Strong: Wife, Mother, Spy, Patriot - From Hungary with Love: An Artist of the Revolution - 18th Century Spy Games for Kids Welcome back to "Revolutionary Voices!" For the September installment of this series, I introduce you to the man who became the first African-American double-agent, and whose intelligence directly affected the outcome of the final, decisive battle of the American Revolution: James Armistead Lafayette Joining the Fight James Armistead was born into slavery around 1760 and lived in New Kent, Virginia on a plantation owned by a man named William Armistead. William was involved in the Revolution through his work in managing the military supplies for the state of Virginia beginning in 1775. When the capital of Virginia transitioned from Williamsburg to Richmond in 1780, William moved his family and his enslaved persons (including James) to the new capital to continue his work for the Continental Army. In 1781, the Marquis de Lafayette was passing through James' region of Virginia during the southern campaign of the Revolution. Lafayette had a reputation for being a radical abolitionist as well as a successful commander under General George Washington. James requested permission from William to join the war under the service of Lafayette. William agreed, likely because it would bring him and his family honor to have one of their enslaved persons serve under the respected commander of the allied French forces. What motivated James to serve under Lafayette was unclear. It is likely that he believed if he served in the war, he would receive his freedom when it was over. Both the British and the Patriot forces promised freedom to enslaved persons who fought on their respective sides. It could also have been specifically because of Lafayette's reputation as an abolitionist and advocate for equality for all persons, regardless of their race, gender, or nationality. Either way, James believed serving in the war would result in freedom not only for the colonists, but also for himself. Infiltrating Enemy Lines James did not take up arms in the American Revolution. Instead, he infiltrated the British lines through espionage. Lafayette desperately needed information on the enemy to stop the losses his forces were incurring, primarily due to General Cornwallis and Lieutenant Colonel Banastre Tarleton. Lafayette's spies were continuously outed by the British and subsequently killed. These failed missions caused Lafayette to fear for the ultimate outcome of the war. The historical record around James' life contains quite a few gaps. During this time, James and Lafayette likely had a discussion about James going undercover as a spy. They agreed that James, as an enslaved man, would likely draw less attention than Lafayette's other spies. James posed as a runaway slave and quickly managed to infiltrate enemy lines--ironically through the infamous traitor Benedict Arnold's camp. He began his work by completing basic tasks expected of enslaved persons, casually placing himself where he could overhear the British commanders' discussions and plans. As his espionage efforts continued, a new and unexpected opportunity soon presented itself. Becoming a Double-Agent James possessed extensive knowledge of the Virginia terrain, having grown up and worked as a slave in the region his entire life. Cornwallis and Arnold saw an opportunity in James' knowledge of the Virginia region. He was sent out on foraging expeditions for the troops, spending a lot of time away from camp. This made it easier for James to pass information to nearby Patriot spies, who would then relay the information to Lafayette. In an unexpected twist of irony, Cornwallis also began trying to use James as a spy against Lafayette. Like the Frenchman, Cornwallis realized using an enslaved person as a spy could prove to be fruitful. One can only imagine Lafayette's reaction when James informed him of Cornwallis' plot. Now James and Lafayette had an opportunity to not only gather information on the enemy, but also to start their own misinformation campaign. James' work as a double-agent made traveling between the two camps easier. Both sides believed he was conducting espionage for them, making his presence in both camps less-suspicious. But that did not mean the mission was without its dangers. If James got caught by the British, it would likely mean a brutal death. While James supplied Lafayette with information, he also fed Cornwallis the misinformation Lafayette devised. James' most important work during the Revolution occurred in the summer of 1781. He wrote a letter to Lafayette, which contained detailed information about Cornwallis' movement from Portsmouth to Yorktown, and the arrival of 10,000 British troops to the region. This intelligence, alongside his previous reports on the condition of Yorktown and placement of soldiers and reinforcements, told Lafayette all he needed to know. Yorktown would be where the Americans made their last major stand against the British. Lafayette sent the information to Washington, and the two commanders began planning a blockade by both land and sea around Yorktown. This siege would destroy Cornwallis' forces, and force the British to surrender to Washington on October 19, 1781. The Long Journey to Freedom The war officially ended with the signing of the Treaty of Paris in 1783, but for James Armistead, freedom was a long-time coming. To James' dismay, espionage work was not covered by the Virginia law in 1783, which stated that enslaved men who "have faithfully served agreeable to the terms of their enlistment, and have thereby of course contributed towards the establishment of American liberty and independence, should enjoy the blessings of freedom as a reward for their toils and labours." James began petitioning the Virginia legislature for his freedom, but was continuously ignored. When Lafayette, who had returned to France after the Battle of Yorktown, heard of James' plight, he immediately provided personal testimony. Virginia officials took notice after receiving Lafayette's letter, which stated: "This is to certify that the Bearer has done essential services to me while I had the honour to command in this State. His Intelligence from the ennemy's [sic] camp were industriously collected and most faithfully delivered." As a result of James' petitions and Lafayette's testimony, James was emancipated in 1787, four years after the conclusion of the Revolution, and six years after his service as a spy. In honor of the man who who helped him achieve his own freedom, James changed his name to James Armistead Lafayette. He moved nine miles south of New Kent, Virginia where he lived the rest of his life in relative peace. He became a husband, father, and farmer, and received forty dollars a year from the Virginia legislature for his service to liberate a nation that, for many years, was unwilling to grant him his own freedom. Reunion In 1824, the Marquis de Lafayette embarked on a return journey to America. He toured the United States, eager to see the nation he helped set free from tyranny. By now, most of Lafayette's friends and fellow soldiers had died, including George Washington, Alexander Hamilton, and John Laurens. But there was one friend who still lived. As the story goes, when Lafayette rode through Richmond in a massive parade, he saw a familiar face in the crowd. He halted the procession, dismounted from his horse, and worked his way through the crowd until he reached James. Without hesitating, the two embraced each other with great joy. It had been over forty years since they last saw each other, but neither forgot the sacrifices they made to not only achieve freedom for America, but for James Armistead Lafayette himself. James died as a free man in Virginia in 1832. Without his service, the Americans may never have won the Battle of Yorktown--or the Revolutionary War. James is an American hero--and a Revolutionary Voice worthy of being heard, remembered, and honored. Sources:
American Battlefield Trust. "James Armistead Lafayette." Rev War: Biography. www.battlefields.org. Marquis de Lafayette, Memoirs of General Lafayette, 1825. "Lafayette's Testimonial to James Armistead Lafayette," 1784. www.mountvernon.org. "James Armistead Lafayette." www.colonialwilliamsburg.org. Thad Morgan, "How an Enslaved Man-Turned-Spy Helped Secure Victory at the Battle of Yorktown," History, February 4, 2019. www.history.com. Ruth Quinn, "James Armistead Lafayette (1760-1832)," U.S. Army, February 21, 2014. www.army.mil. Want to Learn More? Books: The Indispensable Spy: The Story of James Armistead, by Scarlet Ingstad, illustrated by Zsofia "Zowie" Papp. A Spy Called James: The True Story of James Lafayette, a Revolutionary War Double-Agent, by Anne Rockwell (Children's book). The Marquis: Lafayette Reconsidered, by Laura Aurrichio Hero of Two Worlds: The Marquis de Lafayette in the Age of Revolution, by Mike Duncan Other: - The Lafayette Trail: a non-profit organization dedicated to establishing historical markers, commemorating Lafayette's return-tour of America, and preserving his legacy. - Liberty's Kids: Television show for children, specifically Episode 135: James Armistead. - Colonial Williamsburg's Stephen Seals, historical interpreter and program development manager who portrays James. You can also view his YouTube program here! - Yorktown Battlefield and American Revolution Museum: explore the land where James conducted his espionage work, and take a walk through the museum to learn more about James and other lesser-known figures of the Revolution Preview of October's Article Did you know that America's first ally was not a foreign nation, but a Native American tribe? Tune in next month to learn about The Oneida Nation and a brave Native American woman known as Two Kettles Together! Last Month's Article: Miss the first installment of Revolutionary Voices? No worries! Catch up here to learn about the man who created the Culper Spy Ring: Benjamin Tallmadge! 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/. Ever wonder how Tallmadge and his spies used invisible ink or wrote on hard-boiled eggs? Today I want to introduce you all to a few different, fun ways to teach your kids (or yourself!) about 18th century espionage. During the lockdown in 2020, I played around with a few of these myself to pass the time and thought I would share some tips and tricks, as well as recipes, ideas, and other fun ways to teach your kids about this era of history. This is a great way to educate young people after they watch TURN: Washington's Spies! Invisible Ink on Paper We'll start with creating the ink and the reeagent, then move on to how in the world Abraham Woodhull wrote on those hard-boiled eggs. Some background on the ink itself: Both British and American armies used invisible ink to send coded and hidden messages. Revolutionary war ink was typically a combination of ferrous sulfate and water. James Jay, the brother of John Jay, invented a chemical solution out of tannic acid to be used as invisible ink as well. He was the main supplier of invisible ink to Washington, Tallmadge, and their spies. The letters were written, usually between the lines of printed books, and then treated with heat or another chemical agent to reveal the hidden message. So how can we recreate invisible ink today as part of a hands-on-learning lesson? It's actually fairly simple and there are different methods you can try using house-hold items: When I was playing around with these techniques during the pandemic, I had the best luck with option #1, the baking soda. I did learn that if you are not patient with the drying portion, the messages don't turn out all that well--patience is key! Instead of using the light bulb as the graphic depicts, I used the iodine and water re-agent solution. If you happen to try any heat-based "re-agent" method, let me know if it works! Invisible Ink and Eggs Now for the extremely tricky part---just HOW did Woodhull and the spies successfully write on hard-boiled eggs in TURN: Washington's Spies?! As Washington would say on the show: "Excellent question." I had a HECK of a time with this one, and it took about 2 dozen eggs til I got it figured out, but it was definitely worth the experiment. The best method for this activity that I found came from a blog post on readwatcheat.com (see below). I highly recommend following these instructions! Crafting and Decoding Messages
When you get tired of turning your kitchen into a complete mess, you can also get your kiddos (again, or just yourself) involved in crafting and decoding secret messages to one another or their friends! This is the easiest activity of all, because we have access to Benjamin Tallmadge's original codebook thanks to Mount Vernon! You can print out a copy of it through this link: Tallmadge's Codebook, or you can purchase a super-affordable paper copy through this link: Tallmadge Printed Codebook. The rest is really simple. Have the kids craft a message to a friend or family member utilizing the codebook. Try to get them to use as many numerical codes as possible for an extra challenge. Then, have the other child or family member decode the message and respond to it. You can also turn this into a mystery game, having them solve riddles, etc. Great way to pass the time and it lets the children use the very same codes Tallmadge and his spies used during the Revolutionary War! Additional Resources: A few more sources I used in crafting this blog post as well as some links to additional spy-games and information that might be useful for those who have children who are enamored by TURN: Washington's Spies or even Hamilton the Musical. Getting kids involved in history early is so important, and activities like these are great way to do it! And adults, don't be afraid to do these on your own too--I did! Share your thoughts below or send me a message and let me know how the activities went, tips and tricks, etc! - The Culper Spy Ring for Kids - History for Kids: SPIES! - Spy Techniques of the Revolutionary War - George Washington's Culper Spy Ring: Separating Fact from Fiction - Culper Spy Ring - Mount Vernon Digital Archives |
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 |