[Reproduced from Journal of American History, 9 (April 1915), pp. 269-289]
Curator of Washington’s Headquarters, New York, the Picturesque Old Dwelling on Washington Heights, Known also as The Roger Morris House, and The Jumel Mansion.
The history of that portion of the American Revolution, between the Battle of Long Island and the movement to White Plains, became of absorbing interest to me, when as Curator of the Museum in the "Roger Morris House of the Revolution," I found myself located in the old Headquarters on Washington Heights. Through the kindness of the late Doctor Billings of the New York Public Library, I had put at my disposal, in 1908, the seven volumes of the American Archives, in which all the papers of the Revolution, in the possession of the United States Government, were published in the Eighteen Fifties. The facts contained in these documents were unimpeachable, and frequently revealed the inaccuracy of our Revolutionary history and the absurdity of some of our traditions. ‘
To my surprise, I could find in these official papers but two references to Nathan Hale. One was in "An Extract from a letter from Harlem," dated September 28, 1776, just a week after the great fire of New York.
"Friday last we discovered a vast cloud of smoke arising from the north part of the city, which continued '‘ill Saturday evening. The consequence was that the broadway from the new city hall to white hall is laid in ashes. Our friends were immediately suspected and according to the report of a flag of truce who came to our lines soon after, those that were found on or near the spot were pitched into the conflagration, some hanged by their heals, others by their necks with their throats cut. Inhuman barbarity! One hale in New York, on suspicion of being a spy, was taken up and dragged without ceremony to the execution post and hung up."
[269]
The other reference was in a letter dated October 3, 1776, written by Tench Tilghman, General Washington’s favorite Aide, to William Duer, Secretary of the New York Convention, at a time when the convention held prisoners suspected of being spies. The letter suggested retaliation with the following statement:
"General Howe hanged a captain of ours, belonging to Knowlton’s Rangers who went into New York to make discoveries."
Besides these two statements there is silence on the subject of Nathan Hale.
From other sources of information as unimpeachable as the Archives, I find that Nathan Hale was captured within the British lines, in or near the City of New York, on Saturday evening, September 21, 1776, and was hanged the next morning at eleven o’clock without any trial, although his rank and position in the Continental Army were known to his executioners. He was executed when the British army was in an angry mood, following the fire, and even the common soldiers were permitted to offer insults to his body on the tree. In support of this surprising statement, I quote from a letter written from New York by a British officer on September 26, just four days after the execution. The letter was published on November 9, 1776, in the Kitchen Gazette, at Canterbury, England, and the closing paragraph, with its brutal realism, seems to have been appended by the writer as the mention of a ver trivial event.
"We hanged up a rebel spy the other day, and some soldiers got, out of a rebel Gentleman’s garden, a painted soldier on a board, and hung it along with the Rebel; and wrote upon it, General Washington, and I saw it yesterday beyond headquarters by the roadside."
The great conflagration, which burned a fifth part of New York City on that terrible Saturday, had been brought under control by two o’clock in the afternoon, after a number of young officers at the Continental Army, forgotten heroes, martyrs of the Revolution, had been thrown into flames by the British soldiers and sailors, who were putting out the fire.
Nathan Hale, in his disguise of a Dutch schoolmaster, and with cool, undaunted courage, had evidently been in the city during the conflagration. Scores of innocent people had been arrested during the day and thrown into prison on suspicion of having a hand in the fire, while he passed unsuspected. The British staff believed that Washington had ordered the city to be set on fire and that Hale was one of his agents, and that belief sufficiently accounts for the brutal haste of his execution and the license permitted to the soldiers.
Between the retreat from Long Island and the evacuation of the
[270]
city, there was a heated controversy in the army as to whether the city of New York should be abandoned to the British for their winter quarters, or whether it should be destroyed by fire to prevent such occupation. All accounts, before and after the fire, seem to agree that the New England troops were the strongest advocates of burning the city, while the New Yorkers were opposed, naturally, to applying the torch to the principal town in their colony.
As early as September 2, Washington sent a despondent letter to Congress. He wrote in part:
"Till of late I had no doubt in my own mind of defending this place, nor should I have yet if the men would do their duty but this I despair of. It is painful and extremely grating to me to give such unfavorable accounts, but it would be criminal to conceal the truth at so critical a juncture. Every power I possess should be exerted to serve the cause, and my first wish is, that whatever may be the event, the Congress will do me the justice to think so.
"If we should be obliged to abandon the town ought it to stand as winter quarters for the enemy? They would derive great conveniences from it on the one hand, and much property would be destroyed on the other. It is an important question, but will admit of but little time for deliberation. At present, I dare say the enemy mean to preserve it if they can. I Congress, therefore, should resolve upon the destruction of it, the resolution should be a profound secret, as the knowledge of it will make a change in their plans.
"I have the honor to be, with great esteem, sir, your most obedient servant.
"G. WASHINGTON."
The post riders who carried that letter from New York to Philadelphia wasted no time on the road, for the reply of Congress, "To his Excellency General Washington," signed by "John Hancock, President," was dated the very next day, September 3d.
"Resolved that General Washington be acquainted that Congress would have special care taken, in case he should find it necessary to quit New York, that no damage be done to the said city by his troops, on their leaving it; the Congress have no doubt of being able to recover the same tho the enemy should for a time obtain possession of it."
Such heroic treatment was not likely to appeal to a deliberative body at a distance from the field of action. It can hardly be doubted that Washington awaited the Consent of Congress to apply the torch, but now his hands were tied. At the same time he was relieved of
[271]
Responsibility, and of outside pressure, which was doubtless, very great.
General Greene was in favor of burning the city, and sent the following letter to General Washington.
"The city and Island of New York are no objects for us; we are not to bring them into competition with the general interests of America. Part of the army already has met with a defeat: the country is struck with a panick: any capital loss at this time may ruin the cause. ‘Tis our business to study to avoid any considerable misfortune, and to take post where the enemy will be obliged to fight us, and not we them. The sacrifice of the vast property of New York and the suburbs, I hope has no influence upon your Excellency’s measures. Remember the King of France. When Charles the Fifth, Emperor of Germany, invaded his Kingdom, he laid whole Provinces waste; and by that policy he starved and ruined Charles’s army, and defeated him without fighting a battle. Two-thirds of the property of the city of New York and the suberbs belongs to the Tories: We have no very great reason to run considerable risk for its defence.
"I wold burn the city and suburbs, and for the following reasons: If the enemy gets possession of the city, we never can recover the possession without a superior naval force to theirs; it will deprive the enemy of an opportunity of barracking their whole army together, which, if they could do, would be a very great security. It would deprive them of a general market; the price of things would prove a temptation to our people to supply them for the sake of gain, in direct violation of the laws of their country.
"All these advantages would result from the destruction of the city, and not one benefit can arise to us from its preservation, that I can conceive of. If the city once gets into the enemy’s hands, it will be at their mercy either to save or destroy it, after they have made what use of it they think proper…
"If my zeal has led me to say more than I ought, I hope my good intentions may atone for the offence.
"I shall only add that these sentiments are not dictated from fear, nor from any apprehensions of personal danger; but are the result of a cool and deliberate survey of our situation, and the necessary measures to extricate us from our present difficulties. I have said nothing at all about the temper and disposition of the troops, and their apprehensions about being sold. This is a strong intimation that it will be difficult to get such troops to behave with proper spirit in time of action, if we should be attacked.
"Should your Excellency agree with me with respect to the two
[272]
First points, that is, that a speedy and general retreat is necessary, and also, that the city and suburbs should be burned, I would advise to call a general council upon that question, and take every general officers opinion upon it.
"I am with due respect, your Excellency’s most obedient humble servant, N. GREEN.
"To his Excellency Gen. Washington, Kings Bridge."
The agitation for burning the city had begun even before the Battle of Long Island, for the Convention of the State of New York, as early as August 22, on hearing a rumor that the city might be set on fire, interrogated Washington on the subject. General Washington’s reply shows that he was giving the matter serious consideration.
"I can assure you, gentlemen," he replied, "that this report is not founded upon the least authority from me; on the other hand I am so sensible of the value of such a city, and the consequences of its destruction to many worthy citizens and their families, that nothing but the last necessity, and such as should justify me to the whole world, would induce me to give orders for that purpose."
News of the plan to burn the city had reached the camps outside. A letter from an officer, "to his friend in Edinbrough," written from Staten Island as early as August 11, and published in the St. James Chronicle, concludes with these words: "We have a fine view of New York from this place, which we expect soon to see in flames."
The same paper, on October 22, published a letter from an officer on Long Island, dated September 2, from which the following is an extract: "All accounts agree that they are preparing to evacuate the Town. Whether they will burn it or not is uncertain, as the Provincials from the Jerseys and the neighborhood strenuously oppose that measure."
On September 2, another English officer wrote home from Long Island: "I have just heard that there has been a most dreadful fray in the town of New York. The New Englanders insisted on setting the town on fire and retreating; this was opposed by the New Yorkers, who were joined by the Pennsylvanians, and a battle has been the consequence, in which many lost their lives."
Another letter written on September 4, to "a gentlemen in London," contains the following curious information: "In the night of the second instant three persons escaped from the city in a canoe and informed our general that Mr. Washington had ordered three battalions of New York Provincials to leave New York, and that they should be replaced by an equal number of Connecticut troops; but
[273]
the former assured that the Connecticutians would burn and destroy all the houses, peremptorily refused to give up their city."
An officer wrote from camp, near Newtown, Long Island, on September 5:
"Deserters tell us they are in great confusion at New York, one party wanting to burn the town and the other to save it but in compassion for their sick, which it is impossible they can remove, the number being so great, I think they will hardly set fire to the town."
Absurd as many of these letters are, they were written by English officers during the time when the agitation for burning the city was at fever-heat, and they throw a lurid light on a subject which is almost completely ignored by American history. They indicate with precision what they expected and from whom they expected the blow to come. Their information came from Tories in the city who knew the feeling of the troops from the different colonies. They expected the city to be set on fire by New Englanders, and, after the fire occurred, every description of it and every official dispatch sent home claimed that the New Englanders had done so.
"New York, Oct. 7th. The savage burning of this city by the New England incendiaries will be a lasting monument of their inveterate malice against the trade and prosperity of this colony, as well as rooted disaffection to British law and government. They had long threatened the performance of this villainous deed: and this is the best return that the people of property in this city, who have espoused their cause, are to expect for their heedless credulity." Gaine’s Mercury.
I think no military man to-day will question the wisdom of Green’s contention. General Washington had driven the enemy out of Boston by siege; if that success had been followed by scourging him out of New York by fire, at the beginning of winter, it would have been a brilliant piece of military strategy, that would probably had compelled him to seek some other port for his fleet, and would have completely frustrated the plan of campaign prepared over-sea. And such action by Washington would have been "justified to the whole world."
On Sunday, September 15, the last of the Continental troops were withdrawn from the city, leaving it intact for the British officers to winter in, with a host of their Tory friends to entertain them. It was a bitter condition to contemplate for the majority of the army who had favored the burning, with the near prospect of themselves shivering in huts with inadequate clothing. But something was going to happen.
[274]
On the night of Friday, September 20, there was a commotion in this old house, -- old now, as I write, but new then. Any officer on the Staff who had gone to bed before midnight, -- and General Washington and his young gentlemen had been in the saddle that day, reviewing Heath’s Division, -- was roused by the guards. I can see them assembling on the little balcony under the front porch, and peering through the windows, for there was a great red light on the horizon to the south, the light of a great conflagration. Every man knew that it was the city of New York burning, the city that had been wrested from them five days before to be the comfortable winter-quarters of the hated enemy. It was a sleepless night at headquarters. There were eyes watching the fire on through the small hours of the morning, until day broke and revealed a great column of smoke above the city and the spire of Trinity Church still standing against the flames. The fire lighted for the purpose of burning the enemy out of New York City ha been a dismal failure. It was subdued on Saturday afternoon and on Monday, September 30, came the following graphic account in Gaine’s Mercury, which was attributed by the London Papers to the pen of "Major Rook, formerly aide-de-camp to General Gage, and a noted paragraph writer in the Massachusetts Gazette."
"On Saturday the 21st inst., we had a terrible fire in the City, which consumed about one thousand houses, or nearly a fourth of the whole city.
"The following is the best account we can collect of this melancholy event. The fire broke out first at the most southerly part of the city, near White Hall, and was discovered between twelve and one o’clock in the morning, the wind blowing very fresh from the south, and the weather exceedingly dry. The rebel army having carried off all the bells of the city, the alarm could not be speedily communicated, and very few of the citizens were in town, most of them being driven out by the calamities of war, and several of the first rank, sent prisoners to New England and other distant parts. A few minutes after the fire was discovered at White hall, it was observed to break out in five or six other places, at a considerable distance.
"In this dreadful situation, when the whole city was threatened with destruction, Major-General Robertson, who had the chief command, sent immediately for two regiments that were encamped near the city, placed guards in several streets, and took every other precaution that was practicable to ward off the impending ruin. Lord Howe ordered the boats of the fleet to be manned, and after landing
[275]
a large number of officers and seamen to assist us, the boats were stationed on each side of the city in the North and East Rivers, and the lines near the royal army were extended across the island, as it manifestly appeared the city was designedly set on fire.
"The fire raged with inconceivable violence, and in its destructive progress swept away all the buildings between Broad Street and the North River, as far as King’s College, a few only excepted. Long before the main fire reached Trinity Church, that large, ancient and venerable edifise was in flames, which baffled every effort to suppress them. The steeple which was one hundred and forty feet high, the upper part wood and placed on an elevated situation, resembled a vast pyramid of fire, exhibiting a most awful and grand spectacle. Several women and children perished in the fire. Their shrieks, joined to the roaring of the flames, the crash of falling houses and the widespread ruin which everywhere appeared formed a scene of horror great beyond description, which was still heightened by the darkness of the night. Besides Trinity Church, the rector’s house, the charity school, the old Lutheran church, and many other fine buildings were consumed. St. Paul’s church and King’s College were directly in the line of fire, but saved with very great difficulty. After raging about ten hours the fire was extinguished between ten and eleven o’clock, A.M.
During this complicated scene of devastation and distress, which the most average heart might relent, several persons were discovered with large bundles of matches, dipped in melted rosin and brimstone, attempting to set fire to the houses. A New England man, who had a captain’s commission under the Continental Congress, and in their service, was seized, having these dreadful implements of ruin. On being searched, the sum of five hundred pounds was found upon him. General Robertson rescued two of these incendiaries from the enraged populace, who had otherwise consigned them to the flames, and reserved them for the hand of deliberate justice. One White, a carpenter, was observed to cut the leather buckets which conveyed water; he also wounded with a cutlass, a woman who was very active in handling water. This provoked the spectators to such a degree, that they instantly hung him up. One of those villains set fire to the college and was seized; many others were detected in the like crimes and secured.
"The officers of the army and navy, the seamen and soldiers, greatly exerted themselves, often with the utmost hazard to themselves, and showed all that alertness and activity for which they are
[276]
justly celebrated on such occasions. To their vigorous efforts in pulling down such wooden buildings as would conduct the fire, it is owing, under Providence, that the whole city was not consumed; for the number of inhabitants was small, and the pumps and fire engines were very much out of order. This last circumstance, together with the removal of our bells, the time and place of the fire’s breaking out, when the wind was south, the city being set on fire in so many different places nearly at the same time, so many incendiaries being caught in the very fact of setting fire to houses; these, to mention no other particulars, clearly evince, beyond the possibility of doubt, that this diabolical affair was the result of a preconserted, deliberate scheme. Thus the persons who called themselves our friends and protectors, were the perpetrators of this atrocious deed, which in guilt and villainy, is not inferior to the Gun-powder plot; whilst those who gallantly stepped forth, at the risk of their own lives, to snatch us up from destruction. Our distress was very great before but this disaster has increased them ten fold. Many hundreds of families have lost their all, and are reduced from a state of affluence to the lowest ebb of want and wretchedness—destitute of shelter, food or clothing.
"Surely (there must be some chosen curse—some secret thunder in the stores of heaven, red with uncommon wrath to blast) the miscreants who thus wantonly sport with their lives, property and happiness of their fellow creatures, and unfeelingly doom them to inevitable ruin."
Another brief account of the fire is contained in the following extract from a letter from New York, dated September 23, and published in the St. James Chronicle on November 8.
"The fire spread and raged with inconceivable violence. There were few citizens in town; the fire engines and pumps were out of order. Two regiments of soldiers were ordered into town, and many boats full of men were sent from the fleet; to these under Providence, it is owing that the whole city was not reduced to ashes. The destruction was very great; between a third and a fourth of the city was burnt. All that is west of the New Exchange along Broed Street to the North River as high as the City Hall and from these along the Broadway and North River to King’s College is in ruins. St. Pauls Church and the College were saved with the utmost difficulty. Trinity Church, the Lutheran Church, the Parsonage and Charity School are destroyed. Many of the villains were apprehended, with matches in their hands to set fire to the houses. A fellow was seized just about to set fire to the College, who acknowledged he was employed
[277]
for the purpose. A New England captain was seized with matches in his pocket, acknowledged the same. Between 1,000 and 1,500 houses are burnt; and we are under the most dismal apprehensions that there are some of those villains concealed in the town to burn what is yet left. Our distresses were great before, but this calamity has increased them ten fold. Thousands are hereby reduced to beggary. This infernal scheme was confessedly executed to prevent the King’s Troops from having any benefit from the city and to distress the friends of Government."
Besides the New England Captain, mentioned in each of the foregoing accounts of the fire, two other Continental officers, who perished in the burning city, are named in letters to the London papers of that day. The St. James Chronicle, Friday, November 8, 1776, mentions the fire as an "atrocious act, which was conducted by one, William Smith, an officer in a New England regiment, who was taken with a match in his hand and sacrificed on the spot to the fury of the soldiers."
The London Packet on December 4, published the text of a commission found in the pocket of a provincial officer, who was detected in setting fire to some of the houses in New York, and put to death by the soldiers. It reads in part,
"In Congress: The Delegates of the United Colonies to Richard Brown, Esq.
"We reposing especial confidence in your patriotism, valour, conduct, and fidelity, by these presents, constitute and appoint you to be First Lieutenant of the second company of riflemen, whereof Robert Cluggage is Captain in the Second regiment of foot commanded by Col. William Thompson."
The commission is signed by John Hancock. This unfortunate young officer was a Pennsylvanian, and according to Heitman’s "Historical Register of the Continental Army," he was accounted for by his regiment as "taken prisoner at Long Island, 27 Aug. 1776."
On the afternoon of Sunday, September 22, 1776, a few hours after the execution of Nathan Hale, and the day after the fire Captain John Montressor an Aide on General Howe’s staff, came to the American lines, under a flag of truce, the bearer of a letter from General Howe to General Washington. The letter was written the day before, in reply to two letters from General Washington "of the 6th and 19th current," and concerned the exchange of Major-General Sullivan for Major-General Prescott, and Brigadier-General Lord Stirling for Governor Montfort Brown. At the end of the letter, General Howe complained of bullets "cut and fixed to the ends
[278]
of a nail," which had been found in "encampments quitted by your troops on the 15th instant." Captain Montressor brought one of these bullets with him and forwarded it to General Washington. The letter made no mention of the fire, that had laid a fifth part of the city in ashes, and which was burning as General Howe wrote.
Colonel Reed, the Adjutant-General, rode down from Headquarters to meet Captain Montressor’s flag. If he was accompanied by other officers of the Staff, their names have not been revealed. It was a very busy afternoon at Headquarters, completing arrangements for the attack on Montressor’s island, now Randal’s, which was named for the father of Captain Montressor.
It was through the gossip of this meeting that the first information of the execution of Nathan Hale reached the American lines. Whatever that unofficial information, brought by Captain Montressor, may have been, it was never revealed by General Washington or by Adjutant-General Reed. Neither the execution of Hale nor the great fire was ever referred to in any communication between General Washington and General Howe. A life of Captain Hale, published by the United States Military Library Association for the instruction of the cadets at West Point, says: "The capture and execution of Hale was considered of sufficient importance to be communicated formally by the British to the American General." This statement is not true. The attempt to burn the city of New York and the execution of Nathan Hale were two subjects of which the dignity of General Washington and the dignity of General Howe forbade all mention.
On the day following the arrival of the "flag," General Washington wrote a letter to Jonathan Trumbull, the Governor of Nathan Hale’s State. After giving some account of the fire, he closed the letter with the following words:
"By what means it happened we do not know; but the gentleman who brought the letter from Gen. Howe, last night, and who was one of his aides-de-camp, informed Col. Reed that several of our countrymen had been punished with various deaths on account of it, some by hanging others by burning; alleging that they were apprehended when committing the fact."
On Wednesday, Lieutenant Tilghman carried Washington’s reply to Howe’s letter to the lines, and on Thursday, wrote to his father:
"Reports concerning the setting of fire in New York, if it was don designedly it was without the knowledge or Approbation of any
[279]
commanding officer in this army, and indeed so much time had elapsed between our quitting the city and the fire, that it can never be fairly attributed to the army. Indeed every man belonging to the army who remained in or were found near the city were made prisoners. Many acts of barbarous cruelty were committed upon poor creatures who were perhaps flying from the flames. The soldiers and sailors looked upon all who were not in the military line as guilty, and burnt and cut to pieces many. But this I am sure was not by Order. Some were executed next day upon good grounds."
The story of Nathan Hale was a given to the public in 1799, twenty-three years after his execution. It was told in a work entitled "A Summary History of New England and General Sketch of the American War," written by Hannah Adams, and published at Dedham, Massachusetts. The story was enclosed in quotation marks and a footnote informed the reader that "The compiler of this History of New England is indebted to Gen. Hull of Newton for this interesting account of Captain Hale."
Abridgments of this work, for the use of the Boston schools, were published in 1806 (London), and in 1807 (Dedham), in which the story, somewhat abbreviated, was repeated with the same caution of quotation-mark and foot-note.
The name Nathan Hale was a new name to the public in 1799. As General Hull says, "It is scarcely known that such a character ever existed." The peculiar way in which the story was first published, and the fact that for twenty-five years after Hannah Adams’s History no historian of the Revolution ever repeated it or even noticed it, makes it interesting to try and trace its growth and development, and to discover, if possible, the reason for this prolonged silence, and some explanation of the strange uncertainty about the place of his capture.
Here follows the story as told in Hannah Adams’s History:
"This retreat left the British in complete possession of Long Island. What would be their future operations, remained uncertain. To obtain information of their situation, their strength and future movements, was of high importance. For this purpose General Washington applied to Col. Knowlton, who commanded a regiment of light infantry, which formed the van of the American army and desired him to adopt some mode of gaining the necessary information. Col. Knowlton communicated his request to Capt. Nathan Hale, of Connecticut, who belonged to his regiment.
"This young officer, animated by a sense of duty, and considering that an opportunity presented itself where he might be useful to his country, at once offered himself a volunteer for this hazardous
[280]
service. He passed in disguise to Long Island, examined every part of the British army, and obtained every possible information respecting their situation and future operations.
"In his attempt to return he was apprehended, and carried before Sir William Howe, and the proof of his object was so clear, that he frankly acknowledged who he was and what were his views.
"Sir William Howe at once gave an order to the provost marshal to execute him the next morning. This order was accordingly executed, in a most unfeeling manner, and by as great a savage as ever disgraced humanity. A clergyman, whose attendance he desired, was refused him. A Bible for a few moments devotion was not procured although he requested it. Letters which on the morning of his execution, he wrote to his mother, and other friends were destroyed, and this very extraordinary reason was given ‘That the rebels should not know they had a man in their army who could die with so much firmness.’
"Unknown to all around him, without a single friend to offer him the least consolation, there fell as amiable, and as worthy a young man, as America could boast, with this dying observation ‘that he only lamented that he had but one life to lose for his country.’
"Although the manner of this execution will ever be abhorred by every friend to humanity and religion, yet there cannot be a question but that the sentence was conformable to the rules of war and the practice of nations in similar cases.
"It is however a justice due to the character of Captain Hale to observe, that his motives for engaging in this service were entirely different from those which generally influence others in similar circumstances.
"Neither to the expectation of promotion nor of pecuniary reward, induced him in this attempt. A sense of duty, a hope that, in this way he might be useful to his country, and an opinion which he had adopted, that every kind of service necessary to the public good became honorable by being necessary, were the great motives which induced him to engage in an enterprise by which his connections lost a most amiable friend, and his country one of its most promising supporters.
"The fate of this unfortunate young man excites the most interesting reflections. To see such a character in the flower of youth cheerfully trading in the most hazardous paths influenced by the purest intentions, and only emulous to do good in his country without the implication of a crime, fall a victim to policy, must have been wounding to the feelings of his enemies.
[281]
"Should comparison be drawn between Major André and Captain Hale, injustice would be done to the latter, should he not be placed on an equal ground with the former. Whilst almost every historian of the American Revolution has celebrated the virtues and lamented the fate of André, Hale has remained unnoticed and it is scarcely known such a character ever existed.
"To the memory of André, his countrymen have erected the most magnificent monuments, and bestowed on his family the highest honors and most liberal rewards. To the memory of Hale not a stone has been erected nor an inscription to preserve his ashes from insult."
The first paragraph of this belated statement of General Hull are cunningly worded to mislead the student of history. General Hull aims to establish: (1) that Nathan Hale was sent by Washington; (2) that he found the British army in Long Island; (3) that he was captured on Long Island and carried into New York. Of the first claim there is no evidence, and it should be remembered that the frankness and honesty of Nathan Hale’s character made him about the most unfit officer in the Continental army to undertake the devious role of a spy, and the others are known to be untrue.
It is well known that many fables have been added to the original story, which have been accepted by certain authors and have passed into history. This sort of invention culminated in 1856 in the popular life of Nathan Hale by Isaac W. Stewart, of which the American Library Association’s Historical Guide says: "A wholly uncritical treatment of the many tales that have gathered about the name of Nathan Hale. It has been entirely superceded."
In 1805, following Hannah Adams, Mrs. Mercy Warren published at Boston "Rise, Progress and Termination of the American Revolution." In 1820, a translation of Charles Botta’s "American Revolution" (Italian), was published in Philadelphia. In 1822, Paul Allen’s "History of the Revolution" was published in Baltimore, and in 1823, a history of the Revolution by James Thatcher. None of these historians mentions Nathan Hale.
In the following year, however, after a lapse of another quarter century of silence, following General Hull’s story in Hannah Adams’s history, the story made its second appearance in "Annals of the American Revolution," by Jedediah Morse, Hartford, 1824. The author credits the story of Hannah Adams, and, like that conscientious lady, he washes his hands of responsibility for it. "The particulars," he says, "of this tragic event, sanctioned by General Hull, who was knowing to them at the time, are related by Miss Adams in her history of New England."
[282]
Two years later, Stephen Hempstead, then an old man, who had been the camp servant of Hale and his companion on his ill-fated mission as far as Norwalk, published a letter, or statement, in the St. Louis Republican, issue of January 27, 1827. All that is of interest in this letter follows:
"Capt. Hale was one of the most accomplished officers, of his grade and age, in the army. He was a native of the town of Coventry, state of Connecticut, and a graduate of Yale College—young, brave, honorable—and at the time of his death a Captain in Col. Webb’s Regiment of Continental Troops. Having never seen a circumstantial account of his untimely and melancholy end, I will give it. I was attached to his company, and in his confidence. After the retreat of our army from Long Island, he informed me, he was sent for from Head Quarters, and was solicited to go over to Long Island to discover the disposition of the enemy’s camp, &c, expecting them to attack New York, but that he was too unwell to go, not having recovered from a recent illness; that upon a second application, he had consented to go, and I must go as far with him as I could, with safety, and await for his return. Accordingly, we left our camp on Harlem Heights, with the intention of crossing over the first opportunity; but none offered until we arrived at Norwalk, fifty miles from New York. In harbor, there was an armed sloop, and one or two row galleys. Capt. Hale had a general order, to all armed vessels, to take him to any place he should designate: he was set across the Sound, in the sloop, at Huntington (Long Island) by Capt. Pond, who commanded the vessel. Capt. Hale had changed his uniform for a plain suit of citizen’s brown clothes, with a round broad brimmed hat: assuming the character of a Dutch school-master, leaving all his other clothes, commission, public and private papers, with me, and also his silver shoe-buckles, saying they would not comport with his character of schoolmaster and retaining nothing but his college diploma, as an introduction to his assumed calling. Thus equipped, we parted for the last time in life. He went on his mission, and I returned back again to Norwalk, with orders to stop there until he should return, or hear from him, as he expected to return back again to cross the sound, if he succeeded in his object. The British Army had, in the mean time, got possession of New York, whither he also passed, and had nearly executed his mission, and was passing the British picquet guard between the two armies, within a mile and a half of his own quarters, when he was stopped at a tavern, at a place called the "Cedars." Here there was no suspicion of his character being other than what he pretended, until, most fortunately, he was
[283]
met in the crowd by a fellow countryman, and an own relation, (but a tory and renegado,) who had received the hospitality of his board from Capt. Hale, at his quarters at Winter Hill, in Cambridge, the winter before. He recognized him, and most inhumanely and infamously betrayed him, divulging his true character, situation in the army, &c.: and having him searched, his diploma corroborated his relative’s when, without any formality of trial, or delay, they hung him instantaneously, and sent a flag over to our army, stating "that they had caught such a man within their lines, that morning, and had hung him as a spy." Thus suddenly and unfeeling did they rush this young and worthy lad into Eternity, not allowing him an hour’s preparation, nor the privilege of writing to his friends, not even to receive the last consolations of his religion, refusing to let the chaplain pray with him, as was his request. After parting with Capt. Hale, of all these circumstances I was authentically informed at the time." * * *
"Such was the melancholy fate of Capt. Hale. While the stern rigor of military law justified his execution, (betrayed, as he was, most foully, by his ungrateful relation and a villainous Tory,) yet, who that knew him as I did, embarked in the same hazardous enterprise, and had been together in the same perilous services of the field, but would drop the tear of pity for his worth. It is true he died on the "inglorious tree," not the death of a soldier; but it is likewise true, he suffered for his country’s sake. And André died also the "death of a spy," but did he fill an inglorious grave? I do not mourn at the sympathy for the man, which was felt for Major André—in Europe and America—by the fair, and the brave—the friend and the foe—by American and by Briton. No. God forbid. But I do think it hard, that Hale—who was equally brave, learned, young, accomplished and honorable—should be forgotten on the very threshold of his fame, even by his countrymen; that while our own historians have done honor to the memory of André, Hale should be unknown; that while the remains of the former have been honored, even by our own countrymen, those among the latter should rest among the clods of the valley, undistinguished, unsought, and unhonored.
"STEPHEN HEMPSTEAD, SR."
In 1836, Judge Andrew T. Judson delivered an address before the Hale Monument Association of Coventry, Connecticut, which seems to be out of print. Reference is made to it in Thompson’s "History of Long Island," which was published in 1843. In the appendix to this work is a brief story of Hale’s capture, and here I find
[284]
for the first time stories that have become current history. One is the story of the drawings found between the soles of Hale’s shoes with the description written in Latin, and the story of the capture of the sloop. Thompson’s account is taken from Hull’s story in Hannah Adams’s History, and from Judson’s address, and, as Hull makes no mention of either of the above incidents, they probably originated in the Coventry address. The capture of the sloop, for which no date or authority has been given, is claimed to have taken place in the East River, under the guns of the Asia, British man-of-war. It is said that Hale and his friends boarded the sloop at night, and brought it to shore with the British crew in the hold as prisoners, and that the vessel was loaded with clothing, which Hale gave to the destitute and half-clad soldiers. These stories have no official authority.
It is evident that the subject of Nathan Hale was introduced in the appendix to Thompson’s "History of Long Island" solely because of the claim, probably made by Judson, that the scene of the capture was at Huntington, Long Island. Thompson states that the arrest was at a place called "The Cedars," near Huntington, Long Island, and by a boat’s crew from the British ship Cerberus, at about day-light, shortly after Hale had left the tavern of one Mother Chichester.
In 1844, the following year, "A Memoir of Captain Nathan Hale," by S. Babcock, was published by the Hale Monument Association of New Haven. Babcock says Hale was captured at a tavern called "The Cedars," which, he states, was not more than two or three miles from his own quarters.
In 1848 a life of General Hull was published by his daughter, Mrs. Mariah Campbell. In the chapter devoted to Nathan Hale she makes quotations from a manuscript left by her father. After mentioning Hale’s disappearance from camp, he continues:
"In a few days an officer came to our camp, under a flag of truce, and informed General Hamilton, then a captain of Artillery, but afterwards an aide of General Washington, that Captain Hale had been arrested within the British lines, condemned as a spy and executed that morning.
"I learned the melancholy particulars from this officer who was present at his execution, and seemed touched by the circumstances attending it.
"On the morning of his execution," continued the officer, "my station was near the fatal spot, and I requested the Provost Marshal to permit the prisoner to sit in my marquee while he was making the necessary preparations. Captain Hale entered, He was calm and
[285]
bore himself with gentle dignity, in the consciousness of rectitude and high intentions. He asked for writing materials, which I furnished him. He wrote two letters, one to his mother and one to a brother officer."
In the statements of General Hull and Stephen Hempstead, who were the intimates and confidences of Nathan Hale, we have the only information of value on the movements of Hale.
Stephen Hempstead’s story is frank and convincing as far as it goes. He tells us for the first time where Hale was captured, but not a word about what his object was in going into the City of New York, nor does he offer any explanation of, or knowledge of, that he had left New York City during the great conflagration and made his way to the place where he was captured.
The account of the fire in Gaine’s Mercury tells us that "the lines near the royal army were extended across the island, as it manifestly appeared that the city was designedly set on fire." This extra guard line, "near the royal Army," was to keep out of the city such troops as were not needed to put out the fire and to prevent the escape of incendiaries. If Hale, therefore, was captured at the picket line, it was probably at this inner line and very near the city, and not at the regular outpost as Hempstead thought.
General Hull says: "He was apprehended and carried before Sir William Howe, and the proof of his object was so clear that he frankly acknowledged who he was and what were his views." His views on what? On the conduct of the war? As he had just left the burning city his views on the fire would be the only views of interest to his captors.
When the first edition of Hannah Adams’s abridgement of her history for the Boston schools was published in London, in 1806, some one saw the inconsistency, as it related to Hale’s departure, of the first sentence in Hull’s story,—"This retreat left the British in complete possession of Long Island,"—and changed the statement so as to read: "As this result left the British in complete possession of New York." This departure from the original wording was repudiated in the edition published the next year at Dedham.
General Hull’s story dealt too much in generalities, and leaves one with the feeling that important facts were omitted. In his notes, published by his daughter, we find interesting details that show the sweetness of Nathan Hale’s character, and the dignity with which he met his fate, but still we do not hear enough.
Hannah Adams was a devout woman of the old New England school, and a peculiarly conscientious writer, who had devoted most of her literary life to religious subjects. She had written with her own hand her history of New England, except this story of Captain Hale, for which she referred her readers, for its authenticity or its incorrectness to General Hull.
There has long been omission by the writers on Nathan Hale, of any documents that might in any way connect him with the great fire. Only one account of the fire appears in the American Archives. It is taken from the New York letter in the St. James Chronicle, which is given in full in this article, but the following clause is omitted:
"Many of the villains were apprehended with matches in their hands to set fire to the houses. A fellow was seized jut about to set fire to the college, who acknowledged he was employed for the purpose. A New England captain was seized with matches in his pocket, with matches in his pocket, who acknowledged the same."
The longer account of the fire, from Gaine’s Mercury, also given in this article, containing the following passage, was also omitted from the American Archives:
"A New England man, who had a captain’s commission under the Continental Congress, and in their service was seized, having had these dreadful implements of ruin," &c.
The other Continental officers mentioned in the description of the fire were executed on the spot. There is no such statement concerning this "New England man, who had a captain’s commission under the Continental Congress and in their service," etc. But the very next paragraph in the description of the fire reads, "General Robertson rescued two of these incendiaries from the enraged populace, who had otherwise consigned them to flames, and reserved them for the hand of deliberative justice."
Why have we not heard more of this hero? If he was not Nathan Hale he was engaged in a more heroic work than Nathan Hale’s biographers have assigned to him. But I prefer to believe this was Nathan Hale, for it does away with the silly claims of a perfectly useless mission into the enemy’s lines.
Nathan Hale went into New York for a definite purpose, and that purpose was not to make drawings of forts that Washington has built, and in which he had no further interest, nor for any other trivial reason assigned by his biographers. He was a daring enthusiast, to whom devotion to his country’s name was his religion! The idea of sacrificing the city of New York for the good of the cause, which had the approval of many in the New England troops would appeal strongly to a nature like Nathan Hale’s. Had he succeeded, he would have been the heroic figure of the War; and if his death
[287]
had been the price of his success, his name would have been on every tongue . To succeed only in part, however, was to fail utterly. It was a waste of life and property to no purpose.
It is not strange that he has been designated as a "spy," ever since his execution, and that he was so named in all letters to the British papers at the time. For the officer or soldier, captured in disguise within the enemy’s lines, there is no other designation. The British Order Book uses this military term, and the order itself was read on Sunday evening, at dress parade, to every British regiment in General Howe’s command. ‘A spy from the enemy by his own confession, apprehended last night, was this day executed at eleven o’clock, behind the Artillery barracks."
Stephen Hempstead says, he "had nearly executed his mission and was passing the British piquet guard, &c."
The Boston Independent Chronicle of May 17, 1781 published the following: "About four years ago, Capt. Hale, an American officer of a liberal education, younger than André, and equal to him in sense, fortitude, and every manly accomplishment, though without opportunities of being so highly polished, went voluntarily into the City of New York, with a view to serve his invaded country. He had performed his part there with great capacity and address but was accidentally discovered."
Since writing the above I have found a remarkable confirmation of the statement made by Lieutenant Tilghman, in his letter to his father, that "Some were executed next day upon good grounds."
All the letters written by Colonel Gold S. Silliman to his wife during the War of the Revolution are in the possession of Miss Henrietta Hubbard, of New York City, who is a descendent of Colonel Silliman and of Governor Trumbull. These letters have never been published.
It appears that Colonel Silliman was on picket with his regiment when the first light of the fire began to redden the sky above New York and in a letter to his wife, written September 22, 1776 he charges the burning to the "regulars," meaning the British, as follows:
"A most extraordinary manoeuvre of the enemy has taken place. The night before last about midnight a tremendous fire was seen from our lines, to the southward, which continued the whole night, and is said was burning all day yesterday. We are about ten miles from New York, and we thought it must be the city, and yesterday I am informed, an officer came over from the Jersey shore opposite to New York, and said that the city was almost all in ashes,
[288]
and the rest of it was burning as fast as it could, and the fire was seen first from about midnight on the east side of the town, near where I used to live, and that very quick the fire appeared in ten or twelve places in different parts of the town. ‘Tis supposed it must be the regulars who fired it, and why they should do it I cant conceive, unless they are going to some other place, which I see no signs of."
On September 25, he wrote again:
"I find now that all the city was not burnt, but only that part that lay next to the Grand Battery and so up the Broadway, and I believe it was not the regulars, but some of our own people in the city that set it on fire, for they executed several of our friends there for it the next day."
[286]
http://chss.montclair.edu/english/furr/essays/sheltonhale.html | furrg@mail.montclair.edu | created 11 Oct 00