Part 1

VOL. I NO. 2 THE MAGAZINE OF HISTORY WITH NOTES AND QUERIES FEBRUARY 1905

WILLIAM ABBATT 281 FOURTH AVENUE, NEW YORK

Published Monthly $5.00 a Year 50 Cents a Number

THE MAGAZINE OF HISTORY

WITH NOTES AND QUERIES

VOL. I FEBRUARY NO. 2

CONTENTS

PORTRAITS—Lorenzo Dow Thompson, Jonathan Moore _Frontispiece_ SOME POPULAR MYTHS OF AMERICAN HISTORY THOMAS ADDIS EMMET, M.D. 61 ILLUSTRATIONS: Account of Negro School-House Cost—Boston Committee of Correspondence Notice—Delaware Pilot’s “Broadside” EARLY MENTION OF EVENTS IN THE CHAMPLAIN VALLEY DAVID S. KELLOGG, M.D. 77 LINCOLN (_Poem_) MARY ISABELLA FORSYTH 85 CAPTAIN LINCOLN _vs._ PRIVATE THOMPSON FRANK E. STEVENS 86 (Author of “The Black Hawk War”) SIDE-LIGHTS ON CAROLINA HISTORY H. E. BELIN 91 INDIAN AGRICULTURE IN WISCONSIN BENJ. H. HIBBARD 97 THE AUTHENTICITY OF CARVER’S “TRAVELS” 105 OLD FORT GEORGE, NEW YORK CITY EDW. HAGAMAN HALL 107 ORIGINAL DOCUMENTS (Sec’y Am. Scenic and Hist. Pres. Soc’y) A War Letter of Walt Whitman 113 Letter of Lincoln Declining an Office 114 SOCIETIES—New York—Rhode Island 115 NOTES AND QUERIES 116 MINOR TOPICS 116 GENEALOGY 117 BOOK NOTICE 121

Copyright, 1905, by William Abbatt.

[Illustration:

PRIVATE LORENZO DOW THOMPSON.

_The wrestler who threw Captain Abraham Lincoln._

_From original owned by Henry Cadle, Esq., Bethany, Mo._ ]

[Illustration:

JONATHAN MOORE.

_The referee of the match._

_From photo owned by his son, Col. R. M. Moore. San Antonio, Texas._ ]

THE MAGAZINE OF HISTORY

WITH NOTES AND QUERIES

VOL. I FEBRUARY, 1905 NO. 2

SOME POPULAR MYTHS OF AMERICAN HISTORY

Voltaire, the cynic, maintained that “history did not _always_ lie,” which statement, though somewhat exaggerated, contains the proverbial exception which often proves the rule. The collector who adds to his store such autographs as are held for their historical value, soon realizes that writers of history often fail in their work, through ignorance of their subject, or from prejudice against giving the truth and nothing but the truth. History repeats itself, and at all times truth has been so warped, to serve one purpose or another, that the historical student, especially, rarely fails to become the confirmed skeptic in his branch of knowledge. But the subject of historical accuracy, even in relation to American history, is too extensive a one to be treated of by a single individual or encompassed within the space which could be allotted to an article of this character. The author, therefore, proposes to confine himself to the presentation of some of the historical material which is or has been in his own collection.

The people of New England have, from their earliest settlement, been as noted for the care with which they have preserved their records as the people of the other Colonies for their indifference in this regard. It should not be a matter of surprise, therefore, that in consequence of the great wealth of this material in New England, the greater portion of our writers on American history and the compilers of our school books have been, until within a comparatively recent period, of New England birth or residence. The presence herein of a great temptation and of a great danger to historical accuracy are immediately seen, and the author believes that a just criticism of the works on Colonial and Revolutionary history, especially those written prior to five-and-twenty years ago, would involve the accusation of a general lack of fairness toward the other Colonies. This unfairness consisted in giving undue prominence to the acts of the New England people, both individually and collectively, at the expense of the full credit due to others, and this has been done, not infrequently, when this recognition might have been given without in any degree lessening that justly due to their own people. But apart from this want of fairness, or at least indifference, in the treatment of the deeds of others, foreign to their own territory, the manuscript material itself was sometimes falsified, as for example, it is believed Sparks did in the matter of Washington’s letters. General Washington was a man of very strong passions and was undoubtedly prejudiced against many of the peculiarities of the New Englanders of his day. And although few men held themselves in better restraint than he, he would nevertheless, at times, express himself very freely in regard to the men and measures of New England.

It is said that Sparks manipulated Washington’s correspondence by striking out every reflection made against the New England people and by suppressing many letters. Both of these charges the author believes to be true from his own observation. It has also been charged that in other instances, Sparks made such interpolations of his own as entirely to change the original meaning, but of this the writer has no personal knowledge.

That the full significance and effect of the spirit of unfairness pervading these writers of history, may be fully appreciated by the reader, it must be borne in mind that they had access at one time to an immense mass of material which was not available outside of New England. Moreover, the New England authorities were in such frequent communication with all other portions of the country, that the mass of correspondence, thus gained and preserved, offered the means of doing fullest justice to the other Colonies, which were afterwards found to be themselves often without proof necessary to establish their just claims.

The following examples are now offered as evidences of one-sided history making:

THE PUBLIC SCHOOL

One of the first claims made to the credit of New England was the early attention paid to public education. It is strictly true that, next to building a meeting house in a new settlement, a school was put up. But thorough investigation of this subject furnishes evidence that the chief purpose, at least, of these schools was to fit young men for the ministry and that they were not based, either in scope or object, upon the plan of the public school of the present day. The evidence of this lies in the fact that Latin, Greek and Hebrew were chiefly taught, as though to aid the study of the Scriptures in the original texts, and although boys and girls were doubtless also taught at these schools, to a limited number, previous to the Revolution, the salary of the schoolmaster was as a rule, if indeed the rule were not without exception, paid by division among the pupils themselves and not by the town. The famous Latin School of Boston, which is often held up to our admiration as the beginning of the public school system, was chiefly noted for its Latin course, and each scholar paid about five dollars a term.

Granting, however, full measure of praise to New England and with no desire to minimize the credit due her for her work in this cause, it is still in order for us to ask when has credit ever been given by any writer to South Carolina for the establishment in Charleston, about twenty years before the founding of the Latin School in Boston, of the first school approaching in character the public schools of to-day? The accompanying illustration is taken from a volume of the _Charleston Gazette_ for the year 1743, once owned by the author but now in the possession of the Lenox Library of this city, showing the fac-simile of an account for building a negro free school house. Some years ago the author had in his possession a memorandum which stated that this school house, built in 1742–3, was the second which had been erected by the city of Charleston for the education of negro children, whose parents indeed represented the only portion of the community unable to educate itself. In these schools the pupils received gratuitous instruction and were obliged to attend regularly until the age of twelve years. If the difference in money value, then and now, be considered, it will be found that the cost of this building could not have fallen much below five thousand dollars.

It is evident, therefore, that the first public school, in the accepted sense, existed in Charleston, at least as early as 1743, and not in New England.

THE BOSTON MASSACRE

The impartial student is fully impressed with the fact that, as his investigations approach the period just preceding the American Revolution, the claims of the New England people become more prominent. Here again, if the writers of our histories and especially of our school books have not given undue credit to those who were the chief actors in New England at this period, they have at least uniformly failed to do full justice to those who were quite as active in the cause in other colonies.

[Illustration:

Account of Negro School-House Cost ]

Resistance to the Stamp Act had been quite general throughout the country and the Sons of Liberty in New York were particularly vigilant in seeing that the Non-importation Act was fully observed, although many of the merchants did not sympathize with the move. British soldiers were stationed in all the larger towns and they, taking their cue from those in authority, showed their enmity towards the people on all occasions. Particularly marked was this condition of affairs in the city of New York.

On the night of January 16th, 1770, the soldiers succeeded in destroying the Liberty pole in this city after having failed in several previous attempts, in which they had been driven off by the people. On the following day a public meeting was called, which at least three thousand sympathizing citizens attended. Resolutions were passed condemning the hiring of soldiers for divers purposes by the people, since this custom worked to the disadvantage of the laboring classes who were thus deprived of steady employment. A protest was also entered against allowing armed soldiers to wander freely about the city when off duty. The soldiers promptly resented this action of the people and a number of brawls took place in various parts of the town. At length the people concentrated their strength and, after disarming a number of the soldiers, drove them into barracks. The encounter in which the largest number on both sides was engaged, took place on what was called Golden Hill, a place situated on John Street between William and Cliff Streets. Miss Mary L. Booth, who wrote a most painstaking and reliable history of the city of New York, previous to the beginning of the Civil War, refers to this matter as follows: “Thus ended the battle of Golden Hill, a conflict of two days duration, which, originating as it did in the defense of a principle, was an affair of which New Yorkers have just reason to be proud, and which is worthy of far more prominence than has usually been given it by standard historians. It was not until nearly two months after that the “Boston Massacre” occurred, a contest which has been glorified and perpetuated in history; yet this was second both in date and in significance to the New York Battle of Golden Hill.”

It would be difficult to find a better illustration than this of the subject under consideration. The “Boston Massacre” was at best nothing more than a street brawl, in which five unarmed spectators were shot down without the slightest resistance having been made on their part; an affair with which at the time the people at large of Boston had nothing whatever to do. It was simply a brutal and dastardly act on the part of the soldiers, in retaliation for the annoyance offered by one or two irresponsible boys who had been throwing snow balls. Yet this affair has been magnified to such a degree of importance that if the Battle of Bunker Hill had not been fought in the same neighborhood, this occurrence would doubtless have been placed in history as the most important event in the Revolution. On the other hand, the conflict in New York, which lasted for over two days, was the first stand, and a successful one, made by the people against the British soldiers. It was an event of very great importance indeed, for not only was blood first shed but in it was life first lost for the Cause. Yet how little importance has any New England writer in the past ever attached to it! It has certainly never been pointed out that the “Battle of Golden Hill,” in contra-distinction to the “Boston Massacre,” was the beginning of the struggle.

In _Parker’s New York Gazette or Weekly Post-Boy_ for Monday, February 5th, 1770, a full and detailed account of the Battle of Golden Hill can be found. The file of this paper is now in the Lenox Library and this special issue has been reproduced in fac-simile for the author; but it is so voluminous that it can not be given here as an illustration.[1]

If the quartering of troops in one section of the Colonies, rather than in another, may be accepted as evidence of disaffection among the people and of organized resistance to the acts of the British Government, then again full justice has not been done to New York. According to Bancroft British troops had already been quartered in this city as early as December, 1766, and were not sent to Boston until at least two years later.

COMMITTEES OF CORRESPONDENCE

It would not be difficult to prove that the initiative step in the final struggle was first taken by the Carolinas and by Virginia and that the people of Boston and of other cities in New England moved rather in response to pressure from without than at their own suggestion. The men who became the leaders in the general movement afterwards were beyond question both sincere and patriotic from the beginning, but the people of New England were not, at that time, so near a unit in sentiment as were those of Virginia and of North and South Carolina.

The history of those times has yet to be written in which due credit must be given to Virginia. Instead of that Colony appearing simply as a supporter and abettor of the acts of Massachusetts, the position hitherto allotted her, she should be accredited, as she deserves, with the leadership. No one more fully appreciated this fact than Bancroft who, notwithstanding his changes of opinion on many other points with each edition of his book, both mentions and accredits nearly every circumstance. But this is done often with faint praise and with the context not always fairly placed, while the deeds of the Bostonian are invariably made most prominent. It is therefore impossible, for the most part, for any one but an expert to arrive at any other impression than that suggested by the bias of the author.

A committee was proposed and organized in Boston, November 3rd, 1772, by Samuel Adams, for the purpose of communicating with the people in the neighboring towns. In March, 1773, Dabney Carr, a young man of great promise, offered certain resolutions in the Legislature of Virginia embodying a plan of Intercolonial Committees of Correspondence, by means of which all portions of the country could be brought into closer relation. This organization was perfected by Richard Henry Lee, who soon became its chief organizer owing to the untimely death of Mr. Carr. The existence of this organization was of incalculable benefit to the cause of the Colonies, and it alone, moreover, made possible a favorable termination to the Revolution. Bancroft, in one portion of his history, pays full tribute to Dabney Carr and writes, regarding the organization, that “In this manner, Virginia laid the foundation of our Union; Massachusetts organized a province, Virginia promoted a confederacy.” And yet, from other portions of Bancroft’s work the only inference suggested is, that to Samuel Adams alone is due the credit for this work; and indeed this is the general impression held, to a great extent to-day, by those who are familiar with our history, as it is written.

The “broadside” here reproduced was issued by the Boston Committee and is signed with the autograph signature of the secretary. The mere fact of this issue, in Boston, of the Virginia Resolutions, urging that the other Colonies should communicate directly with the Virginia Committee, proves that the one in Boston had been simply a local affair up to that date and that the proposed general organization did not originate there.

“THE BOSTON TEA-PARTY”

So soon as the British Government determined upon the shipment of tea to the American Colonies, it was arranged that these ships should arrive at each port very nearly on the same date; thus the people in the different Colonies would be unable to unite together in their resistance. Through the organization of the Committees of Correspondence, however, the people had already become fully united in their determination to prevent the landing of the tea.

[Illustration:

Boston Committee of Correspondence Notice ]

On November 5th, 1773, an alarm was raised in the city of New York to the effect that a tea-ship had entered the harbor. A large assembly of the people at once occurred, among whom those in charge of the movement were disguised as Mohawk Indians. This alarm proved a false one, but at a meeting then organized a series of resolutions were adopted which were received by the other Colonies as the initiative step in the plan of resistence already determined upon throughout the country. Our school books are chiefly responsible for the almost universal impression that the destruction of tea, which occurred in Boston Harbor, was an episode confined to that city; while the fact is, that the tea sent to this country was either destroyed or sent back to England from every sea-port in the Colonies. The first tea-ship happened to arrive in Boston and the tea was first destroyed there; for this circumstance full credit should be given the Bostonians. But the fact that the actors in this affair were disguised as Mohawk Indians shows that they were but following the lead of New York, where that particular disguise had been adopted forty-one days before, for the same purpose.

Previous to the arrival of the ships in Boston, concerted action had been agreed upon, as has been already shown, in regard to the destruction of the tea from Charleston, South Carolina, to Portsmouth, New Hampshire. The people of Philadelphia had been far more active and outspoken at the outset than they of Boston, and it was this decisiveness which caused the people of Boston to act, after they had freely sought beforehand the advice and moral support of the other Colonies.

The first tea-ship arrived in Boston on November 28th, 1773, and two others shortly after, but it was not until the evening of December 16th, that their contents were thrown overboard at the so-called “Boston Teaparty.” The “broadside” here presented is one of a number in the collection of the author, which show fully the feeling of the people of Philadelphia. The other sheets were issued prior to this one but are without date; hence this is selected to prove that Philadelphia was actively engaged in the same purpose, previous to the destruction of tea in Boston.

THE MINUTE MEN

Doubtless the earliest and most pleasing recollections of our youth, in connection with American history, are associated with the “Minute Men,” as they were termed, of New England. These men are pictured to us as ever ready to turn out in force to repel the advance of British troops, at any personal sacrifice, and to serve without pay. It is sad indeed to be instrumental in dispelling so fair a delusion, but there seems to be sufficient evidence to prove that this whole story is but a romance. The New England men did turn out when it was necessary and they made a sturdy fight when called upon to do so, but they did no more than did the people of all the other Colonies under like circumstances.

The proof of this is found in a document giving “the names of those Men that did March on the 19th of April last in consequence of the Alarm made on that Day, who belonged to Ipswich (Mass:) and was commanded by Jonathan Cogswell, Jun^{r.}” Then is given the rank of each person, the number of miles marched, the number of days out, in service, and the number of miles marched in returning, &c. At the bottom of this document is Captain Cogswell’s deposition, made December 18, 1775, before John Baker, Justice of the Peace, of Ipswich, as to the correctness of the Roll. On the back of this document we find the following: “Ipswich, May 22nd, 1776. * * * We the subscribers have Rec’d of Capt Cogswell, Jun^r the full of our Wages that was Due to Us for our Marching on the Alarm the nineteenth of April 1775, as Satt down in the within Roll.” Then follow the signatures of fifty-six men who were paid for their services.

With this before us the evidence seems almost conclusive that not only were the men of Ipswich paid, but that few if any of those who fought at the battle of Lexington or of Concord did so without the previous assurance of pay for their services. It is proven that no one went out from the town of Ipswich, at least, without compensation, and in so circumscribed a neighborhood it is scarcely possible that the men of other towns would have been willing to render service gratuitously, knowing, as they must, that the men of Ipswich were to be paid. There is no doubt of the fact that at Lexington, and in the neighboring towns, it was known beforehand that the British troops were to make an incursion for the purpose of destroying the military stores. The American authorities, under these circumstances, naturally made every preparation to repel the attack. It was necessary to engage men for this public service, and it was proper and just that they should be paid. No fault can be found with the matter of remuneration, but this contrast of fact and fiction is here offered as another evidence of the false and heroic coloring given to the services rendered by the New England people, during the Revolution, and presented to us as authentic history.

THE EFFICIENCY OF THE NEW ENGLAND TROOPS

We will present a copy of a letter, in the author’s possession, written by General Washington to his business agent, Lund Washington, who had charge of Mount Vernon. This letter was written from Cambridge, Mass., shortly after the General had taken command of the army. It is dated August 20th, 1775. The greater part is devoted to detailed directions in regard to the management of the estate and has no bearing on our subject. But the letter is of so much interest that it is reproduced as a whole. It was Washington’s custom, as a very methodical man, to preserve a copy of all his letters, especially of those relating to business, and it is very unlikely that no draft was preserved by him of this particular letter to Lund Washington, as well as other letters which are known to exist in private hands.

Mr. Sparks had the private papers of Washington in his possession for years, for the purpose of writing the former’s life and of editing his correspondence. Both of these things he did and the latter were published in twelve volumes.