40. Petition dated May 19, 1775, in Calendar of historical manuscripts relating to the War of the Revolution, in the office of the secretary of state (Albany, 2 vols., 1868), I, p. 44. See also H. Onderdonk (ed.), Revolutionary incidents of Suffolk and Kings counties, with an account of the battle of Long Island, and the British prisons and prison-ships (New York, 1849), no. 541, p. 17.
41. I have compiled this information from a variety of specialist genealogical sources on the Web, which are themselves compiled from genealogical journals, family histories, and historical sources. Selah was the nephew of Selah Strong, Sr. (born 1712), the husband of Hannah Woodhull (born 1718), the sister of Abraham’s first cousin once removed, General Nathaniel Woodhull. For Selah and Anna Strong, see http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~drmott/Mott/g0000112.html#I3325; for Selah’s parents, see http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~drmott/Mott/g0000119.html#I3324; for Hannah Woodhull’s parentage, see http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~drmott/Mott/g0000130.html#I1205; and for Hannah’s relationship to General Woodhull, see http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~drmott/Mott/g0000133.html. On Woodhull’s marriage to Mary Smith, see “Marriage Licenses Issued by the State of New York,” November 24, 1781, at http://homepages.rootsweb.com/~rbillard/ny_marriage_licenses.htm. The table in Pennypacker, George Washington’s spies, II, contains some useful information but is incomplete. Some of these URLs may change in the future.
42. Minuse, “Address,” p. 2, Brewster Papers.
43. Onderdonk (ed.), Revolutionary incidents of Suffolk and Kings counties, no. 621, p. 62.
44. Minuse, “Address,” p. 2; “List of the officers of four battalions to be raised in the State of New York,” November 21, 1776, in Calendar of historical manuscripts, II, p. 35.
45. Thompson, History of Long Island, III, p. 475.
46. Mather (ed.), The refugees of 1776, Appendix G, p. 990.
47. This was a not uncommon reluctance. Governor Tryon wrote to Lord George Germain on December 24, 1776, observing that “three companies, I learned, had been raised out of Suffolk county for the rebel army, most of whom, I was made to understand, would quit the service if they could get home.” Quoted in Thompson, History of Long Island, I, p. 303.
48. For his brothers’ deaths, see Thompson, History of Long Island, III, p. 387.
49. On Woodhull’s connections, see his entry in American National Biography, written by Wendell Tripp, pp. 798–99.
50. Jones (ed. De Lancey), History of New York, II, pp. 331–32.
51. This section is based on note XLIX, “The capture and subsequent death of General Woodhull—the documents relating thereto—the different versions of the story,” printed in Jones (ed. De Lancey), History of New York, II, pp. 593–612. It’s worth remembering that Jones’s editor, and the author of the note, was Edward De Lancey, a relative of Oliver, who consequently exonerated his ancestor of Troup’s calumny. On Troup, in particular, see Thompson, History of Long Island, III, p. 403, which also contains a chapter on Nathaniel Woodhull. The letter from Dr. Silas Holmes, which contains the information on Dr. Richard Bailey, is printed in Onderdonk, Revolutionary incidents of Suffolk and Kings counties, p. 40.
52. For one such, virtually illegible, letter—a consequence of Woodhull’s habit of using cheap quills that produced thick, smudgy lines—see Woodhull to Tallmadge, December 12, 1778.
53. Letter, Tallmadge to Scott, October 29, 1778.
54. Letter, Woodhull to Scott, October 31, 1778. Scott had resigned a few days before, not that Woodhull was to know that (owing to the slowness of communications), but in any case Woodhull addressed his communications to Scott only as a formality—they were always handled by Tallmadge, and he dealt with him exclusively. On the requirements to get in and out of the city, see Thompson, History of Long Island, I, pp. 343–44.
55. “Gen. Sir William Howe’s orders,” January 26, 1777, in S. Kemble, Kemble’s journals, 1773–1789, in Collections of the New-York Historical Society (New York, 2 vols., 1883–84), XVI, p. 440.
56. E. E. Curtis, The organization of the British army in the American Revolution (New Haven, 1926; rep. 1969), pp. 81–84.
57. I. N. P. Stokes, The iconography of Manhattan Island, 1498–1909: compiled from original sources and illustrated by photo-intaglio reproductions of important maps, plans, views, and documents in public and private collections (New York, 6 vols., 1915–1928), V, p. 1081.
58. Letter, Eden to Clinton, July 1776, in Stevens (ed.), Facsimiles, IV, no. 512.
59. Barck, New York City during the War for Independence, pp. 107, 110; Curtis, The British army in the American Revolution, pp. 98–99. In the early fall of 1779, another fleet arrived carrying enough “provisions for 60,000 men … for six months.” other fleet arrived carrying enough “provisions for 60,000 men … for six months.” See V. Biddulph (ed.), “Letters of Robert Biddulph, 1779–1783,” American Historical Review, XXIX (1923), letter of October 9, 1779, p. 91. Another arrived in the subsequent October, see ibid., letter of October 16, 1780, p. 96. Despite the many problems with food supply, the logistics of the Cork Fleet are astounding. Between 1776 and 1778 alone, 229 transports sailed fully laden into New York with nearly six million pounds of beef, more than twenty million pounds of pork, forty million pounds of flour and bread, five million pounds of oatmeal and rice, and two million pounds of butter. Notwithstanding these tens of millions of pounds of food in the ships’ holds, civilian New Yorkers suffered from a chronic lack of staples (hence their reliance on the London Trade): Nearly all of it was earmarked for army use, some of it rotted during the month-long, unrefrigerated voyage, and a portion fell off the back of a wagon and ended up in the hands of black marketeers. Still, enough food did get through to enable army commissaries to establish a daily ration for enlisted men of one and a half pounds of bread or flour, one pound of beef or half a pound of pork, an ounce of butter and one of rice, and a quarter-pint of peas. There was often another half a pound of a strange new Hessian monstrosity, sauerkraut, plus the most important foodstuff of all—booze, between a quarter and half a pint of rum per man each day. See Curtis, The British army in the American Revolution, Chart, pp. 90, 172; S. R. Frey, The British soldier in America: A social history of military life in the Revolutionary period (Austin, Tex., 1981), p. 30.
60. Letter, Woodhull to Scott, October 31, 1778.
61. A. P. Underhill, “William Underhill, his ancestors and his descendants,” New York genealogical and biographical record, LVIII (1927), p. 356. For much of the following information, I am indebted to John Catanzariti, archivist of the Underhill Society of America, who sent me an e-mail (January 18, 2005) describing the contents of relevant materials drawn from the Underhill genealogy, vols. II (1932) and VII (2002). Underhill was later described as “a Goodman of considerable property (near Oyster Bay) and has the greatest respect of his fellow burghers.” Beyond that, hardly anything is known.
62. On the Underhills’ March 1774 marriage, see Thompson, History of Long Island, III, p. 387; also, Pennypacker, George Washington’s spies, p. 8. On rent, letter, Woodhull to Tallmadge, February 26, 1779.
63. E. G. Schaukirk, Occupation of New York City by the British (originally published in Pennsylvania Magazine of History and Biography, January 1887; New York, rep. 1969), diary entry for February 1, 1782, p. 23; Barck, New York City during the War for Independence, p. 103; Stokes, Iconography, V, p. 1042.
64. B. M. Wilkenfeld, “Revolutionary New York, 1776,” in M. Klein (ed.), New York: The centennial years, 1676–1976 (Port Washington, N.Y., 1976), p. 45; C. Abbott, “The neighborhoods of New York, 1760–1775,” New York History, XV (1974), p. 51.
65. Polf, Garrison town, p. 4; S. R. Zabin, “Places of exchange: New York City, 1700–1763” (unpub. Ph.D. thesis, Rutgers University, 2000), p. 7; Wilkenfeld, “Revolutionary New York,” in Klein (ed.), New York: The centennial years, p. 44; E. J. McManus, A history of Negro slavery in N
ew York (Syracuse, N.Y., 1966), pp. 197–99; J. G. Lydon, “New York and the slave trade, 1700 to 1774,” William and Mary Quarterly, 3rd ser., XXXV (1978), 2, p. 388, Table VIII; N. A. Rothschild, New York City neighborhoods: The 18th century (San Diego, 1990), pp. 8–9. There is some dispute over the exact numbers of troops. I have used George Washington’s tallies (plus official numbers for the British figure), reproduced in Jones (ed. De Lancey), History of New York, I, note XXXVI, pp. 599–603.
66. P. M’Robert (ed. by C. Bridenbaugh), A tour through part of the north provinces of America (New York, 1935; rep. 1968), p. 5.
67. On New York’s population figures, see Barck, New York City during the War for Independence, pp. 74–78; Stokes, Iconography, V, p. 1129 (quoting Lloyds Evening Post, April 27, 1781).
68. These numbers are collated from various sources: A useful summary may be found in Barck, New York City during the War for Independence, p. 75. Also, Kemble’s Journals, 1773–1789, in Collections of the New-York Historical Society, XVI, p. 156.
69. On July 17, 1778, Kemble stated there were nine thousand troops, but on July 29, he amended this to twenty thousand. See Kemble, Journals, XVI, pp. 156–58; for a slightly higher number, letter, Clinton to Lord George Germain, July 27, 1778, in Stevens (ed.), Facsimiles, XI, no. 1123. Kemble, an aide, may have taken his figure from Clinton.
70. Letter, Washington to Tallmadge, November 18, 1778. Thus, see Washington’s letter to General Putnam of August 11, 1777: “Deserters and people of that class always speak of numbers from report, indeed scarce any person can form a judgment, except they see the troops paraded and can count their divisions. But if you can by any means obtain a list of the regiments left upon the island, we can compute the number of men within a few hundreds, over or under.”
71. Letter, Tallmadge to Washington, November 19, 1778.
72. Letter, Washington to Tallmadge, November 20, 1778.
73. Letter, Woodhull to Tallmadge, November 23, 1778.
74. Letter, Washington to Tallmadge, November 29, 1778.
75. Letter, Washington to Tallmadge, November 29, 1778.
76. Letter, Washington to Tallmadge, December 17, 1778: “I did not know his present situation. I now see the danger that so long an absence would incur and I must leave it entirely to you to manage the correspondence in such a manner as will most probably ensure safety to him and [achieve] the desired end.”
77. Letter, Woodhull to Tallmadge, November 23, 1778.
78. Letter, Woodhull to Tallmadge, December 12, 1778.
79. Letter, Woodhull to Tallmadge, February 26, 1779.
80. Pennypacker, George Washington’s spies, p. 8.
81. The best discussion of this subject is in D. Kahn, The codebreakers: The story of secret writing (New York, 1967), pp. 163–65.
82. G. Rothenburg, “Military intelligence gathering in the second half of the eighteenth century, 1740–1792,” pp. 99–113, in K. Neilson and B. J. C. McKerchen (eds.), Go spy the land: Military intelligence in history (Westport, Conn., 1992), p. 100.
83. The spy’s unwholesome image changed over the course of the nineteenth century. James Fenimore Cooper—a very distant kinsman of Woodhull through his wife, interestingly enough—tackled the subject in The spy: A tale of the neutral ground (1821), one of the first instances of espionage fiction. Cooper wrote The Spy to commemorate the lessons of the Revolutionary War he believed were being forgotten as the last of the greatest generation died off. Thus, his daughter recounted that in 1821 “the writer was walking in Broadway, when he saw a gentleman, well known to him, cross the street, and advance to meet him; it was a prominent merchant, a man of money, very well known in Wall street. He came on a friendly errand, to congratulate his acquaintance on the new book and its success. Lavish in his praise, the merchant told of sitting up through the night to finish the story. ‘My friend Harvey [Birch, the spy-hero of the novel] is much obliged to you,’ was Cooper’s response. Then the merchant hesitated: ‘I have one criticism to make, however … the character of Harvey is excellent in most regards—but there lies the difficulty … you have given the man no motive! … Just look at the facts. Here is a man getting in all kinds of scrapes, running his neck into the noose, of his accord, and where, pray, is his motive? I thought he would be well paid for his services—but just as I expected to see it all made clear as day, he refuses to take the gold General Washington offers him. That was your great mistake—you should have given Harvey some motive!’ ” The merchant had woefully misunderstood Cooper’s book. That this little incident on Broadway occurred just forty years after the war underscored Cooper’s desire to write it in the first place. Harvey Birch’s sole motive is pure patriotism. He was an honest, common man (in fact, a rather earthy peddler with a ’baccy-spitting habit) living in a time of treachery and trimming, a time when loyalties were ambiguous and the country ravaged by hordes of freebooters, traitors, pirates, renegades, and mercenaries. He becomes, much to his own disgust, not just a spy—itself a low occupation—but a double agent, a still lower one. In the book, in the course of which he is suspected to be in British pay and faces execution, Birch’s quietly heroic role as Washington’s man is only revealed on the very last page—set thirty years later. Birch is never proud of what he did, but he did it because he needed to—for the good of the country. But he remains a darkly ambivalent figure who is needfully sacrificed in the War of 1812 to symbolize the triumph of the common weal. The invention of a new type of fiction—the mass-produced, dime-a-time spy novel—simplified matters. To their penny-a-word authors and panting audiences, the subtleties of Cooper’s The Spy needlessly complicated a good read, so novelists created the Good Spy and the Bad Spy. The former were heroes who spy for their country using whatever means are available (though in espionage fiction, they tended to fight clean), and the latter, those who betray their country for cash (or for more nefarious reasons). Today, this fairly legitimate distinction still stands. Historically speaking, it is the reason why Nathan Hale is cheered as a truly towering figure while his British/Loyalist counterparts are condemned to ignominy.
84. Tallmadge, Memoir, p. 29.
85. Letter, Woodhull to Tallmadge, November 20, 1778.
86. Letter, Washington to Tallmadge, November 29, 1778. See also his letter to Colonel Henley of the same date: “I do not exactly recollect what sum of hard money General Scott left in your hands, but whatever you may now have be pleased to pay to Major Tallmadge, who has occasion for it for a special purpose, and let me know the amount.”
87. On this subject, see the chapter, “Of bills of credit, and colonial and Continental money,” in Thompson, History of Long Island, I, pp. 420–33.
88. Letter, Washington to Tallmadge, November 29, 1778. See also, Washington to Tallmadge, March 21, 1779: “With this letter you will receive fifty guineas [in gold] for S——C——r, which you will cause to be delivered as soon as possible, with an earnest exhortation to use them with all possible oeconomy, as I find it very difficult to obtain hard money.”
89. Letter, Woodhull to Washington, January 22, 1779.
90. Letter, Woodhull to Tallmadge, April 12, 1779.
91. Letter, Washington to Tallmadge, April 30, 1779.
Chapter Four: 711 and the Sympathetic Stain
1. Letter, Washington to Tallmadge, November 29, 1778.
2. Letter, Washington to Tallmadge, January 2, 1779.
3. Letter, Washington to Tallmadge, January 18, 1779.
4. Letter, Tallmadge to Washington, December 23, 1778.
5. See the listing of the town’s earliest inhabitants in Ross, History of Long Island, at http://freepages.genealogy.rootsweb.com/~jdevlin/newyork/brookhaven_hist.htm; F. G. Mather (ed.), The refugees of 1776 from Long Island to Connecticut (Albany, 1913), Appendix H, p. 1058, dated June 8, 1775.
6. See http://www.3villagecsd.k12.ny.us/Elementary/minnesauke/3villagehist/RoeTavern.htm. It is today a private house. Regarding the kinship
of Hawkins and Roe, the latter’s ancestor Timothy Roe had married Mary Hawkins, from whom Jonas Hawkins was descended. Regarding the List of Associators, it may be found in Mather (ed.), Refugees of 1776, Appendix H, p. 1058, dated June 8, 1775. There is, however, an error in Mather’s list: Austin Roe is not included. In an official version of the list in the Calendar of historical manuscripts relating to the War of the Revolution, in the office of the secretary of state (Albany, 2 vols., 1868), I, p. 53, Roe does appear. The reason for the discrepancy is that Mather’s concentration slipped and he forgot to include Roe when he was copying it from this, the original source.
7. Compared to today’s smaller and geographically widespread families, men of that time defined as “close” kin we often think of as distant: obscure in-laws, second cousins once removed, and the like. I deal with this subject in greater detail, for those of you who are interested in its medieval manifestation, in my Kings in the North: The house of Percy in British history (London, paperback ed., 2002), pp. 55–56.
8. See, for instance, letter, Tallmadge to Washington, January 28, 1779, enclosing Woodhull’s January 22 letter to Tallmadge.
9. Letter, Brewster to Tallmadge, February 26, 1779.
10. Royal Gazette, January 6, 1779, and March 3, 1779. Patriots, too, were liable to conflate the right to make a return with the fight for liberty; as Alexander McDougall crowed to Samuel Adams in 1774, “Stocks have risen in favor of Liberty.” P. Maier, The old revolutionaries: Political lives in the age of Samuel Adams (New York, 1980), p. 99. See also, in the same book, the chapter “Isaac Sears and the business of revolution,” pp. 51–100.
11. See B. W. Labaree, W. M. Fowler, Jr., E. W. Sloan, J. B. Hattendorf, J. J. Safford, and A. W. German, America and the sea: A maritime history (Mystic, Conn., 1998), pp. 136–41.
12. O. T. Barck, Jr., New York City during the War for Independence, with special reference to the period of British occupation (New York, 1931; rep. Port Washington, N.Y., 1966), pp. 129–31.
Washington's Spies Page 36
