Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘american-revolution’

After the British left Boston in March 1776, George Washington correctly foresaw that they would try to take New York, which would separate the New England colonies from the Southern colonies.  Both the British and the Americans saw New York as “a kind of key to the whole continent,” as John Adams observed.[i]

Anticipating a possible attack from Long Island, the Americans stationed troops along the Gowanus Heights, a four mile long, wooded ridge extending east from New York Harbor towards Jamaica.  There were four passes through the ridge.  The Americans stationed troops at three of them, but left the Jamaica Pass to the east unguarded. 

While New Yorkers were preparing defenses to ward off the anticipated British invasion, Col. Joshia Smith of the Suffolk County Militia was traversing Long Island in anticipation of battle.  He arrived in Huntington on July 29 to review the local militia in John Wickes’ company and give them their pay of five dollars a man.  After riding to Great Neck to scout out locations for a guard, he returned to Suffolk County.  On August 10, he received instructions to march newly conscripted troops to the west end of the Island.  By the 12th the troops arrived in Huntington, where they spent the night before moving on towards Jamaica. 

The militia first went to the Brooklyn ferry and then on August 22, when the British started landing troops at Gravesend Bay, Col. Smith and his troops went to Flatbush, where one of the passes through Gowanus Heights was located.  There they exchanged fire with the enemy over the course of three days.  On the 27th, the full British attack began.  The Suffolk Militia at Flatbush faced an attack by Hessian troops. 

To their left, a large force of British troops outflanked the Americans by attacking through the unguarded Jamaica Pass.  On the 29th, the Suffolk Militia was ordered to retreat to New York, where they spent the night.  The militia then marched to Kingsbridge and into Westchester.  On September 1, they secured boats in Mamaroneck to take them back to Long Island, landing at Nathanial Platt’s in Smithtown.[ii]

While Col. Smith and troops were able to retreat; others were captured along with the Liberty Flag.  According to Hessian Colonel Heinrich von Heeringen, “The captured flag, which is made of red damask, with the motto, ‘Liberty,’ appeared with sixty men before Rall’s regiment. They had all shouldered their guns upside down, and had their hats under their arms. They fell on their knees and begged piteously for their lives.”[iii]

Meanwhile, on August 24, General Nathaniel Woodhull (Col. Floyd was at the Continental Congress) was instructed by the New York Convention (i.e., Provincial Congress) “to march without delay half the Western Reg. of Suffolk Co. Militia, with 5 days’ provisions into the Western part of Queens: to order out all militia of Queens with the horse, to prevent the stock and provisions in Queens from falling into the enemy’s hands, either by removing or destroying them.”[iv]  There were an estimated 100,000 horned cattle and a much larger number of sheep on Long Island.[v]  It was determined to be imperative to keep these animals out of the hands of the British. 

Woodhull arrived at Jamaica on the 25th.  Lt. Col. Gilbert Potter of Huntington and 100 men also arrived in Jamaica.  Potter returned to Huntington on the 26th and reported back to Woodhull that he received word that British ships had landed troops between Wading River and Mt. Sinai and began shooting cattle.  Major Jeffrey Smith ordered the men who were supposed to go to Queens to assist Woodhull to go to the east instead.  Potter said he expected the British ships in Huntington Bay before the morning.  He, therefore, was mustering men “to make as good opposition as possible.  We must have help here; every thing possible for me shall be done.  I think Gen. Washington should be acquainted.”  Always one for a memorable conclusion, he ends the letter: “Our women are in great tumult.”[vi]

No large invasion of the eastern part of Long Island took place.  It is believed that British General Howe staged this limited incursion to keep the Suffolk Militia away from the main battle in Brooklyn.[vii]

Woodhull reported that he had driven all the cattle south of the hills and east to the border between Kings and Queens Counties, about six miles from the enemy.  He stationed guards to keep the cattle from going back and to prevent Tories from communicating with the British troops.  However, he didn’t think he could maintain his position without help.  The Convention had ordered Colonels Smith and Remsen to assist Woodhull, but they were engaged in the Battle.[viii]

On August 28, a day after the British overwhelmed the Americans, Woodhull reported to the Convention that he had had 90 men and that the number was “daily growing less in number.  The people are so alarmed in Suffolk, that they will not any more of them march.”[ix]  He had sent 1100 cattle east to the Hempstead Plains the day before and another 300 the day he wrote the letter.  He asked for reinforcements.  If none were to be forthcoming, he asked what to do with the cattle, kill them or leave them.  Woodhull asked that the Convention, of which he had been president, to send two members to advise him as to the proper course of action.

The Convention dispatched John Sloss Hobart and James Townsend.  Before the emissaries arrived in Jamaica, Woodhull had been captured.  Details of his capture are not entirely clear, but upon being taken, a British officer commanded him to say, “God save the King.”  Instead, he said “God save us all.”  The enraged officer then hacked Woodhull arm with his sword.  Woodhull was taken prisoner and died from those wounds three weeks later.

Hobart and Townsend, who arrived in Jamaica too late to confer with Woodhull, continued on to Huntington, “as the only place where we could have any prospect of making an effectual stand.”[x]  At the same time, Major Jeffrey Smith ordered the four militia companies in Brookhaven to march immediately to Platt Carll’s tavern in Huntington (located on the north side of Jericho Turnpike, between Park Avenue and Warner Road).  On August 30, three companies arrived at Epenetus Smith’s tavern in Smithtown, with the fourth company on its way.  Major Smith went on ahead to Huntington to confer with Hobart and Townsend.  The militia were eager to march to the Hempstead Plains to bring off the cattle and take a stand in the woods east of the Plains.  When Major Smith returned that night, he called the officers together and said that he thought “it dangerous to march further West, as their forces would not be sufficient to oppose the enemy and he very much gave up the Island.”  He advised that “it would not be good policy to incense a cruel enemy by being taken in arms; if they remained quietly at home, they would fare better.”  He then resigned his commission and said he would, therefore, give no orders.[xi]

On August 31, Hobart and Townsend reported to the Convention that a number of militia men of Huntington are under arms, “but they complain their officers have left them.”  Colonel Floyd was at Congress, Lt. Col Potter was “gone off,” and Major Smith resigned.  Second Major Jesse Brush was with them “and begins to be in spirits.”[xii]  It seems Lt. Col. Potter had already fled to Connecticut sometime between his report to Gen. Woodhull on August 26 and the arrival in Huntington of Townsend and Hobart four days later.[xiii]

The Militia did not take a stand against the British, who arrived in Huntington on September 1. The Island was lost and would be under British occupation for the next six-and-a-half years.


[i] The American Revolution, An Intimate History, by Geoffrey C. Ward and Ken Burns (Alfred A. Knopf, New York, 2025), page 179

[ii] Mather Refugees, pages 1010-1012

[iii] The Hessians and the other German Auxiliaries of Great Britain in the Revolutionary War, by Edward J. Lowell (NY Harper & Brothers, Franklin Square 1884), page 67

[iv] Onderdonk Suffolk Incidents, page 31

[v] Mather’s Refugees, page 29

[vi] Huntington Town Records, Vol. III, page 7

[vii] Ibid. footnote

[viii] Onderdonk Suffolk Incidents, pages 32-33

[ix] Onderdonk Suffolk Incidents page 34

[x] Huntington Town Records, Vol III, page 9

[xi] Huntington Town Records, Vol III, page 10

[xii] Huntington Town Records, Vol III, page 9

[xiii] Mather’s Refugees, page 173

Read Full Post »

While Huntington resident Ephraim Oakes was taking part in the invasion of Canada (see previous post), another man, who hoped to get to Canada, was forced to stay in Huntington.  Patrick Sinclair was a Scottish veteran of the Seven Years War, who was appointed by the King to serve in Canada.  In 1774, Parliament had passed the Quebec Act, which among other things, extended the boundaries of the former French colony south to the Ohio River and west to the Mississippi.  In April 1775, the King appointed four superintendents or lieutenant governors to four districts in western Canada.  Sinclair was appointed to oversee the post at Michilimackinac, the Great Lakes region in what is now northern Michigan.[i]

There were no ships sailing from Scotland to Quebec, so Sinclair sailed from Glasgow to Baltimore in July 1775.  He then made his way through Pennsylvania and New Jersey, arriving in New York on August 1.  He outfitted himself as an Indian trader and planned to sail north to Albany on August 4 and then on to Oswego on his way to his post.[ii]  The New York Provincial Congress learned of his presence and mission on August 3.  Sinclair was summoned before the Provincial Congress where he confirmed his appointment as lieutenant governor.  The Provincial Congress thought it would be “highly imprudent . . . to permit any gentleman under the influence of the British ministry to proceed to that post to exercise those offices, who might prejudice the Indians against the inhabitants of the United Colonies.”  The Congress decided not to let Sinclair proceed to his post in Canada.  Instead, he was to be restricted to Suffolk County, the part of New York State farthest from Canada.  He was on his honor to “not take part in the present unhappy controversy between Great Britain and the United Colonies,” and he was not to leave Suffolk County without permission of the Continental Congress or the Provincial Congress.  He so promised.[iii] It was not under house arrest, so much as county arrest.

The Provincial Congress sent him to Huntington and instructed the Huntington committee to “take care of and provide for” Sinclair.[iv]  The Huntington Committee decided to have Sinclair stay with Captain John Squire, a mariner who lived on Wall Street.  While Sinclair was his guest, Squire was one of the representatives from Huntington who met in Smithtown on September 5 to nominate officers for the Western Regiment of the Suffolk Militia.[v]

When he wanted to go to Lloyd’s Neck, Sinclair had to request permission from the Provincial Congress because the Neck was at that time part of Queens County.  The Provincial Congress granted him permission.[vi] 

It was reported that Sinclair caused no trouble and “no information was received of his entertaining sentiments unfriendly to the United Colonies.”  Therefore, when, in March 1776, he requested permission to return to England, the Provincial Congress did not object.  They did, however, relay the request to the Continental Congress, which granted its permission on March 22—coincidentally five days after the British evacuated Boston.[vii]

Captain Squire’s bill for boarding Sinclair from August 1775 to March 28, 1776 was £56, 10s, 7d.[viii]  It is unknown if the bill was ever paid.


[i] Pamphlet entitled “Patrick Sinclair” by William L. Jenks published by the Michigan Historical Commission (1914), page 15-16.

[ii] Letter dated August 15, 1775 from Patrick Sinclair accessed at https://heritage.canadiana.ca/view/oocihm.lac_reel_c11890/263

[iii] Journals of the Provincial Congress of the State of New York, Vol 1, page100

[iv] Huntington Town Records, Vol III, page 133

[v] Huntington Town Records, Vol III, page1

[vi] Journals of the Provincial Congress of the State of New York, Vol 1, page128

[vii] Journals of the Provincial Congress of the State of New York, Vol 1, pages 345 and 380

[viii] Huntington Town Records, Vol III, page 134, footnote

Read Full Post »

Huntingtonians were quick to react to the first battle of the American Revolution when the local militia in Lexington and Concord, Massachusetts successfully repulsed a British attempt to seize their arms on April 19, 1775.

A week later in New York City, the Committee of Sixty, which had been created the previous November, expressed its opinion “That at the present alarming Juncture, it is highly adviseable (sic) that a Provincial Congress be immediately summoned.”[1]   On April 29, 1775, the Freemen, Freeholders and Inhabitants of the city and county of New York adopted Articles of Association and transmitted the same to all the counties in the Province to be adopted by them.  Through the Articles of Association, New Yorkers expressed their support for measures recommended “for the Purpose of preserving our Constitution, and opposition the Execution of the several arbitrary, and oppressive Acts of the British Parliament.”

In Huntington on May 8, 1775, 403 men signed the Articles of Association, while 37 refused to sign.  Most of the signers were from Huntington, but some Islip residents signed as well.[2]  Six days earlier, at a General Town Meeting, “it was Voted that there should be eighty men chosen to Exercise and be ready to March.”  This is considered the first recorded preparations by Huntington for potential hostilities with Great Britain.

The text of the Articles is set forth below:

Persuaded, that the Salvation of the Rights and Liberties of America, depends, under GOD, on the firm Union of its Inhabitants, in a vigorous Prosecution of the Measures necessary for its Safety; and convinced of the Necessity of preventing the Anarchy and Confusion, which attend a Dissolution of the Powers of Government; We, the Freeholders and Inhabitants of [Huntington] being greatly alarmed at the avowed Design of the Ministry, to raise a Revenue in America: and, shocked by the bloody Scene, now acting in the Massachusetts Bay, DO, in the most solemn Manner, resolve, never to become Slaves; and do Associate under all the Ties of religion, Honour, and Love to our Country, to adopt and endeavor to carry into Execution, whatever Measures may be recommended by the Continental Congress; or resolved upon by our Provincial Convention, for the Purpose of preserving our Constitution, and opposition the Execution of the several arbitrary, and oppressive Acts of the British Parliament; until a Reconciliation between Great-Britain and America, on Constitutional Principles, (which we most ardently Desire), can be obtained; And that we will in all Things follow the Advice of our General Committee, respecting the Purposes aforesaid, the Preservation of Peace and good Order, and the Safety of Individuals, and private property.[3] 

Substantially similar wording was adopted by the 98 delegates to the New York Provincial Congress on May 26, 1775.  One of the six representatives signing for Suffolk County was John Sloss Hobart of Eatons Neck.

The widespread adoption of the Articles of Association indicates the strong support in Huntington for the Patriot cause.  However, there are some who have questioned Huntington’s commitment to the Revolution, pointing to the later occupation of the town, and indeed all of Long Island, as well as the later signing by Huntington residents of the Oath of Loyalty to the crown. 

In an attempt to get a better understanding of the extent of Huntington’s support for the Continental Congress, it is necessary to know how many households there were in Huntington during this period.  Various lists of oath takers, assessments, and censuses gives some idea of the number of households in town, but not the total population because these records were generally limited to heads of household.  During this tumultuous period, the population was in flux.  After the American loss at the Battle of Long Island in August 1776, many fled Long Island.  Others moved here.  Young men came of age; old men died.  Record keeping was inconsistent (for example, Samuel Bennet, 30-year-old weaver, appears twice and the list of men who signed the 1778 Oath of Loyalty as recorded in the Town Records contain 549 names, while the list on file at the Public Records Office, Colonial Office in England[4] includes 560 names).

ListNumber
1764 Town Assessment[5]363
1775 Articles of Association (includes five men from Islip)[6]440
1778 Oath of Loyalty[7]560
1782 Town Assessment[8]406
1783 List of Inhabitants[9]224
1790 Town Census[10]382
1790 Federal Census (Total population 3,260)360

The 1778 Oath of Loyalty list includes 96 men between the ages of 15 and 20.  Assuming these young men were not heads of households, the number of households would be 464.  The greater number of signers of the Oath of Loyalty is most likely due to the coercion involved in regard to this list.  The Governor of New York, William Tryon, with a large contingent of troops, came to Huntington on September 2, 1778 to compel allegiance to the crown.  All men between the ages of 15 and 70 were forced to sign.  Those who did not sign on that day were ordered to “wait on [the governor] at New York on or before” September 10.  Failure to do so would result in a fine of £5 and the refusers would be “Obliged To Quit The Island with Their families.”[11]  One hundred and nineteen men who did not sign the oath on September 2, later signed the oath before Justice John Hewlett, apparently without having to travel to New York.

Of the 403 men who signed the Articles of Association in 1775, 269 also signed the Oath of Loyalty to the Crown three years later; but 132 did not (5 of those, however, appear on the Islip list).  Those who did not sign, including Patriot leaders John Sloss Hobart and Gilbert Potter, had fled the Island; other may have died.  Those who remained had no choice but to sign. 

The percentage of men in 1775 who signed the Articles of Association compared to those who refused to sign was 91.5%.  If one takes an average of four of the late eighteenth century lists[12], the population of the town would number 423 households.  If we take that number, the percentage of Huntington households signing the Article of Association would be 95%.  If we take the total number of households from the 1778 Oath of Loyalty, Patriot support would be either 87% (based on the number excluding those under age 21, 464) or 72% (based on the total number of 560).

In other words, it is clear that support for the Patriot cause was very high in Huntington, at least seven out of ten and perhaps as many as nine out of ten heads of household supported the Patriot cause. 

Beyond providing an indication of local sentiment, this exercise also reveals that Huntington’s population was in a state of flux.  Only 128 names appear on all three lists during the duration of the war: the 1775 Association list, the 1778 Oath of Loyalty list and the 1782 assessment list. A list combining the names on the Articles of Association list, the Oath of Loyalty List and the 1782 assessment contains 924 names.  Of these, there are 71 duplicate names, which may or may not refer to different people.  For instance, on the Articles of Association list, there are four men named Isaac Ketcham.  Since they are on one list, they are most likely different people.  When combining lists, it is not always possible to make that determination.

What this demonstrates is that while the number of households may have been around 400-500, the residents of those houses changed during the war years.  The population was in a constant state of flux.  It is possible that many Loyalists from Connecticut and elsewhere came to Huntington, increasing the population from 440 to 560 households.  At the end of the war the population fell sharply from 406 households in 1782 to 224 households a year later.  Indeed, 393 men who signed the Oath of Loyalty in 1778 were not listed on the1782 assessment, and 233 men who had signed the Articles of Association in 1775 were not listed on the 1782 assessment. The population then recovered by 1790 to the level it had been in 1764.

This analysis was made possible by the work of Brett Lafemina, a student at Syracuse University, in assembling and analyzing the data.


[1] The Refugees of 1776 from Long Island to Connecticut, by Frederic Gregory Mather, 1913, page 1049

[2] Five names from the Association list later appear of the list of those taking the Oath of Loyalty in Islip in 1778: Stephen Kelly (or Keley), Joseph Ketcham, Anning Moberry (or Mowbray), Samual Oakley, and James Smith.

[3] Mather, page 1049-1050

[4] Photocopy of handwritten list created in 1779 available from the Long Island Collection at the East Hampton Public Library, “A list of persons in Suffolk County, on Long Island who took the following oath of allegiance and peaceable behavior before Governor Tryon 1778: Public record office, colonial office, class 5, 1109.”

[5] Huntington Town Records Vol. II, page 467

[6] Mather, Refugees Page 1062

[7] See footnote 2

[8] Huntington Town Records, Vol. III, page 85

[9] Huntington Town Records, Vol. III, page 105; this is the number given by Henry Clay Platt in his 1876 Centennial address, Old Times in Huntington.

[10] Huntington Town Records, Vol. III, page 147

[11] Huntington Town Records, Vol. III, page 33

[12] The four lists are the 1775 Articles of Association (440), the 1778 Oath of Loyalty (56-minus 96 men under 21 for a total of 464), the 1782 assessment (406) and the 1790 local census (382).  The 1783 list of inhabitants was left off because it is not in line with the other lists.  Including that list would lower the average to 383.

Read Full Post »

            What’s in a name?  When trying to promote development of an area, its name is important, especially if the name is not appealing.  Think Mosquito Cove (now Glen Cove) or Drowned Meadow (now Port Jefferson).  In Huntington, what had been known for over a century as Gallows Hill is now Fort Hill.

            The story begins during the American Revolution when Huntington was occupied by the British.  To guard their position in Huntington, the British built a fort at the eastern approach to the Town Common.  The fort stood at the intersection of today’s East Main Street and Maple Hill Road, at the point where East Main Street descends to the Park Avenue valley.  Traces of the fort could still be seen as late as a century after the war but are now lost.

            At the end of the war, the area near the fort was the site of a hanging.  Over the years, the identities of the men hanged and even which side they were on became confused.  In one telling, the two men were British soldiers who rode to their execution on their coffins.  The other version claims the men were American spies.

            In 1975, Huntington’s Bicentennial Committee went with the American spies version of the story and erected a historic marker on Huntington Bay Road.  The marker text: “Near this spot, two American Martyrs were hanged by the British during the Revolution.”  Why that particular spot was chosen to place the marker is not known.

            Recent research by David M. Griffin, who has written two books about the American Revolution on Long Island,* confirms that the Bicentennial Committee chose the wrong version.  The two condemned men were Isaac Algar and Nathaniel Parker, who fought for the British.  In August 1783, they were convicted of robbing and beating Platt Carll, who operated an inn on the north side of Jericho Turnpike between Manor and Warner Roads.  The convicted men were hanged on September 10, 1783 (the executioner was Provost Marshal William Cunningham, who was also present at Nathan Hale’s hanging seven years earlier).  Two and a half months later, the British evacuated from New York City.

The 1837 Coastal Survey Map

            For generations, the hill east of Park Avenue and north of East Main Street was known as Gallows Hill.  It was so labeled on the 1837 Coastal Survey map. Nineteenth century deeds described Maple Hill Road as the road to Gallows Hill.  The area was sparsely settled, so no one much minded the name.  But by the turn of the twentieth century, when more and more houses were built, it was decided a new name should be found.  Reference to the fort, even though it was a British fort, was preferable to a reference to the site of an execution.  Hence Gallows Hill became Fort Hill.

            To correct the record on September 23, 2024, a new historical marker was placed at the intersection of Maple Hill and Fort Hill Roads.


* Lost British Forts of Long Island (The History Press 2017) and Chronicles of the British Occupation of Long Island (The History Press 2023)

Read Full Post »