Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Posts Tagged ‘Nathan Hale’

Nathan Hale can be considered many things: a hero, a martyr, a failed spy. But mostly Nathan Hale is a mystery.

We know a fair amount of Hale other than the last two weeks of his life.  He was born in Coventry, Connecticut in 1755.  He graduated from Yale College in 1773 and then became a schoolteacher in Connecticut.  After the Battle of Lexington and Concord in April 1775, he joined the Connecticut Militia and was soon elected lieutenant.  He was at the siege of Boston. 

The British left Boston on March 17, 1776 and Hale followed George Washington to New York, the anticipated next scene of conflict with British forces.  That conflict came a few months later with the largest battle of the war.  The American forces lost the Battle of Long Island but miraculously escaped to Manhattan.  After the defeat, George Washington needed intelligence about British activities on Long Island and their plans to attack Manhattan. 

As early as September 1, he asked his generals to find someone to gather intelligence of British activities on Long Island.  He urged them “to establish ‘a channel of information’ through which frequent reports from the Long Island side could reach him.”

“Perhaps,” he wrote, “some might be got who are really Tories for a reasonable reward to undertake it. Those who are friends would be preferable, if they could manage it as well.”[1]

At the same time, Washington organized a Rangers unit under the command of Thomas Knowlton, who was tasked to recruit men to conduct tactical reconnaissance for the army.[2] Hale was recruited as a captain of one of the four companies in the unit. 

Although the exact date is not known, sometime in the second week of September, Hale answered Washington’s call to gather intelligence on the British.  What transpired over the next two weeks is a mystery.  Much has been written over the past 250 years concerning Hale, much of it is speculation for there is scant direct contemporaneous evidence on which to rely.

His friends thought Hale was too naïve to be a good spy and tried to talk him out of proceeding.  “From an intelligence perspective, he was a lousy spy.  His selection, training (or lack thereof), and how he conducted his mission were horrible by both intelligence and commonsense standards.”[3]

The man who accompanied him from New York to start his journey provides details about the beginning of the mission.  Sargent Stephen Hempstead shared these details in 1827 when he was 69 years old. He had served in Hale’s company of the Connecticut Militia.  According to Hempstead, Hale told him that he was asked “to go over to L.I. to discover the disposition of the Enemy’s camp, &c., expecting them to attack N.Y.”[4]  Sharing such details was not an auspicious start for a secret spying mission.

Hempstead says they left the American camp in Harlem Heights and made their way to Norwalk, which was the first place they could find a ship to ferry Hale across the Sound to Long Island.  Hale left his belongings with Hempstead, except for his Yale diploma, and said he would pretend to be a Dutch school teacher looking for a position.  It doesn’t make sense that he would pretend to be Dutch, especially since he would be travelling through the west end of Long Island, which still had a sizeable Dutch population.  I.W. Stuart, who wrote an account of Nathan Hale’s mission in 1856, suggests that Hale was joking when he said he would be a Dutch schoolteacher.  How would he explain that he had the diploma of a man with a  very English name?  But if he were a Connecticut schoolteacher looking for a school, carrying his Yale diploma as proof of his qualifications makes sense.

Captain Pond took Hale and Hempstead across the Sound on the Schuyler.  They landed at Huntington Bay.  That was the last time Hempstead saw Hale.  Hempstead returned to Norwalk to await Hale’s return or word from Hale. (Alexander Rose, without citing a source, writes that a Tory informant in Norwalk noticed “the arrival of two men, both army types, only one of whom departed quietly in the night with the sloop while the other, Sergeant Hempstead, headed westwards back toward American lines.”[5]  This is inconsistent with Hempstead’s first-hand account.)

According to Ida Johnson, writing in 1894, once on shore in Huntington, the first man Hale met was her great grandfather William Johnson, who lived in a house that still stands at 124 Bay Road.  Johnson gave Hale some food and then Hale set off, telling Johnson that he “should watch for him on his return.”[6]

What Hale then did, where he went, what he discovered are unknown.  We do know that he was captured a few days later and that at 11:00 on the morning on Sunday, September 22, Hale was hanged in Manhattan, near Third Avenue and 66th Street.

Where and how he was captured have been in dispute for the past two centuries.

According to the version widely believed in Huntington and set forth by Charles R. Street in his annotation of the Huntington Town Records (1889), Hale

made his way to Brooklyn, and having acquired the information desired, returned to Huntington; remained over night at the home of a friend, William Johnson, on East Neck.  The next day he ventured down to a public inn kept by “Mother Chid,” (Chichester) at a place called “The Cedars,” at the head of Huntington Bay, near where Titus Conklin now lives, intending to cross to Connecticut in a boat.  Seeing a boat approach he took it for the one expected, but he was mistaken, as it came from a British vessel and was manned by British sailors.  His true character was revealed by a Loyalist at the inn and he was taken prisoner, hastened to the City of New York, and hung as a spy.[7]

British Troops had arrived in Huntington two weeks before Hale.  So as soon as he arrived, he was in enemy territory. 

But this “official” version began to be questioned.  In 1918, Augustine Scudder, principal of the Lincoln School in Huntington Station, read a paper to the Huntington Historical Society arguing that Hale was not captured in Huntington.  She relied on Henry Phelps Johnston’s 1914 biography of Hale.  Johnston argued that Hale could not have been captured in Huntington because British General Howe’s Orderly Book for September 22 states “A spy from the enemy (by his own full confession) apprehended last night, was this day executed at 11 o’clock in front of the Artillery Park.”  Johnston points out that if Hale was “apprehended” the night of September 21, there would not have been enough time to bring him from Huntington to Manhattan the same night, which was presumed to have been done by the H.M.S. Halifax, a 16-gun British warship.  Moreover, Johnston asserts that the log for the Halifax indicated that the ship was not in Huntington at the time and that the log “in which every incident appears to be noticed, makes no mention of anything so creditable to her crew as the capture of a spy.”[8]

Romanah Sammis, president of the Historical Society and later Town Historian, agreed that Hale was not captured here.[9]  Scudder and Sammis argued that Hale would have followed the British army into Manhattan after they landed there on September 15.  Then being only a mile or so from the American forces in Harlem, it would have made no sense for him to return to Huntington.  By the time he walked back to Huntington, was ferried by boat to Connecticut and walked back to the American camp in Harlem, it would be too late for his intelligence to have been of any use to Washington.  Indeed, one could argue the whole enterprise, even if successful, was too lengthy to have been of much use by the time he would have returned to camp.  Then again, the siege of Boston began on April 19, 1775 and the British did not attack the American forces until June 17, when they successfully captured Bunker Hill, but at the cost of a thousand casualties.

Sammis continued to argue that Hale was not captured in Huntington, suggesting in 1927 that the Nathan Hale memorial on Main Street should be removed.[10]   She said the memorial was “a ‘miserably unsightly thing’ that was given to Huntington because it was left over on some job.”[11]

Sammis convinced the Town Board in 1935 to appoint a committee to study the matter.[12]  The committee was greatly assisted by the work of Town Counsel Isaac Swezey and Walter Funnell, who had been appointed to the committee but resigned because he was living in Westchester at the time.  While the committee released its report in 1939, Swezey and Funnell continued their research and corresponded with each other about this matter until their deaths in the 1950s.

The question of where Hale was captured depends on how he was captured.  If he was captured because he mistook a British boat for an American boat, his place of capture must have been in Huntington because that is where he was expecting there to be a ship to take him back to Connecticut.

However, another version of Hale’s capture credits Robert Rogers of the Queen’s American Rangers with capturing Hale.  Rogers was a hero of the French and Indian War who was commissioned by British commander William Howe to recruit a battalion of Loyalists.  After the Battle of Long Island, Rogers’ Rangers were deployed to the north shore of Long Island to recruit members.[13]  The Huntington committee discovered a diary kept by Captain William Bamford, a soldier in the British army.  The diary did not come to light until 1933.  Bamford’s entry for September 22, 1776 reads “Nathan Hales, a Capt in ye Rebel Army & a spy was taken by Majr Rogers & this mg hang’d he had several Papers wt accts of our Forces &ca he confess’d many deserters come in. he was a spy.”[14] 

The reference to Rogers as Hale’s captor led the committee to review of the logs of the Halifax.  The logs show that Rogers and his Rangers were aboard the ship in the period from September 16 to 21, the same period Hale was conducting his mission.

After reviewing the evidence at their disposal, the committee concluded that “it is manifestly impossible to prove absolutely that Nathan was captured at Huntington.”  However, from the facts uncovered by the committee “the probability of capture at Huntington would appear to be much increased.”  Therefore, with respect to changing the wording on local monuments, “it is the opinion of the Committee that the memorials were erected in good faith, that the tradition they embody is now strongly supported, and that it is not needful to disturb those memorials at present.”[15]

The most prominent biographer of Robert Rogers, writing in 1959, mentions the capture of Nathan Hale only briefly, relying on Bamford’s diary to connect Rogers to the capture.  He posits that “Rogers’ connection with the incident is merely that he was halted while en route to Howe’s headquarters in his sloop and asked to bring Hale in.”[16]  But an eighteenth-century manuscript that first came to light in 2000 when it was donated to the Library of Congress describes a much larger role for Rogers.  Consider Tiffany was a Connecticut merchant who remained loyal to the crown.  He wrote an account of the Revolution, either during or shortly after the war.  According to Tiffany’s account, Hale was sent to Long Island “to find whether the Long Island inhabitants were friends to America or not.”  This is a different mission than that described by Hale’s companion, Sargent Hempstead, who said Hale was sent to Long Island, “to discover the disposition of the Enemy’s camp, &c., expecting them to attack N.Y.”  Likewise, Benjamin Talmadge, Hale’s Yale classmate and friend, recounting his interaction with Major John Andre after the British officer was captured, wrote that “After the British troops had entered N. York, Genl Washington wanted information respecting the strength, position & probable movements of the Enemy.  Capt. Hale tendered his services, went into N. York, & was taken just as he was passing the out posts of the Enemy.”[17]

Beyond the difference in the description of Hale’s mission, Tiffany gives a completely new account of the circumstances of Hale’s capture and with a level of detail that seems unlikely for a shopkeeper in Connecticut to have known:

Colonel Rogers having for some days observed Capt. Hale, having for some [days] suspected that he was an enemy in disguise. And to convince himself, Rogers thought of trying the same method. He quickly altered his own habit with which he made Capt. Hale a visit at his quarters where the colonel fell into some discourse concerning the war, intimating the trouble of his mind in his being detained on an island where the inhabitants sided with Britons against the American colonies. Intimating withal that he himself was upon the business of spying out the inclination of the people and [the] motion of the British troops. This intrigue, not being suspected by the Capt. made him believe he had found a good friend and one that could be trusted with a secrecy of the business he was engaged in. And after the colonel’s drinking a health to the Congress informs Rogers of the business and intent.

The colonel, finding out the truth of the matter, invited Capt. Hale to dine with him the next day at his quarters unto which he agreed. The time being come, Capt. Hale repaired to the place agreed on where he met his pretended friend with three or four men of the same stamp and, after being refreshed, began the same conversation as hath been already mentioned. But in the height of their conversation, a company of soldiers surrounded the house and by orders from the commander seized Capt. Hale, in an instant. But he, denying his name and the business he came upon, was ordered to New York. But before he was carried far, several persons knew him and called him by name. Upon this, he was hanged as a spy, some say, without being brought before a court-martial.[18]

It is interesting to note that based on this account, two later writers differ on which meal Hale and Rogers shared when they met for the second time.  Kenneth Daigler writes that they met for breakfast;[19]  whereas Alexander Rose writes that they met in the afternoon and Rogers ordered ales for the group.[20] 

One would hope that a review of the ship’s log for the Halifax would help to settle the question.  But the log is difficult to decipher due to the handwriting, the use of abbreviations, and a lack of punctuation.  Confusion may also have been caused by readers not appreciating that the log was recorded using a nautical day—that is a day that starts at noon the day before the date given.  In other words, an entry for September 17 would start at noon on September 16 and end at noon on the 17th.

The Halifax log records that on the night of September 16, the Halifax “rec’d by sloop Conl. Rogers and a Party of Rangers.”  At 4:00 a.m. on the 17th, the ship was in Huntington Bay to look for “two Rebel Privateers having Intelligence of them.”  This most probably refers to the Schuyler, which is believed to have dropped Hale off early on the 16th.  The second ship is believed to be the Montgomery, whose captain, William Rogers, was from Huntington.  The search was unsuccessful.

On the 18th, a tender from the Halifax captured a Patriot schooner that was transporting four cases of gunpowder.  The powder was taken and the schooner sunk.  That same day there is a reference to “Sanseys point.”  The evening of the 18th, the Halifax was off Oyster Bay near Centre Island.  At 3:00 on the afternoon of the 19th, the ship was near Hempstead Bay.  Later that night, “the Party of Rangers landed on Sanseys p.”  This has been interpreted over the years as referring to Sands Point, located on the west side of Hempstead Bay and 16 miles west of Huntington Bay.  However, historian Claire Bellerjeau discovered that the peninsula that Huntington residents think of as Wincoma Point is officially known as Sandy Point.  That is the name given on the 1946 Official Highway map for the Town of Huntington and on the Town’s Geographic Information System map and in eighteenth century Huntington Town Records.[21]  The peninsula is also called Sandy Point in newspaper articles and reports of the Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army.

The Huntington location is also supported by the account given by Stephen Hempstead, who had accompanied Hale at the start of his mission.  Hempstead thought Hale was captured in Manhattan “at a tavern at a place called the ‘Cedars.’”  But as noted by Seymour in his book, “There is no such geographic point revealed in all the exhaustive research which has been devoted to the famous island.”[22]  But the shores of Huntington Bay, where Mother Chick’s Tavern was located, was known as the Cedars.[23]  As with many of the accounts of Hale’s mission, Hempstead may have mixed up some details.

But the Halifax was off Hempstead Bay at 3:00 p.m. on the 19th.  Could it have sailed east to Huntington Bay to drop off the Rangers?  Wherever the ship was at 10:00 that night it weighed anchor and arrived at Whitestone Point at 4:00 a.m., six hours later.  Whitestone Point is about 8 miles from Sands Point and about 26 miles from Huntington Bay.  An 8 miles sail should not take six hours, but a 26 miles sail could.

At Whitestone Point, the Halifax was in company with the Niger, a British ship that spent the month of September at Whitestone.  The log for the Niger reports that at 7:00 p.m. on the 19th it was “hailed from the North Shore.”  A boat was sent and “returned with a Rebel Officer, a Deserter from their Army.”  On the morning of the 20th, the Niger’s  log records that the Halifax was anchored nearby, having come from the eastward.  The next words in the Niger’s log are “Sent the Rebel officer to Head Quarters.”  Could this have been Nathan Hale?  It seems unlikely because this Rebel officer was taken to the Niger on the night of the 19th from the “North Shore,” which may refer to the north shore of the Sound, not the north shore of the Island.  In any event, the Halifax log reports that on the 22nd—the day Hale was hanged—“Col. Rogers and his party of Rangers came from Flushing.”

The timeline above does not leave enough time to support Tiffany’s account.

As mentioned above, Swezey and Funnell continued their research long after the Huntington committee issued its report in 1939.  After their deaths in the 1950s, their research papers were donated to the Huntington Historical Society, where they apparently sat unread for the next 70 years.  But with the 250th anniversary of Hale’s execution in 2026, Toby Kissam read through the files and realized a theory supporting Huntington as the place of Hale’s capture could be developed. 

Swezey secured letters from descendants of William Ludlam of Centre Island and William Johnson of Huntington Bay as well as a secondhand account from a woman whose ancestors had lived in the house in Newtown (now Elmhurst) that Howe had used as his headquarter for the first two weeks of September.

According to these testimonies, William Johnson helped Hale at the start of his mission.  How would Hale have known to trust Johnson?  Perhaps he was advised by William Rogers, the captain of the second privateer that accompanied the Schuyler, that he should look for Johnson’s house after he landed on the beach.  Johnson’s descendants claim that their ancestor ferried Hale across Huntington Bay, through Lloyd Harbor and over the beach to Cold Spring Harbor then over to Centre Island.  There Hale was able to borrow a horse from William Ludlam.  Hale then set off on his mission—wherever that would have taken him.  Swezey secured a letter from a Ludlam descendant to report that Hale returned the horse a few days later and returned to Huntington Bay to wait for the Schuyler to retrieve him.

In his book on the Culper Spy Ring, Alexander Rose contends that Rogers, “guessing that Hale would head west along the coastal road toward the city, planned to lie in wait to intercept him.”[24]  But Rogers isn’t the only one guessing; Rose is also guessing.  There appears to be no primary source for the proposition that Rogers followed Hale as he traveled west of the “coastal road” (presumably North Hempstead Turnpike, Route 25A).  If Hale’s destination was Brooklyn, a better, less hilly route would have been by way of what is now Jericho Turnpike.  It is perhaps more likely that Rogers guessed that Hale would return to the place he had started his mission, Huntington Bay.  Therefore, Rogers could have decided to land at Sandy Point, Huntington and wait for Hale to return.

Whether one credits Tiffany’s account of Rogers trickery or the mistaken boat version, Hale would have been taken to Manhattan to be hanged.  A likely route would have been by water to Flushing Bay, which is near Newtown, where Howe had had his headquarters until September 15.  Swezey was told by a woman who lived to the house that was formerly Howe’s headquarters that she had been told by an 85-year-old woman, whose parents or grandparents had previously owned the house that Hale was kept in the basement of the house.  Then on the 21st, he could have been transported over to Newtown Creek and from there taken by boat down the creek and across the East River to Howe’s new headquarters in Manhattan, where he was summarily sentenced to death.  Rogers and his Rangers then returned to the Halifax by way of Flushing on the 22nd.

The truth may never be known with certainty but, as pointed out by the 1935 committee, Huntington appears to be the only locality with a tradition as being the place of Hale’s capture.  Huntington as the place of capture is also supported by testimony from Robert Townsend and other Oyster Bay residents.[25]

Famous Last Words

The reason Hale is remembered is not because he was a valuable spy, but because of the final words attributed to him: “I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.”

In recent years, it has become popular to note that there is no proof that Hale ever said those words.  That is true, but the legend persists.  The famous last words are probably the work of Hale’s friend Captain William Hull and were most likely inspired by a line in a 1712 play by Joseph Addison called Cato, A Tragedy.  In Act 4, Scene 4, Cato says, of the death of his son, “How beautiful is death when earned by virtue.  Who would not be that youth?  What pity is it that we can die but once to serve our country.”

Whether the line inspired Hale or Hull is the question.  The first report of Hale’s last words appeared in the Essex Journal (Massachusetts) of February 13, 1777, which states that: “At the gallows, he [Hale] made a sensible and spirited speech; among other things, told them they were shedding the blood of the innocent, and that if he had ten thousand lives, he would lay them all down, if called to it, in defence of his injured, bleeding Country.”

Four years later, the Boston Independent Chronicle reported that Hale’s last words were “I am so satisfied with the cause in which I have engaged, that my only regret is, that I have not more lives than one to offer in its service.”  By 1799 in Hannah Adams’ Summary History of New England, the statement came closer to the famous version, “he only lamented, that he had but one life to lose for his country.” [26]

*          *          *

Marker Mix-up

Confusion about whether Nathan Hale was captured at Mother Chick’s in Huntington or elsewhere extends to where exactly Mother Chick’s was.

In 1977, during the celebration of the Bicentennial, a historic marker was placed on Bay Road just south of Dale Road.  The marker identifies this as the location of Mother Chick’s Inn.  Unfortunately, the marker was in the wrong place.  In 1776, the house at that location, which still stands, was the home of William Johnson, not Mother Chick.  Mother Chick’s Inn was located near where Nathan Hale Beach Club is today.  The mix up of the two buildings dates back to the early twentieth century, when post cards of the Johnson Farm identified the house as Mother Chick’s.

1837 Coastal Survey

            Nineteenth century maps identify Johnson as the owner of the Bay Road house.  This is consistent with the 1877 deed by which William S. Johnson (grandson of the William Johnson who lived there a century earlier) sold the property.  The deed describes the property as “commencing at the junction of the highway running northerly past the house of the said Samuel Johnson dec’d [father of the seller] to Huntington Bay [i.e. Bay Road] with the highway connecting the aforementioned highway with the highway called the Cove Road [i.e. Dale Road]” then running along Cove Road and back to Bay Road (Suffolk County Clerk’s Office Deed Liber 227, page 421).  In other words, the Johnson property was at the southeast corner of Bay Road and Dale Road—the location where the Mother Chick’s marker was installed in 1977.

According to the Johnson family, the first man Hale saw in Huntington was William Johnson, who gave him food before he began his spying mission.  When Hale set off, he instructed Johnson to watch for him on his return.  When Hale came back, Johnson hid him in a stack of straw or stalks because it was not deemed safe for Hale to stay in the house.  Hale became impatient and left the Johnson Farm and went to Mother Chick’s Inn, which was close to the beach and would provide a better vantage point to see the boat he was expecting.  He was captured the next morning.

As we commemorate the 250th anniversary of Hale’s mission and execution, this mistake has been corrected.  The 1977 Mother Chick’s marker has been relocated to Sydney Road, near the entrance to Nathan Hale Beach and a new marker for the Johnson Farm has been installed at 124 Bay Road.


[1] Nathan Hale 1776 Biography and Memorials, by Henry Phelps Johnston (Yale University Press 1914), page 100

[2] Spies, Patriots and Traitors, American Intelligence in the Revolutionary War, by Kenneth A. Daigler (Georgetown University Press 2014), page 95

[3] Spies, Patriots and Traitors, American Intelligence in the Revolutionary War, by Kenneth A. Daigler (Georgetown University Press 2014), page 95

[4] Extract of letter to the Missouri Republican from Stephen Hempstead, copied into the L.I. Star April 2, 1827.  Reprinted in Revolutionary Incidents of Suffolk and Kings Counties, by Henry Onderdonk, Jr. (1849), page 49

[5] Washington’s Spies, The Story of America’s First Spy Ring, by Alexander Rose (Bantam Books 2014), page 27

[6] Letter from Ida Johnson to Cornelia Prime dated June 26, 1894, printed in The Long-Islander, June 30, 1894, page 5

[7] Huntington Town Records, Vol. III, page 17, footnote

[8] Nathan hale 1776, Biography and Memorials, by Henry Phelps Johnston (1914), page 119

[9] The Long-Islander, January 29, 1926, page 17

[10] Brooklyn Eagle, March 25, 1927, page 22

[11] The Long-Islander, May 13, 1938

[12] The Long-Islander, January 10, 1936, page 6, section two

[13] Robert Rogers, Ranger, The Rise and Fall of an American Icon, by Martin Klotz (Westholme Publishing 2024), page 220

[14] Maryland Historical magazine, Nol. 28 (1933) page 10; also Documentary Life of Nathan Hale, by George Dudley Seymour (1941), page 446.

[15] The Long-Islander, May 18, 1939, page 2

[16] Robert Rogers of the Rangers, by John R. Cuneo (Oxford University Press 1959; reprinted Fort Ticonderoga Museum 1988), page 270)

[17] Public Papers of George Clinton, Vol. VI, page 263, footnote

[18] The American Colonies and The Revolution [c. 1600-1795], by Consider Tiffany, Edited and Annotated by J. Calvitt Clarke III, Jacksonville University (https://www.academia.edu/40188172)

[19] Spies, Patriots, and Traitors: American Intelligence in the Revolutionary War, by Kenneth A, Daigler (Georgetown University Press 2014), page 106

[20]Washington’s Spies, The Story of America’s First Spy Ring, by Alexander Rose (Bantam Books 2014), page 29-30

[21] Huntington Town Records, Vol. II, page 377

[22] Seymour, Documentary Life of Nathan Hale, page 442.

[23] Huntington Town Records, Vol. II, page 243, footnote

[24] Rose, page 28-29

[25] Revolutionary Incidents of Suffolk and Queens Counties, by Henry Onderdonk (1849), pages 52-53

[26] Rose,  Washington’s Spies, page 290-291

The Enduring Mystery of Nathan Hale,

America’s First Spy

Nathan Hale can be considered many things: a hero, a martyr, a failed spy.  But mostly Nathan Hale is a mystery.

We know a fair amount of Hale other than the last two weeks of his life.  He was born in Coventry, Connecticut in 1755.  He graduated from Yale College in 1773 and then became a schoolteacher in Connecticut.  After the Battle of Lexington and Concord in April 1775, he joined the Connecticut Militia and was soon elected lieutenant.  He was at the siege of Boston. 

The British left Boston on March 17, 1776 and Hale followed George Washington to New York, the anticipated next scene of conflict with British forces.  That conflict came a few months later with the largest battle of the war.  The American forces lost the Battle of Long Island but miraculously escaped to Manhattan.  After the defeat, George Washington needed intelligence about British activities on Long Island and their plans to attack Manhattan. 

As early as September 1, he asked his generals to find someone to gather intelligence of British activities on Long Island.  He urged them “to establish ‘a channel of information’ through which frequent reports from the Long Island side could reach him.”

“Perhaps,” he wrote, “some might be got who are really Tories for a reasonable reward to undertake it. Those who are friends would be preferable, if they could manage it as well.”[1]

At the same time, Washington organized a Rangers unit under the command of Thomas Knowlton, who was tasked to recruit men to conduct tactical reconnaissance for the army.[2] Hale was recruited as a captain of one of the four companies in the unit. 

Although the exact date is not known, sometime in the second week of September, Hale answered Washington’s call to gather intelligence on the British.  What transpired over the next two weeks is a mystery.  Much has been written over the past 250 years concerning Hale, much of it is speculation for there is scant direct contemporaneous evidence on which to rely.

His friends thought Hale was too naïve to be a good spy and tried to talk him out of proceeding.  “From an intelligence perspective, he was a lousy spy.  His selection, training (or lack thereof), and how he conducted his mission were horrible by both intelligence and commonsense standards.”[3]

The man who accompanied him from New York to start his journey provides details about the beginning of the mission.  Sargent Stephen Hempstead shared these details in 1827 when he was 69 years old. He had served in Hale’s company of the Connecticut Militia.  According to Hempstead, Hale told him that he was asked “to go over to L.I. to discover the disposition of the Enemy’s camp, &c., expecting them to attack N.Y.”[4]  Sharing such details was not an auspicious start for a secret spying mission.

Hempstead says they left the American camp in Harlem Heights and made their way to Norwalk, which was the first place they could find a ship to ferry Hale across the Sound to Long Island.  Hale left his belongings with Hempstead, except for his Yale diploma, and said he would pretend to be a Dutch school teacher looking for a position.  It doesn’t make sense that he would pretend to be Dutch, especially since he would be travelling through the west end of Long Island, which still had a sizeable Dutch population.  I.W. Stuart, who wrote an account of Nathan Hale’s mission in 1856, suggests that Hale was joking when he said he would be a Dutch schoolteacher.  How would he explain that he had the diploma of a man with a  very English name?  But if he were a Connecticut schoolteacher looking for a school, carrying his Yale diploma as proof of his qualifications makes sense.

Captain Pond took Hale and Hempstead across the Sound on the Schuyler.  They landed at Huntington Bay.  That was the last time Hempstead saw Hale.  Hempstead returned to Norwalk to await Hale’s return or word from Hale. (Alexander Rose, without citing a source, writes that a Tory informant in Norwalk noticed “the arrival of two men, both army types, only one of whom departed quietly in the night with the sloop while the other, Sergeant Hempstead, headed westwards back toward American lines.”[5]  This is inconsistent with Hempstead’s first-hand account.)

According to Ida Johnson, writing in 1894, once on shore in Huntington, the first man Hale met was her great grandfather William Johnson, who lived in a house that still stands at 124 Bay Road.  Johnson gave Hale some food and then Hale set off, telling Johnson that he “should watch for him on his return.”[6]

What Hale then did, where he went, what he discovered are unknown.  We do know that he was captured a few days later and that at 11:00 on the morning on Sunday, September 22, Hale was hanged in Manhattan, near Third Avenue and 66th Street.

Where and how he was captured have been in dispute for the past two centuries.

According to the version widely believed in Huntington and set forth by Charles R. Street in his annotation of the Huntington Town Records (1889), Hale

made his way to Brooklyn, and having acquired the information desired, returned to Huntington; remained over night at the home of a friend, William Johnson, on East Neck.  The next day he ventured down to a public inn kept by “Mother Chid,” (Chichester) at a place called “The Cedars,” at the head of Huntington Bay, near where Titus Conklin now lives, intending to cross to Connecticut in a boat.  Seeing a boat approach he took it for the one expected, but he was mistaken, as it came from a British vessel and was manned by British sailors.  His true character was revealed by a Loyalist at the inn and he was taken prisoner, hastened to the City of New York, and hung as a spy.[7]

British Troops had arrived in Huntington two weeks before Hale.  So as soon as he arrived, he was in enemy territory. 

But this “official” version began to be questioned.  In 1918, Augustine Scudder, principal of the Lincoln School in Huntington Station, read a paper to the Huntington Historical Society arguing that Hale was not captured in Huntington.  She relied on Henry Phelps Johnston’s 1914 biography of Hale.  Johnston argued that Hale could not have been captured in Huntington because British General Howe’s Orderly Book for September 22 states “A spy from the enemy (by his own full confession) apprehended last night, was this day executed at 11 o’clock in front of the Artillery Park.”  Johnston points out that if Hale was “apprehended” the night of September 21, there would not have been enough time to bring him from Huntington to Manhattan the same night, which was presumed to have been done by the H.M.S. Halifax, a 16-gun British warship.  Moreover, Johnston asserts that the log for the Halifax indicated that the ship was not in Huntington at the time and that the log “in which every incident appears to be noticed, makes no mention of anything so creditable to her crew as the capture of a spy.”[8]

Romanah Sammis, president of the Historical Society and later Town Historian, agreed that Hale was not captured here.[9]  Scudder and Sammis argued that Hale would have followed the British army into Manhattan after they landed there on September 15.  Then being only a mile or so from the American forces in Harlem, it would have made no sense for him to return to Huntington.  By the time he walked back to Huntington, was ferried by boat to Connecticut and walked back to the American camp in Harlem, it would be too late for his intelligence to have been of any use to Washington.  Indeed, one could argue the whole enterprise, even if successful, was too lengthy to have been of much use by the time he would have returned to camp.  Then again, the siege of Boston began on April 19, 1775 and the British did not attack the American forces until June 17, when they successfully captured Bunker Hill, but at the cost of a thousand casualties.

Sammis continued to argue that Hale was not captured in Huntington, suggesting in 1927 that the Nathan Hale memorial on Main Street should be removed.[10]   She said the memorial was “a ‘miserably unsightly thing’ that was given to Huntington because it was left over on some job.”[11]

Sammis convinced the Town Board in 1935 to appoint a committee to study the matter.[12]  The committee was greatly assisted by the work of Town Counsel Isaac Swezey and Walter Funnell, who had been appointed to the committee but resigned because he was living in Westchester at the time.  While the committee released its report in 1939, Swezey and Funnell continued their research and corresponded with each other about this matter until their deaths in the 1950s.

The question of where Hale was captured depends on how he was captured.  If he was captured because he mistook a British boat for an American boat, his place of capture must have been in Huntington because that is where he was expecting there to be a ship to take him back to Connecticut.

However, another version of Hale’s capture credits Robert Rogers of the Queen’s American Rangers with capturing Hale.  Rogers was a hero of the French and Indian War who was commissioned by British commander William Howe to recruit a battalion of Loyalists.  After the Battle of Long Island, Rogers’ Rangers were deployed to the north shore of Long Island to recruit members.[13]  The Huntington committee discovered a diary kept by Captain William Bamford, a soldier in the British army.  The diary did not come to light until 1933.  Bamford’s entry for September 22, 1776 reads “Nathan Hales, a Capt in ye Rebel Army & a spy was taken by Majr Rogers & this mg hang’d he had several Papers wt accts of our Forces &ca he confess’d many deserters come in. he was a spy.”[14] 

The reference to Rogers as Hale’s captor led the committee to review of the logs of the Halifax.  The logs show that Rogers and his Rangers were aboard the ship in the period from September 16 to 21, the same period Hale was conducting his mission.

After reviewing the evidence at their disposal, the committee concluded that “it is manifestly impossible to prove absolutely that Nathan was captured at Huntington.”  However, from the facts uncovered by the committee “the probability of capture at Huntington would appear to be much increased.”  Therefore, with respect to changing the wording on local monuments, “it is the opinion of the Committee that the memorials were erected in good faith, that the tradition they embody is now strongly supported, and that it is not needful to disturb those memorials at present.”[15]

The most prominent biographer of Robert Rogers, writing in 1959, mentions the capture of Nathan Hale only briefly, relying on Bamford’s diary to connect Rogers to the capture.  He posits that “Rogers’ connection with the incident is merely that he was halted while en route to Howe’s headquarters in his sloop and asked to bring Hale in.”[16]  But an eighteenth-century manuscript that first came to light in 2000 when it was donated to the Library of Congress describes a much larger role for Rogers.  Consider Tiffany was a Connecticut merchant who remained loyal to the crown.  He wrote an account of the Revolution, either during or shortly after the war.  According to Tiffany’s account, Hale was sent to Long Island “to find whether the Long Island inhabitants were friends to America or not.”  This is a different mission than that described by Hale’s companion, Sargent Hempstead, who said Hale was sent to Long Island, “to discover the disposition of the Enemy’s camp, &c., expecting them to attack N.Y.”  Likewise, Benjamin Talmadge, Hale’s Yale classmate and friend, recounting his interaction with Major John Andre after the British officer was captured, wrote that “After the British troops had entered N. York, Genl Washington wanted information respecting the strength, position & probable movements of the Enemy.  Capt. Hale tendered his services, went into N. York, & was taken just as he was passing the out posts of the Enemy.”[17]

Beyond the difference in the description of Hale’s mission, Tiffany gives a completely new account of the circumstances of Hale’s capture and with a level of detail that seems unlikely for a shopkeeper in Connecticut to have known:

Colonel Rogers having for some days observed Capt. Hale, having for some [days] suspected that he was an enemy in disguise. And to convince himself, Rogers thought of trying the same method. He quickly altered his own habit with which he made Capt. Hale a visit at his quarters where the colonel fell into some discourse concerning the war, intimating the trouble of his mind in his being detained on an island where the inhabitants sided with Britons against the American colonies. Intimating withal that he himself was upon the business of spying out the inclination of the people and [the] motion of the British troops. This intrigue, not being suspected by the Capt. made him believe he had found a good friend and one that could be trusted with a secrecy of the business he was engaged in. And after the colonel’s drinking a health to the Congress informs Rogers of the business and intent.

The colonel, finding out the truth of the matter, invited Capt. Hale to dine with him the next day at his quarters unto which he agreed. The time being come, Capt. Hale repaired to the place agreed on where he met his pretended friend with three or four men of the same stamp and, after being refreshed, began the same conversation as hath been already mentioned. But in the height of their conversation, a company of soldiers surrounded the house and by orders from the commander seized Capt. Hale, in an instant. But he, denying his name and the business he came upon, was ordered to New York. But before he was carried far, several persons knew him and called him by name. Upon this, he was hanged as a spy, some say, without being brought before a court-martial.[18]

It is interesting to note that based on this account, two later writers differ on which meal Hale and Rogers shared when they met for the second time.  Kenneth Daigler writes that they met for breakfast;[19]  whereas Alexander Rose writes that they met in the afternoon and Rogers ordered ales for the group.[20] 

One would hope that a review of the ship’s log for the Halifax would help to settle the question.  But the log is difficult to decipher due to the handwriting, the use of abbreviations, and a lack of punctuation.  Confusion may also have been caused by readers not appreciating that the log was recorded using a nautical day—that is a day that starts at noon the day before the date given.  In other words, an entry for September 17 would start at noon on September 16 and end at noon on the 17th.

The Halifax log records that on the night of September 16, the Halifax “rec’d by sloop Conl. Rogers and a Party of Rangers.”  At 4:00 a.m. on the 17th, the ship was in Huntington Bay to look for “two Rebel Privateers having Intelligence of them.”  This most probably refers to the Schuyler, which is believed to have dropped Hale off early on the 16th.  The second ship is believed to be the Montgomery, whose captain, William Rogers, was from Huntington.  The search was unsuccessful.

On the 18th, a tender from the Halifax captured a Patriot schooner that was transporting four cases of gunpowder.  The powder was taken and the schooner sunk.  That same day there is a reference to “Sanseys point.”  The evening of the 18th, the Halifax was off Oyster Bay near Centre Island.  At 3:00 on the afternoon of the 19th, the ship was near Hempstead Bay.  Later that night, “the Party of Rangers landed on Sanseys p.”  This has been interpreted over the years as referring to Sands Point, located on the west side of Hempstead Bay and 16 miles west of Huntington Bay.  However, historian Claire Bellerjeau discovered that the peninsula that Huntington residents think of as Wincoma Point is officially known as Sandy Point.  That is the name given on the 1946 Official Highway map for the Town of Huntington and on the Town’s Geographic Information System map and in eighteenth century Huntington Town Records.[21]  The peninsula is also called Sandy Point in newspaper articles and reports of the Chief of Engineers, U.S. Army.

The Huntington location is also supported by the account given by Stephen Hempstead, who had accompanied Hale at the start of his mission.  Hempstead thought Hale was captured in Manhattan “at a tavern at a place called the ‘Cedars.’”  But as noted by Seymour in his book, “There is no such geographic point revealed in all the exhaustive research which has been devoted to the famous island.”[22]  But the shores of Huntington Bay, where Mother Chick’s Tavern was located, was known as the Cedars.[23]  As with many of the accounts of Hale’s mission, Hempstead may have mixed up some details.

But the Halifax was off Hempstead Bay at 3:00 p.m. on the 19th.  Could it have sailed east to Huntington Bay to drop off the Rangers?  Wherever the ship was at 10:00 that night it weighed anchor and arrived at Whitestone Point at 4:00 a.m., six hours later.  Whitestone Point is about 8 miles from Sands Point and about 26 miles from Huntington Bay.  An 8 miles sail should not take six hours, but a 26 miles sail could.

At Whitestone Point, the Halifax was in company with the Niger, a British ship that spent the month of September at Whitestone.  The log for the Niger reports that at 7:00 p.m. on the 19th it was “hailed from the North Shore.”  A boat was sent and “returned with a Rebel Officer, a Deserter from their Army.”  On the morning of the 20th, the Niger’s  log records that the Halifax was anchored nearby, having come from the eastward.  The next words in the Niger’s log are “Sent the Rebel officer to Head Quarters.”  Could this have been Nathan Hale?  It seems unlikely because this Rebel officer was taken to the Niger on the night of the 19th from the “North Shore,” which may refer to the north shore of the Sound, not the north shore of the Island.  In any event, the Halifax log reports that on the 22nd—the day Hale was hanged—“Col. Rogers and his party of Rangers came from Flushing.”

The timeline above does not leave enough time to support Tiffany’s account.

As mentioned above, Swezey and Funnell continued their research long after the Huntington committee issued its report in 1939.  After their deaths in the 1950s, their research papers were donated to the Huntington Historical Society, where they apparently sat unread for the next 70 years.  But with the 250th anniversary of Hale’s execution in 2026, Toby Kissam read through the files and realized a theory supporting Huntington as the place of Hale’s capture could be developed. 

Swezey secured letters from descendants of William Ludlam of Centre Island and William Johnson of Huntington Bay as well as a secondhand account from a woman whose ancestors had lived in the house in Newtown (now Elmhurst) that Howe had used as his headquarter for the first two weeks of September.

According to these testimonies, William Johnson helped Hale at the start of his mission.  How would Hale have known to trust Johnson?  Perhaps he was advised by William Rogers, the captain of the second privateer that accompanied the Schuyler, that he should look for Johnson’s house after he landed on the beach.  Johnson’s descendants claim that their ancestor ferried Hale across Huntington Bay, through Lloyd Harbor and over the beach to Cold Spring Harbor then over to Centre Island.  There Hale was able to borrow a horse from William Ludlam.  Hale then set off on his mission—wherever that would have taken him.  Swezey secured a letter from a Ludlam descendant to report that Hale returned the horse a few days later and returned to Huntington Bay to wait for the Schuyler to retrieve him.

In his book on the Culper Spy Ring, Alexander Rose contends that Rogers, “guessing that Hale would head west along the coastal road toward the city, planned to lie in wait to intercept him.”[24]  But Rogers isn’t the only one guessing; Rose is also guessing.  There appears to be no primary source for the proposition that Rogers followed Hale as he traveled west of the “coastal road” (presumably North Hempstead Turnpike, Route 25A).  If Hale’s destination was Brooklyn, a better, less hilly route would have been by way of what is now Jericho Turnpike.  It is perhaps more likely that Rogers guessed that Hale would return to the place he had started his mission, Huntington Bay.  Therefore, Rogers could have decided to land at Sandy Point, Huntington and wait for Hale to return.

Whether one credits Tiffany’s account of Rogers trickery or the mistaken boat version, Hale would have been taken to Manhattan to be hanged.  A likely route would have been by water to Flushing Bay, which is near Newtown, where Howe had had his headquarters until September 15.  Swezey was told by a woman who lived to the house that was formerly Howe’s headquarters that she had been told by an 85-year-old woman, whose parents or grandparents had previously owned the house that Hale was kept in the basement of the house.  Then on the 21st, he could have been transported over to Newtown Creek and from there taken by boat down the creek and across the East River to Howe’s new headquarters in Manhattan, where he was summarily sentenced to death.  Rogers and his Rangers then returned to the Halifax by way of Flushing on the 22nd.

The truth may never be known with certainty but, as pointed out by the 1935 committee, Huntington appears to be the only locality with a tradition as being the place of Hale’s capture.  Huntington as the place of capture is also supported by testimony from Robert Townsend and other Oyster Bay residents.[25]

Famous Last Words

The reason Hale is remembered is not because he was a valuable spy, but because of the final words attributed to him: “I only regret that I have but one life to lose for my country.”

In recent years, it has become popular to note that there is no proof that Hale ever said those words.  That is true, but the legend persists.  The famous last words are probably the work of Hale’s friend Captain William Hull and were most likely inspired by a line in a 1712 play by Joseph Addison called Cato, A Tragedy.  In Act 4, Scene 4, Cato says, of the death of his son, “How beautiful is death when earned by virtue.  Who would not be that youth?  What pity is it that we can die but once to serve our country.”

Whether the line inspired Hale or Hull is the question.  The first report of Hale’s last words appeared in the Essex Journal (Massachusetts) of February 13, 1777, which states that: “At the gallows, he [Hale] made a sensible and spirited speech; among other things, told them they were shedding the blood of the innocent, and that if he had ten thousand lives, he would lay them all down, if called to it, in defence of his injured, bleeding Country.”

Four years later, the Boston Independent Chronicle reported that Hale’s last words were “I am so satisfied with the cause in which I have engaged, that my only regret is, that I have not more lives than one to offer in its service.”  By 1799 in Hannah Adams’ Summary History of New England, the statement came closer to the famous version, “he only lamented, that he had but one life to lose for his country.” [26]

*          *          *

Marker Mix-up

Confusion about whether Nathan Hale was captured at Mother Chick’s in Huntington or elsewhere extends to where exactly Mother Chick’s was.

In 1977, during the celebration of the Bicentennial, a historic marker was placed on Bay Road just south of Dale Road.  The marker identifies this as the location of Mother Chick’s Inn.  Unfortunately, the marker was in the wrong place.  In 1776, the house at that location, which still stands, was the home of William Johnson, not Mother Chick.  Mother Chick’s Inn was located near where Nathan Hale Beach Club is today.  The mix up of the two buildings dates back to the early twentieth century, when post cards of the Johnson Farm identified the house as Mother Chick’s.

            Nineteenth century maps identify Johnson as the owner of the Bay Road house.  This is consistent with the 1877 deed by which William S. Johnson (grandson of the William Johnson who lived there a century earlier) sold the property.  The deed describes the property as “commencing at the junction of the highway running northerly past the house of the said Samuel Johnson dec’d [father of the seller] to Huntington Bay [i.e. Bay Road] with the highway connecting the aforementioned highway with the highway called the Cove Road [i.e. Dale Road]” then running along Cove Road and back to Bay Road (Suffolk County Clerk’s Office Deed Liber 227, page 421).  In other words, the Johnson property was at the southeast corner of Bay Road and Dale Road—the location where the Mother Chick’s marker was installed in 1977.

According to the Johnson family, the first man Hale saw in Huntington was William Johnson, who gave him food before he began his spying mission.  When Hale set off, he instructed Johnson to watch for him on his return.  When Hale came back, Johnson hid him in a stack of straw or stalks because it was not deemed safe for Hale to stay in the house.  Hale became impatient and left the Johnson Farm and went to Mother Chick’s Inn, which was close to the beach and would provide a better vantage point to see the boat he was expecting.  He was captured the next morning.

As we commemorate the 250th anniversary of Hale’s mission and execution, this mistake has been corrected.  The 1977 Mother Chick’s marker has been relocated to Sydney Road, near the entrance to Nathan Hale Beach and a new marker for the Johnson Farm has been installed at 124 Bay Road.

1837 Coastal Survey


[1] Nathan Hale 1776 Biography and Memorials, by Henry Phelps Johnston (Yale University Press 1914), page 100

[2] Spies, Patriots and Traitors, American Intelligence in the Revolutionary War, by Kenneth A. Daigler (Georgetown University Press 2014), page 95

[3] Spies, Patriots and Traitors, American Intelligence in the Revolutionary War, by Kenneth A. Daigler (Georgetown University Press 2014), page 95

[4] Extract of letter to the Missouri Republican from Stephen Hempstead, copied into the L.I. Star April 2, 1827.  Reprinted in Revolutionary Incidents of Suffolk and Kings Counties, by Henry Onderdonk, Jr. (1849), page 49

[5] Washington’s Spies, The Story of America’s First Spy Ring, by Alexander Rose (Bantam Books 2014), page 27

[6] Letter from Ida Johnson to Cornelia Prime dated June 26, 1894, printed in The Long-Islander, June 30, 1894, page 5

[7] Huntington Town Records, Vol. III, page 17, footnote

[8] Nathan hale 1776, Biography and Memorials, by Henry Phelps Johnston (1914), page 119

[9] The Long-Islander, January 29, 1926, page 17

[10] Brooklyn Eagle, March 25, 1927, page 22

[11] The Long-Islander, May 13, 1938

[12] The Long-Islander, January 10, 1936, page 6, section two

[13] Robert Rogers, Ranger, The Rise and Fall of an American Icon, by Martin Klotz (Westholme Publishing 2024), page 220

[14] Maryland Historical magazine, Nol. 28 (1933) page 10; also Documentary Life of Nathan Hale, by George Dudley Seymour (1941), page 446.

[15] The Long-Islander, May 18, 1939, page 2

[16] Robert Rogers of the Rangers, by John R. Cuneo (Oxford University Press 1959; reprinted Fort Ticonderoga Museum 1988), page 270)

[17] Public Papers of George Clinton, Vol. VI, page 263, footnote

[18] The American Colonies and The Revolution [c. 1600-1795], by Consider Tiffany, Edited and Annotated by J. Calvitt Clarke III, Jacksonville University (https://www.academia.edu/40188172)

[19] Spies, Patriots, and Traitors: American Intelligence in the Revolutionary War, by Kenneth A, Daigler (Georgetown University Press 2014), page 106

[20]Washington’s Spies, The Story of America’s First Spy Ring, by Alexander Rose (Bantam Books 2014), page 29-30

[21] Huntington Town Records, Vol. II, page 377

[22] Seymour, Documentary Life of Nathan Hale, page 442.

[23] Huntington Town Records, Vol. II, page 243, footnote

[24] Rose, page 28-29

[25] Revolutionary Incidents of Suffolk and Queens Counties, by Henry Onderdonk (1849), pages 52-53

[26] Rose,  Washington’s Spies, page 290-291

Read Full Post »

A century ago, a thirst for water led to the formation of the village of Huntington Bay in the East Neck section of Huntington.

In 1923, residents of East Neck joined with other Huntingtonians to petition for a municipal water district covering the territory from Huntington Bay to Jericho Turnpike.  Seemingly having second thoughts about the expense of a water district in which they would probably bear the greatest financial burden, a second petition was circulated among the wealthy residents of East Neck to incorporate the area as a separate village.  This was necessarily a novel concept.  Twelve years earlier residents angered by the condition of roads in the area, the lack of street lights, and the need for better water supply met to discuss incorporation.  They pointed out that only about 10% of the money paid Huntington Bay residents for highways was spent in their area.  East Shore Road in front of St Andrews by the Sea chapel was so flooded that boys would sail boats on it.  However, after meeting with the Town Supervisor and Superintendent of Highways, where complaints about the condition of area roads dominated, the residents were mollified. (Brooklyn Eagle, September 23, 192, page 10; The Long-Islander, September 27 and October 4, 1912).

Under State law, a municipal water district could not include a separate municipality within its borders.  The incorporation petition, signed by 36 residents, was filed before the petition for the new water district.  A vote on incorporation was held on February 4, 1924 and was approved 29-10. Subsequent village elections typically attracted only about two dozen voters.

The first meeting of the Board of Trustees of the new village was held on March 12 at the Transportation Club in Manhattan.  William J. Taylor was elected president; and George Adamson and Mansfield Snevily were elected trustees. 

The first ordinance, covering streets and roads, motor vehicle, sewage, swimming and bathing, and landing of boats was adopted on April 1.  Most village functions focused on improving roads.  In the first year, sixty percent of the village budget was dedicated to road maintenance and improvement. Within just two years, the village also saw the subdivision of its two large estates into residential neighborhoods with a more suburban layout, Wincoma and Bay Hills.

Early meetings of the trustees of the Incorporated Village of Huntington Bay were held in Manhattan because many of the trustees and villagers had their primary residence in Manhattan or Brooklyn.  Still, they recognized a need for a Village Hall.  In June 1925, the trustees agreed to purchase land from the Halesite Company for that purpose.  The new Village Hall, described by the Brooklyn Daily Eagle as “one of the prettiest little municipal buildings in one of the smallest incorporated villages in the State,” opened in the summer of 1926.

The new village included several distinct tracts of land that had been farmland, then became estates for city residents and finally were subdivided into the neighborhoods we know today.  Through the centuries, these distinct tracts have remained easily identifiable.  Below is a brief history of those tracts.

Bay Crest

Willett Bronson, the son of a wealthy doctor, was East Neck’s first land speculator.  For generations, land in East Neck had been farmed by early Huntington families.  Later wealthy New Yorkers, looking to escape the calamities of city life, purchased large tracts to serve as their country homesteads.  When Bronson purchased the sixty acres that would become known as Bay Crest, it is unclear if he intended to use the land as a summer retreat or if he intended to subdivide it into “villa lots” where wealthy New Yorkers could erect summer cottages, which is what he eventually did.

Bay Crest was not Bronson’s first foray into real estate development.  Bronson was born in Hudson, NY in 1840.  His grandfather, Isaac Bronson, served as a surgeon during the American Revolution.  After the war he gave up the practice of medicine and along with his son Arthur founded the New York Life Insurance and Trust Company, which pioneered the use of life insurance and in 1822 merged with the Bank of New York, and Ohio Life Insurance and Trust Company, the collapse of which led to the Panic of 1857.  Isaac Bronson became one of the wealthiest men in New York City and purchased vast tracts of land in several states. 

Willett Bronson served in Company F of the New York 7th Infantry Regiment during the Civil War.  After the war, he studied law, but it is unclear if he pursued a legal career.  When his father died in 1875, Bronson inherited a large fortune.  Using his inherited wealth, he soon became engaged in real estate speculation in Manhattan. 

Bronson had a home in Huntington village by 1877.  The home on New York Avenue was considered one of the showplaces of the village.[i]  By 1880, Bronson was offering building lots on land between New York Avenue and Nassau Road along a new road known as Hudson Avenue.[ii]  Although it appears that the new road was laid out and fences erected along its sides, today there is no Hudson Avenue running between New York Avenue and Nassau Road; nor does it appear on any of the early maps.  Earlier the property had been owned by Stephen C. Rogers and by 1891, it was described as being “lately owned by Willet Bronson.”[iii]  In 1894, it was sold to Mary Cantrell,[iv] whose son in 1910 subdivided the property under the name Villa View Heights—the area surrounding Central Parkway.

In 1882, Bronson purchased sixty acres between Bay Avenue and Huntington Bay from former Congressman William Roberts.[v]  Unfortunately, soon after he purchased the land, the 45-year-old house on the property burned to the ground.  But he quickly rebuilt. [vi]

Bronson’s misfortune soon extended to his Manhattan real estate holdings.  Bronson had borrowed heavily to develop his holdings.  He also made building loans to developers building on speculation without knowing enough about the business himself.  In 1883, he and the builder with whom he worked to develop properties on the East Side had a falling out.  Bronson was unable to cover the payments on the money he had borrowed and by December had to make assignments for the benefit of his creditors. Poor management and bad advice were blamed. He had invested a million dollars, and after some initial success, it was claimed that he got in over his head.[vii]

How, or if, his misfortune in Manhattan real estate effected his Huntington holdings is unknown.  Perhaps he had purchased the land in East Neck as a country seat as so many wealthy New Yorkers before him had done.  There is certainly enough evidence that Bronson had strong connections to Huntington.  He was actively involved with St John’s Church, serving as a vestryman and hosting fund raising teas at his East Neck property.  In both the 1880 and 1900 censuses he is enumerated as living in Huntington.  Finally, perhaps the best evidence of his intention to make Huntington his home rather than just a place to invest is the fact that both he and his wife are buried at Huntington Rural Cemetery.

Whatever his original intentions were, just a month after assigning his Manhattan properties, Bronson hired local surveyor Oscar Darling to prepare a plan dividing the East Neck property into building lots.[viii]  The result was a plan for 11 building lots from 3 to 6 acres each and 11 small beach lots.  In October 1886, it was announced that three men from New Jersey would be purchasing a considerable portion of the Bronson property.[ix]  James B. Dill purchased two building lots and two beach lots on the west side of Beach Avenue.  Albert W. Palmer purchased the building lot on the east side of Beach Avenue and his father, also Albert, purchased the adjoining lot to the east.  The Palmers also purchased the two eastern most beach lots.[x] Three months later, Albert Palmer purchased the 90-acre Moses Jarvis farm.[xi]

Dill and the Palmers were neighbors in East Orange, NJ, and their wives were sisters.  When he purchased property in Bay Crest, Dill was a young lawyer just starting to concentrate on corporate law.  He later would write the New Jersey’s Corporation law and establish the Corporation Trust Company, which profited from the new law.  In 1905, he was appointed as a judge on New Jersey’s highest court. 

Albert W. Palmer was the head of Albert Palmer & Co, a publishing firm that printed trade publications.  He had assumed control of the company when his father retired in 1883.  Palmer and Dill were both in their early thirties when they came to Huntington.  Dill had rented a house on Fairview Street the summer before his big purchase.  The sale was hailed as “some of the most important transactions that have taken place in this town for some time.”[xii]  The purchasers promised to erect houses costing not less than $6,000 by the end of the next summer.  And, in fact, by the following February construction had begun.  It was anticipated that the construction would mark a new era in Huntington “and that the ‘boom’ will not stop until every one of the beautiful hills about the village are crowned with scores of handsome residences.”[xiii]

Dill and Palmer also planned to build a club house with hotel accommodations for 40 to 50 guests.  They planned to subdivide the Moses Jarvis property into villa plots.[xiv] 

The year after the sale to Dill and Palmer, Bronson subdivided his remaining property into 22 smaller lots and named his subdivision “Bay Crest.”[xv]  He retained about 15 acres in the southwest corner of the property for himself.  But in 1896, this piece too was further divided into 24 lots.[xvi]  Bronson continued to spend summers in Huntington and sold off additional lots.  He also rented furnished cottages for the summer season.  In 1901, a ten-room cottage with all the modern conveniences, an unsurpassed view and private beach and bathing house rented for $400 for the season (about $15,000 in 2024 dollars).

The Huntington Company & Hale Site

A little over a year after Dill and Palmer purchased lots in Bay Crest as individuals, a new company was formed to make substantially larger purchases.  The Huntington Company was incorporated in February 1888 “to lay out and subdivide lands into building lots and villa plots, to improve and sell the same and erect buildings thereon.”[xvii]   Dill was one of the trustees.  The others were John W. Aitken and George Taylor.  Aitken was the senior partner in the firm of Aitken Sons & Co, Inc., a high-end clothing store started by his father in 1835.[xviii]  George Taylor was the president of Aitken Sons & Co.

            The company purchased a substantial amount of land in East Neck starting with 53 acres of the Titus Conklin Farm, which bordered Bay Crest to the east.[xix]  Titus Conklin had acquired the farm from the estate of Stephen V. Hendrickson in 1838.[xx]  His son, also Titus, and daughter Lucinda continued to live in the farmhouse on the west side of Vineyard Road after they sold the farmland east of Vineyard Road to the Huntington Company.

            Plans were made for a public water supply, proper drainage and sewerage, electricity and even telephone service to New York.  The company purchase land in Huntington Station on which to build a barn and stables to accommodate residents’ horses and carriages while the owners were in the city.[xxi]  The company also provided livery service to the train depot via a large four horse stage with a driver and two footmen.[xxii]

The Company applied for a lease from the Town’s Board of Trustees of the underwater land in front of its property—in order to exclude excursions from the city or “roughs” from landing on its beach. [xxiii]

            Dozens of men were hired to clear the land and build cottages with expansive views.  By 1889, the Company offered villa sites and cottages for sale and also for rental for the summer season.  Inducements included a complete water and sewerage system; excellent inland and shore front drives; and the finest sailing, bathing and fishing.  Houses came with modern conveniences such as hot and cold water, bath, and water closets.[xxiv]

            The project was met with enthusiasm.   The Long-Islander claimed that the “property [was] unsurpassed by anything on the Island, or, for that matter, anything within 100 miles of New York City.  With high rolling ground, affording land and water views, most striking in form, successfully rivaling the world-famous views of the Bay of Naples, it only needs seeing, to convert the most skeptical as to the beauty and desirability of our town as a place of residence.”[xxv]  A couple of weeks later, the paper asserted that “The improvements, which they are placing here, are permanent and of a right character and are to be occupied by parties who will naturally fall in with the town and are likely to become permanent residents.” 

            Likewise, The Brooklyn Eagle remarked that Huntington “is particularly favored in the class of people that make it their home.  The absence of cheap hotels and boarding houses prevents an influx of undesirable summer people.  All this is appreciated by the people of the better class, who are naturally drawn to such a locality.”[xxvi]

            Summer visitors were attracted to “one of the loveliest spots on earth, a very garden of Eden.  It has been so improved as to abound in fine drives and shaded roadways.  Sweet bits of landscape and magnificent water views are on all sides. … From the bay the land rises gradually to the table land.  The inland drives over good roads are invariably delightful.  The views of the harbor, bay and sound as obtained from the hills miles away is one long to be remembered.”  And, of course, “The absolute freedom from malaria and mosquitoes, the unexcelled still water bathing, making the fine anchorage for yachts, all tend to make it popular.”[xxvii]

Although Dill was credited with “discovering” East Neck, George Taylor became the driving force behind the Huntington Company’s efforts.  It is difficult to untangle the inter-relationships among the investors and the company, which often led to inaccurate reports of who was making a particular land purchase. For example, in its May 19, 1888 edition, The Long-Islander reported that The Huntington Company had purchased the 55-acre farm of Frederick G. Sammis and that the farm “will afford room for a whole avenue of handsome villa plots and building sites.”  In fact, the land was purchased by George Shaw, whose connection to The Huntington Company is unknown, but who was a partner in Aitken Sons & Company and that company’s European buyer.  The dry goods merchant seems to be a common denominator among many of the players behind the development of East Neck.  Shaw did not develop the farm into villa plots.  However, the old farmhouse was converted into a hotel known as the Huntington Bay Inn.   The Inn was discontinued three years later.[xxviii]

Within a few years, Taylor purchased most of the Company’s land.  By the turn of the century, Taylor owned half a dozen cottages that he would rent for the summer season.  Taylor was enamored by an earlier visitor to East Neck—Nathan Hale.  Nathan Hale began his spying mission for George Washington on the shores of Huntington Bay in September 1776.  Although the question is in dispute, it has long been believed that he was also captured in the area a few days later.  In any event, in 1894 Huntingtonians memorialized the town’s connection with the country’s first spy by dedicating a memorial to the patriot outside the public library on Main Street in Huntington village.  The plans also called for a granite boulder to be moved to the beach to mark the spot where Hale landed.  Taylor completed that part of the plan three years later when he had a large boulder moved from the back of his house to the beach.  For more , see Nathan Hale Memorials

Taylor’s devotion to Nathan Hale extended to the naming of his estate.  He christened the estate Hale Site.  When local residents petitioned the postal service for a local post office in 1899, the estate’s name was condensed to one word.

Beaux Arts Park

In the late nineteenth and early twentieth century, Huntington was as popular a place for a summer vacation as the Hamptons are today. An epicenter of the Huntington summer resort scene was at East Neck. Starting in the 1870s, summer visitors could avail themselves of a waterfront inn established by the famous and colorful, bare-knuckle, bantamweight boxer and Brooklyn saloonkeeper William Clark on the shores overlooking Huntington Bay.

In 1891, the property was sold to Nelson May, who was connected with the Huntington Company, the firm that had developed summer cottages in Hale Site, just west of the hotel property.  After the old hotel burned down, May built a larger hotel. In 1906, May sold his hotel and the 50-acres it sat on to three of the Bustanoby brothers who planned to create a Long Island compliment to their successful midtown restaurant, Café Des Beaux Arts.

The hotel was renamed the Chateau des Beaux Arts, and the brothers hired the prestigious architectural firm of Delano and Aldrich to design a waterfront casino in the beaux-arts style that would accommodate diners at the water’s edge with broad terraces and a rooftop garden. A long pier extended into the bay to accommodate yachts of any size.

When it opened, the Chateau des Beaux Arts was a hit. The brothers soon announced plans to develop the property beyond the hotel and casino. They hired local surveyor Conrad P. Darling to lay out 34 residential lots on the 50 acres south of the hotel. Only five houses were built in accordance with this plan.  

The roaring success of the brothers’ enterprise came to a screeching halt when there was a falling out among the brothers. Eventually it was acquired by Huntington Bay Heights Association, a venture organized by prominent real estate investor and East Neck resident Milton L’Ecluse. A succession of clubs called the casino home—the Huntington Golf and Marine Club, then the Huntington Bay Club and finally was leased to the Huntington Crescent Club. In the 1950s, the Crescent Club gave up the property and Head of the Bay Club took over.  For more , see Playground on the Bay

Bay Hills

In the nineteenth century, Raymond Selleck farmed this land.  When he died in 1847, his son William B. Selleck inherited two-thirds of the farm, while his brother Charles inherited the other third.  William died at 54 years old in 1860, leaving behind his widow three children aged 10 and under.  In 1865, Charles sold his third of the farm to William’s widow Harriet, who mortgaged the property to Frederick G. Sammis and Solomon Oakley and incurred several other debts as well.  The mortgages, debts and complex questions related to ownership of the property among the family members led to William R. Selleck commencing an action against his mother.  The referee’s opinion settling the dispute took up the entire front page of the April 6, 1877 edition of The Long-Islander newspaper.  The referee, after determining the appropriate allocation of the debt, decreed that the entire property should be sold because it could not be equitably divided. 

On July 14, 1877, the property was auctioned off on the steps of the Huntington House hotel.  Frederick G. Sammis was the high bidder.  He took possession in September and immediately began to improve the property.  Seven months later, The Long-Islander remarked, “It is astonishing what a difference . . . lumber and paint and a great deal of hard work will make in the looks of a neglected farm.”  Extolling the virtues of the site, the newspaper claimed that “The green fields, fringed with a wide strip of gravelly beach, dotted with beautiful trees, make this slope one of the finest spots in America.”  Sammis commissioned Elwood artist Edward Lange to paint the restored farmstead in 1880.  (A copy of the painting is posted at The Edward Lange Project)

Sammis did not hold the farm long.  In 1888, he entered an agreement to sell it to Charles S. Longhurst, who assigned the agreement to George Shaw.  Shaw was a partner in the firm of Aitken Sons & Co.  Other partners of the firm were the principals in the Huntington Company which had developed land to the west of the Selleck farm.  The old farmhouse was converted into the Huntington Bay Inn in time for the 1888 summer season (even though the property had not been formally conveyed yet).

Uphill from the Inn, Shaw built a new house, which he named “The Oaks.”  The inn was removed in 1891 to open the view from Shaw’s mansion.  Shaw died in 1900, and the property was sold to John Cartledge, whose family had been summering at the Locust Lodge next door since 1893.

During World War I, the Cartledge family leased his property to the Yale Unit, a precursor to the Navy air corps comprised of students from Yale University.  The estate was converted into a military base with hangars, runways, a machine shop, a radio shed, and docks—although the airmen slept in the Cartledge mansion and had their meals prepared by a private chef.  During the training exercises, there were a few crashes and one tragedy when a sailor was hit by a propeller he had been cranking. The engine backfired and his arm was caught in the end of the prop knocking him into the spinning propeller. He died later that night. For more about the Yale Unit, see What Huntington Did in the Great War

John Cartledge, who was president of Brooklyn’s American Linoleum Company, had died in 1910.  The estate was inherited by his four children, who placed the property on the market, but it did not sell until 1924 when it was purchased by a syndicate of local investors who formed the Huntington Bay Hills, Inc.  The property was subdivided into quarter acre lots.  An eighteenth-century barn near the water, the Shaw Mansion, and the old water tower survive.  All other outbuildings made way for new homes.

Wincoma

In the early nineteenth century, the peninsula extending between Huntington Harbor and Huntington Bay was composed of three farms.  The stunning views from these properties were enjoyed by a series of wealthy New Yorkers. 

Louis M. Thurston owned what is now Lower Wincoma along the shore of Huntington Harbor.  He had been a broker on Wall Street.  He retired to Huntington at age 32 in 1836.  Here he farmed his harbor front land and became active in the affairs of St. John’s Episcopal Church.  He died in 1895, a week shy of his 91st birthday. 

Another tract of 16 acres along the Bay to the north of Thurston was purchased by physician Thomas Ward in 1851.  He was the son of a congressman and enjoyed a substantial inheritance; he also married into wealth.  Ward died in 1873. 

The third tract, which was east of Dr. Ward’s property, was owned by Captain Edward Stout, a wealthy, retired sea captain.

The Ward and Stout farms were purchased by Alfred Mulligan, who in 1865 built a magnificent mansion on a bluff overlooking the bay.  Mulligan was another Wall Street financier.  The view from the top of the cliff looking north over the bay and through to the shores of Connecticut is “one of the finest water views in the world,” according to The Brooklyn Eagle in 1899.[xxix]  Mulligan named his estate Cedarcliff.

In 1898, August and Nannie Heckscher purchased the Mulligan property and a year later the Thurston property as well.  The Heckschers were two of Huntington’s most generous philanthropists, donating the park and museum that bear their name among other things (see Mr. Heckscher’s Most Generous Gift To Huntington).  The Heckschers made improvements to the Mulligan mansion and rechristened the estate as Land Ends and later Wincoma.

Nannie Heckscher died in 1924.  Within a year, August Heckscher sold the estate to local real estate developer William E. Gormley, who divided it into 200 lots, most were a quarter acre; some up to 2 acres.  Gormley pledged to preserve the beauty of the property, especially its trees.

The mansion was purchased in 1926 by Henry R. Frost, a lawyer for the Long Island Lighting Company. He lived across the Sound in Greenwich and used the mansion as a summer home. Ten years later, during the Great Depression, the mansion was the subject of a foreclosure action. Frost and his family stayed at Wincoma for the summer of 1936 (the foreclosure was to be in May of that year). It is unclear when the foreclosure was finalized. But in November 1940, the mansion was being offered for sale by real estate broker Charles E. Sammis, Inc. Two months earlier, August Heckscher had returned to Wincoma. His friend and fellow real estate investor Charles Noyes hosted a 92nd birthday party for Heckscher at Noyes’ Wincoma house, two doors east of the mansion. Heckscher died the following April.  At the time of his death, his old mansion, now owned by his friend Noyes, was being demolished.

East Point

East Point enjoys one of the most spectacular settings in the Town of Huntington. 

In 1888, Dr. Daniel E. Kissam, a direct descendant of Dr. Daniel W. Kissam (whose 1795 house on Park Avenue is now a museum preserved by the Huntington Historical Society), purchased the peninsula and 10 acres of uplands from the Scudder family and built a rambling mansion

After Dr. Kissam died in December 1903, John Green, a 24-year-old millionaire owner of a Colorado mine, purchased the property. Green had the house remodeled and modernized and christened the house Point Siesta. Shortly after his wife’s death in 1911, Green sold the property to his brother-in-law James Elverson but continued to live there.  When Elverson died in January 1929, he was deeply in debt.  To pay the debts, the contents of the home were auctioned off, including hundreds of cases of wines and liquors bottled between 1840 and 1850.

In the 1960s, Arthur and Ruth Knutson owned and restored the house.  Later Gloria Smith, who owned the Yankee Peddler antiques shop, and her husband purchased the house and it was once again restored. After her husband’s death, Mrs. Smith made the house and property available for photo shoots.

The house was demolished in 2018 and a new home built in its place.  For more, see No More Second Chances

Rhinelander Estate

One of the earliest wealthy city dwellers to establish a country home in Huntington was John R. Rhinelander, a doctor from a wealthy New York family who fought cholera outbreaks in New York and Montreal.  Rhinelander built his magnificent mansion on a hill on East Neck between Huntington Bay and Huntington Harbor in the mid-1830s.  The home commanded spectacular views as well as attention from the surrounding community.

Dr. Rhinelander was active in Huntington affairs.  He died in 1857 at the age of 62.  His wife Julia died seven years later.  The house passed from one wealthy New Yorker to another, including John P. Kane, a partner in a large mason and building supply company in Manhattan.   The street on which the house sits was named for Kane.  Later, the house was owned by Frederick L. Upjohn of the pharmaceutical company and then by Thomas H. Roulston of the eponymous grocery store chain.

More recently, the house was owned by sculptor Joseph Mack and his wife, the painter Jean Mack.  In the early 1970s, after Mr. Mack suffered a life-threatening car accident, the couple started the Huntington Fine Arts Workshop in their home.  Five rooms in the basement were converted into sculpture studios and drawing and painting were taught in the ballroom.  In 1978, it became the Huntington School of Fine Arts and eventually moved to a former boathouse on Huntington Harbor.   For more, see High Lindens

Research for this post was conducted in partnership with Toby Kissam, who has written extensively on the history of Huntington Bay.


[i] The Long-Islander, June 1, 1877

[ii] The Long-Islander, March 26, 1880

[iii] The Long-Islander, April 4, 1891

[iv] The Long-Islander, June 29, 1895

[v] Suffolk County Clerk’s Office Deed Liber 261, page 59.  The land was held in his wife’s name.

[vi] The Long-Islander, April 7, 1882, July 7, 1882

[vii] New York Times, December 21, 1883 and February 11, 1884.

[viii] The Long-Islander, January 18, 1884

[ix] The Long-Islander, October 2, 1886

[x] Suffolk County Clerk’s Office Deed Liber 300, pages 483, 487, 492 and 498

[xi] Suffolk County Clerk’s Office Deed Liber 302, page 470

[xii] The Long-Islander, October 2, 1886

[xiii] The Long-Islander, February 5, 1887

[xiv] The Long-Islander, October 2, 1886

[xv] Suffolk County Clerk’s Office Map No. 66, filed January 18, 1888

[xvi] Suffolk County Clerk’s Office Map No. 454, filed July 15, 1897

[xvii] The Brooklyn Daily Eagle, February 13, 1888, page 2

[xviii] New York Times, September 4, 1915

[xix] Suffolk County Clerk’s Office Deed Liber 310, page 86

[xx] Suffolk County Clerk’s Office Deed Liber 56, page 120

[xxi] The Long-Islander, April 14, 1888

[xxii] South Side Signal, June 30, 1888

[xxiii] The Long-Islander, April 28, 1888

[xxiv] The Long-Islander, April 27, 1889

[xxv] The Long-Islander, March 10, 1888

[xxvi] Brooklyn Eagle, June 9, 1900

[xxvii] Brooklyn Eagle, June 9, 1900

[xxviii] The Long-Islander, September 26, 1891

[xxix] The Brooklyn Eagle, April 30, 1899, page 27

Read Full Post »

For the first time in over sixty years, the lights on the Nathan Hale Memorial on Main Street in Huntington village are lit.  Lights were an original feature of the memorial, but they have not worked since at least 1954.

The monument lights working for the first time in over 60 years.

The monument lights working for the first time in over 60 years.

How the lights came to be restored is a story that starts in June 2013 when I posted an article about the Nathan Hale memorials in Huntington.  The article focused mostly on the famous Nathan Hale Rock and only briefly mentioned the memorial on Main Street in front of the Soldiers & Sailors Memorial Building.  One reader took me to task for not giving the monument on Main Street its due:

I’m not sure you do full justice to the memorial by calling it “a marble shaft” … yes that is what it is today but in its early days this Nathan Hale Memorial functioned as a PUBLIC DRINKING FOUNTAIN.

Of course, the reader is correct, the monument was originally a fountain (he could have also chastised me for writing the shaft is marble–it is, in fact, granite).

In his comment, the reader cites the 1919 edition of  Automobile Blue Book (“Standard Road Guide of America”), which mentions “a public drinking fountain on a marble shaft” (I wasn’t the only one who had trouble correctly identifying rocks) as one of the things to see when driving to Huntington.  The reader continues:

I have seen photos of the memorial from a little over a decade after it was erected (c.1905) that refer to it as the “Nathan Hale Memorial Drinking Fountain” but the photos do not give a clear enough detail of the memorial to see much about the fountain at the bottom. It does seem that the water basin that once caught the drinking water has been long ago removed. I assume it had a hand pump and was a well water drinking fountain originally but cannot make out a hand pump on the photos from the angles they were taken. (Photos from the 1940s/1950s, or about that time, appear to no longer show the water basin at the bottom).

* * *

Does anyone know any more about this memorial … like, for instance, when the drinking fountain was removed … and if there has ever been an attempt, over the years, to return it to its original function as a public drinking fountain (with maybe modern running water piped to it but activated by an ‘old fashioned style hand pump’ and a replica of the water basin ‘returned’ to the base … to keep it in the original flavor of the 1894 monument.

Here, as they say, is the rest of the story.

Soon after the statue of Nathan Hale was unveiled by the Sons of the American Revolution in City Hall Park in Manhattan on Evacuation Day (November 25), 1893, an effort was made to create a monument to the spy in Huntington, where he began (and maybe ended) his spying mission.  Famed architect Stanford White of McKim, Meade and White submitted the design and pledged $400 for the project.  The total cost of the memorial was estimated to be $1,900.  An association was formed to raise the remaining funds.  In April 1894, the association printed a brochure announcing the project and listing 52 Huntington residents who had pledged to donate to the project.  Pledges ranged from 50 cents to 100 dollars and totaled $813.50.  It was proposed that the balance should be donated by “the rest of Long Island and the sympathizers with the fate of Nathan Hale wherever they may be found.”

Stanford White proposed design.

Stanford White proposed design.

Whoever and wherever they were, the memorial was unveiled at a well attended public celebration on July 4, 1894.  The Long-Islander provided a full description of the 15-foot high monument:

The base is six feet square and of rough hewn stone.  It is hewed for a public drinking fountain and has two basins.  The one on the street side is a watering trough for horses or cattle and the one on the inside is for the people.  The water will flow into the street basin from the mouth of a dolphin and into the other smaller basin from the mouth of a lion.  Above the basin reaches a cylindrical polished granite column and on that rests a large rough-hewn ball.  On the front of the basins are engraved the simple words:

NATHAN HALE MEMORIAL

The memorial conveys the impression of dignity and simple beauty.

The shaft also held two gas-lit lamps on either side.

Town Supervisor George Tileston accepted the monument “on behalf of the citizens of Huntington.”

“We accept it as a perpetual trust, engaging with you [the committee that commissioned it] that it shall be a continued inspiration to us and all those who shall come after us.”

After speeches and the unveiling of the flag draped memorial, the crowd assembled at the carriage factory on Wall Street for dinner.

The July 4, 1894 dedication of the new memorial

The July 4, 1894 dedication of the new memorial

Not all were so enamored of the monument.  Writing to the Brooklyn Daily Eagle two months after the dedication, “Burdock” reports that the people of Huntington “are generally exercised over” the new memorial.  His description  differs from the one given by the local newspaper.  Burdock reports that the monument “consists of a lamp-post, with two lamps, a spout for water from the post, and a drinking trough for horses, combined.”  He seemed most upset with the inscription: “To commemorate the capture of Nathan Hale by the British on the shores of Huntington bay in 1776.”  To Burdock, the inscription sounded like a Tory boast about the capture of the failed spy.

Burdock predicted the monument “would always be an annoyance and source of mortification to the people of the town as a whole, and probably is now to those who made such an almost unpardonable mistake, not only in the design, but in the inscription, which are in keeping with each other.”

The monument with the water trough for horses

The monument with the water trough for horses, note the marble tablet above the trough

 

The south side of the monument showing the drinking fountain for people.

The south side of the monument showing the drinking fountain for people.

 

The now dry lion head spout on the south side of the monument.

The now dry lion head spout on the south side of the monument.

The troughs were filled by a continuous trickle of water, apparently, supplied by the Huntington Water Works Company.  But the supply was inconsistent at best.  In 1895, The Long-Islander complained that the flow of water was insufficient if more than a few horses were looking for a drink, such as the time when a dozen horses from the circus were looking for refreshment.  The first eight horses lapped up all the water in the trough, and “those eight would have been thirsty again by the time enough water had run into the trough to satisfy the remaining four.”  A mention in the May 26, 1905 edition of The County Review, reports that “Huntington has a dry fountain. . . .  It is a curious sort of fountain for there is no water to be obtained there and the affair is an ornament only.”

Five year later, a Huntington resident wrote to The Long-Islander to complain about the condition of the monument.  The writer admires the monument, “the very interesting, and most artistic, double lantern, and drinking fountain.”  However, he questioned who has the responsibility for maintaining these monuments: “We notice the lanterns are falling to pieces owing to the lack of proper paint.  The glasses are broken, and the general immediate surroundings are in need of attention. * * * The lanterns would seem less pathetic if they might be put to their proper use, that is have lights in them, if only for a part of the evening.”

The writer also notes that the librarian (the library was then located in the nearby Soldiers & Sailors Memorial Building) placed a cup at the fountain on several occasions so that people could use the fountain as intended.  The inoperable lights weren’t the only issue.  Originally, bronze letters reciting facts about Nathan hale were attached to the front of the trough.  But those letters were knock off by the tongues of wagons when harnessed horses reached in to get a drink.  The lettering was replaced with a marble tablet attached to the shaft under the dolphin fountain.  But that too fell into disrepair.

Two years later, the Daughters of the American Revolution and the Sons of the American Revolution both took up the matter of the condition of the monument.  By this time, not only were the lamps in poor condition, but the marble tablet with the inscription had fallen from its place and was broken.

The monument without the marble tablet

The monument without the marble tablet

The DAR address the matter first at its meeting in the afternoon of Monday, November 11, 1912.  The DAR appointed Mrs. John F. Wood to confer with the SAR about the matter.  That evening the SAR met and discussed the matter.  Conveniently they appointed John F. Wood (and Douglass Conklin) to confer with the DAR ladies.  The plan they decided on was “to replace the broken tablet with one of bronze, fix up the lamps, fountain, etc.”  The Huntington Light and Power Company offered to attend to the lamps and keep them lighted.  After the repairs were done, it was agreed “to turn the whole thing over to the town.”  It seems to have been forgotten that the Town accepted the monument “as a perpetual trust” in 1894 and was probably the entity that should have been making the needed repairs.

The fountain without the marble tablet.

The fountain without the bronze lettering on the trough or the marble tablet or the dolphin spout. A spigot can be seen on the south side.

I have not found a report of when the work was completed.  But the next summer, the fountain was still dry.  Even though, as one letter writer observed, the reservoir on High Street was known to overflow.  “The poor struggling Water Company can’t even let a little of this ‘waste’ flow into the Nathan Hale Memorial Fountain, so at least the horses and dogs can quench their thirst during the hot summer months.”

With the advent of the automobile, there weren’t as many horses around needing a drink (one local historian said that in later years the water trough was used more for cleaning out radiators than for quenching a horse’s thirst, but that account is apocryphal).  The trough also took up a parking space–a valuable commodity even then.  In 1927, Town Historian Romanah Sammis complained that “the useless horse-trough became in time a target for refuse and filth.”  Mrs. Sammis’s complaints echoed her contention that the memorial should be removed because, she argued, Nathan Hale was not captured in Huntington as the wording on the bronze plaque claimed (she also didn’t have nice things to say about the memorial’s aesthetic merits).

Shortly after Mrs. Sammis’s negative comments, “the useless horse-trough” was removed and a new base built by Kramer Stone Works.  The gas lamps were replaced with electric lights in frost globes.  The electric lines were run under Main Street from the corner of Stewart Avenue outside Town Hall.

Postcard from the late 1920s

Postcard showing a 1926-27 Ford Model T and the modified memorial with new lights and no trough.

 

The monument without the water trough. Note the new bronze plaque replaced not only the marble tablet but the dolphin water spout.

This close-up from the picture above shows the monument without the water trough. Note the new bronze plaque replaced not only the marble tablet but the dolphin water spout.  The light fixtures have also been changed.

In 1954, the State undertook a project to reconstruct Route 25A, Main Street, from Cold Spring Harbor to Fort Salonga.  In Huntington village, the project required that the monument be moved from its original location.  At first the State was going to move the monument back from the street and slightly to the east, but eventually moved it to the west instead.  The construction plans for the project detail the memorial, but with the light fixtures hanging down rather than up, and indicates the “assumed location of light service,” i.e. the location of the electric lines supplying power to the light fixtures.

The comment quoted above led not only to further research (and this post), but also led me to ask the Town’s Department of General Services to see whether the lights could be turned on.  Recent work by Brian Breyersdorf, an electrician in the Town’s Department of General Services, revealed that wiring had been run through the monument and left coiled up buried in the ground next to the base of the monument.  The lights have not worked because they were never plugged in after the monument was moved in 1954!  Mr. Breyersdorf installed a junction box to connect the wire in the memorial to new wire from a nearby light pole. And now the memorial has regained at least part of its original embellishments.  On December 22, 2015, the lights, now with L.E.D. bulbs, shone brightly for the first time since the monument was moved. It is doubtful the water trough will ever be re-established.

There has been one other change to the monument that is not as obvious as missing water troughs and non-functioning lights.  The original marble tablet and the bronze replacement from 1912-13 asserted that Nathan Hale was captured on “the shores of Huntington Bay.”  Today, the bronze plaque says he was captured “on the shores of Long Island.”  The controversy about Hale’s place of capture, however, is an old one.

The revised wording

The revised wording

As early as the 1890s, historians questioned the assertion that Hale had been captured in Huntington.  But those naysayers didn’t deter Huntingtonians from dedicating two memorials.  A book published by Henry Johnston in 1901 and revised in 1914 also questions Huntington as the place of Hale’s arrest.  The issue seems to have been forgotten or ignored until 1933 when the Huntington Historical Society revisited the issue.  In the first three months of that year, Mrs. Warren P. Kortright, Mrs. George P. Kuzmier, and Mrs. George Taylor presented papers on the life of Nathan Hale.  A small book of their research was published in April.  The historical society did not offer a definite opinion on where Hale had been captured, but did question the veracity of the sources traditionally cited in support of a Huntington capture.

Town Historian Romanah Sammis then took up the issue, urging the Town Board to correct the mistakes of the past.  As is usually the case in these situations, the party arguing for a change from the accepted story has the burden of proof.  A committee appointed by the Town Board found that Mrs. Sammis had not met the burden of proof required to overturn long accepted story that Hale had been captured in Huntington (see The Enduring Mystery of Nathan Hale, published on this site September 22, 2026).

More recent scholarship continues to doubt the Huntington version.  For example the recently published Washington’s Spies: The Story of America’s First Spy Ring, by Alexander Rose asserts that Hale was captured closer to Manhattan.  Another book, The Life and Death of America’s First Spy: Nathan Hale, by M. Williams Phelps argues that Hale was indeed captured in Huntington.  Interestingly, both books rely on a recently discovered manuscript donated to the Library of Congress in 2000.  The manuscript is an account of the Revolution written during or shortly after the war by Consider Tiffany, a Connecticut merchant and Tory.  Tiffany describes Hale’s capture by Major Robert Rogers.

The truth of the matter may never be known with certainty.   But decades after she first questioned the wording, Romanah Sammis got her wish when Town Historian Rufus Langhans decided to hedge things by changing the wording on the bronze tablet from “on the shores of Huntington Bay” to “on the shores of Long Island.”  The bronze tablet with the revised wording also includes two medallions cast during the Bicentennial commissioned by Mr. Langhans.   Historian Richard Welch, who worked with Mr. Langhans on a project at the Old Burying Ground, confirms that Mr. Langhans told him that he had the wording changed.

 

 

 

 

 

Read Full Post »

When Frederick MacMonnies 13′ tall statue of Nathan Hale was dedicated in New York’s City Hall Park in 1893, it was suggested that a suitable memorial should also be placed on the shores of Huntington Bay where Nathan Hale began and perhaps ended his spying mission in September 1776.  A committee of local citizens was formed.  Originally, the committee planned to place a granite boulder from Connecticut, Hale’s home state, on the shore of Huntington Bay.  It was thought that a bronze statue on Main Street in Huntington village would also be appropriate. [Huntington does have a copy of the New York City statue–but much smaller.  It is in safekeeping in the Town Clerk’s archives.]

Nathan Hale 1

The 1894 Memorial on Main Street

As it turns out, the Main Street memorial—a marble shaft, rather than a statue—was ready first.  The shaft was erected in front of the library, which at that time was located in the Soldiers & Sailors Memorial Building, and was dedicated on July 4, 1894.  The committee did not realize its goal of placing a Connecticut boulder on the shores of Huntington Bay.  But the same year the Main Street memorial was dedicated, George Taylor, the president of a prominent Manhattan dry goods store, purchased a large tract of land in Huntington Bay.  Taylor soon became enthralled with the Nathan Hale story—no doubt because he now owned the land where Hale landed.  Taylor named his estate “Hale-Site,” a name that was soon applied to the entire section on the east side of Huntington Harbor.  Taylor, at his own expense, also completed the second part of the memorial committee’s plan.  He arranged for local contractor Oscar “Dynamite” Kissam to move a large boulder from near Taylor’s house to the beach.  Perhaps unwittingly realizing the committee’s original intent, the boulder did, in fact, come from Connecticut, courtesy of the last glacier.  Taylor also had three bronze plaques affixed to the boulder, telling Hale’s story.

For three quarters of a century the boulder stood on the beach at the end of Vineyard Road, where, unfortunately, it was subject to the effects of erosion and vandalism.  Ownership remained in the Taylor family.  At one point Taylor’s grandson, Balmor Taylor, removed the bronze plaques for safekeeping.  As early as 1962, he also explored transferring ownership to the Town of Huntington.  It appeared that an agreement had been reached and in 1974, town workers removed the 45-ton boulder from the beach and transported it to a new home at the intersection of New York Avenue and Mill Dam Road.  Mr. Taylor, however, did not think he and the Town had reached an agreement.  Over the next two years, differences were resolved and an agreement was reached.  The boulder was rededicated at its new location on September 19, 1976, two hundred years after Hale’s mission.

Nathan Hale Rock

The Nathan Hale Rock before its latest move

But that was not the last stop for Huntington peripatetic monument.  As part of the current road improvement project along New York Avenue, the New York Department of Transportation constructed a roundabout at the intersection where the boulder stood.  The rock would be in one of the travel lanes around the new traffic circle.  So last September (2012), the monument was moved once again.  This time the move was only about 50 feet to the southwest corner of the intersection.  When the roadwork is done, the area around the rock will be landscaped.

The Town of Huntington continues to celebrate its most famous visitor.  Just be careful when you read an earlier description that says the rock marks the spot where Nathan Hale landed.  He did not land at Mill Dam Road.

Read Full Post »